Hmm, I think I'll have to read that post about 50 times before I understand that one!
Yes, there is definately a problem that many things are done in about three threads at a time.
It usually springs-up when one of us, in an attempted jibe, says "like in the case of blah-blah" (for instance, tooextracool might say "like the Motera wicket turned you might say?"; "like Graeme Smith such-and-such"; "like Chaminda Vaas such-and-such"; I might say "like Ealham never bowled in the first 15 you might say?"), and inevitably the reply is "oh, yes, but I was right blah-blah" and so one debate turns into four, with similar replies in four threads.
Of course, similar topics come-up (for instance, the one about the best Pakistan XI throws-up very similar things to the Chopra-or-not one).
Two of the biggest problems come-up in that tooextracool (apparently) has watched a lot of cricket and very regularly makes claims that I know quite clearly is not the case, mainly because I've watched it and am equally certain of something. Three of the best examples are the Motera wicket (tooextracool: "it was slow turn and slow turn is no use to any spinner"; me: "it turned, and good spinners can use any turn"); the WACA wicket (tooextracool: "it didn't turn and I'm absolutely sure it didn't"; me: "it turned, plenty, I remember plenty of balls quite clearly turning"); and the Lord's wicket (tooextracool: "cricinfo says one ball moved and I think it did, too - this means the wicket was bowler-friendly"; me: "I've got the ball on tape and it didn't move, I watched the match very clearly - no deliveries moved significantly off the seam and very rarely were helpful swinging conditions present").
You see the problems? Repetetive disputes on slightly different, but very comparable, topics.