Male and Female cricket are at 2 entirely different levels. So I advocate experts in their own particular field to comment on the finer points, male for the men's game,female for the women's. I'd have thought that mere mention of Punter and Sanga implied that I was referring to the highest levels of expertise.Horses for courses-an acceptable point of view for years. If that's patronising and sexist in your opinion so be it.
-
The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
Please read this thread for more details.
New user registrations are currently disabled.
- Status
Check out his Twitter from 6 days ago.
I don't need to, I know exactly what you're referring to and my statement remains. Not a f***ing chance he genuinely thinks that. If he was asked to pick a side, from any cricketers in the world, to play a match for a million pound, there's absolutely no way on gods green earth that it would include her.
The tweet was nothing but good PR.
No, your reply included the quote from Parkside where he referenced Punter and Sanga.
Don't change the goalposts just to suit your argument - let's deal with the facts at hand.
Last edited:
Marcosplace
Striker
But he didn’t mention 90 mph deliveries did he? Talk about goal posts...
And why don’t you Tweet Adam Gilchrist for confirmation? Or tell him what you told me about the facts in hand?
But he didn’t mention 90 mph deliveries did he? Talk about goal posts...
And why don’t you Tweet Adam Gilchrist for confirmation? Or tell him what you told me about the facts in hand?
He mentioned it in his follow up post to you, then again in his next post in bold because you'd missed quite a seemingly obvious point.
I'm not on Twitter and have no desire to be, nor do I tend to start up conversations with famous people because I'm just some pit yakker from County Durham.
Do you think Gilchrist would pick her if he was picking his World XI in a game for massive money? Or a game of life and death?
Marcosplace
Striker
Men for men. Women for women said he. And no mention of 90 mph deliveries in his first post. Read it again to be sure.
Good question that! Who knows? But he did reply to Wisden saying she was the best in the world at the moment. But you obviously doubt him.
Yep, I do.
Since when do all commentators have had to play at the top level?
Since when have all coaches?
Since when have all coaches?
The commentator role has changed with improved TV coverage. Picture definition and camera angles are so good nowadays that there is no necessity to describe the actual play. It's become more analytical with the 3rd man feature and tactical and pitch analysis during intervals. For credibility experts are required to comment on these facets.
It's much the same with coaching. Obviously the ability to recognise faults and communication skills are the essentials the reality is the coach won't be respected unless he's been successful as a player at the level he's coaching.
Steak Pie
Striker
The opinion of the middle aged ex-pro is the only opinion that counts, no other voices should be heard. Do you not get the modern world?
There is quite a lot off absolute guff on this thread, but this is the guffiest. Do you think when Troy Cooley revolutionised England's pace attack, they didn't respect him because he never played international cricket?
Last edited:
And what about football coaches that have never played at a high level? Wenger did alright
He probably wasn't originally but gradually earned deserved respect. Don't know for certain though which is why I wouldn't call opinions guff. Each to his own though.
Steak Pie
Striker
The England players walk into the dressing room in 1999, Duncan Fletcher asks them a question and they're all thinking Didn't even play a Test match, fuck that guy.....
Just have a think about what you're claiming man. I can respect most opinions but some things are just plain stupid, calling it "guff" is being polite.
What about Mourinho? And Wenger? And all the cricket presenters that played a handful of first class games?
I don’t doubt that Pietersen and Swann can talk about facing top class bowling. But they are bellends. Presenting is about both knowledge and presentation
hugely successful in football but my argument was about cricket. Both though earned respect initially by managing successfully in lower leagues. Agreed it is about both knowledge and presentation and I was arguing about the technical aspects of the game. Arlott was the doyen of commentators but I doubt he'd gain much credibility talking about how to execute a highly skilled technique.
It’s sport. You’re being obtuse for the sake of it now.
I thought I was making a valid point, you believe I'm being obtuse. Fair enough, no problem.
Wasn't aware I'd actually said that but if you believe it's not, fair enough. We disagree, never any problem with that.
“My argument is about cricket”. It’s pretty clear
It's perfectly clear.
- Status
