Troll Dump thread

[Bazal]

Interesting thread this one, seems to me the definition of trolling must have changed

There's a particular bloke, let's call him Lemon, who every now and again thinks anything he disagrees with or finds slightly OT is "trolling"

 

[ANTiLAG]

Yeah, Australia has been dominating like the Steve Waugh era of late.

 

[Twizzle]

Yeah, Australia has been dominating like the Steve Waugh era of late.

yeh true, but look at our opposition

 

[hineyrulz]

Still whinging about the decision against a number 11 batsman??? lol you should be more worried about your minnow bashing captain and his terrible tactics.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Still whinging about the decision against a number 11 batsman??? lol you should be more worried about your minnow bashing captain and his terrible tactics.

And yet his terrible tactics still got better results in England and the UAE than Australia could manage, each in the very same season in 2014 and 2015. Both teams also dealt to India at home and Windies away merely a year apart.

Australia is still a very good test cricket team - but the New Zealand series came down to a terrible third umpire decision that changed 1-1 to 2-0. Questions remain about the sportingness of the tour games before Brisbane and how this may be improved in future.

You can obtusely disagree and of course you do not need to show respect to a 'minnow basher' like New Zealand. And yes - the West Indies will not make for a good contest this summer - but stop acting like Australia is unbeatable until Pakistan (and presumably South Africa) tour Australia next year. Australia is good, strong at home but certainly not dominant like the Waugh era, especially away.

You still have a NZ tour ahead of you in February, which after Perth and Adelaide, you would be wise to expect one heck of a contest (if Boult and Southee stay match fit). Personally I am looking forward to seeing NZ compete against Warner and Pattinson who I think are two of the best players to watch in world cricket. As a cricket fan you should be looking forward to watching Boult and Kane compete with your team, that is if you had any grace and love for the game and not mere one eyed yobboness approach to your national game.

Australia may well win the series 2-0, it may lose it 2-0, or any result in between are all possible. The odds offered at the bookies in NZ and Australia will be far closer than what you and others are suggesting on this forum -that it is a fore gone certainty.

 

[hineyrulz]

Yep one decision decided the series lol, you only bowled us out once all series lol.

But but but but that one decision was the difference lol.

 

[Gina Minehart]

Geez there is some handbag at 10 paces action here

 

[African Monkey]

Geez there is some handbag at 10 paces action here

:lol: it wouldn't be a summer on the LU cricket forum without the annual Australia v NZ/England or NSW v Victoria/Rest of the world sh*tfights.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Yep one decision decided the series

From 1-1 to 2-0. Yes. Those 72 runs were the difference of NZ winning in Adelaide.

lol, you only bowled us out once all series lol.

Needed 72 runs more to do it twice and square the series. See above.

But but but but that one decision was the difference lol.

Yes. Under lights. Ball swinging. 72 more runs to get 3 tail enders when Australia 7 for 187. Yes - Nigel Llong ruined it.

But convince your deluded self that Australia has not had any competitive cricket so far this summer - because that is the original gripe.

 

[hineyrulz]

From 1-1 to 2-0. Yes. Those 72 runs were the difference of NZ winning in Adelaide.

Needed 72 runs more to do it twice and square the series. See above.



Yes. Under lights. Ball swinging. 72 more runs to get 3 tail enders when Australia 7 for 187. Yes - Nigel Llong ruined it.

But convince your deluded self that Australia has not had any competitive cricket so far this summer - because that is the original gripe.

:lol:And still it whinges, keep telling yourself that decision cost you the game. nothing to do with the rubbish you bowled and B Macs terrible captaincy. I'm under no illusions at all, our top 6 is as weak as we have had since the mid 80's and you failed to knock us over twice all series. Our best bowler only got to bowl 9 overs all game and we also had to bat twice under lights to the Kiwi's one.

But but but but but Nigel Llong cost us the series lol.

 

[ANTiLAG]

:lol:And still it whinges, keep telling yourself that decision cost you the game. nothing to do with the rubbish you bowled and B Macs terrible captaincy. I'm under no illusions at all, our top 6 is as weak as we have had since the mid 80's and you failed to knock us over twice all series. Our best bowler only got to bowl 9 overs all game and we also had to bat twice under lights to the Kiwi's one.

