Cricket stuff that doesn't deserve its own thread

[NotMcKenzie]

Okay Sheldon. Sorry to ask you to use your imagination on a hypothetical question of what could have been had David Hookes not joined WSC lol

O.K., Mr. big on insults, small on intellect. Fact is that idolisation of a player is not a standpoint for posing hypotheticals. I doubt it was without reason that Wisden said of him, 'In truth, Hookes had always been a first-class destroyer of second-rate bowling.' He failed to make the step up in the career he did have, and one cannot show that this wouldn't have been the case anyway.

Also, because we must obviously allow for imagination, Hookes would not have had his jaw broken by Roberts in Sydney in December 1977. Instead, he would have had his jaw broken by Roberts in Bridgetown in March 1978.

 

[aussie tragic]

Ok

 

[NotMcKenzie]

At the point of not being able to muster up an argument.

And as I originally said, I think he would have done better than a lot of the batsmen who we did have during WSC so I do not disagree entirely. In particular, I suspect he would have made a much better account of England's bowling in 1978/79, especially when it was their fast bowlers doing the damage early in the tour. He also was third in Aus WSC supertest batting averages, despite Andy Roberts. His first real failure was in 1979-80 where he was injured for most of the home season and performed dismally in Pakistan, therefore it may perhaps have not saved his subsequent career, particularly as any sort of leadership responsibility during that period would have likely had a negative effect in him as it did on everybody else who tried it.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

After all, I've had many alternative scenarios drifting through my mind all the time (not all—or even most—cricket related). In fairness to you—and I do think I've been a bit too harsh, but I won't alter my posts—, perhaps as a result of being disappointed all the time with past and present, I've developed something of a cynical view of such exercises probably because in my experience they're often more hopes (or a 'coping' mechanism) than hypotheses, and everything in the real world is still just as disappointing anyway (so I see-saw like that all the time). Also, some people treat them very wildly and I sort of merge them into that category, perhaps unfairly.

For example, Bob Simpson apparently wanted to stay on as captain for the 1978–79 season, and I've wondered if he would have done better, but I've no more than a thin basis for it. Also, the selectors bizarrely dropped Border for the Sixth test when he'd done well at the same ground in the Fourth Test. Apart from the possibility we would have done at least a bit better in that test than we did if Border had been selected, I think a still younger captain would have wilted in the face of that sort of administration.

 

[aussie tragic]

O.K., Mr. big on insults, small on intellect.

For the record, have a Masters and Bachelors of Engineering as well as being a member of Golden Key (top 15% of university graduates in the world). So only a little 'small on intellect'?

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Then pick better insults.

Or don't use them, and get straight to going in hard in the argument.

 

[aussie tragic]

Then pick better insults.

I thought calling you Sheldon summed you up pretty well actually, google him

 

[NotMcKenzie]

I know what you're referring to in spite of my attempts to studiously ignore it, and it's still the level of wit of 'OK Boomer', in other words, infantile.

 

[aussie tragic]

I know very well what you're referring to, and it's still the level of wit of 'OK Boomer', in other words, infantile.

@trundler you caused this as the first person to call me a boomer lol

 

[NotMcKenzie]

What more proof is needed, really?

 

[trundler]

As the arbiter of who counts as a boomer, I'll say chuckled at AT's excellent deployment of 'ok'. NotMckenzie is definitely the boomer here.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

And yet, AT deleted his original post

 

[aussie tragic]

And yet, AT deleted his original post

Hardly my original post, I deleted the one where I called you Sheldon as I felt I didn't want to insult anyone....but I didn't know you were working on a response for 20 minutes so still replied to my post after it was deleted

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Hardly my original post, I deleted the one where I called you Sheldon as I felt I didn't want to insult anyone....but I didn't know you were working on a response for 20 minutes so still replied to my post after it was deleted

Given the subject of the past few posts, namely witless insults and 'Ok', I think it was clear what I meant.

 

[srbhkshk]

At this point maybe we should just start talking Samuels and race politics again.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

I did have a point to move away with (from the non-cricket), and some of the older posters may be able to help:

Was Derek Randall known for dissenting at decisions? Because in the 78/79 Ashes, he took exception to two l.b.w. decisions in one test where he was clearly out:

And perhaps moving your pads isn't technically dissent, but in one of the two Sydney tests (6th I think, but don't remember), he did the 'stare-back and-forth-in-shock' and 'refuse-to-leave-the-wicket-for-a-long-time' thing for a very clear caught behind decision.

Edit—Also, this could go in the cheats thread.

 

[mr_mister]

I noticed Steve Waugh reacted with shock and a head shake to every lbw decision he got

 

[Daemon]

Golden Key (top 15% of university graduates in the world)

Not true.

It's top 15% of your university cohort. So like a glorified Deans List that you paid $100 membership for.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

I noticed Steve Waugh reacted with shock and a head shake to every lbw decision he got

That doesn't surprise me so much for obvious reasons

It was the era Randall played and the theatre that I found surprising.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Shaheen Shah Afridi with another 5-wicket haul in white ball cricket.