You know what really grinds my cricketing gears?

[Perm]

The entire "India is stupid for playing two wicket keepers" thing.

No, you retards, India is not playing two wicketkeepers. India is playing a keeper (Dhoni) and a batsman (Karthik) who happens to be preferred to another batsman (Yuvraj). the fact that Karthik also used to keep wickets is purely incidental. Team players are defined by what roles they are chosen to play in the team, not what they are capable of. Next thing, we'll be hearing the retards claim India is/was playing 3 keepers in the test side and 4 keepers in the ODI side since Dravid and Uthappa can also keep.

Karthik is a keeper though, he's become a manufactured opener and because of this they are letting Dhoni have the gloves and play as the specialist wicket keeper-batsman. Not that hard to understand really.

 

[Perm]

India's Polyester Sweaters

They look cheap and terrible; bring back proper knitted ones. Now this is the sort of think the match referee should be clamping down on...

I noticed that the other day, but couldn't be bothered looking for the thread. Fully back your claims of the match referee looking into this, they look hideous.

 

[pasag]

I'm not calling the right to a different opinion immature. I'm calling the opinion immature.

As I said, having a different viewpoint on this subject does not make one any more or less mature at all. Whether you say India are silly for having two keepers in the side or not has absolutely no bearing on anyones maturity at all and resorting to calling the other opinion immature reeks of not being able to argue the point properly.

 

[short shorts]

Karthik is a keeper though, he's become a manufactured opener and because of this they are letting Dhoni have the gloves and play as the specialist wicket keeper-batsman. Not that hard to understand really.

Thats the point of view that is incorrect. Theres a difference between being pedantic (in which case your point of view could be technically correct, but rationally incorrect) and being realistic. Karthik is playing as a pure batsman because the team believes he is a better batsman opening the innings in these sort of conditions and in his recent form, than the other options, including Gambhir and Sehwag. That he could also keep wickets is only as relevant as say the fact that he might be a Tarantino fan. In short, irrelevant.
His being a Tarantino fan or not has no bearing on his opening credentials because it is not a factor in determining the outcomes of his role with the bat. Similarly him being able to keep wickets also is not a factor in determining the outcomes of his role as opener simply because he isn't actually keeping wicket. He might be a world class chess champion or a world class hula hoop dancer or an extremely good wicketkeeper - but all these have equal and zero relevance to his batting since he isn't actually playing chess or doing the hula or keeping wickets over those 5 days of the test match. The only thing that matters in his case is how the team rates his batting.

The only situation where the India-is-playing-two-wicketkeepers statement would be correct is when (a) Karthik is chosen both for his ability to bat well and (b) also to relieve Dhoni by actually being called upon to keep wickets for some duration of the match, and if the team places quite some importance to (b) in deciding to field him in the XI.

 

[Pratters]

The entire "India is stupid for playing two wicket keepers" thing.

No, you retards, India is not playing two wicketkeepers. India is playing a keeper (Dhoni) and a batsman (Karthik) who happens to be preferred to another batsman (Yuvraj). the fact that Karthik also used to keep wickets is purely incidental. Team players are defined by what roles they are chosen to play in the team, not what they are capable of. Next thing, we'll be hearing the retards claim India is/was playing 3 keepers in the test side and 4 keepers in the ODI side since Dravid and Uthappa can also keep.

We get he is playing as a specialist batsman. However, whether he is a specialist batsman or not in his own right is very much debatable. Some might thus agree him playing, others might disagree. Maybe you can participate in such discussions next time to give your point of view. That can always be more interesting I am sure.

Cheers.

 

[short shorts]

As I said, having a different viewpoint on this subject does not make one any more or less mature at all. Whether you say India are silly for having two keepers in the side or not has absolutely no bearing on anyones maturity at all and resorting to calling the other opinion immature reeks of not being able to argue the point properly.

Like I said, it was more of a comment on the opinion than the right to have a different opinion. People are not immature for wanting to have a different opinion (usually), but it is quite valid to label a particular opinion itself immature if it displays an immature thought process behind it.

 

[short shorts]

We get he is playing as a specialist batsman. However, whether he is a specialist batsman or not in his own right is very much debatable. Some might thus agree him playing, others might disagree. Maybe you can participate in such discussions next time to give your point of view. That can always be more interesting I am sure.

Cheers.

