Who Is The Best English Batsman of All-Time?

[Richard]

I know it does...and thats because I know more about what goes on in your brain, just from your posts on here then you actually do

And that really is ridiculous.
Fortunately by the (which I'm guessing will become your new symbol now the prompted emotiocams have been changed to not include ) I can tell you're not being serious.

 

[marc71178]

No, you say I'm in a hole.
By bringing-up irrelevant stuff like his mindset upon being about to bowl the delivery you are not going to create one.

Of course, that sort of thing is irrelevant when he's bowling isn't it?

Because you say it is.

 

[marc71178]

Your only defence against this blatant fact has been "you can't know more about Flintoff than he does", despite the fact that I've provided hard evidence as to why I - and anyone else who wants to - can.

No, because you are not Andrew Flintoff, so you cannot know more about him than he himself knows - yet you continue to insist you do.

 

[marc71178]

And that really is ridiculous.

But it's not ridiculous for you to say it about someone else.

 

[Richard]

Of course, that sort of thing is irrelevant when he's bowling isn't it?

Because you say it is.

I do say it is - because as far as anyone who's actually thinking can see, the thoughts of the bowler don't affect how well or poorly the batsman plays the delivery, or how good the delivery is if you don't have the basic techniques to bowl the good balls.

 

[Richard]

But it's not ridiculous for you to say it about someone else.

No, it's not - because there are completely different data.

 

[marc71178]

Keep digging, be at the Earth's core soon.

 

[Richard]

No, because you are not Andrew Flintoff, so you cannot know more about him than he himself knows - yet you continue to insist you do.

I cannot know more about him, no - but I can know his bowling as well, and seemingly better, than he and so many others.
And yes, I'll continue to insist I do.

 

[marc71178]

No, it's not - because there are completely different data.

Neither is remotely possible, but you've decided that one is, because otherwise everything you've been saying would be wrong.

 

[Richard]

Keep digging, be at the Earth's core soon.

Keep using the same irreverant cliché, you'll totally devalue it eventually.

 

[Richard]

Neither is remotely possible, but you've decided that one is, because otherwise everything you've been saying would be wrong.

No, you've decided that one isn't, because otherwise everything you've been saying would be wrong.

 

[marc71178]

I cannot know more about him, no - but I can know his bowling as well, and seemingly better, than he and so many others.

How can you?

You're not there on the pitch with him.

You're not in the nets with him.

You're just an arrogant little schoolkid who watches him on TV and decide you know more than he himself does.

 

[marc71178]

No, you've decided that one isn't, because otherwise everything you've been saying would be wrong.

When you can prove how you can know more about him than he himself does, maybe you'd have a point, but since that is impossible, then you don't.

 

[Richard]

How can you?

You're not there on the pitch with him.

You're not in the nets with him.

You're just an arrogant little schoolkid who watches him on TV and decide you know more than he himself does.

Wrong, I'm not a schoolkid any more.
And no, I'm not in the nets or anywhere else; I am, however, watching every ball in the match situation with equal clarity.
AND LIKE IT OR NOT THAT IS ALL THAT IS OF THE SLIGHTEST SIGNIFICANCE

 

[Richard]

When you can prove how you can know more about him than he himself does, maybe you'd have a point, but since that is impossible, then you don't.

I can prove quite clearly that I know more about his bowling in Test-match cricket than he does - if indeed he thinks the turnaround happened in the Bridgetown game, and I've done so God-knows-how-many times.

 

[Smudge]

I can prove quite clearly that I know more about his bowling in Test-match cricket than he does - if indeed he thinks the turnaround happened in the Bridgetown game, and I've done so God-knows-how-many times.

That quote is the absolute pinnacle of arrogance.

 

[marc71178]

And no, I'm not in the nets or anywhere else; I am, however, watching every ball in the match situation with equal clarity.

But that does not give you more insight into him than he or the coaches have.

And you can always tell when someone starts being shown up by the sudden change in font size.

 

[marc71178]

I can prove quite clearly that I know more about his bowling in Test-match cricket than he does - if indeed he thinks the turnaround happened in the Bridgetown game, and I've done so God-knows-how-many times.

No, you have not.

You claim you have, but since you are not Flintoff and you are not Troy Cooley, and it appears you haven't even read what Flintoff himself has said about it (or the various people on here with some biomechanical knowledge have said) - then you haven't.

 

[Sussexshark]

All well and good - but not actually relevant to the discussion.

You made it relevant, kiddo.

Tell me, do you know anything about the game? Since what virtually all you say is sheer unadulterated codswallop I think not. Marc got it about right, but it's not just the acting like a schoolkid - hell, we all enjoy being one of those from time to time! - but it's the insufferable arrogance you display that I find so totally unacceptable - and I'm not the only one. Who in the name of Sweet Jesus do you think you are, boy, that you consider you know better than the rest of us here AND international cricketers to boot?

Dear Lord, this site would be so much better off without your pathetic pratings.

 

[GotSpin]

someone has alot to get off their chest eh