Choosing a good time to retire

[Richard]

I think as a general rule of thumb I'm confortable saying it's wrong to lie to present yourself in a better light, yes.

Which isn't actually what I was doing - more presenting someone else in a worse light, a light that person deserved to be presented in. Heard of the George Davis case? As I say, though - didn't work, but no matter.

But as to the matter at hand, it depends on the player enitrely IMHO. It's nice for someone to go out at the top of their game on their own terms (like McGrath retiring as the world cup's leading wicket taker), but equally I'd never look less favourably on a bloke who carried on if he was the best option available to his team even if it meant his average took a hit.

I think most reasonable observers would say Gilchrist has been as his best for a while, but there is still an argument that he might actually still be better than Haddin.

One I'd not subscribe to, personally. Might just have been the case with Stewart in 2004, mind.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Which isn't actually what I was doing - more presenting someone else in a worse light, a light that person deserved to be presented in. Heard of the George Davis case? As I say, though - didn't work, but no matter.

Meh. Po-tay-to/po-tar-to.

& yes I have. Fail to see the relevance tho, but.

One I'd not subscribe to, personally. Might just have been the case with Stewart in 2004, mind.

Time will tell, I suppose. I've never been hugely impressed by Haddin in ODIs, but have never seen him in a first-class game so will reserve judgement.

It's the principle rather than any one specific example that was my point tho. We could use Langers's example of Pollock, say. He's certainly not as quick as he was seven or eight years ago, but is still probably better than any of the alternatives available to the yarps as of now. Which is probably a factor in his thinking in withdrawing his labour now for me, given the way the selectors have pissed him around.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

They won't do regardless, but they're not just MSN "buddies". They're CWers.

And yes, it would be sly (if it worked, obv - it's not when it doesn't) - you seem to suggest it's in some way wrong? The fact that Lillian Thomson's behaviour towards me has been several times as appalling not register to you?

If not, I'd have to say I'd not be terribly surprised.

Highly convenient to make out that this is solely down to me. The fact that Richard will do anything rather than admit an error is one of the criticisms most often aimed in his direction. This is just one example and no doubt all the other's were blamed on someone elses failings as well.

 

[Richard]

What, admit I put a "completely" in there that would have been better without? Nope, no issue at all with admitting the error there, in fact I did by editing it out.

This latest exchange very obviously is mostly down to you. If you didn't use such stupid, needlessly strong language such as "obvious nonsense" (there's examples of this in just about every post where you disagree with someone, it's one of your worst failings and one of the reasons you're so disliked) I'd not even have considered any pretence whatsoever.

If you want me, or anyone else, to admit errors, which I highly doubt incidentally, you'd do well to be less insolent about it.

 

[BoyBrumby]

What, admit I put a "completely" in there that would have been better without? Nope, no issue at all with admitting the error there, in fact I did by editing it out.

This latest exchange very obviously is mostly down to you. If you didn't use such stupid, needlessly strong language such as "obvious nonsense" (there's examples of this in just about every post where you disagree with someone, it's one of your worst failings and one of the reasons you're so disliked) I'd not even have considered any pretence whatsoever.

If you want me, or anyone else, to admit errors, which I highly doubt incidentally, you'd do well to be less insolent about it.

No offence, Richard, but do you even know what insolent means? Your use here seems to suggest otherwise.

 

[Langeveldt]

Jesus, don't bother arguing with someone who is never wrong, and I guess we can kiss another thread goodbye.. Small wonder half of us don't go into cricket chat any more..

 

[Slow Love™]

And yes, it would be sly (if it worked, obv - it's not when it doesn't) - you seem to suggest it's in some way wrong? The fact that Lillian Thomson's behaviour towards me has been several times as appalling not register to you?

I don't have much time to have a conversation right now as I'm about to hit the sack, but I thought I'd get this in in case the thread is locked by tomorrow.

Richard, I don't expect what I have to say here will have much of an impact on you, but I feel this needs to be said by somebody not comfortably dismissed as one who has it in for you.

Editing a post after the fact to make a lie out of a poster responding to you is IMO, one of the more childish, credibility-sapping acts one can perform on an internet forum. I can obviously only speak for myself, but I doubt I'd be alone in wondering whether it's worth ever having an online discussion with somebody who isn't above such an act.

 

[Richard]

Meh. Po-tay-to/po-tar-to.

& yes I have. Fail to see the relevance tho, but.

Yeah, and I'd probably do well not to discuss the matter on here really. Given you've refused to give me your email address, will leave it there.

Time will tell, I suppose. I've never been hugely impressed by Haddin in ODIs, but have never seen him in a first-class game so will reserve judgement.

Precisely the same as me, though even his ODI form has looked-up of late. His First-Class record in recent times is excellent, however, and no-one seems to talk regularly of any glaring flaws in his game, leading me to think he'll probably do a better job than Gilchrist mostly has these last 4 years.