I couldn't be arsed to do so, but the criticism has forced me to do so anyway. You could please refer the post immediately above yours in this thread.

 

[pasag]

Like I said, it was more of a comment on the opinion than the right to have a different opinion. People are not immature for wanting to have a different opinion (usually), but it is quite valid to label a particular opinion itself immature if it displays an immature thought process behind it.

I see very little difference between a person and his opinions and calling a person immature and his opinions immature. You can try and wriggle out of this if you like by arguing the semantics of it, but coming into a different thread where people are discussing this very subject at the same time and calling their 'opinions immature' is nothing more than a round about, petty way of insulting them.

 

[Pratters]

The only situation where the India-is-playing-two-wicketkeepers statement would be correct is when (a) Karthik is chosen both for his ability to bat well and (b) also to relieve Dhoni by actually being called upon to keep wickets for some duration of the match, and if the team places quite some importance to (b) in deciding to field him in the XI.

He is not playing as a keeper. We know that. However, one might say that India is playing 2 keepers.

If India selected a line up as follows:

Munaf Patel
Irfan Pathan
middle order batsmen
keeper
4 bowlers

That would not mean Munaf Patel and Irfan Pathan are openers.

A cricket fan who thinks (rates them as bowlers and not batsmen) they are bowlers and not batsmen will still say they are playing 6 bowlers. Suppose you get your hair dyed colour x. It is disputable whether it is green or blue colour say. Then x will say that you are having green hair, y is saying you are having blue hair.

 

[short shorts]

I see very little difference between a person and his opinions and calling a person immature and his opinions immature. You can try and wriggle out of this if you like by arguing the semantics of it, but coming into a different thread where people are discussing this very subject at the same time and calling their 'opinions immature' is nothing more than a round about, petty way of insulting them.

Sorry to be so blunt, but for a moderator you're being petty. I have already apologised for insulting the members themselves, and see no basis in you continuing to rant on on that point. Seems apologies hold no value for you, and it seems I might be better off being a stubborn mule next time

And yes, I think the opinion ( as opposed to calling the members right to an opinion immature, which I have agreed was wrong) was immature. You might fail to see the difference, I can't be arsed pounding my head against this brick wall anymore trying to make the distinction clear...

 

[short shorts]

He is not playing as a keeper. We know that. However, one might say that India is playing 2 keepers.

If India selected a line up as follows:

Munaf Patel
Irfan Pathan
middle order batsmen
keeper
4 bowlers

That would not mean Munaf Patel and Irfan Pathan are openers.

Exactly why playing Karthik and Dhoni doesn't mean India are playing two wicketkeepers.

A cricket fan who thinks (rates them as bowlers and not batsmen) they are bowlers and not batsmen will still say they are playing 6 bowlers.

Munaf Patel + Irfan Pathan + 4 bowlers is 6 bowlers. you won't find a cricket fan anywhere who reads that as otherwise. If you mean Munaf and Irfan are part of a lineup of 4 bowlers, your lineup would read Munaf + Irfan + 2 bowlers.

Suppose you get your hair dyed colour x. It is disputable whether it is green or blue colour say. Then x will say that you are having green hair, y is saying you are having blue hair.

You're dealing with subjectives there. Karthik is definitely not picked to keep wickets, which, makes this an objective decision.

 

[pasag]

Sorry to be so blunt, but for a moderator you're being petty. I have already apologised for insulting the members themselves, and see no basis in you continuing to rant on on that point. Seems apologies hold no value for you, and it seems I might be better off being a stubborn mule next time

And yes, I think the opinion ( as opposed to calling the members right to an opinion immature, which I have agreed was wrong) was immature. You might fail to see the difference, I can't be arsed pounding my head against this brick wall anymore trying to make the distinction clear...

It has nothing to do with being a moderator at all, it has to do with not abusing people for something as petty as arguing India shouldn't have two wicketkeepers in a side. And I don't hold much value in a back handed apology either where you say sorry for calling them retards (the absurdity of anyone being called a ****** for having a different opinion on cricket astounds me) but then only to continue say that their opinions are immature. But oh wait you've done nothing wrong, I see what you've done there, they're not immature, their opinions are, there's no problem with that at all...

 

[Pratters]

Exactly why playing Karthik and Dhoni doesn't mean India are playing two wicketkeepers. Munaf Patel + Irfan Pathan + 4 bowlers is 6 bowlers. you won't find a cricket fan anywhere who reads that as otherwise. If you mean Munaf and Irfan are part of a lineup of 4 bowlers, your lineup would read Munaf + Irfan + 2 bowlers.

