Jump to content

Muloghonto

Members L2
  • Content count

    6,588
  • Runs

    91,930 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4
  • Time Online

    61d 5h 39m 23s

Everything posted by Muloghonto

  1. Err no, I admitted to judging the person in the article, on the basis of the article- which was the charge you laid. Ironically, you are guilty of the same thing. And its pretty rich to call a free thinker as having an owner, when the criticism comes from the organized religious hinduvta elements- the definition of mental slavery.
  2. McGrath had many micro-variations, which multiple batsmen have said multiple times. Just like Kumble. McGrath didn't bring the ball back in to the righties as his stock delivery. His stock delivery was simply 4th stump line SOGL. With little movement in or out to keep it interesting.
  3. It is about age, if you wish to see if the generation 'has a lot of potential', 'is peaking', 'close to peaking' or 'over the hill'. England for eg, is over the hill. We are peaking/close to peaking. Indians *are* poor in bowling, especially overseas. Including the current team. As for dominating in patches or not patches, that's rich coming from the fans of a team that's best overseas performance in bowling is usually 'barely managing to keep their heads above water and not make batsmen chase impossible targets', nevermind domination. You wish to look at runs given away without any pitch condition factored in, well that suits your agenda that Indians are 'fine' in their bowling. I need not know any-more than the fact that India needed to score the highest ever 4th innings target to win last test, to know that bowlers have dropped the ball in the last test. Seeing the match also helped, given that India let RSA score 250+ on a 3rd day pitch that should've resulted in 150 or so.
  4. So you needed to know that people will comment about a news article, just like you have, from your own value system. Brilliant. So since you are dodging the fact that you are disparaging people for using the exact same methodology as you, you are either a moron of the highest order or a disingenuous fool. Either would be perfectly in-line with cons who back religious idiots that deny science. Perhaps you forgot your morning dose of gau-mutra.
  5. Hello, its all about the pitch. How often does RSA put out a super-fast pitch or variable bounce pitch to the English or the Aussies... You are acting like this is a bunch of young 22-23 year old attacks, like a raw Mikey Holding and Colin Croft being shepherded by Andy Roberts or something. Hello, our bowling attack is near/at its peak. Ashwin is 31 or so. Shami is 28. Bhuvi, Umesh, Ishant are all 27-31. Only Bumrah and Pandya are young and they are not even that promising in this format. Our bowling attack is near/at its ceiling, wake up and smell the coffee and as usual, they are not good enough. They will/may improve a bit more, if they don't get injured and regress once they start hitting 30 (which most of them most likely will) As for dominating with the ball while touring- RSA did it too, so did Pakistan of the 80s-early 2000s.
  6. No, they have not. In the first innings they conceded about 50-60 runs more than they should've. Though we can blame Dropthiv for his drops that messed it all up. But once the pitch became variable bounce near the end of Indian 1st innings, RSA had no business making more than 160-175 in the 2nd innings. Same story with the 1st test. Bowlers conceded 50-70 runs more than they should've and they admitted it themselves. That is the usual fare mediocre job, not 'fantastic job'. Yes, scoreline looks flattering for the bowlers- until you factor in that any good pace attack wouldn't concede more than 200-250 in the first test or more than 150 in the third/4th innings of the last test.
