Advertise on CBF

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 111

Author Topic: The Ashes 2013  (Read 150489 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

sfa82

  • County 2nd XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 395
  • Trade Count: (+1)
Re: The Ashes 2013
« Reply #375 on: July 12, 2013, 04:38:44 PM »

I don't understand how people can say they don't blame Broad for not walking. If you hitting it to first slip, its just blatant. And on top of it he looked up as if he didn't know what the fuss was about!
Logged
Life is like a box of chocolates...

Vic Nicholas

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1301
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: The Ashes 2013
« Reply #376 on: July 12, 2013, 04:41:00 PM »

You're right, but you'd love to think sporting integrity would come above the win-at-all-costs mentality.

Would like to think I would have walked.

You would have walked. I would have walked.

Most clubbies would walk.

But we are not paid astronomical sums and put under massive pressure to play international cricket.

Cowan seems like a lovely bloke and he is Rhodes scholar (I think), but I have seen him standing his ground when he has obviously nicked it...and I HATE it.

But I am not in his shoes trying to cling onto my childhood dream for a little longer - so who am I to judge?
Logged

qalib13

  • First XI Captain
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 219
  • Trade Count: (+1)
Re: The Ashes 2013
« Reply #377 on: July 12, 2013, 04:50:25 PM »

Nice effort, but I CAN assure you that a member of the Saxe-Gotha's, ooops, "Windsor's" has been named John in the last century.

When you understand his wretched fate and how he was written out of history - to such an extant that none of you even have any idea that he existed - you will realise that propaganda and cruelty isn't only something totalitarian regimes engage in.

There is a very good reason why male royal babies are named anything, ANYTHING, except "John".

May his tortured soul rest in peace.

Sounds intriguing Vic, tell us more.
Logged

Nickauger

  • World Cup Winner
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3521
  • Trade Count: (+2)
Re: The Ashes 2013
« Reply #378 on: July 12, 2013, 04:54:26 PM »

Because of King John of England, who ruled from 1199-1216, and whose disastrous reign was marked by foreign war, loss of substantial land in Normandy (France), and political upheaval culminating in a baron's revolt and the 1215 drafting of the Magna Carta (Britain's first constitution), which for the first time put limits on the king's powers. So as to be sure there will never be the chance of a John II, royals in line for the throne simply don't name their children John (at least not as a first name).


I (No Swearing Please) love google...

Barmy Army...Barmy Army!!!
What the bloody hell has happened. I know we asked for better conversation lol, not more intelligent conversation.
Logged

smokem

  • County 1st XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 973
  • Trade Count: (+1)
Re: The Ashes 2013
« Reply #379 on: July 12, 2013, 04:55:43 PM »

Full marks to The Sherminator. Great knock today - the backbone of the England innings.
Logged

smilley792

  • Forum Legend
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8755
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • Willoooowwwww
Re: The Ashes 2013
« Reply #380 on: July 12, 2013, 04:58:59 PM »

Nice effort, but I CAN assure you that a member of the Saxe-Gotha's, ooops, "Windsor's" has been named John in the last century.

When you understand his wretched fate and how he was written out of history - to such an extant that none of you even have any idea that he existed - you will realise that propaganda and cruelty isn't only something totalitarian regimes engage in.

There is a very good reason why male royal babies are named anything, ANYTHING, except "John".

May his tortured soul rest in peace.

Are you referring to prince John? The child with epilepsy that died at the age off 14? 
Granted he was hidden from public eye, but then that was probably for his own good, with medical knowledge in them days(I think he was born in the 1900-1910 can't quite remember).
Logged
@chrisjones792
Fastest ton- 54balls

The_Bird

  • World Cup Winner
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2977
  • Trade Count: (+3)
Re: The Ashes 2013
« Reply #381 on: July 12, 2013, 05:07:31 PM »

Just reading about Prince John, he had his own house, maid, garden and a private tutor...a lack of medical advancements failed him by the sounds of it.
Logged

deanoknight

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1282
  • Trade Count: (+7)
Re: The Ashes 2013
« Reply #382 on: July 12, 2013, 05:23:56 PM »

I don't understand how people can say they don't blame Broad for not walking. If you hitting it to first slip, its just blatant. And on top of it he looked up as if he didn't know what the fuss was about!
to first slip via the keepers gloves! about time we had some fortune go are way.
Logged

Vic Nicholas

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1301
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: The Ashes 2013
« Reply #383 on: July 12, 2013, 05:28:50 PM »

Sounds intriguing Vic, tell us more.

