• 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.

British - losers?

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Thought this deserved another thread, really - given that it's 8 pages on in the thread it's originally from:
BoyBrumby said:
Couldn't disagree more. Tremendous bloody effort. Eddie Paynter in 32/33 of similar ilk.

Wish I had a tenth of their balls...
Langeveldt said:
I bet Dean Jones looked back on that Innings with a typical dose of strong Aussie pride. I certainly bet there aren't too many regrets flying around. One of the best knocks ever seen on a cricket field..
Neil Pickup said:
WRT Attitudes - two words. Tim Henman.
BoyBrumby said:
Two more: Eddie Edwards

& another two: Frank Bruno

We love a loser, us Poms, don't we?!?

That's why Big Dunc has been so good for us, introduced a bit of neo-colonial steel.
And some of us love to describe ourselves as champions of the substandard. We love to knock ourselves.
No-one should ever be asked to risk their life for a game of cricket, I make no apologies for being of that opinion.
Yes, Dean Jones and Eddie Paynter are to be credited for their efforts but Jardine and Border are to be disgraced for expecting them to go through it.
Rich - no regrets? Allan Border has repeatedly said that he was horrified when he realised what he'd done, having seen Jones unconscious in hospital on a flued-drip that night. He realised he'd almost killed someone for an ultimately trivial cause.
Tim Henman - yes, it's oh so disgraceful to lose 4 times to the player many regard as the greatest ever to play the game, isn't it? So Henman isn't the greatest player ever - wow, then he should be labelled a "typical British loser". He's also lost to Ivanisevic in a competition right from the book of fairytales - no-one and nothing was going to stop Goran that year, his triumph was quite the biggest astonishment in sporting history, surely.
Since 2002 he's been past his peak (while still good) and had he been born maybe 8 years earlier I'm pretty confident he'd have won several Grand Slams.
Eddie The Eagle - another who's loved for trying his best when there was no-one else. No, he wasn't very good - no-one pretended he was. No-one pretended he was anything other than an ordinary guy in an extraordinary situation.
Frank Bruno: haven't a clue, don't know a thing about boxing, don't want to. From what Mum says to me, though, Bruno's not loved for his boxing ability (like Lewis), he's loved for being the very anethma of the Tyson ideal - and if anyone would really say that Tyson was a better human-being than Bruno then frankly I think most would agree that they need their head examined.
 

SpaceMonkey

International Debutant
The fact of the matter is Tim Henman was just never good enough. He was a top 20 player yes (which in its own right was magnificent)...and so people expected him to win wimbledon. When in reality rarely did players outside the top 5 have chances to win any the big 4 majors.
Its also this disposition (mainly by the media) that all that matters is winning Wimbledon and then thats enough. When really we should be trying to produce players who can win on any surface. In all likelyhood if we did that eventually we'd produce a player who would win wimbledon anyway (but this time with a load of other none grass based events under his / her belt as well).
I agree that the England cricket team didn't seem to have that 'killer' instinct in the past. But tbh without players of skill you could have all the killer instinct in the world and it wouldnt be much help. Finally we're not only getting some steel but also the players who have the ability to match the best (no coincidence that they only both begin to happen together either).
 

Gangster

U19 12th Man
You guys had your fun for a long time. Say 450 years or so from 1500-1950. Now you're bad at pretty much everything. It's okay, these things go in cycles. It's America's turn to dominate. And in things America doesn't dominate, we authorize Australia to dominate for us.
 

SpaceMonkey

International Debutant
Gangster said:
You guys had your fun for a long time. Say 450 years or so from 1500-1950. Now you're bad at pretty much everything. It's okay, these things go in cycles. It's America's turn to dominate. And in things America doesn't dominate, we authorize Australia to dominate for us.
Most the sports America Dominate in are only played by America and it seems 90% of your Athletes seem to be on one 'man made' undetectable steroid or another :p
 

Camel56

Banned
Yes the british truely are a sorry bunch of LOOSERS (sic)....at sport anyway.

As for american sports, yes they seem to be the only ones they are best at. Look at the baseball. They call the winner of a league involving teams from 2 countries, WORLD CHAMPIONS. Its the same with the basketball.
Wake up to yourselves guys, to be a world champion you have to beat teams from all over the world, not just two countries.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Richard said:
He's also lost to Ivanisevic in a competition right from the book of fairytales - no-one and nothing was going to stop Goran that year, his triumph was quite the biggest astonishment in sporting history, surely.
Exactly! No one would have beaten Goran. Even if he was 5-0 down with 3 match points against him, I felt like there was something about that tournament that year which was carrying him through. Like I said in another post, that's the best example of destiny I have ever seen.