  7. Hello, so is your's. Neither one of us has first hand experience with the said content of the article. You neo-cons (or should I call u neo-hindu-cons) have much to learn from your western masters in the art of conservatism. But seems like the copy-cat-ism is catching on, hence hinduvtas are starting to sound just like the grade-A cretins from American conservative side and acting like morons denying science in the name of broken jaahil faiths.
  8. Inapplicable, since you are the one who came defending Hinduvta with what-about-ism first. Pavlov's dog is more applicable to you, since yours is a Pavlovian response, idea lacking cogent thought process (as it is due to knee-jerk reaction to values droned into you as a child that you've not had the courage to question). We weren't sitting here back-patting ourselves on how much of a moron that particular Hinduvta fool is.
  9. Yeah. Nobody did. Because Indian pacers suck and the only one that didn't suck the previous match was dropped. Simple. Our best pacer, by far, is a dude who can't take wickets with the new-ball and struggles with fitness or the dude who got dropped. Their best pacer is world #1, their second best pacer is an ATG sitting out the series, third best is in the top-10 and averages 21 at home, 4th best is a guy who Ishant wishes he could be (Morkel) but can't and their newest pacer is showing that he too, is country miles ahead of any Indian pacer. Our pop-gun attack, is not adequate, no-matter what bravado our Captain Vitriol or pace-hypers think.
  10. Lol..yeh lo...aur ek wannabe hindu aa gya...
  11. we can all read what you wrote. Its a classic case of 'what-about-ism'. You should know by now, that Hinduvta support tactics may be a 'new wave' in India but people like me who've been in the west have seen conservative choots use the same tactics from the time you were a little boy.
  12. So what. This is probably exactly what FDV means when he says Shami could fit into the RSA attack just fine: they are not lacking in ability to take wickets in the first 20-25 overs. They are not lacking in taking wickets after 50-60 overs either, but their strong suit is taking wikets with the new ball. They'd probably love to have Shami to take wikets with the old ball.
  13. If you think theory of evolution is not a fact, it simply means you do not understand science enough to know what a scientific term for 'theory' is. This is a failing of English, where unscientific laymen (or disingenuous - take your pick) love to confuse the common usage of the word 'theory' in spoken English and the scientific term theory. I guess that's why people like you think special relativity isn't a fact, because oh look it too is called 'theory of special relativity'. Despite the fact that we've had confirmatory observations of it. Not to mention, the guy you are defending, is speaking complete bakwaas. 'Our buzurgho and purva purshas' didn't know it ?!? LOL WUT. Your ancestors (and mine, and all ours here) were unpar, gawaar, duffers compared to our kids, nevermind us. They didn't know a lot of things because they were uncivilized by modern standards....pretty simple reason, but your ego & upbringing prevents you from connecting to it.
  14. Actually freedom of speech does not cover deception or an act of perjury. he can be sued for spreading false information from a position of power, unless he qualifies it as strictly his opinion only. Your post is an example why all religions are backwards, a ball and chain holding us from moving forward, as we can see your condemnation of such idiotic ideas comes with a caveat. Along with the fact that rise of Hinduvta equals rise of these religious morons who make moronic comments. The 'what about-ism' you engage in, is done by all religious people to defend the indefensible. Nobody said stop covering the murders or other cases. But Hindu backwardness also deserves to be exposed for what it is. And this you simply cannot accept because of you being a victim to the decrepit ideology of that particular decrepit religion.
  15. How about standardizing the cricket pitch?