But but but but but Nigel Llong cost us the series lol.

Llong's 72 run partnership making 224 and 178 for 7 (not a full night session) playing 202 batting first on the paddock grass pitch and 208 under lights.

 

[hineyrulz]

Llong's 72 run partnership making 224 and 178 for 7 (not a full night session) playing 202 batting first on the paddock grass pitch and 208 under lights.

:lol: We batted under lights twice you sook, with our shithouse top 6. Our best bowler could only bowl 9 overs for the match. Keep blame Llong and not your incompetent bowling and captaincy after that decision. Kept the spinners on far too long and didn't bowl the quicks at Starc and let him belt 20 odd. Soooooooooo nice is old mate Brendan :lol:

 

[ANTiLAG]

:lol: We batted under lights twice you sook, with our shithouse top 6. Our best bowler could only bowl 9 overs for the match. Keep blame Llong and not your incompetent bowling and captaincy after that decision. Kept the spinners on far too long and didn't bowl the quicks at Starc and let him belt 20 odd. Soooooooooo nice is old mate Brendan :lol:

You're telling people to worry about a partnership possibly ending for 20 runs less and not a partnership that should have definitely ended for 72 runs less. The 20 runs gifted to Starc by bowling the spinners was a terrible decision by McCullum, but that decision was far less bad and of less effect than Nigel Llongs.

Australia did not bat two full sessions under lights, though and Australia did not bat first on the paddock grass pitch. That was going to be a low scoring game no matter who batted first or second due to the lights and the grass. A 72 run partnership was massive in the context of the match.

Starc getting injured is quite irrelevant. I fail to see where you are going with that at all. How does that change the result of the match more unfavourably for NZ than Nigel LLong's decision? Are you just throwing out facts with no thoughts as to relevance? Try and stay on point with the issue being debated.

 

[hineyrulz]

Keep blaming the Ump lol. A decent captain would have taken the decision on the chin and moved on from it. The Kiwi's were still well on top and it was against a no 11 batsman. Instead he kept the spinners on far too long and Bracewell the best bowler in that innings never got a bowl until we had a lead. Cow paddock of a pitch and you are whinging about throwing out thoughts with no facts. lol there was nothing wrong with that deck at all you're bats besides Kane aren't much chop.

2 nil is all facts you need.

 

[jargan83]

It's Nigel Long's fault that Brendan McCullum is a genius who kept the spinners on when he could have brought back his spearheads to wrap it up against a genuine No. 11 batsman.

I guess BMac is too worried about being the nice guy in world Cricket.

 

[El Diablo]

it was Long's fault that NZ were up 8-1 in the Americas Cup only needing one more win to get the Cup but then had the biggest choke in sports history and lost the series 9-8

 

[ANTiLAG]

Keep blaming the Ump lol. A decent captain would have taken the decision on the chin and moved on from it. The Kiwi's were still well on top and it was against a no 11 batsman. Instead he kept the spinners on far too long and Bracewell the best bowler in that innings never got a bowl until we had a lead. Cow paddock of a pitch and you are whinging about throwing out thoughts with no facts. lol there was nothing wrong with that deck at all you're bats besides Kane aren't much chop.

2 nil is all facts you need.

Ahhh. So Australia has had competitive cricket this summer. You have conceded the point.

If only Kane can bat well in the NZ team, are you suggesting that Ross Taylor's 290 is more indicative of Australian bowlers being useless than his own talent? And in the following match where Australia wins by only 3 wickets - what does that say of the Australian batsman by your logic - that other than Warner they are not much chop too?

But thanks. As you say NZ was were well on top in Adelaide. Also got the better of you in Perth with a first innings lead. Australia has had competitive cricket this summer. That was the original issue being debated by me.

 

[ANTiLAG]

It's Nigel Long's fault that Brendan McCullum is a genius who kept the spinners on when he could have brought back his spearheads to wrap it up against a genuine No. 11 batsman.

I guess BMac is too worried about being the nice guy in world Cricket.

20 runs vs 70 runs.

 

[El Diablo]

lol

you'd swear NZ won the series reading this tossers crap

2-0 buddy

 

[ANTiLAG]

lol

you'd swear NZ won the series reading this tossers crap

2-0 buddy

That says more about your own lack of comprehension than anything else.