Bumble Appreciation Society

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Zainub

I guess you're right. ...then I must be respecting him in some way....

There you go then. Sorry to be the harbinger of bad tidings.

[Zainub]

So now that we have settled on that, let's resume the Bumble talk.

Now I know people are going to think I'm barking mad here, but I do honestly think Bumble is utterly cute. Reminds me of those people who are slightly old in age, but very happy with their lives. He's a happy person, and his happiness is infectious.

[cantplaycantalk]

How sad is it that I looked at the title of this thread and immediately thought of a character out of one of my 3 year olds CBeebies programs...

[Zainub]

Which makes me wonder, I never could find out exactly why Bumble's called Bumble - I think when I first heard of him, I actually thought his real name was Bumble (I was bit crazy when I was younger) but then I started to pay more attention on actually listenning to the cricket instead of doing other things and found out his real name was David Llyod.

Anyone knows, why David's called Bumble - any chance of a connection with the character out of cantplaycantalk's three year old's CBeebies programs... ?

[adamr]

Bumble is called Bumble because the side profile of his face, which involves a rather large nose, is not unlike that of the animation characters called 'Bumblies' featured in one of the late Michael Bentine's childrens television programmes.

Follow this link to see some photos of 'Bumblies'.

http://www.whirligig-tv.co.uk/tv/chi...s/bumblies.htm

[Oliver]

Are you sure about that?

I thought David Lloyd was called "Bumble" because during any conversation he makes a persistent buzzing noise which rises and falls depending on the necessary emotion and consequently gives the audible appearance of a large bumble bee.

But if the Bentine thing is correct, then I'm happy to go with it.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Oliver

He [Boycott] acknowledges that his style was to grind the opposition into the dust... he would like to see an England team with one grinding batsman in his own mould. SO WOULD I.

It worries me that we go into the final day of the First Test in Pakistan needing 174 without a single recognised "grinder." Oh yes, we can score the runs fast, but we can lose the wickets fast too.

What was I saying about grinding? Oh yes, and losing wickets quickly?

I knew I shouldn't've put us down for a win... far too optimistic on my part.

Should've known better.

[Zainub]

I think it was more down to Pakistan bowling really well - although KP and Fred could have done better. I'm glad they didn't though!

Bumble was very good again today...

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Oliver

What was I saying about grinding? .

But Bell and Strauss are both good grinders, technically good, compact in style and not too adventurous. That is one more grinder than Pakistan, who only have the equally green Butt.

[Zainub]

Salman played within him self in this test, normally he isn't what you'd call a grindler, his ton in Sydney being a good example, before that, he actually had a reputation in some quarters of being a one-day player!

I think he's a very good player, he can adapt, and change his game a/c to what the team requirments are - that is what he did in this test, he down played his stroke play to an extent, because a) he wanted to prove a point and b) Pakistan needed some one to play a long innings and he's also a very confident man. Might bo too early this, but may be later on, 3 or 4 years later, he'd a be a good candidate for captaincy.