• 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.

ESPNcricinfo World XI

Jarquis

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Got_Spin said:
booooo. i was looking forward to more pedantic technique discussion
Click to expand...
Yes and your whinging about discussions that you don't like is my particular highlight of Cricket Web.
All you do is whinge about Cricket Chat, if you don't like it then **** off.
 
Jarquis

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
weldone said:
AWTA.

Technique is necessary but not sufficient.

You can be a bad batsman with good technique, but you can't be a good batsman with bad technique (unlike the point Marcuss is making).
Click to expand...
Yes you can. Collingwood's technique is poor, it's effective but it's poor.
He would be a better batsman if he had a better technique. His technique is the limiting factor on his performance. I'm not sure how that doesn't qualify as a bad technique?
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Marcuss said:
Yes and your whinging about discussions that you don't like is my particular highlight of Cricket Web.
All you do is whinge about Cricket Chat, if you don't like it then **** off.
Click to expand...
To be fair Marcuss, you definitely love the occasional frustrating, pedantic debate centred around a misunderstanding or misinterpretation. :p
 
GotSpin

GotSpin

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Marcuss said:
lolirony considering you're the one having a sook about people having a discussion.
Click to expand...
Having a sook? I just said one off the cuff remark about the current discussion and you're getting all teary eyed because I said it was pedantic which it quite frankly is.
 
Jarquis

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
weldone said:
So would Bradman :dry:
Click to expand...
By an ridiculously smaller margin. Debatable anyway, I don't think I've ever come across a piece where Bradman's technique was deemed to have been a limiting factor on his ability to score runs.
Where it has against Collingwood and Sehwag.
 
Jarquis

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Got_Spin said:
Having a sook? I just said one off the cuff remark about the current discussion and you're getting all teary eyed because I said it was pedantic which it quite frankly is.
Click to expand...
I couldn't care if it's pedantic. I know it is.

It's not the first time you've complained about people discussing subjects in threads is it?
Jono called you on it the other day.
 
GotSpin

GotSpin

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Marcuss said:
I couldn't care if it's pedantic. I know it is.

It's not the first time you've complained about people discussing subjects in threads is it?
Jono called you on it the other day.
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware that Jono was the beez kneez

This is a completely irrelevant discussion you've been having
 
Jarquis

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Got_Spin said:
I wasn't aware that Jono was the beez kneez

This is a completely irrelevant discussion you've been having
Click to expand...
The fact it was Jono is irrelevant. The point is you've developed a habit of criticising people having discussions rather than discussing.
 
GotSpin

GotSpin

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Marcuss said:
The fact it was Jono is irrelevant. The point is you've developed a habit of criticising people having discussions rather than discussing.
Click to expand...
I didn't criticise anyone. I just said the current discussion was pedantic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top