India manipulating the draw for own benefit has turned T20 World Cup into a farce

[R!TTER]

11 minutes ago, LordPrabhzy said:

I want a strong international circuit of teams playing cricket but this simply isnt the fan following the world outside of South Asia to guarantee return of investment so this is NOT A GLOBAL SPORT. This is an INDIAN sport now

For that you need support/interest from natives, look where Ireland's gone in the last few years, same goes for Zim.

[Real McCoy]

1 minute ago, R!TTER said:

Why go that far? The draws were fixed for 2011 WC semis(?) in SL, then 2015 WC, same for 2023 semis in fact where we had to play Pak at Kolkata, if they qualified.

 

I'm saying its been the case for a long time. 2011 was not the first case. 1992 was

[R!TTER]

Yes but even account for recency bias, this is pretty *ing regular in cricket. Just that English whingers conveniently do a memento when they play in these conditions 

[Real McCoy]

2 minutes ago, R!TTER said:

For that you need support/interest from natives, look where Ireland's gone in the last few years, same goes for Zim.

 

You can make the case that ICC was not paying attention. BCCI can do a better job if its in power to look after upcoming countries/franchises. Already the IPL has taken offshoot in SA and other places. You can imagine how talent spotting is conducted in these franchises.

[maggot_brain]

On 6/27/2024 at 5:02 PM, diga said:

Arent Gaelics mostly in mainland Europe - aka French? 

 

6 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

They do have some claim , both Celtic Matbe @maggot_brain can clarify

 

Early Middle Ages 

The Scottish people, or Scots, originated from a mix of two Celtic groups, the Picts and Gaels, who established the Kingdom of Scotland in the 9th century.

 

The original inhabitants of France were Gauls not Gaels.  The Gauls were a Celtic people and were conquered by the Romans (Julius Caesar even wrote 'The Conquest of Gaul' about conquering what is now France).  The resistance to Roman rule was led by a Gaul called Vercingetorix.  There's a lot of complex history around how France came to be, a lot of which I'm not familiar with but the Gauls and their culture are long gone.  Although the Gauls are extinct one adjective for the French even today is Gallic (which does refer to the Gauls) which is maybe where the confusion comes from.  There are Celtic people in France today, they're called Bretons and they're the descendants of immigrants from what is now the UK.  They speak a language similar to Welsh and Cornish.  Welsh and Cornish are the modern day versions of what the original Celtic Britons spoke.

 

Nowadays there are two main branches of Celts / Celtic languages Brythonic (Welsh, Cornish, Breton) and Goidelic (Irish Gaelic and Scots Gaelic).  'Gaelic' on its own generally refers to the Irish and / or their language.  You'd use Scots Gaelic for the language and just Scots for the people. Hardly any people speak Irish or Scot Gaelic nowadays.  The English went about conquering their lands and destroying their culture.  The easiest way to destroy a culture is to destroy its language.  Welsh is still used by quite a lot of people and is a mother tongue for some.  Lloyd George the PM of the UK during the second half of WWI spoke Welsh as his first language.  The Welsh are very proud of their language and they're the closest people to the original Britons before the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, or Normans came.

Edited June 28, 2024 by maggot_brain
Added info

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, maggot_brain said:

 

 

The original inhabitants of France were Gauls not Gaels.  The Gauls were a Celtic people and were conquered by the Romans (Julius Caesar even wrote 'The Conquest of Gaul' about conquering what is now France).  The resistance to Roman rule was led by a Gaul called Vercingetorix.  There's a lot of complex history around how France came to be, a lot of which I'm not familiar with but the Gauls and their culture are long gone.  Although the Gauls are extinct one adjective for the French even today is Gallic (which does refer to the Gauls) which is maybe where the confusion comes from.  There are Celtic people in France today, they're called Bretons and they're the descendants of immigrants from what is now the UK.  They speak a language similar to Welsh and Cornish.  Welsh and Cornish are the modern day versions of what the original Celtic Britons spoke.

