You need to LOG IN to reply.

I wouldn't write off....

Forum » Cricket » I wouldn't write off....

Jun 10, 2019, 11:25

the Ozzies winning chances just yet, after a thorough analysis of where their wheels fell off they'll correct their errors and regroup. One of Stoinis or Coulter Nile will be dropped and either Jason Behrendorff and Jhye Richardson will be the replacement. Zampa will come in for attention as well after an ordinary bowling effort.

Jun 10, 2019, 22:45

Who wrote them off? Trying to find related articles.

Jun 11, 2019, 03:58

Oh, you again(sigh) 

You won't find a related article because there isn't one, it's a figure of speech considering the way they lost......kapeesh?


Jun 11, 2019, 09:45

What to you mean me again Den? I was asking because of your headline.

Everytime I try and debate or discuss something with you, you get personal.

If youde prefer me to not try debate or speak to you , that's fine. Just say so and I won't engage.

Jun 11, 2019, 11:13

Oh alright, I hear what you say, that said I thought my post was plain english about the underdogs who suffered an enormous setback in a loss against the favorites. Let's not forget that less than 6 months ago the Ozzies were a fat zero hope of winning the WC. 

Jun 11, 2019, 11:30

"Let's not forget that less than 6 months ago the Ozzies were a fat zero hope of winning the WC. "


Ummm . . . who exactly gave the Aussies a fat zero chance of winning, chump? You? Because you're so utterly clueless when it comes to cricket?

The bookies had them as 6-1 third favourites.

LMAO!

Dense, I think I may have said this before but it's actually possible that you know less about cricket than you do about rugby . . . which I wouldn't have thought was even possible!

Jun 11, 2019, 11:39

Oh you poor lost Sookie, up your 20 year old stale comments......desperate for a pop huh?..........6/1 favourites  6 months ago.....man you're a laugh. 

When it's coming from you, a total cricket ignoramus, then I have nothing to worry about.


Jun 11, 2019, 11:51

Denny, 6 months ago the Aussies didnt have Smith and Warner, so naturally their chances would deminish.


Its the same as saying that without Kohli and Sharma, the Indians wouldnt stand a chance.

We all knew Smith and Warner would be back, so I dont really know who said they didnt stand a chance.

Rooi, why do people call Denny Dense? Does that mean anything? or is it his real name?

Jun 11, 2019, 11:57

"...6/1 favourites  6 months ago..."

No liar, 6-1 THIRD favourites, stupidissimo. Not sure if you're really that stupid or really that deceitful but I did say THIRD favourites and not favourites.

I may be a cricket ignoramus but at least I'm not so incredibly stupid as to give the team that's won 5 out of the 11 tournaments a "fat zero chance of winning" this year.

LMAO! 

Now that is ignorance!

Jun 11, 2019, 12:01

Chippo, I call him "Dense" because he's an incredibly stupid person and the thick impenetrable bone matter that surrounds his incredibly small little brain is extremely dense.


He's also a stinking liar as you can see for yourself on this thread . . . trying to pretend I called Australia the favourites 6 months ago when I clearly said they were 6-1 third favourites.

I guess Dense's understanding of odds - thinking that a favourite in a 10 horse race could conceivably be at 6-1  - also shows why he's a complete noob when it comes to horseracing as well.

Jun 11, 2019, 12:03

Chippo, less than 6 months ago the Ozzies were being beaten by the Proteas. The Ozzies are also the current world champs and on that basis should have been favorites.

Koosie has nicks for the posters he most despises, the nicks is his starting point for putting his enemies down. Challenge him enough and you'll get one.

Jun 11, 2019, 12:22

"Challenge him enough and you'll get one."

That would imply that you're some kind of "challenge" for me or anyone else, not so?

LMAO!

You're not a challenge, Dense. You might like to think you are but trust me, you're not.

Jun 11, 2019, 12:33

"Chippo, less than 6 months ago the Ozzies were being beaten by the Proteas"

But Dense, we havent played Australia in the past 6 months?


And, to my point...

6 months ago they didnt have Smith and Warner.


Sorry, don't mean to pick you out, but try to not make false statements.


@Rooinek, when do I qualify for a ridiculous nick? Or are they only awarded to people that make bizarre statements?

Jun 11, 2019, 12:39

"@Rooinek, when do I qualify for a ridiculous nick? Or are they only awarded to people that make bizarre statements?"


Microchip, you qualified for a "ridiculous nick" on this thread . . . or had you forgotten?

Jun 11, 2019, 13:23

ohhh yes

Of course.

ok.. but promise to only use it if I make dense statements?!?!?!

