Cricket: Random Discussion Thread - Page 210 - Sporting Events and Fantasy Sports

Two Plus Two Forums Sports and Games Sporting Events

Cricket: Random Discussion Thread

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 210 of 605

First

10 110 160 190 200 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 220 230 260 310 410

Last

Page 210 of 605

First

10 110 160 190 200 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 220 230 260 310 410

Last

01-02-2013 , 07:24 AM

#5226

christophelp

journeyman

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 345

RIP CMJ & Tony Grieg

Lol NZ 45ao in <20 overs.
SA 3-1 at lunch.

Quote

01-02-2013 , 07:58 AM

#5227

ashley12

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 10,695

Lol nz

Quote

01-02-2013 , 08:59 AM

#5228

x_ROSH125_x

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 6,071

Quote

01-02-2013 , 09:19 AM

#5229

andy099

veteran

Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 2,320

NZ currently 8,9 and 8th respectively in test, odi and t20 rankings. really struggling. not going to get much better either you would imagine with this series and back to back series against england coming up.

Quote

01-03-2013 , 03:56 AM

#5230

ashley12

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 10,695

Seeing some of the younger players coming through I dont see exactly where they are going to improve either.

Shame really

Quote

01-03-2013 , 09:48 AM

#5231

brendons31

old hand

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,467

We have our 2 best batsmen (Ryder and Taylor) out, 2 best bowlers (Vettori and Southee) out, are now being coached by an idiot who sacked Taylor as captain the morning of their previous test against Sri lanka, which Taylor ended up winning with his batting and who then decided to take a break because of the way he was dealt with by management. New Zealand cricket is also being run by a CEO and board who let all this happen, Ie. The previous, and very good coach John Wright more or less being sacked, and the Ross Taylor debacle, and then publicly lying about how it happened.

New Zealand is as much of a laughing stock in NZ as elsewhere at the moment.

Quote

01-04-2013 , 04:38 PM

#5232

x_ROSH125_x

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 6,071

Quote

01-07-2013 , 12:47 PM

#5233

DonkDonkDonkDonk

Goose

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 40,116

We should do the draft now imo

Quote

01-08-2013 , 02:41 AM

#5234

ashley12

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 10,695

Would prefer to wait post aussie mills but if consensus want it now then whatever

Also big bash is getting to the business end

1 round left 7 teams can still make the finals if things go their way

Lol gayles team 0-7

Quote

01-08-2013 , 03:19 AM

#5235

exec771

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 17,484

If we can make the draft post 1970 i am in.

I dont really wanna have to sample through W.G.Grace's drinking buddies to come up with my team.

Quote

01-08-2013 , 06:40 PM

#5236

NoJacket

old hand

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 1,282

Just pick players from post 1970 then. Whatever format we do I think most players picked will probably be from recent times anyway.

Quote

01-10-2013 , 02:45 AM

#5237

Dennis Denuto

grinder

Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 515

1965, 1970 is a pretty bad cut off date imo

Quote

01-10-2013 , 03:14 AM

#5238

ashley12

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 10,695

Anyone that has played an odi imo

Quote

01-10-2013 , 03:31 AM

#5239

tchaz

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 14,832

I'm still in for this draft. Time frame should be open imo - and we can all just lol at people picking players from the 1760s or w/e.

Quote

01-10-2013 , 04:16 AM

#5240

Dennis Denuto

grinder

Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 515

There are several players who would be in the top 10-15 drafted who retire after 1965 but before 1970. There all well known as greats and having them in the draft would be way more interesting imo

Quote

01-10-2013 , 04:18 AM

#5241

ashley12

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 10,695

But then u argue the same for some that retired in the 50s etc... before all of a sudden we are arguing where spofforth goes

Quote

01-10-2013 , 04:26 AM

#5242

Dennis Denuto

grinder

Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 515

lol had to google spofforth. 1970 is particularly bad because certain potentially undrafted players were forced into retirement that year. That makes it a bit different imo

Quote

01-10-2013 , 05:08 AM

#5243

tchaz

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 14,832

yeah - lolsaffas makes 1970 specifically particularly problematic. But imo ashley's right that there's no 'just' cut-off - so why make one at all?

(If one wants to make a draft excluding the batsman with the highest test average, because allowing him in would unbalance things, then just exclude the individual, not the time period.)

(But, overall, ldo, I'm happy to abide by whatever the maj of ppl want as a cut off if that's how it goes)

Quote

01-10-2013 , 02:15 PM

#5244

muttiah

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 25,028

im find with any player except goat

Quote

01-10-2013 , 06:25 PM

#5245

NoJacket

old hand

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 1,282

It seems the popular options are:

All time
Post-WW2
Post-1970 (or other random year)

Bradman not included in all three of course. My preferred option would be post-WW2 but I'm not too bothered either way.

Quote

01-10-2013 , 07:18 PM

#5246

Dennis Denuto

grinder

Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 515

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoJacket

It seems the popular options are:

All time
Post-WW2
Post-1970 (or other random year)

Bradman not included in all three of course. My preferred option would be post-WW2 but I'm not too bothered either way.