 

Nowadays there are two main branches of Celts / Celtic languages Brythonic (Welsh, Cornish, Breton) and Goidelic (Irish Gaelic and Scots Gaelic).  'Gaelic' on its own generally refers to the Irish and / or their language.  You'd use Scots Gaelic for the language and just Scots for the people. Hardly any people speak Irish or Scot Gaelic nowadays.  The English went about conquering their lands and destroying their culture.  The easiest way to destroy a culture is to destroy its language.  Welsh is still used by quite a lot of people and is a mother tongue for some.  Lloyd George the PM of the UK during the second half of WWI spoke Welsh as his first language.  The Welsh are very proud of their language and they're the closest people to the original Britons before the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, or Normans came.

Thats why i say that there isnt a barbarian savage bigger than the anglos in history of mankind. People are beginning to look at the genocide count of the anglos and coming to the conclusion that even the mongol empire was a jain monk compared to the anglo empire. But people are yet to wake up to the fact, that your civilised qualities are often shown by how you treat your ethnic minorities. Not even the islamist turkic savages who ravaged India were as barbaric enough to try and wipe out the entire ethnicity of their subjugated majority,nevermind the minorities of their own homelands. 

 

[Kron]

4 hours ago, maggot_brain said:

 

 

The original inhabitants of France were Gauls not Gaels.  The Gauls were a Celtic people and were conquered by the Romans (Julius Caesar even wrote 'The Conquest of Gaul' about conquering what is now France).  The resistance to Roman rule was led by a Gaul called Vercingetorix.  There's a lot of complex history around how France came to be, a lot of which I'm not familiar with but the Gauls and their culture are long gone.  Although the Gauls are extinct one adjective for the French even today is Gallic (which does refer to the Gauls) which is maybe where the confusion comes from.  There are Celtic people in France today, they're called Bretons and they're the descendants of immigrants from what is now the UK.  They speak a language similar to Welsh and Cornish.  Welsh and Cornish are the modern day versions of what the original Celtic Britons spoke.

 

Nowadays there are two main branches of Celts / Celtic languages Brythonic (Welsh, Cornish, Breton) and Goidelic (Irish Gaelic and Scots Gaelic).  'Gaelic' on its own generally refers to the Irish and / or their language.  You'd use Scots Gaelic for the language and just Scots for the people. Hardly any people speak Irish or Scot Gaelic nowadays.  The English went about conquering their lands and destroying their culture.  The easiest way to destroy a culture is to destroy its language.  Welsh is still used by quite a lot of people and is a mother tongue for some.  Lloyd George the PM of the UK during the second half of WWI spoke Welsh as his first language.  The Welsh are very proud of their language and they're the closest people to the original Britons before the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, or Normans came.

Just to add to this. Original native brits themselves were wiped out and conquered by Normans who are originally vikings that came from denmark/Norway region. 

 

India on the other hand clearly showed resistance to both Muslim and English rule, hence language was never able to be fully wiped out. English was always a secondary language. 

 

It's also a myth that Muslim rule in India lasted 800 years. Load of crap. 

 

Parts of what was India back then were conquered but not entire India. South India were conquered and under Muslim rule for only 80 years.

 

Pakistan were rules by Muslim conquerors for 800 years. It's a common misconception. So was Afghanistan. Entire North India was only under Muslim rule for 200 years overall. There is a great youtube channel that reflects this if I find it I will post it. 

 

Bakis misconstrue Muslim rule in their country as falsely equivalent to Muslim rule in entire India. 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 28, 2024 by Kron

[putrevus]

Manju is a moron, he always cries when India is doing well .

[Kron]

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Thats why i say that there isnt a barbarian savage bigger than the anglos in history of mankind. People are beginning to look at the genocide count of the anglos and coming to the conclusion that even the mongol empire was a jain monk compared to the anglo empire. But people are yet to wake up to the fact, that your civilised qualities are often shown by how you treat your ethnic minorities. Not even the islamist turkic savages who ravaged India were as barbaric enough to try and wipe out the entire ethnicity of their subjugated majority,nevermind the minorities of their own homelands. 

 

Their own natives wee wiped out. English natives were conquered by vikings and Normans who also descended from north Europe genetically. 

 

People need to understand that these chewtiyas themselves were wiped out. Anglis that is. 

 

Even William the conqueror isn't a anglo Brit. 

