Who was the better bowler ?

[Sanz]

I don't give a ^%$£ really, you're highly unlikely to receive any support given you're an acknowledged trouble-maker and I'm a respected member.

Whether I am going to receive any support or not should not be any of your concern. I am not looking for support from anyone either, I am capable of handling stuff on my own and without anyone's support. I am not here to win an election anyway. I am fine as long as you dont use that kind of language while communicating with me. If you do, I will report the post.

As for you being a respected member - Good for you, hope it gives you a reason to live. Oh I saw some guy on the street the other day, he claimed he was Jesus.

As for me being a troublemaker - If that is your opinion then, fine. I am not going to make any effort to change it, because people like you are not important to me. I have not heard anything from mods/admins/owner of this website about that and that's enough for me.

 

[Sanz]

If you could indeed read I said Bradman didn't play for 20 years after his birth. That he wasn't good enough to do so in said time doesn't really matter, as it doesn't matter than Imran wasn't good enough in 1971 or 1974. Bradman was good enough when he was first picked; Imran was good enough in 1976\77. Due to this, anything beforehand ceases to matter.

Proves my point that Imran was not good enough between 1971-77 to make it to the team. Dont know what you are trying to argue here. And just because Imran wasn't good enough will mean that his career started in 1976-77. Imran's International career started in 1971 and that is a fact. That he was rubbish between 1971 and 1976-77 is another fact.

Except Botham's start to his career showed he did deserve to and should have been picked when he was. That the selectors erred in Imran's case does not say anything about him. It's they, not he, whose reputation suffers. At least, in the eyes of those with any sense.

If Selectors erred in picking Imran early in his career then selectors erred in case of Botham also by picking him later phase of his career.

 

[Sanz]

That's because Mods don't always say stuff like this in open forum. I know stuff you don't, because I have the sense to speak to people and read stuff.

They dont have to say it in open forum. If they have to say anything about the troubles I have been making, they can send me an email. And I couldn't care less about your gossip habits and skills outside of this forum.

It's my concern, meanwhile, if you're going to try to make nothing activities of mine into big-deals, though, and there's no point reporting posts if no-one bar you feels there's any need for reports. People have been banned for abuse of the feature before now.

I have no intention of changing my activities to pander to the silliness of certain people who are only interested in kicking-up fusses.

Easier thing to do is to not use profanity when communicating with me.

 

[Richard]

Proves my point that Imran was not good enough between 1971-77 to make it to the team. Dont know what you are trying to argue here. And just because Imran wasn't good enough will mean that his career started in 1976-77. Imran's International career started in 1971 and that is a fact. That he was rubbish between 1971 and 1976-77 is another fact.

And they're totally meaningless ones. Each is completely and totally irrelevant - as is the fact that Don Bradman wasn't good enough in 1923. What matters is what happens from the point a player becomes good enough onwards, not what happened before. Had Imran been picked in 1964 the timespan of his rubbishness would be even longer - it would still be purely selectorial error and no reflection whatsoever on him.

If Selectors erred in picking Imran early in his career then selectors erred in case of Botham also by picking him later phase of his career.

Perhaps. Certainly in the 1990s. However, longing for lost glories and hoping for them to return is not a sin.

 

[Sanz]

Had Imran been picked in 1964 the timespan of his rubbishness would be even longer - it would still be purely selectorial error and no reflection whatsoever on him.

Nobody gets picked to play international cricket @ the age of 8, but there are plenty of cricketers who are picked at the age of 18-19 and do well, Imran didn't. So it is fair to suggest that Imran was an average or rubbish bowler. Whether something is meaningless or not is not the question here. The fact is Imran's international career lasted 20-21 years and out of which first 8 years were average and so were his last 4 years. Imran was an outstanding bowler between 1979-80 and 1987-88.

Perhaps. Certainly in the 1990s. However, longing for lost glories and hoping for them to return is not a sin.

Noone is calling it a sin, so dont give your spin.

 

[Goughy]

I don't give a ^%$£ really, you're highly unlikely to receive any support given you're an acknowledged trouble-maker and I'm a respected member.

Having disagreed and agreed with both posters on different issues during my time here Im not interested in taking sides.

Seperate to all that, the above quote must be one of the most deliberately inflammatory comments Ive seen on Cricket Chat. Dont know wat to make of it.

 

[Perm]

Richard clearing losing the argument here IMO, not too sure about the cricket debate though

It only takes a bit of common-sense to see that Sanz doesn't want to be 'sworn' at from abbreviations such as FFS and WTF, which is fair enough I think. Just don't cuss him Richard, it only makes you look bad. Also, I agree with Goughy. The post he quoted is absolutely bizarre, makes you look like a complete twit TBH Richard.

 

[Perm]

Shoaib's definitely a better bowler than Waqar.

How can you say that? Absolutely farcical IMO.

 

[Richard]

Nobody gets picked to play international cricket @ the age of 8, but there are plenty of cricketers who are picked at the age of 18-19 and do well, Imran didn't. So it is fair to suggest that Imran was an average or rubbish bowler. Whether something is meaningless or not is not the question here. The fact is Imran's international career lasted 20-21 years and out of which first 8 years were average and so were his last 4 years. Imran was an outstanding bowler between 1979-80 and 1987-88.

No, Imran was an outstanding bowler between 1976\77 and 1988\89.

Virtually no-one, particularly a bowler, does well in international cricket at the age of 18. Most are in their early 20s at best. It's meaningless that he failed in 1971 and 1974. He was average then - so would almost anyone be at that age. To hold this against a cricketer is to display dismal ignorance.

Noone is calling it a sin, so dont give your spin.

A cricket-wise sin, fairly obviously.

 

[Richard]

the above quote must be one of the most deliberately inflammatory comments Ive seen on Cricket Chat. Dont know wat to make of it.

Just make of it that I'm telling someone how things are, really. It's not intended as inflammatory in the slightest. He's making a fuss about nothing, and seems to have it in his head that people will take isolated post-reports from him seriously, which is extremely unlikely.

 

[The Sean]

shortpitchedwhatever,

Shoaib's definitely a better bowler than Waqar.

Ok, I'll bite. How do you figure?

 

[Matt79]

Need to pull your head in here Rich - acting like a goose to be honest, and putting James et al in an awkward position.

 

[Richard]

Given that popular opinion seems to be against me, I guess it's best I remove the posts.

 

[Perm]

Given that popular opinion seems to be against me, I guess it's best I remove the posts.

Or you could admit that you handled the situation in a poor way and apologise to Sanz for cursing at him through abbreviations. Don't hide the evidence mate.

 

[Richard]

I admit I handled the situation poorly, yes. I'll leave it at that - I'd quite like to discuss the matter with you on MSN frankly, if you ever come off Busy.

 

[funnygirl]

Common guys . say sorry .That will be fine .

 

[funnygirl]

Shoaib's definitely a better bowler than Waqar

 

[Perm]

I admit I handled the situation poorly, yes. I'll leave it at that - I'd quite like to discuss the matter with you on MSN frankly, if you ever come off Busy.

Thank you. I'm very rarely actually busy, just CBF'd taking myself off busy.

 

[Sanz]

Given that popular opinion seems to be against me, I guess it's best I remove the posts.

This sums up your approach to pretty much every debate you prticipate in on this forum.

 

[Perm]

This sums up your approach to pretty much every debate you prticipate in on this forum.

Sanz, there's no need for it mate, even though I agree with you partially. Richard had pretty much admitted he was wrong, the argument should have finished. Instead, here we go again.