Roebuck picks New Zealand ....

[Zinzan]

http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/default.aspx?id=70542

Interesting to read that Peter Roebuck believes NZ can go all the way in the W.C. Even more bizarre is that he felt they were the best side in the CB series even though they failed to make the finals which sounds a bit daft

 

[_Ed_]

I completely disagree that we were the best side in the CB Series.

I'd love it if he's right about the World Cup though obviously.

 

[Zinzan]

I completely disagree that we were the best side in the CB Series.

I'd love it if he's right about the World Cup though obviously.

Yeah it does sound a bit Irish (no offense mean't) given we lost 4-0 to Oz in that series

 

[IndianByHeart]

Thats what i belived too. I think NZ has the best chance to win the wc.SA and India have good chance too though

 

[Zinzan]

Thats what i belived too. I think NZ has the best chance to win the wc.SA and India have good chance too though

Well if you really believe that, you should put your money where your mouth is because some bookies are paying as high as 11/1 on NZ

 

[Barney Rubble]

Peter Roebuck's opinion counts for nothing. He's the one who was claiming a while back that Flintoff was a chucker. He's also said countless other things in recent years which can be put down to nothing more than random pointless conjecture - the vast majority of his statements have no logic to them at all, and he seems to be more concerned with being controversial and getting attention for his opinions than actually having people agree with them.

Waste of a thread, IMO.

EDIT: Was just Googling him to find out what it was I'd forgotten that he'd said - I ended up finding this: "The end is nigh for Australia..."

And this: An entire book dedicated to why Australian cricket has been so continually dominant in recent years

The former was written in 2005, the latter in 2006. How can you write a book about why Australia are so great after previously denouncing them as a team in decline?! The man's an idiot.

 

[Poker Boy]

I completely disagree that we were the best side in the CB Series.

I'd love it if he's right about the World Cup though obviously.

Actually not as daft as it seems. For most of the CB series NZ were better than England and IMO ran Australia closer in more of the games - England took their one chance of beating Australia in the Qualyfing Round(NZ had more chances just didn't take them)and then NZ lost that last game v England which they could just as easily have won. Had they beat us in that last game there is no reason to think they couldn't have won the Finals themselves.

 

[Richard]

Peter Roebuck's opinion counts for nothing. He's the one who was claiming a while back that Flintoff was a chucker. He's also said countless other things in recent years which can be put down to nothing more than random pointless conjecture - the vast majority of his statements have no logic to them at all, and he seems to be more concerned with being controversial and getting attention for his opinions than actually having people agree with them.

Waste of a thread, IMO.

EDIT: Was just Googling him to find out what it was I'd forgotten that he'd said - I ended up finding this: "The end is nigh for Australia..."

And this: An entire book dedicated to why Australian cricket has been so continually dominant in recent years

The former was written in 2005, the latter in 2006. How can you write a book about why Australia are so great after previously denouncing them as a team in decline?! The man's an idiot.

TBF, plenty of people make idiotic comments (I'm sure some would accuse the perpetrator of this post of such a thing...) but it doesn't mean they never speak a word of sense.

Millions of people have called Murali a chucker - they're all as stupid and incorrect as anyone who calls Flintoff a chucker. Simple fact of the matter is, chucking's a vastly overrated thing, and thankfully in 2004 such a thing was proved as conclusive fact at last. Every bowler has vaguaries in his action.

Unusually strong words from you, BTW.

 

[Richard]

Actually not as daft as it seems. For most of the CB series NZ were better than England and IMO ran Australia closer in more of the games - England took their one chance of beating Australia in the Qualyfing Round(NZ had more chances just didn't take them)and then NZ lost that last game v England which they could just as easily have won. Had they beat us in that last game there is no reason to think they couldn't have won the Finals themselves.

What I was thinking, pretty much.

NZ sure weren't as good as Aus were in the early rounds, but had they won that final group-game against us and then did exactly as we did in the finals, they could quite justifiably have been called the best side in the competition.

England were abysmal for most and then won 3 crucial games in a row; Australia thrashed England for the most part and just scraped past NZ; NZ were never completely outplayed and twice totally outplayed England...

Someone recently called Hamish Marshall, accurately, "a strange, strange player". This year's CB Series was about the most "strange, strage tournament" you're ever going to see.

 

[Zinzan]

Waste of a thread, IMO.

.

I can't see why its a waste of a thread. Firstly its not like there is a quota of threads available and secondly its prompted discussion and comment (including yours)

 

[Richard]

Calm down... "waste of a thread" is just a cliche, it's not like it means much.

And there is a preference to use as few threads as possible, because of the bandwidth reality.

"Coming soon: the Stop Wasting Our Bandwidth With Stupid Twenty20 Threads Thread"

To take a very strict ruling, you could have posted this on the not-exactly-buzzing NZ Black Caps thread.

 

[Zinzan]

Calm down... "waste of a thread" is just a cliche, it's not like it means much.

And there is a preference to use as few threads as possible, because of the bandwidth reality.