[Muloghonto]

17 minutes ago, Kron said:

Their own natives wee wiped out. English natives were conquered by vikings and Normans who also descended from north Europe genetically. 

 

People need to understand that these chewtiyas themselves were wiped out. Anglis that is. 

 

Even William the conqueror isn't a anglo Brit. 

No, most of the anglos have R1b genetics, with R1a being the next dominant one. The viking/norman gene is the I1/I2 ( cant remember which), a scandi gene group that matches neatly with the viking expansion. Vikings were basically to anglo-saxons & celtics as the Huns were to us : came, ruled over us, but then gradually mixed in and left very little trace genetically or culturally. 

 

[Kron]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

No, most of the anglos have R1b genetics, with R1a being the next dominant one. The viking/norman gene is the I1/I2 ( cant remember which), a scandi gene group that matches neatly with the viking expansion. Vikings were basically to anglo-saxons & celtics as the Huns were to us : came, ruled over us, but then gradually mixed in and left very little trace genetically or culturally. 

 

Huns got thwarted back. They made inroads but only in north portion. They were defeated by skandgupta consistently. Then eventually his sons who took over were much weaker kings that ended up losing the war. Then many local chieftains fought back and drove the huns away. 

[Muloghonto]

6 minutes ago, Kron said:

Huns got thwarted back. They made inroads but only in north portion. They were defeated by skandgupta consistently. Then eventually his sons who took over were much weaker kings that ended up losing the war. Then many local chieftains fought back and drove the huns away. 

Huns settled in Kashmir and became the ancestors of the Kashmiri rajas in Kalhana's time.  Also, Skandagupta defeated the Huns in 450s. Then gupta empire got completely massacred by the Huns by Toramanna and Mihirkul in the 495-525 CE period IIRC. They got beaten by the Aulikaras in malwa, then chose to settle in Kashmir and Kapisa. Ie, like the viking overlords of England, they got absorbed into our fold after whacking us all and sundry  for about a 50 year period ( in the case of vikings, it lasted about 200 years). 

 

[Kron]

33 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Huns settled in Kashmir and became the ancestors of the Kashmiri rajas in Kalhana's time.  Also, Skandagupta defeated the Huns in 450s. Then gupta empire got completely massacred by the Huns by Toramanna and Mihirkul in the 495-525 CE period IIRC. They got beaten by the Aulikaras in malwa, then chose to settle in Kashmir and Kapisa. Ie, like the viking overlords of England, they got absorbed into our fold after whacking us all and sundry  for about a 50 year period ( in the case of vikings, it lasted about 200 years). 

 

It's always the same story. Great father who happens to be a great king only to be let down by their useless grandsons who seldom match the greatness of their forefathers. 

 

Skandgupta was a great king. He never lost to Huns. 

Edited June 29, 2024 by Kron

[Muloghonto]

4 minutes ago, Kron said:

It's always the same story. Great father who happens to be a great king only to be let down by their useless grandsons who seldom match the greatness of their forefathers. 

 

Skandgupta was a great king. He never lost to Huns. 

He didnt lose to the huns but almost did. his inscriptions were clear - the gupta empire was 'nearly annihilated' by the Huns and he managed to survive with great difficulty. His efforts most clearly drained the empire coffers, as Gupta coinage drastically reduces in quantity and quality from the time of Skandagupta ( the gold coins were particularly rarer and more debased). 

People don't realise that the huns were extraordinarily mighty AND well coordinated. The time Atilla was attacking the Roman empire sees near identical time-frame hunnic attacks on the Sassanians and Guptas. 

Huns were particularly devastating to the Guptas because of the Hunnic army being almost completely cavalry and India being flat as hell, with the Huns being the first invaders to follow the 'destroy everything in sight, by the time the slow lumbering army of elephants show up, we will be 50km away, destroying another city' doctrine. 
This is what sapped the Guptas. This same tactic worked greatly in favour of the turks as well during Ghazni's time. 

 

[Chaos]

This is about cricket not half arsed history lessons. 

[Kron]

40 minutes ago, Chaos said:

This is about cricket not half arsed history lessons. 

It's about whatever we want it to be