Tim Henman gets way too much criticism, but its mostly from the British themselves. I'm a huge fan of his. He should have won the French Open this year. IMO that was his best chance of a grand slam.
 

Deja moo

International Captain
Things work in cycles. Britain might just be going through a bad phase. One cant be best at everything.
 

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Jono said:
Exactly! No one would have beaten Goran. Even if he was 5-0 down with 3 match points against him, I felt like there was something about that tournament that year which was carrying him through. Like I said in another post, that's the best example of destiny I have ever seen.

Tim Henman gets way too much criticism, but its mostly from the British themselves. I'm a huge fan of his. He should have won the French Open this year. IMO that was his best chance of a grand slam.
Umm i could be wrong but i dont think henman has won a grass tournament in his career, he's a good player but you cant expect him to win wimbledon,lol
 

maxpower

U19 Cricketer
Camel56 said:
Yes the british truely are a sorry bunch of LOOSERS (sic)....at sport anyway.

As for american sports, yes they seem to be the only ones they are best at. Look at the baseball. They call the winner of a league involving teams from 2 countries, WORLD CHAMPIONS. Its the same with the basketball.
Wake up to yourselves guys, to be a world champion you have to beat teams from all over the world, not just two countries.
Any country is allowed to play in NBA or Baseball (NBA is working on spreading the game into Asia), apart from last olympics US's dominance in basketball is quite evident. Even when baseball exhibition games are held on world level, US still dominates. Both the sports now have a lot of players from around the world participating in them.
 

Richard Rash

U19 Cricketer
Why don't they play a real mans game in rugby instead of American Football. That game is so stop start it's incredibly frustrating to watch
 

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Richard Rash said:
Why don't they play a real mans game in rugby instead of American Football. That game is so stop start it's incredibly frustrating to watch
lol i think they do play rugby... just not very well....
 

maxpower

U19 Cricketer
Richard Rash said:
Why don't they play a real mans game in rugby instead of American Football. That game is so stop start it's incredibly frustrating to watch
Don't let the pads fool you, american football is the toughest game. Even cricket is not the fastest game with drink breaks and all, so dont let the stops frustrate you.
 
Last edited:

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
maxpower said:
Don't let the pads fool you, ameerican football is the toughest game. Even cricket is not the fastest game with drink breaks and all, so dont let the stops frustrate you.
ahahaha toughest game? c'mon man,lol... Rugby Union or Aussie Rules Footy kills that for toughness
 

Richard Rash

U19 Cricketer
maxpower said:
Don't let the pads fool you, ameerican football is the toughest game. Even cricket is not the fastest game with drink breaks and all, so dont let the stops frustrate you.
Yeah i just don't like the way that they also have three different teams for different areas of the game. Why can't the players be versitile? I would suggest that neither rugby or american football is the toughest game..rugby league is far tougher than either of the two.
 

cricket player

International Debutant
maxpower said:
Don't let the pads fool you, ameerican football is the toughest game. Even cricket is not the fastest game with drink breaks and all, so dont let the stops frustrate you.
i am a little bet suprised that you have called americn football tough althoughi do consider american football tough but it aint as tough as rugby is.
 

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Richard Rash said:
Yeah i just don't like the way that they also have three different teams for different areas of the game. Why can't the players be versitile? I would suggest that neither rugby or american football is the toughest game..rugby league is far tougher than either of the two.
lol i totally disagree with that, rugby is far tougher than league, in league you get hit then you have a break, in rugby you get tackled then youre on the ground with people stepping on you.... although i think Aussie rules beats both of them.. for toughness, skill and excitement :D lol
 

Richard Rash

U19 Cricketer
benchmark00 said:
lol i totally disagree with that, rugby is far tougher than league, in league you get hit then you have a break, in rugby you get tackled then youre on the ground with people stepping on you.... although i think Aussie rules beats both of them.. for toughness, skill and excitement :D lol
I have played both and from my experience i think League is definetly tougher. Have you seen some of the hits that get put in? They are huge!!! Add to that the fact that the NRL runs for 26 consecutive weeks compared to rugby where they have 11 games in the Super 12 and then a break. League is much tougher on the body.. As for Aussie Rules I am a Kiwi so only watched the Grand Final and you're right it's pretty fierce but i can't really draw a conclusion on how tough it is because of the lack of footage i have seen
 

Top