Vaughan of Ashes 02 and through 03 was a better test match batsman than Pietersen.

[Jamee999]

Anyone else think this thread, like virtually all his, isn't worth bothering with?

I don't think that the thread is that bad myself.

 

[I Lust Cricket]

I don't think that the thread is that bad myself.

Go easy on him.

He struggles to be able to distinguish from the thread and the poster who made it.

The mere sight of my name, and he see's red, regardless.

 

[Richard]

I don't think that the thread is that bad myself.

Some good might come of it. But the intention, as always, was nothing more than trying to inflame.

 

[Swervy]

Some good might come of it. But the intention, as always, was nothing more than trying to inflame.

haha..but it only seems to inflame you. Other people may get mildly irritated, but you really get hot under the collar.

Maybe if you just ignored it, then you might find he will either go away, or come up with some good stuff.

If you constantly jump on everything he says, then I think he is just going to wind you up even more.

I have said before, and I will say it again...RELAX

 

[I Lust Cricket]

Yes, daring to put an overhyped South African in the shade for a minute by expressing the opinion that I found the Englishman, Vaughan to be a more impressive batsman is purely to inflame.

My intention was to bring a dose of prespective and reality to the situation as the bandwagon jumpers are getting carried away...when we infact saw superior batsmanship, over a decent span, just a few years ago.

 

[Richard]

haha..but it only seems to inflame you. Other people may get mildly irritated, but you really get hot under the collar.

Maybe if you just ignored it, then you might find he will either go away, or come up with some good stuff.

If you constantly jump on everything he says, then I think he is just going to wind you up even more.

I have said before, and I will say it again...RELAX

You clearly haven't read a post of mine on the matter not so long ago... I get no more annoyed than anyone else. If anything I actually find it a rather amusing "quirk". Regrettable, but pretty much inevitable, is the ever-recurring SW\BLE. He won't - ever - go away or stop being an idiot, my actions are completely irrelevant to that, he's been doing this for well over 2 years now, during which time I've been absent far more than present. I've said that before, too.

There's a reason he is banned (and always continues to be re-banned, regardless of how many times he creates new accounts) - and that is because he IS an inflammatory tool who contributes little to the forums.

All this, really, has been said before.

 

[howardj]

If you want to go stats-mad...

KP, age 26, ashes 06/07 Ave. 54
Warne/McGrath/Clark/Lee

Vaughan, age 28, ashes 02/03 Ave 63.3
Warne/MaGrath/Gillespie/Bichel.

Bowling attacks similar, averages not a mile apart

.

There's a slight glitch in there mate. In Vaughan's golden summer of 2002/2003, I think you'll find that Warne popped his shoulder out in mid-December 2002 and did not play in the final two Tests of that series. They both batted imperiously during those respective Series, but Pietersen faced the better attack, of that there is no doubt.

 

[four_or_six]

There's a slight glitch in there mate. In Vaughan's golden summer of 2002/2003, I think you'll find that Warne popped his shoulder out in mid-December 2002 and did not play in the final two Tests of that series. They both batted imperiously during those respective Series, but Pietersen faced the better attack, of that there is no doubt.

thanks... I think that makes them even more level then, which is kind of what I was hoping for anyway Just couldn't be bothered to check every 02/03 scorecard to check the bowlers.

 

[I Lust Cricket]

There's a slight glitch in there mate. In Vaughan's golden summer of 2002/2003, I think you'll find that Warne popped his shoulder out in mid-December 2002 and did not play in the final two Tests of that series. They both batted imperiously during those respective Series, but Pietersen faced the better attack, of that there is no doubt.

The fact that Mcgrath was in his absolute pomp during Vaughan's, slightly addresses the balance somewhat though.

Even though Mcgrath maintained the stats through to the end, many don't feel he was still at his peak of late.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Even though Mcgrath maintained the stats through to the end, many don't feel he was still at his peak of late.

Many don't feel you're a worthwhile use of forum space, but yet you continue coming back. Sometimes the common conscience doesn't hold much weight.

 

[I Lust Cricket]

Many don't feel you're a worthwhile use of forum space, but yet you continue coming back. Sometimes the common conscience doesn't hold much weight.

I'm gonna take a giant **** on your soul, fleabag.

 

[DCC_legend]

I'm gonna take a giant **** on your soul, fleabag.

I thought he woulda been banned by now.

 

[I Lust Cricket]

I thought he woulda been banned by now.

Apparently not, but I don't think he's far off.

 

[Richard]

Many don't feel you're a worthwhile use of forum space, but yet you continue coming back. Sometimes the common conscience doesn't hold much weight.

Haha, nicely put.

 

[Perm]

Just when I think this guy might actually have some decent cricket ideas, he ruins it with personal abuse. Schitzoprehnia perhaps?

 

[DCC_legend]

Just when I think this guy might actually have some decent cricket ideas, he ruins it with personal abuse. Schitzoprehnia perhaps?

Agreed. Smart Guy, Big Mouth.

 

[Prince EWS]

The genuine CWers almost invariably want any stupid thread started by you closed on the spot so that the poor gullible souls who think they're following a legitimate topic aren't suckered into helping propegate your nonsense.

DWTA.

I treat each topic as I see it, really. The topic starter has some effect on how I reply - but only when determining bias. I don't see how this is biased - it's a fair topic IMO, regardless of who started it.

 

[Richard]

I honestly don't think so. I don't think there's any reason a genuine poster would start a thread like this. It's a pretty fruitless thing to debate IMO - both played very well. The Vaughan period in question was a few months - it seems to be being compared to the entire career of Pietersen.

The only intention of SW\BLE, IMO, was to post his very-usual nonsense pushing his fairly-inexplicable biases. Especially as he basically said nothing more than "deal with it". Not quite so bad as his "Afridi's raw strength" one or "Imagine if Afridi had produced the knock Flintoff did" but, as I say, not really something that can be seriously discussed by genuine posters.

 

[Prince EWS]

Just when I think this guy might actually have some decent cricket ideas, he ruins it with personal abuse. Schitzoprehnia perhaps?

Yeah, it really is a shame, IMO.

He seems to have a good knowledge of cricket, and probably a good understanding as well that he simply hides behind trying to wind people up, along with a fluent, easy-to-read, flowing posting style. He has all the tools to be a really good forumer and he could/should be an asset to CW. However, he's a ****, and none of his other qualities can make up for that. He winds people up deliberately, personally insults people without prejudice and has no regard for the forum rules or standards. CW's Jesse Ryder really - immensely talented but with a disgraceful attitude.

 

[Richard]

Haha, nice metaphor.