Didn't get what you are saying above but any ways coming to the point:

You're dealing with subjectives there. Karthik is definitely not picked to keep wickets, which, makes this an objective decision.

It is subjective to a fan's perception regarding his prowess. India are playing two keepers does not mean that India are making two keepers keep in the game or that both are playing as keepers.

 

[short shorts]

It has nothing to do with being a moderator at all, it has to do with not abusing people for something as petty as arguing India shouldn't have two wicketkeepers in a side. And I don't hold much value in a back handed apology either where you say sorry for calling them retards (the absurdity of anyone being called a ****** for having a different opinion on cricket astounds me) but then only to continue say that their opinions are immature. But oh wait you've done nothing wrong there, they're not immature their opinions are, there's no problem with that at all...

That statement would make more sense if you framed it correctly - "they're not immature their opinion is" See ? By using the multiple, you make it seem as if each and every opinion they have is deemed immature by me. I call this particular opinion immature, and for some reason now you have fun making it seem as if I consider every opinion they have as immature. There's your problem right there, Mr High horse.

By the way, you might want to read through your initial posts on the forum before climbing onto that high horse of yours. The absurdity of you pulling all that stuff and now having a go at someone for something he's clearly apologised for.

 

[short shorts]

It is subjective to a fan's perception regarding his prowess. India are playing two keepers does not mean that India are making two keepers keep in the game or that both are playing as keepers.

His prowess is relevant only if he gets to use that in the match. Its already been explained and you're ignoring that. Karthik isn't required to keep, and hence that is irrelevant to his batting game. It is fair to have a go at him for his batting and ground fielding since that is what he has been chosen for, but to factor in a non-factor like his keeping, when he isn't required to keep, is absurd.

 

[pasag]

That statement would make more sense if you framed it correctly - "they're not immature their opinion is" See ? By using the multiple, you make it seem as if each and every opinion they have is deemed immature by me. I call this particular opinion immature, and for some reason now you have fun making it seem as if I consider every opinion they have as immature. There's your problem right there, Mr High horse.

By the way, you might want to read through your initial posts on the forum before climbing onto that high horse of yours. The absurdity of you pulling all that stuff and now having a go at someone for something he's clearly apologised for.

Hmm seems like we're not getting anywhere here and you've resorted to having a go at me now, all I can say is continue along those lines and you wont last very long here.

 

[Pratters]

Short Shorts: What he does in a match is not relevant to what some one calls him. If Courtney Walsh plays in the game as an opener, would you call Walsh an opener?

You would say that Walsh is playing in the game as an opener. However, West Indies are playing 5 bowlers (Walsh plus the 4 other bowlers). Four of those five bowlers will bowl in the game.

No one has said that Karthik and Dhoni are both playing in the game as keepers.

 

[short shorts]

Short Shorts: What he does in a match is not relevant to what some one calls him. If Courtney Walsh plays in the game as an opener, would you call Walsh an opener?

If he doesn't bowl and posseses the reasonable amount of skills needed of an opener, yes. If he bowls and the West Indies open with him for inexplicable reasons despite him not having any skills as a top order batsman, no.

 

[Pratters]

If he doesn't bowl and posseses the reasonable amount of skills needed of an opener, yes. If he bowls and the West Indies open with him for inexplicable reasons despite him not having any skills as a top order batsman, no.

Debating team A believes he does not possess necessary skills of a specialist opener.
Debating team B believes that he does possess necessary skills of a specialist opener.

So it becomes subjective.

Also, as I said, there is a subtle difference between some one is playing the game as an opener and whether some one is an opener. Every one agrees that he is playing as an opener. Whether he is an opener or not is subjective.

Similarly, every one believes that one of the 2 players is playing the game as a keeper. However, there are 2 keepers playing. I hope you get my point mate?

 

[short shorts]

Hmm seems like we're not getting anywhere here and you've resorted to having a go at me now, all I can say is continue along those lines and you wont last very long here.

Listen mate, you wield the power, ban me if you must. Don't expect that to stop me from pointing out how unreasonable your behaviour has been in trying to crucify me for the sort of mistake you yourself have committed on a more extreme and extended scale. Atleast I realised my folly in generalising things soon enough. You, mate, put up a grand show.