State & Future of New Zealand Cricket

[Dick Rockett]

Rrrrrrright.

I must have dropped-off when the shooters and lifters were being bowled and awoken again when the normality was resumed.

And naturally we are to take the word of a bad-tempered internet hack over that of someone who's paid to write for a potential audience of more than a million people

 

[Richard]

Or perhaps if you lack creativity or an extensive vocabulary.

And perhaps not.

Sitting half the Earth away and judging someone's creative vocabulary is not the most cogitative thing to do.

What's that got to do with any analysis of last night's innings? I certainly haven't been referring to the rest of his career in this thread.

So no-one should ever be compared to the rest of their career?

Jeys, why does anyone ever get dropped? Why don't we just say "ah, anyone can struggle in one innings"?

 

[Richard]

And naturally we are to take the word of a bad-tempered internet hack over that of someone who's paid to write for a potential audience of more than a million people

If you knew one of said former then maybe.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Sitting half the Earth away and judging someone's creative vocabulary is not the most cogitative thing to do.

I think in your more than 21,000 posts you've pretty much showed your linguistic hand. It's a bit late now to start trying to sell yourself as a wordsmith.

So no-one should ever be compared to the rest of their career?

Of course they should, but in this case it has nothing to do with any analysis of Brendan McCullum's innings last night.

 

[Dick Rockett]

If you knew one of said former then maybe.

Here's another new word for you then.

de·ni·al /dɪˈnaɪəl/ –noun:

Psychology. an unconscious defense mechanism used to reduce anxiety by denying thoughts, feelings, or facts that are consciously intolerable.

 

[Richard]

I think in your more than 21,000 posts you've pretty much showed your linguistic hand. It's a bit late now to start trying to sell yourself as a wordsmith.

21,000 posts shows nothing of the sort.

A linguistic hand is not a basic requirement for posting, regardless of number.

There are far more appropriate outlets for said plethora.

Of course they should, but in this case it has nothing to do with any analysis of Brendan McCullum's innings last night.

Every analysis of an innings has to take into account what's happened before. Otherwise you could always dismiss a poor effort as "he was out of nick". But if it's been happening for ages, it'd be more accurate to conclude that he simply ain't that good.

 

[Richard]

Here's another new word for you then.

de·ni·al /dɪˈnaɪəl/ –noun:

Psychology. an unconscious defense mechanism used to reduce anxiety by denying thoughts, feelings, or facts that are consciously intolerable.

Here's two for you:

as.sump.tion - noun
Something taken for granted; a supposition

un·found·ed - adjective
Without foundation; not based on fact, realistic considerations, or the like

 

[Dick Rockett]

Every analysis of an innings has to take into account what's happened before. Otherwise you could always dismiss a poor effort as "he was out of nick". But if it's been happening for ages, it'd be more accurate to conclude that he simply ain't that good.

Not true. I certainly wan't thinking of his past performances when I commented on last night's innings as I don't see how they are relevant. If, on the other hand, you were, it probably explains your OTT reaction.

It's pretty obvious you don't rate McCullum, which is fair enough. On the other hand, when you've decided on a point of view you rarely are able to either alter it, nor accept any opinion which might contradict it. Ergo: Brendan McCullum is rubbish, hence every innings by Brendan McCullum is rubbish, regardless of its value.

 

[Richard]

So I've said his 50-off-25-balls was rubbish, have I?

No, I've said a poor innings from someone who's played poorly plenty and plenty of times before now cannot be written-off as "being out of nick on a dicey wicket".

 

[Dick Rockett]

Here's two for you:

as.sump.tion - noun
Something taken for granted; a supposition

un·found·ed - adjective
Without foundation; not based on fact, realistic considerations, or the like

I've read enough of your posts over the years to give plenty of foundation to my conviction that you are indeed bad-tempered, and a hack. You've left enough evidence for anyone to see.

You keep making the mistake of looking at my join date and therefore believing that I'm a new member and haven't been privy to your years of curmudgeonly spitefulness.

 

[Richard]

I make no such mistake. It was plain to me from the first exchange of posts between the two of us that you'd read my posts before.

The mistake you make is making assumptions based purely on someone's forum-persona.

 

[Dick Rockett]

So I've said his 50-off-25-balls was rubbish, have I?

By passing those innings off as a once-in-40-innings fluke, you certainly haven't given him any credit for them.

No, I've said a poor innings from someone who's played poorly plenty and plenty of times before now cannot be written-off as "being out of nick on a dicey wicket".

That isn't what you said at all. In the post that started this ding-dong you said the following:

"Yesterday morning's knock showed nothing more than that it is possible to make a half-decent score while playing absolutely abominably..."

Can you explain to us how that quote in any way refers to Brendan McCullum's career up until that point?

 

[Dick Rockett]

I make no such mistake. It was plain to me from the first exchange of posts between the two of us that you'd read my posts before

The mistake you make is making assumptions based purely on someone's forum-persona.

Pfffft. That would explain your final question in this post

I love it when hard evidence bites people in the arse.

 

[Fiery]

16 Tins of Spam - 8...Richard - 0

 

[Richard]

Pfffft. That would explain your final question in this post

I love it when hard evidence bites people in the arse.

Exactly, that explains it all. It's pretty clear from that question that I knew you'd read plenty of my posts in the past, despite my only making a recent comeback. Your persona is coherant with 4 or 5 Kiwi account-holders on several sites and I'd not be amazed if you had 2 or 3 on here.

 

[Richard]

By passing those innings off as a once-in-40-innings fluke, you certainly haven't given him any credit for them.

Tell me - where has the term "fluke" come into it?

Precisely nowhere. I've said he played damn well - on those handful of occasions where he has.

That isn't what you said at all. In the post that started this ding-dong you said the following:

"Yesterday morning's knock showed nothing more than that it is possible to make a half-decent score while playing absolutely abominably..."

Can you explain to us how that quote in any way refers to Brendan McCullum's career up until that point?

It doesn't. Equally, it doesn't not. McCullum did play poorly, and he has played poorly before. Therefore to write-off the fact that he played poorly as "he was out-of-nick and the pitch was tricky" is illiterate.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Your persona is coherant with 4 or 5 Kiwi account-holders on several sites and I'd not be amazed if you had 2 or 3 on here.

Ah, the baseless accusation. Take it up with James if you're so sure

 

[Dick Rockett]

It doesn't. Equally, it doesn't not.

Hahaha, how can I argue with that? If I'm to counter both what you have said and what you haven't, I may as well give up.

You win, o great one

 

[Richard]

Ah, the baseless accusation. Take it up with James if you're so sure

Where did I make an accusation, or be sure about anything? I said I'd not be surprised. The main point is that it was utterly obvious to me that your exchange with me there was not the first you had read of my posts.

Love the way, incidentally, something you intended for use against me has in fact worked in my favour... biting in the arse, you might say...

 

[Richard]

Hahaha, how can I argue with that? If I'm to counter both what you have said and what you haven't, I may as well give up.

You win, o great one

Exactly - I usually do and those like yourself who are foolish enough to take me on eventually reach said point-of-no-return.

Might as well give-up before you start next time... I'm not concerned with the loss of 20 posts or so just through lack of argument with you.