    The other factor to consider, is that cricket is suffering greatly due to bat dominating the ball as opposed to it being an even contest. Especially so, in the shorter formats. With standardized pitches, given the bats are the size of tree-trunks these days, it will further accentuate the batting advantage of sides. Plus, they are pro-sportsmen. if India cannot replicate a fast bouncy pitch for batsmen to practice on, despite having dozens of grounds at the Ranji level, its a failure of the system, not failure of the sport. There is a reason for eg, why WI of the 60s-early 90s were such a strong team (they were not world dominating in the 60s and early 70s but they were competetive in any nation they played). And the reason is variability of pitches. Barbados was your standard 'fast and furious' bouncy pitch, Georgetown was your typical 'patta' slow pitch that didn't break apart, Jamaica was more Durban-ish, with fast & seaming tracks, with Port of Spain offering a consistent bounce pitch that turned to variable bounce and/or broke apart later on. This is why batsmen like Viv or Lloyd (who was extremely good but not great- just using him as an example so it doesnt just seem like brilliant batsmen can overcome anything) could score heavily both in India and in England.
  16. How about standardizing the cricket pitch?

    bad idea, since one of the most entertaining aspect of cricket is the variability of pitches and ability of batsmen and bowlers to adapt to it. i do enjoy the sight of Indian batsmen hopping like deer in headlight on fast bouncy pitches...or Aussie batsmen pretending they are harvesting sugarcane with their hard-handed hacks and chops on a crumbling spinning wicket. The home-side domination can be ended, as someone pointed out, by simply eliminating the toss and letting the visiting team choose whether they bat or bowl. In some sports, whether you are a home side or a visiting side does matter in terms of regulation. For eg, in ice hockey, home side always gets the first change. Ie, for eg, when there is a whistle and stoppage of play (unless its icing), both teams have the option of changing their lines & defence pairings. Well, in that scenario, both team wants the perfect matchup- if you are defending a 1 goal lead in the 3rd period with 5 min to go and you see Sidney Crosby comming on ice, you want to put your best defensive forward to try and neutralize him. In such a case, the visiting team has to ALWAYS put their players on the ice first (they get a 4-5 second grace period to put their players on ice and more than that, its a delay of game penalty), which allows the home team to see who is on ice first and then react to the matchup. There is no reason cricket cannot have rules like this and basically because the home team controls the pitch condition, the visiting team should simply get to deciede if they bat or bowl first.
  17. No it is not normal to massively oversleep after passing out drunk. I normally sleep seven hours and even in my university drinking days (when i was a newbie at drinking), i rarely topped 8.5 hrs of sleep. I guess a big diffrence is, i ALWAYS made sure i drank a whole glass or two of water before going to bed when i drank, but not sure.
  18. Correction : Ambrose & Walsh bowled the 4th-5th stump line, occasionally bringing the ball in or out. Ambrose and McGrath were the 'kumble' of pace bowlers - dealing in micro-movements and micro-variations instead of big banana swing. Walsh did not have much of an outswinger ( it pretty much straightened off the pitch angled in, thats it) but did have a big banana-swinging inswinger. As Kumble, McGrath and Ambrose have proven, you don't need massive movement, if you have all the movements *and* can pitch the ball on a dime-sized patch anywhere on the pitch, at your will. When you combine it with steep bounce of Ambrose/McGrath or the 'spitting cobra' of Kumble, its a lethal mix. Waqar was a full-length bowler and while he did have a very potent inswinger, he also swung the ball out noticably. Wasim is a leftie, he cannot be compared to any of these guys because lefties create fundamentally different angles and have to bowl fundamentally different lines. Either way, Wasim had mastered the art of left-arm bowling, where the batsman couldn't tell easily whether the ball is going to hold its line (and thus go towards first slip), straighten into the batsman or be an inswiger itself. The difference between Bumrah and these guys, is that Bumrah's stock ball is not the ball that holds its line on 4-5th stump line, but angles into the batsman.
  19. Male Feminist.

    Use your eyes. How much sexual dimorphism do you see in the said pictures ? Far, far lesser than in 'civilized' societies. And sexual dimorphism is decreasing. So it should tell you that naturally, women are not 'smaller/weaker' than men by any measurable margin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism_in_non-human_primates#Body_size Now go educate yourself. For one, what other species are/are not, is irrelevant to this discussion. But since you brought up primates, read the abovementioned link. There is no physical sexual dimorphism amongst Gibbons for eg. In anycase, this discussion has been hijacked by male chauvinists to make irrelevant points about size of man vs woman. What is relevant, is that women can do any job a man can do and vice versa- including military field jobs, which I've already proven by giving examples from the IDF. As i said, its time abandon ideas created by illiterate men centuries ago, when we have far greater knowledge and technology at our fingerips and create paradigms better suited for the modern age.
  20. Male Feminist.

    Sure, if you could guarantee the results that the elites only ever married elites, that would be true. But that is not true- because elites themselves have plenty of instances - not just in India but worldwide- where they marry poor people of higher class - daughters of a prominent but poor Brahmin, marriage between an elite business family and a poor family with titles (such marriages for eg,were all the rage in UK in the late 1800s- you are an Earl/Duke/Squire who's fallen on tough times ? go to Murrica, marry a rich murrican lady who wants the 'title' and become rich). And they do have lesser sexual dimorphism. The hunter-gatherer tribes in Amazonias, our own Jarawa and Onge, the Inuits - they all have very little sexual dimorphism. This is a picture of an amazon tribe that doesn't farm- ie, all hunter-gatherers. Men and women are of almost similar musculature and height and definitely much lesser sexual dimorphism than we find in the 'civilized' world. Even their women are not completely afforded the same hunting opportunities, as they dedicate a significant time to child raising.
  21. Is Indian Tennis Scene ever going to pick up?

