The "Little Things That P*ss You Off" Thread!

[newtownbluebags]

Locky's on deck! :crazy:

 

[Timmah]

The plan was evident from the first 40 mins, no wickets for 9 runs... they were playing for a draw. The problem was that everyoneelse failed to bat to that plan, but collingwood did. many criticise his inns for being slow, but i commend it for being what was neccessary in that pressure situation.

Uhhh, so his plan was to watch everyone crumble around him, instead of opening up the game and scoring a few runs? 16 runs in a couple of hours? f**k me. The English second innings, ALL ROUND, was poor. End of story.

 

[Mr. Fahrenheit]

So the collapse, and Australia making the run chase look piss easy... I just imagined that? :| They fell apart, and as such lost the unloseable. Badly. Anyone who denies England played poorly on the final day clearly was not watching the action from the Adelaide Oval.

Hoggard bowled well. Excellently in the first innings. Ponting and Clarke also both batted superbly in the first innings. Hoggard's performance in the last innings? PLEASE.

Lucky 100? f**k. Why are you backing the Poms anyway?

Did i ever say that they didnt play poorly on the final day? NO. i said they didnt lose badly... they dominated > half of the match... that isnt losing badly IMO. If that bit in bold was any reference to the fact that you were there and i wasnt... then f**k you hope you had a great 5 days.

Also hoggard bowled better comparitively speaking to Ponting and Clarke, Ponting's 100 was lucky because he SHOULD have been out on 35. Now compare that to Collingwood's chanceless Inns and you can see which one was better.

And ftr, im not backing the poms... i am just viewing the match through clear goggles.

 

[Mr. Fahrenheit]

Uhhh, so his plan was to watch everyone crumble around him, instead of opening up the game and scoring a few runs? 16 runs in a couple of hours? f**k me. The English second innings, ALL ROUND, was poor. End of story.

who here is arguing with that?


his plan was to play for time... which he did, never getting out.

 

[Mr. Fahrenheit]

I would have given the MOTM to Hoggard. 7 for on a flat pitch that SHOULD have set up at least a draw is a amazing performance. If someone had to get it for a ton, it had to be Collingwood.

this is not what you have said on the cricket forums IIRC.

 

[Timmah]

Did i ever say that they didnt play poorly on the final day? NO. i said they didnt lose badly... they dominated > half of the match... that isnt losing badly IMO. If that bit in bold was any reference to the fact that you were there and i wasnt... then f**k you hope you had a great 5 days.

Also hoggard bowled better comparitively speaking to Ponting and Clarke, Ponting's 100 was lucky because he SHOULD have been out on 35. Now compare that to Collingwood's chanceless Inns and you can see which one was better.

And ftr, im not backing the poms... i am just viewing the match through clear goggles.

Plenty of cricketers in the second test SHOULD have been out, Ponting included. That's not how the game works unfortunately for your argument. If someone's out, they're out, if not, they play on. That argument is clearer than glass matey, and doesn't rub. If you wanted to play that game there was at the very least one instance each where both Collingwood and Pietersen should have been back in the Pavillion long before those triple figures came up.

At the end of the day, England lost, Australia pulled together a miraculous final day, and an Australian was man of the match. What's your problem with that?

And 'ftr', that "action from the AO" thing was a general statement, nothing to do with my attendance.

 

[Timmah]

this is not what you have said on the cricket forums IIRC.

:lol:!!! Why are you surprised? :crazy:

 

[Mr. Fahrenheit]

Plenty of cricketers in the second test SHOULD have been out, Ponting included. That's not how the game works unfortunately for your argument. If someone's out, they're out, if not, they play on. That argument is clearer than glass matey, and doesn't rub. If you wanted to play that game there was at the very least one instance each where both Collingwood and Pietersen should have been back in the Pavillion long before those triple figures came up.

At the end of the day, England lost, Australia pulled together a miraculous final day, and an Australian was man of the match. What's your problem with that?

And 'ftr', that "action from the AO" thing was a general statement, nothing to do with my attendance.

Well T, it is, there is a difference between figures and the way a batsman plays... Many would agree that Collingwood's innings were the best in that match... I repeatedly brought up faultless innings because that just showed how Collingwood's knock was better than Pontings. Most would agree with me, and at the end of the day this thing is about opinion, i do not agree with yours or the reasoning behind yours... but im going to accept it because i have to go to bed soon.

At the end of the day, my problem lies with a personal dislike towards our captain. If clarke had got it i wouldnt be here complaining about it now even though i beleive it belongs to hoggard.

 

[Mr. Fahrenheit]

:lol:!!! Why are you surprised? :crazy:

im not :lol:;-)

 

[Eelementary]

Was it a case of the English batsmen not batting according to plan...Or could it be attributed to the sheer brilliance that is Shane Warne?

I'd say both.

 

[Mr. Fahrenheit]

I beleive that the English Batsmen got out due to Warne and Lee... but Collingwood stayed in because he was executing their plan.

 

[lockyno1]

this is not what you have said on the cricket forums IIRC.

Collingwood batted like a idiot in the 2nd dig, but he still got a 200. If it had to go to a batsman, which it should not have IMO, it had to be Collingwood for his 200. His 2nd innings was rubbish. However on a flat pitch, a bowler that gets a 7-for deserves the MOTM!

 

[Mr. Fahrenheit]

what about a 6/9 from a part-timer outshadowing a specialist?

 

[Timmah]

Collingwood batted like a idiot in the 2nd dig, but he still got a 200.

:lol:

 

[lockyno1]

Clarke bowled well that day, but he didn't get Tendulkar or Laxman.

 

[Timmah]

Clarke bowled? :|

 

[newtownbluebags]

who the f**k is "liarockyno1"...:lol: :crazy:

 

[Dani]

You mean Clark?

 

[Mr. Fahrenheit]

Clarke bowled well that day, but he didn't get Tendulkar or Laxman.

]

he still got 6 wickets where as Haurie managed how much? 2?

 

[lockyno1]

Against India in India (3rd test ).