Prince John (1905-1919) was future kings Edward VIII and George VI's younger brother. Your Queen's uncle.

Because he had autism and/or epilepsy, he was locked away on a farm away from the family, shunned. Yes, shunned by his mother and father the Queen and King because they felt to acknowledge that John existed would be an admission of weakness or some kind of mental sickness running through the royal family.

So poor little Johnny was written out of history because he was an embarrassment to Saxe-Gotha's (soon to be Windsors). The few people who have written about Prince John portrayed him as a vegetable or a monster child because he was big. That was far from the truth.

You see him in earlier photos of the family when he is 4-5 years old...then, he disappears and is never mentioned again. AT the request of the royal family - he is shunned and considered a non human.

A trove of his letters to his friend (a girl) has cropped up recently, and they show a lad of average intelligence, but certainly not intellectually impaired in a significant manner...but the callous royal family were not taking any chances and he was cast adrift. He died suddenly when he was 14 years old and NOTHINg was mentioned to the British public.

There was a mixed reaction from the Royal Family to Prince John's death. His eldest brother, later Edward VIII and the Duke of Windsor, said brutally that "the animal" had died and bemoaned the fact that the family had to mourn him.

That is why the name "John" will never, ever be used to name a boy in your Royal family.

End of history lesson.
Logged

rbblack

  • County 2nd XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 304
  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Win the Mental Game
Re: The Ashes 2013
« Reply #384 on: July 12, 2013, 05:39:16 PM »

Nothing would have been mentioned in any country in 1919 - don't just make it out to be shocking because it happened with the British Monarchy.

Anyway back to Aussie bashing. Wow Pattinson is awful. Sums up everything bad about Australians.
Glad broad didn't walk - serves Clarke right for deciding to take a silly DRS.
Logged

400notout

  • County 1st XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 971
  • Trade Count: (+3)
Re: The Ashes 2013
« Reply #385 on: July 12, 2013, 05:42:26 PM »

I said at about 2pm that Clarke might regret wasting his reviews...

Never liked Broad, horrible guy, loves wasting DRS reviews. Probably should have walked. Not often you get given not out when you hit it to 1st slip though...

All in all, an innings Bell really required, about time he scored runs when Eng really needed him.

Little bit far from the Aussies reach now though I think.
Logged

19reading87

  • Moderator
  • Forum Legend
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7082
  • Trade Count: (+39)
Re: The Ashes 2013
« Reply #386 on: July 12, 2013, 05:50:16 PM »

I said at about 2pm that Clarke might regret wasting his reviews...

Never liked Broad, horrible guy, loves wasting DRS reviews. Probably should have walked. Not often you get given not out when you hit it to 1st slip though...

All in all, an innings Bell really required, about time he scored runs when Eng really needed him.

Little bit far from the Aussies reach now though I think.

I agree with all of this
Logged
Highest score: 147*          Best bowling: 6-20

countycricketplayer

  • County 2nd XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 412
  • Trade Count: (+2)
Re: The Ashes 2013
« Reply #387 on: July 12, 2013, 06:02:13 PM »

I said at about 2pm that Clarke might regret wasting his reviews...

Never liked Broad, horrible guy, loves wasting DRS reviews. Probably should have walked. Not often you get given not out when you hit it to 1st slip though...

All in all, an innings Bell really required, about time he scored runs when Eng really needed him.

Little bit far from the Aussies reach now though I think.

the ball came of haddins pad first though
Logged

justnotcricket86

  • World Cup Winner
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4071
  • Trade Count: (+4)
Re: The Ashes 2013
« Reply #388 on: July 12, 2013, 06:12:42 PM »

My view of today:

Bell: Really pleased for the guy, I'm not his biggest fan but he answered the call and nailed it. One of his best innings.

Broad: We know he middled it, the Aussies know he middled it, Broad knew he middled it. Dar missed it though, that's cricket. Don't agree with it all, he should be on his bike, but he doesn't have to go. End of.

Reckon another hour or so of batting, get the ask about 320 then stick them in half hour before lunch and let the games begin.

Shame I'm playing cricket tomorrow, considering calling in sick and setting up camp in the pub!
Logged
The minute you hesitate, you're in trouble - Steve Waugh

countycricketplayer

  • County 2nd XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 412
  • Trade Count: (+2)
Re: The Ashes 2013
« Reply #389 on: July 12, 2013, 06:18:34 PM »

350 I reckon England will declare on let bell get 100/150 and broad 50/100 and go from there
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 111
 

Advertise on CBF