• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Rank your favorite type of cricket

Rank the formats from most enjoyable to least enjoyable


  • Total voters
    62
  • Poll closed .

Stumped

Banned
Haha, have we found the worst poster in cricket chat?
y does everyone asspire to be the best poster??....im not a good poster i dont watch enough global matches, anaylse the games like u guys do....jeez not everyone wants to be the best poster on cricket.....cant u live with that?
 
Last edited:

adharcric

International Coach
y does everyone asspire to be the best poster??....im not a good poster i dont watch enough global matches, anaylse the games like u guys do....jeez not everyone wants to be the best poster on cricket.....cant u live with that?
Saj for mine.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
If the game is longer, only the real quality players shine in it, IMHO, from the cricketing skills front. Whilst the blokes who really shine in the shorter versions are generally the fitter, more athletic and perhaps better in thinking off their feet. Just an opinion. So generally, I prefer tests first, then ODIs and then Twenty 20s. But these three formats are all different and each bring in a diff. flavour, AFAIC. I wont mind tours with 3 Twenty20 games, 3 ODIs and 3 tests, tbh.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
i think ur just jealous coz u never got it:p
Haha, nah. I can't get it because I joined well and truly before they started giving the awards out. I'm not saying that you specifically didn't deserve it - just that it seems to be given out regardless of whether anyone is worthy or not. Takes the meaning away for the award for the deserving members who get it IMO.
 

Stumped

Banned
Haha, nah. I can't get it because I joined well and truly before they started giving the awards out. I'm not saying that you specifically didn't deserve it - just that it seems to be given out regardless of whether anyone is worthy or not. Takes the meaning away for the award for the deserving members who get it IMO.
*snif snif*...i smell jealousie
 
Last edited:

Stumped

Banned
Quite the opposite in fact. I wouldn't really feel much value in the award if I won it because of how willy-nilly it seems to be given out.
sorry im not a sniffer dog....

the hussey award is the new-comer award u cant exactly expect them to be posting like SS, or richard ur judging it way too harsh
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I think the Hussey is given out too lightly fairly regularly. Should just go with "no award this week" like is done with the Bradman, IMO.
I've thought that several times and I hope it might just be the case from now on - I seem to remember adhar saying he thought an award to an undeserving candidate was less boring than no award.

But yeah... there have been a couple of pretty dire winners IMO.
 

adharcric

International Coach
i think ur just jealous coz u never got it:p
No, I think he's right.
I've thought that several times and I hope it might just be the case from now on - I seem to remember adhar saying he thought an award to an undeserving candidate was less boring than no award.

But yeah... there have been a couple of pretty dire winners IMO.
I will try to make it more difficult to win the Hussey from now onwards. Before last week, I would just look for the best newcomer and after the first few weeks of solid debutants (ie The Sean, PhoenixFire, Aussie Tragic, etc) I often had to opt for the most active newcomer who wasn't a troll. Pathetic I know.
 
Last edited:

Top