"Coming soon: the Stop Wasting Our Bandwidth With Stupid Twenty20 Threads Thread"

To take a very strict ruling, you could have posted this on the not-exactly-buzzing NZ Black Caps thread.

Lol @ "calm down" , did you picture me as being angry and flustered or something

 

[Richard]

The emotiocon always puts me in mind of "calm down". It's about the only *strong negative on the part of someone else* emotiocon on vBulletin (discounting , , and which have convoluted connotations) and I don't really see that there's any need to use it to Mr Pitt who is generally one of the most fair, measured posters on here.

 

[Barney Rubble]

TBF, plenty of people make idiotic comments (I'm sure some would accuse the perpetrator of this post of such a thing...) but it doesn't mean they never speak a word of sense.

Millions of people have called Murali a chucker - they're all as stupid and incorrect as anyone who calls Flintoff a chucker. Simple fact of the matter is, chucking's a vastly overrated thing, and thankfully in 2004 such a thing was proved as conclusive fact at last. Every bowler has vaguaries in his action.

Unusually strong words from you, BTW.

Haha, yeah, I don't quite know what prompted me to get that het up about it. I think it's just my general contempt for incompetent journalists. As someone who's looking to get into the journalistic profession without any kind of cricketing background, it infuriates me that clueless former players can spout as much crap as they want and yet still be given a platform to do it again, while somewhere like CW can produce a consistently higher quality of journalism from a group of amateurs who often don't even watch the matches they report on.

The same applies to all sports - who can tell me that David Pleat deserves his place on the ITV commentary team? He can't even pronounce anyone's name properly.

 

[Richard]

I feel your pain 100% on those sentiments.

I'm not a journalism student, but there's little I'd love more than to write about cricket and the amount of ill-informed journalism compared to high-calibre discussion on these forums is utterly infuriating. I think Clapo has it harder than either of us, mind.

 

[Zinzan]

Haha, yeah, I don't quite know what prompted me to get that het up about it. I think it's just my general contempt for incompetent journalists. As someone who's looking to get into the journalistic profession without any kind of cricketing background, it infuriates me that clueless former players can spout as much crap as they want and yet still be given a platform to do it again, while somewhere like CW can produce a consistently higher quality of journalism from a group of amateurs who often don't even watch the matches they report on.

The same applies to all sports - who can tell me that David Pleat deserves his place on the ITV commentary team? He can't even pronounce anyone's name properly.

Obviously it come down to personal preference at the end of the day. Like you, I think Roebuck thrives on controversy, it followed him around during his playing days as well with the whole Richards,Crowe and Botham fall-out. But overall I like him as both a journalist and commentary

 

[Barney Rubble]

I feel your pain 100% on those sentiments.

I'm not a journalism student, but there's little I'd love more than to write about cricket and the amount of ill-informed journalism compared to high-calibre discussion on these forums is utterly infuriating. I think Clapo has it harder than either of us, mind.

Well, I can rest safe in the knowledge that once I get out there in August, I'm almost undoubtedly going to be Quebec's leading cricket journalist.

 

[Richard]

Spread the gospel, make sure you...

 

[Jono]

Peter Roebuck's opinion counts for nothing. He's the one who was claiming a while back that Flintoff was a chucker. He's also said countless other things in recent years which can be put down to nothing more than random pointless conjecture - the vast majority of his statements have no logic to them at all, and he seems to be more concerned with being controversial and getting attention for his opinions than actually having people agree with them.

Waste of a thread, IMO.

EDIT: Was just Googling him to find out what it was I'd forgotten that he'd said - I ended up finding this: "The end is nigh for Australia..."

And this: An entire book dedicated to why Australian cricket has been so continually dominant in recent years

The former was written in 2005, the latter in 2006. How can you write a book about why Australia are so great after previously denouncing them as a team in decline?! The man's an idiot.

How is it a waste of a thread? Whatever you think of Roebuck, the fact is no one really had NZ as a strong chance in the World Cup following their loss to England in the CB Series. Now suddenly everyone is backing them. It may be knee-jerk, but the thread shows that people, whether stupid 'expert' commentators or ones that actually know what they are talking about, believe NZ are a chance.

 

[honestbharani]

Peter Roebuck's opinion counts for nothing. He's the one who was claiming a while back that Flintoff was a chucker. He's also said countless other things in recent years which can be put down to nothing more than random pointless conjecture - the vast majority of his statements have no logic to them at all, and he seems to be more concerned with being controversial and getting attention for his opinions than actually having people agree with them.

Waste of a thread, IMO.

EDIT: Was just Googling him to find out what it was I'd forgotten that he'd said - I ended up finding this: "The end is nigh for Australia..."

And this: An entire book dedicated to why Australian cricket has been so continually dominant in recent years

The former was written in 2005, the latter in 2006. How can you write a book about why Australia are so great after previously denouncing them as a team in decline?! The man's an idiot.

I know. His writing style is a little too "holier than thou" too. For some reason, I dont rate his opinions at all, really.