Jun 11, 2019, 13:27

Out of interest, MicroChip, do you only consider it to be a "ridiculous nick" if it's me using it or is it also a "ridiculous nick" when you call me something like "rooiknob" as you did on that hilarious thread?


I only ask because I'm sensing some double standards being applied here.

Jun 11, 2019, 13:54

ah to be honest...

i dont really mind.

I dont take things too personally on here.

I actually come here to have a bit of fun... a bit of a laugh... and talk sport from time to time.

I like to think that I am level headed and fairly knowlegable when it comes to Rugga and Cric...


Im a bit different to the rest of the mob here as I dont "hate" any players and I am pretty objective to others opinions.

Unlike smartmichael and moz and BEENO!! Im happy to admit when I am proven wrong and to acknowledge others opinions..


So back to your answer... I couldnt really care much.

Jun 11, 2019, 14:17

Fair enough. If I give people nicknames it's just in jest. Contrary to what the liar Dense is saying, often those nicks are given to posters I get on just fine with . . . examples being Ou Maaik, MO(AN) and (until recently) Klown.


I very much doubt if there's a single poster on here who has been called as many different names as I have and I've never once complained. Why would I give them that satisfaction?

Jun 11, 2019, 15:30

"Denny, 6 months ago the Aussies didn't have Smith and Warner, so naturally their chances would deminish."

Maybe so but they lost to India in Australia without Warner and Smith if my memory serves me right(2-1)

But then they beat India in India 3-2 without Warner and Smith.

And once again, if my memory serves me right they beat Pakistan in the UAE without them as well.

They lost to the Proteas in Australia and while I'm slightly off with my dates( Nov series 2018/19) the surprising thing is that it is most unusual for them to lose on home turf, and it was mainly this series that spiraled the doubts about their WC hopes.

So with or without Warner and Smith there's a mixed bag of results, suit yourself how you argue that one.


Jun 11, 2019, 19:38

Yup I agree Without Smith and Warner they are average.

Kohli and Sharma Gayle and Russell Williamson and Taylor Ul Haq and Azam Smith and Warner

... Most teams rely on one or two game changers

England are an exception to the rule. They possess a few rocket launcher at the moment.

So I'm not sure if I'm arguing or agreeing with you... I don't really know how to read you.

Jun 12, 2019, 23:50

To chippos point.

Most teams rely on one or two stars. Looking back over the past 4 decades it's only the windies in the 80s and the Aussies in the 00s who had a real star studded lineup.

For the rest... Most teams relied on a few good players mixed in with one or two outstanding players.

Jun 13, 2019, 00:25

Tx Rooiknob for reviving ouChippo's oh so revealing ole post. Hehehe.

Jun 13, 2019, 03:30

"For the rest... Most teams relied on a few good players mixed in with one or two outstanding players."

Very well put, spot-on.......couldn't have said it any better myself. 

Which then takes us to the next question of which team will dominate the '20's? 

I think it will come out of possibly three teams, England, India or Australia with the Windies lurking as a dark horse. Trouble with India is that they're great on home soil but not so away from home, England have the players and they would be the probables, Australia is in a rebuilding stage and probably need quite a few years to reestablish themselves as a dominant force, that said the upcoming Ashes series might give away some pointers. There is also the possibility that the days of a dominant team are over.

Stepping into the breach I'm saying England. The benchmark for dominance though has been set at 15 years winning both home and away series.

Jun 14, 2019, 15:15

Well put flashman.

not much to argue with there at all.

Jun 16, 2019, 08:35

How good have Oz looked though?

So solid. 

Smith is just quality on top of quality.

The lack of swing at this WC is allowing him to step across his stumps without fear.

He's been their best player for me. Counter punched nicely at a high strike rate with big contributions. 

If anything, their bowling is their weakness.

Jun 17, 2019, 08:56

They've yet to settle on a starting lineup and play their best game. 

Jun 17, 2019, 16:41

They've looked good Denny. Warner's one slow innings was all that's kept them from a perfect score this far.

I got a feeling India is gonna wobble at a crucial stage. Just a hunch, against my better judgement.

England also have a frailty about them.

Jun 18, 2019, 01:34

On paper the Ozzies are the underdogs, compared to England and India they're just a little underdone. You'd have to think England with an awesome batting lineup and an equally great bowling lineup with Jofra Archer leading the charge as the winners. 

But cricket is a funny game, winning the toss, nerves and a bit of luck could all play a part. The thing I like about the Ozzies is that they know how to win and that they're smart. Don't let them sniff a win, collectively they'll swarm and seize the opportunity like no other team.


 
You need to Log in to reply.
Back to top