Midfielder Posted July 4, 2011 Author Share Posted July 4, 2011 Bhajji is better than Warne? Even Bhajji wouldnt claim that :giggle: I am not sure that Shane is better than him either. Ofcourse he would not claim that. Link to comment
Midfielder Posted July 4, 2011 Author Share Posted July 4, 2011 Warne revived a dying art? You are kidding right? Maybe you can help us with the context in which you said it. Possibly the specific context is the space of revival - Aus and Eng. Leg spin bowling was very much healthy in Asia...we had good leggies and wizards ar doemstic and international level coming out of Asia. So this Warne revived leg spin theory is bollocks...it is specific to Aus, Eng, and NZ maybe...to say it bluntly, the white world. None of you saw Chandrashekar than. Link to comment
Midfielder Posted July 4, 2011 Author Share Posted July 4, 2011 We need Bhajji.. He is the most experienced spin bowler in the team..We need hin now and many years to come..All we want is that he needs to step up and be a "class apart". He needs complete backing from his captain apart from good field settings. The captain needs to have his faith on his bowler and allow him to settle down.. Bhajji has the capabilities and all we want is more variations in his bowling and more risk taking..He should stop worrying of getting hit. He should just keep on bowling with good flight, spin and variations..Occassional flatter trajectory bowling is fine but not all the time.. He's getting predictable and hence he needs to bring in more variations in his bowling to create doubts in the mind of the batsmen. If he has abandoned his "doosra" then he needs to get a alternate delivery which he can bowl to create some doubts in batsman's mind.. At present it appears (I could be wrong) that he is bowling without any plans targetting individual batsmen and batsmen in general. It appears that he is just going though the motions and hoping for some wickets..Dhoni missing chances off his bowling, behind the stumps is also not helping him. Also I feel that He and Dhoni have stopped discussing bowling strategies and both of them are on their own and they lack coordination. And I don't agree with his round the wicket bowling strategy unless he starts turning the ball both the ways like what Murali used to do while bowling round the wicket. If he just bowls on a middle to leg stump line, bowling round the wicket, he is cutting his chances of getting more wickets unless the pitch is very helpful.. For me he has become an enigma..I wish him to bowl with more variations which he is not doing or trying to do and as a result becoming predictable and hence my frustrations of him not justifying his senior spin bowler billing.. Good honest post with constructive criticism, not the yelling and screaming that goes on. We all see the world differently. Link to comment
mishra Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Pheck Off Bhajji haters...You hate indian cricket. You hate north Indians.... You hate your contrymen, You hate your neighbour... You infact hate everyone apart from yourself.... You dont understand cricket. YYou can never understand cricket. All you can do is only argue. All of you are Pakistani.... All bhajji haters are regionalist or some sort of racist. I havent yet coined a term for that... Bhajji Hater is defined Anyone who wants Bhajji out of the team Link to comment
Midfielder Posted July 4, 2011 Author Share Posted July 4, 2011 It is one thing to see someone out of team and it is other to hate them. I dont recall ever saying anything hateful about any Indian cricketers. Link to comment
Midfielder Posted July 4, 2011 Author Share Posted July 4, 2011 Sorry, you don't seem to understand the basic truth of all of Human civilization and evolution. Generic perspective - No rule, absolutely no rule, absolutely no law, is permanent. Change, my friend, is the only constant. All rules and laws change whether we like it or not. Change is built into our evolution and without change we wouldn't evolve. Specific perspective - Cricket has had laws and rules changing through out it's history. And for every rule change there were ppl for and against. Same with this case. It's your personal choice to acknowledge the change and accept it or keep denying it or keep cribbing about how unfair the change is. The fact is, the change has happened but we retain the choice on how we react to it. I choose to accept it and move on. You seem not to. Neither of us is right or wrong. Change is inevitable and should be. Like using DNA etc to catch criminals and using on field cameras to get better decisions. Something fundamental never changes even with time, like theft and murder would always be crime no matter how much the society evolves. Murali's chucking was a theft as he robbed other hardworking bowlers of their respective place by getting more wickets and I feel he got away with murder. He is guilty and should have asterisk against his record. Link to comment