    the biggest problem in India for tennis, is lack of tennis courts in the cities. The sport itself is not very expensive - it costs less to play tennis than cricket IMO (real ball cricket) but you need courts to play tennis....cant just go whack a ball in the streets and be a tennis player.
  22. last year when I was in India, met up with a long lost friend who's now inherited his family's conglomerate business. Was shocked when he said he moved his telephone pole factory from Indore to Durgapur...I was like 'dude, you moved a factory out of MP and into Bongland ?! like that's hara-kiri'. He laughed and said that the problem in Bengal, is beurocracy and government corruption is too big. Too much bribing needs to be done to get the permits and crap on time, etc. but apparently Bong workers are hardworkers, much harder workers than the ones from Rajasthan, Haryana/MP/Punjab area. ( he prefers his manufacturing in Gujju-Tamil-Marathi land but says land price there for his type of factory is too big, so Bengal-Bihar is a better bet). Blew my mind....
  23. Male Feminist.

    Not necessarily. Indians have a long and distinguished history of malnutrition since recent times. Our industrial age was not as prolonged as the European industrial age (and we are not done either). That means except the elites ( read: rajas and darogas and such), everyone else was on subsistence living. Didn't matter if you were an upper caste warrior or a Brahmin or a peasant farmer- most Indians had barely enough to eat on bad years and enough to eat and have a few extra things on the good years. This means, we have 80--90% being malnourished through the last 1000 years or so. black people did not come from long established farming cultures. Their history of farming is far more recent (from where the slaves came) and their diet has far more hunter-gatherer variety to it. Plus, they already surived horrible transport conditions- stands to reason, that was the greatest 'eliminator of anything but the toughest of constitutions' to the ones who set foot on the new world.
  24. Male Feminist.

    don't twist my words. I said a six foot tall person has more muscle mass, regardless of gender, to a five foot tall person. Complete nonsensical char. Hey fool, ideal body weight is on body structure. Ectomorphs, Mesomorphs, Endomorphs etc. You are an idiot if you think Gwhendolyn Christie is below 200-220 pounds at her fittest. Or that Someone like Peter Forsberg is unfit if he is 240 pounds at 6'1 Nothing more than more nonsensical propaganda. Ok. Pray away to the imaginary buddy of an illiterate from 1500 years ago, to save the guy who is not extraordinary, yet knows more than that entire illiterate's civilization. Sounds like a smart decision to me. I will give you a hint, since you are new and you suffer from jahilliyat on this topic due to your religion, but learn to cite. Random news paper clippings are meaningless. I already posted an official article from the IDF, where the General says that women have served combat roles with distinction and yet, face no less hurdles than men to perform their jobs. Since Israelis are far superior soldiers than their Arab counterparts, it stands to reason that their women make far better soldiers than the average Arab soldier.
  25. Male Feminist.

    Because human physiology is proportionate, you idiot. A six foot tall person has more muscle than a five foot tall person, regardless of gender. Because women have always eaten after men and in subsistence farming societies, it means its the woman who goes hungry, not the man. What a moronic comment. So sexual dimporphism diminished in our species, before our species even existed ? Sexual dimorphism is DECREASING as we speak. The sexual dimorphism of species homo sapiens was lesser pre-agriculture, became greater with agriculture, as men created laws to dominate women due to inheritance. As per being poor at sports, pretty sure in my sport of choice I can beat anyone here while puffing on a cigarette. Its jaahil munafiqs following jahil religions like yourself who concern yourself with out-dated models of alpha male or beta male or such nonsense. They have less than 4% combat roles, because their society is still sexist due to them beliving in imaginary God and moral code created by illiterates. What IDF proves, is that women are capable of any combat role and have been decorated as such for it. Israeli women have made better combat soldiers than Arab men have and they have the victories and decorations to prove it.

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×