It's the principle rather than any one specific example that was my point tho. We could use Langers's example of Pollock, say. He's certainly not as quick as he was seven or eight years ago, but is still probably better than any of the alternatives available to the yarps as of now. Which is probably a factor in his thinking in withdrawing his labour now for me, given the way the selectors have pissed him around.

He's about the same pace now as he has been for the last decade TBH. Common misconception. Yeah, he'd almost certainly be as good a ODI bowler as anyone for the next 2 years at least, but if he doesn't think he can make 2011 I'm not unhappy for him to leave now. What's more, cricket is not all a cricketer does and I actually think cricketing reasons might not be the sole motives behind his retirement.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Jesus, don't bother arguing with someone who is never wrong, and I guess we can kiss another thread goodbye.. Small wonder half of us don't go into cricket chat any more..

Fair point. Sorry.

 

[grecian]

I don't have much time to have a conversation right now as I'm about to hit the sack, but I thought I'd get this in in case the thread is locked by tomorrow.

Richard, I don't expect what I have to say here will have much of an impact on you, but I feel this needs to be said by somebody not comfortably dismissed as one who has it in for you.

Editing a post after the fact to make a lie out of a poster responding to you is IMO, one of the more childish, credibility-sapping acts one can perform on an internet forum. I can obviously only speak for myself, but I doubt I'd be alone in wondering whether it's worth ever having an online discussion with somebody who isn't above such an act.

Great post, imho.

Sums it all up really...

 

[Richard]

No offence, Richard, but do you even know what insolent means? Your use here seems to suggest otherwise.

Boldly rude or disrespectful; contemptuously impertinent; insulting. Exactly what I meant.

 

[Langeveldt]

Fair point. Sorry.

No worries

 

[Lillian Thomson]

What, admit I put a "completely" in there that would have been better without? Nope, no issue at all with admitting the error there, in fact I did by editing it out.

This latest exchange very obviously is mostly down to you. If you didn't use such stupid, needlessly strong language such as "obvious nonsense" (there's examples of this in just about every post where you disagree with someone, it's one of your worst failings and one of the reasons you're so disliked) I'd not even have considered any pretence whatsoever.

If you want me, or anyone else, to admit errors, which I highly doubt incidentally, you'd do well to be less insolent about it.

You have no issue with admitting it for one reason only, you were caught out.
Instead of worrying why you and your conveniently invisible MSN friends who never post so dislike me, you'd do well to consider why you're "so disliked". But of course that's another thing you can't admit to.

 

[Richard]

You have no issue with admitting it for one reason only, you were caught out.

Nope, as I said, if it'd been someone more polite than you I'd have admitted it without hesitation.

Instead of worrying why you and your conveniently invisible MSN friends who never post so dislike me, you'd do well to consider why you're "so disliked". But of course that's another thing you can't admit to.

Nope, I'm equally well aware that there are enough people who dislike me, and nor am I in the slightest hesitant to acknowledge it, nor am I unaware of the reasons. You clearly are, of course, and prefer to have it that such people are non-existant or are "MSN friends" rather than people who use the forum and MSN.

 

[bond21]

Ill tell you something, retiring when you are not at your peak is a lot better than retiring too early and watching the team do well and wish you were still playing...

JL rang Hayden before the 1st Test against Sri Lanka and told him he wished he was playing.

If you are still enjoying playing and doing well, retiring to protect stats is selfish and stupid.

 

[bond21]

eg Don Bradman couldve said "oh ill play one more test" to get his average to 100, but he had enough and couldnt care less about it.

Sure he wouldve been disappointed when he got out, but I think he wouldve forgotten it later that night when he was celebrating a magnificent career.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Jesus, don't bother arguing with someone who is never wrong, and I guess we can kiss another thread goodbye.. Small wonder half of us don't go into cricket chat any more..

I apologize to Langeveldt for the way this thread has gone but I think from the response that everyone has made it's obvious who once again was the main culprit. If you look through all the threads that have resulted in petty bickering you will find one common denominator...........guess who?

 

[Jamee999]

OK guys, let's just draw a line under this whole thing.

Any more posts to do with the Editgate will be deleted.

______________________________________________

 

[Richard]

I guess we can kiss another thread goodbye.. Small wonder half of us don't go into cricket chat any more..

Anyway, I'll apologise for my part in this Rich. Stupid of me to allow myself to get dragged in not for the first time.

My subject-related posts stand. Let's leave it at that.

 

[silentstriker]

As I said before, I don't buy into this 'go on top' thing. You play until either you don't want to, or until the selectors tell you not to. I think legacy and such is for people to discuss afterward. As long as you think you're being useful and want to play, and selectors agree, than I don't see the problem.