mishra Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 It is one thing to see someone out of team and it is other to hate them. I dont recall ever saying anything hateful about any Indian cricketers. :icflove: Yes thats principal number one for me here. No one is/should be hateful to Indian cricketers, How can they be... And that to on "Indian cricket fans" forum, Unless they support other teams... Link to comment
Vijay.Sharma Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 None of you saw Chandrashekar than.Huh? What is the relevance of this response to my post? Link to comment
Vijay.Sharma Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Change is inevitable and should be. Like using DNA etc to catch criminals and using on field cameras to get better decisions. Something fundamental never changes even with time' date=' [b']like theft and murder would always be crime no matter how much the society evolves. Murali's chucking was a theft as he robbed other hardworking bowlers of their respective place by getting more wickets and I feel he got away with murder. He is guilty and should have asterisk against his record.Wrong! Bhagat Singh MURDERED Britishers. How many Indians think it was wrong? Legend of Robin Hood sez he STOLE from corrupt rich bast@rds. How many English peasants think it was wrong? You are making the mistake of correlating right/wrong of morality with crime/laws. Laws and what is concerned criminal may be born out of a society's sense of moral rightness and wrongness. However, they are relativistic in nature. There are no absolutes in the whole of existence. Right and Wrong change with Time, Space, Perspective, and Context. Nothing is intrinsically right or wrong...or good/bad. Now coming to the specifics. The laws of the games change because laws of the game are not natural. They are artificial, meaning they were devised by human beings. So, while you may consider the previous set of mortal artificiality as being better than the current set (laws of the game) which the ppl that matter consider are right. Neither of you are right or wrong. My question, do laws change? Why? Answering this question will help you understand that no law is intrinsically right or wrong. This is my last post on this topic of change in laws. I have given you my logic, and I believe it is superior to your logic of "Something fundamental never changes even with time". Why do I say your logic is inferior? Because there is evidence emerging every second to show that that logic is inferior. It is not a natural law. If you can find some examples to refute my logic then I'll be happy to hear. I believe even Jesus, Krishna, Gautama, Gandhi, Aryabhatta, Einstein, Ramanujam, Planck, Mandela, Sagan will not be able to refute my logic. So, here it is, to state again - "There is nothing in this existence that is intrinsically right or wrong. The rightness and wrongness of things changes in time, in space, with perspective, and under contexts." quote by Vijay...LOL! Link to comment
The Outsider Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Chewtiyon ki jamaat lag gayi hai is thread mein! :hysterical: Link to comment
bihutoli Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Chewtiyon ki jamaat lag gayi hai is thread mein! :hysterical: Teri hi kami thi! Link to comment
mishra Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Wrong! Bhagat Singh MURDERED Britishers. How many Indians think it was wrong? Legend of Robin Hood sez he STOLE from corrupt rich bast@rds. How many English peasants think it was wrong? You are making the mistake of correlating right/wrong of morality with crime/laws. Laws and what is concerned criminal may be born out of a society's sense of moral rightness and wrongness. However, they are relativistic in nature. There are no absolutes in the whole of existence. Right and Wrong change with Time, Space, Perspective, and Context. Nothing is intrinsically right or wrong...or good/bad. Now coming to the specifics. The laws of the games change because laws of the game are not natural. They are artificial, meaning they were devised by human beings. So, while you may consider the previous set of mortal artificiality as being better than the current set (laws of the game) which the ppl that matter consider are right. Neither of you are right or wrong. My question, do laws change? Why? Answering this question will help you understand that no law is intrinsically right or wrong. This is my last post on this topic of change in laws. I have given you my logic, and I believe it is superior to your logic of "Something fundamental never changes even with time". Why do I say your logic is inferior? Because there is evidence emerging every second to show that that logic is inferior. It is not a natural law. If you can find some examples to refute my logic then I'll be happy to hear. I believe even Jesus, Krishna, Gautama, Gandhi, Aryabhatta, Einstein, Ramanujam, Planck, Mandela, Sagan will not be able to refute my logic. So, here it is, to state again - "There is nothing in this existence that is intrinsically right or wrong. The rightness and wrongness of things changes in time, in space, with perspective, and under contexts." quote by Vijay...LOL! Sharma ji..... Bachche ki jaan loge kyaa... BTW just by perspective... I say Udham Singh... Amar Rahe!!!! PS: That quote of yours sounds very familiar... :hehe: Link to comment
jonas10 Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 YDqn043XhQ8 lol Haters gonna hate. Best spinner ever. Link to comment
Midfielder Posted July 4, 2011 Author Share Posted July 4, 2011 Huh? What is the relevance of this response to my post? Tangential. He was a good legspinner. Link to comment
Midfielder Posted July 4, 2011 Author Share Posted July 4, 2011 Wrong! Bhagat Singh MURDERED Britishers. How many Indians think it was wrong? Legend of Robin Hood sez he STOLE from corrupt rich bast@rds. How many English peasants think it was wrong? You are making the mistake of correlating right/wrong of morality with crime/laws. Laws and what is concerned criminal may be born out of a society's sense of moral rightness and wrongness. However, they are relativistic in nature. There are no absolutes in the whole of existence. Right and Wrong change with Time, Space, Perspective, and Context. Nothing is intrinsically right or wrong...or good/bad. Now coming to the specifics. The laws of the games change because laws of the game are not natural. They are artificial, meaning they were devised by human beings. So, while you may consider the previous set of mortal artificiality as being better than the current set (laws of the game) which the ppl that matter consider are right. Neither of you are right or wrong. My question, do laws change? Why? Answering this question will help you understand that no law is intrinsically right or wrong. This is my last post on this topic of change in laws. I have given you my logic, and I believe it is superior to your logic of "Something fundamental never changes even with time". Why do I say your logic is inferior? Because there is evidence emerging every second to show that that logic is inferior. It is not a natural law. If you can find some examples to refute my logic then I'll be happy to hear. I believe even Jesus, Krishna, Gautama, Gandhi, Aryabhatta, Einstein, Ramanujam, Planck, Mandela, Sagan will not be able to refute my logic. So, here it is, to state again - "There is nothing in this existence that is intrinsically right or wrong. The rightness and wrongness of things changes in time, in space, with perspective, and under contexts." quote by Vijay...LOL! History taught to you and me was different. I thought Britishers were the murderes (Jallian Wala Bagh). India was not their country and what the heck were they doing their for 200 years. Bhagat Singh was a freedom fighter like so many others. Maybe you see things differently. Next what Hitler loved Jews. Link to comment
Midfielder Posted July 4, 2011 Author Share Posted July 4, 2011 Wrong! Bhagat Singh MURDERED Britishers. How many Indians think it was wrong? Legend of Robin Hood sez he STOLE from corrupt rich bast@rds. How many English peasants think it was wrong? You are making the mistake of correlating right/wrong of morality with crime/laws. Laws and what is concerned criminal may be born out of a society's sense of moral rightness and wrongness. However, they are relativistic in nature. There are no absolutes in the whole of existence. Right and Wrong change with Time, Space, Perspective, and Context. Nothing is intrinsically right or wrong...or good/bad. Now coming to the specifics. The laws of the games change because laws of the game are not natural. They are artificial, meaning they were devised by human beings. So, while you may consider the previous set of mortal artificiality as being better than the current set (laws of the game) which the ppl that matter consider are right. Neither of you are right or wrong. My question, do laws change? Why? Answering this question will help you understand that no law is intrinsically right or wrong. This is my last post on this topic of change in laws. I have given you my logic, and I believe it is superior to your logic of "Something fundamental never changes even with time". Why do I say your logic is inferior? Because there is evidence emerging every second to show that that logic is inferior. It is not a natural law. If you can find some examples to refute my logic then I'll be happy to hear. I believe even Jesus, Krishna, Gautama, Gandhi, Aryabhatta, Einstein, Ramanujam, Planck, Mandela, Sagan will not be able to refute my logic. So, here it is, to state again - "There is nothing in this existence that is intrinsically right or wrong. The rightness and wrongness of things changes in time, in space, with perspective, and under contexts." quote by Vijay...LOL! Certain laws always stay the same. If you score more points you win. Murder is wrong. Cricket is not baseball. If you think your logic is superior than mine it is ok with me. I am not here to refute your logic because I still think stealing my money is wrong or murdering someone is wrong. Link to comment
Midfielder Posted July 4, 2011 Author Share Posted July 4, 2011 Chewtiyon ki jamaat lag gayi hai is thread mein! :hysterical: My favorite quote in this thread. I think maybe I am one of the *hutia too. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now