Murali the KING !

[butchering lee]

Originally Posted by Nostromo

As I have said before, there is no straight answer to the seemingly everlasting debate of "who is better" between Warne and Murali. I for one prefer to consider it as a tie.

I almost never think of Warne when I think of Murali (and vice versa) ... till I go to a forum. I mistakenly referred to it as boring - it is exasperating! It is not only endless but monotonous, uninsipred, wholly uninspiring, graceless, often vindictive and usually revolves around no more than 3 or 4 points that have been regurgitated for literally years. I think, due to this, it also usually brings out the worst in posters.

If one had the energy, I can promise you that next time such a thread starts you may pick absolutely any post in it, do a search of keywords and find the same sentiment in a post (from another previous thread) saying exactly the same thing. If not verbatim, it'll not be far off!

I really love the two bowlers and would occasionally like to talk about them but I have reached a point where I hesitate before opening such a thread (and in the end, I now mostly choose not to ) as I know i will simply feel ... i don't know - how I imagine one would feel if they woke up with a hangover, without having experienced any of the joy of drunkeness.

I am quite sure we will be treated to many more of said threads in the near (and distant) future...at least one of them still plays and I can enjoy watching him (if not discussing his feats)...roll on 1000!!

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by butchering lee

If one had the energy, I can promise you that next time such a thread starts you may pick absolutely any post in it, do a search of keywords and find the same sentiment in a post (from another previous thread) saying exactly the same thing. If not verbatim, it'll not be far off!

Well, i would equate your sentiment to someone coming in at the end of a long conversation butchering lee. Doesn't know what was said, but passing judgment anyway.

In future, read the thread and then comment is my suggestion.

[butchering lee]

Originally Posted by Seamer

Well, I would equate your sentiment to someone coming in at the end of a long conversation butchering lee. Doesn't know what was said, but passing judgment anyway.

In future, read the thread and then comment is my suggestion.

Unfortunately such an equation is little more than sentiment itself (and therefore judgemental) not mathematics. So, although I welcome all suggestions with the same enthusiasm, I accept that not all will be useful or relevant to me in its given context.




posted - as a thread opener - on 19/11/2007

Originally Posted by Seamer

Well, in the "Who was best - Warne or Muralitharan" debate, it will be very hard to convince Australians (and perhaps others) of the latter.
Taken out of his comfort zone, Muralitharan was found lacking and these stats make telling reading

Career stats
702 wickets @ 21.51
Versus Australia in Sri Lanka
47 wickets @ 26.02
Versus Australia in Australia
12 wickets @ 75.41

posted - and found using "search" - on 25/7/2005:

Originally Posted by Aussie-Yank

Where playing in Australia;

Warne Takes a wicket every 26.24 Runs
Murali takes a wicket every 116.00 Runs

standard response: Warne never played Australia; judge by mutual opposition played away (excluding "minnows").

[butchering lee]

Originally Posted by Seamer

Quote:
Originally Posted by butchering lee
If one had the energy, I can promise you that next time such a thread starts you may pick absolutely any post in it, do a search of keywords and find the same sentiment in a post (from another previous thread) saying exactly the same thing. If not verbatim, it'll not be far off!

Well, i would equate your sentiment to someone coming in at the end of a long conversation butchering lee. Doesn't know what was said, but passing judgment anyway.

In future, read the thread and then comment is my suggestion..

Of course, you may have been merely refering to the quoted post. Initially that seemed unlikely as there is no equation - i said you can pick any post, i did not say at the end, nor did i say that you should not have read all the posts in the thread so the analogy was simply misplaced.

What presumed that you were refering to 'your' thread where my pointed, but admittedly graceless, post was removed. Even there your current post would have been errant (thus my response above); having had the post removed, I went back and tortured my way through the thread in order to prove that my initial sentiments on the thread were not wayward. I made a mental suggestion to myself ... don't read the thread, but if you do - DON'T COMMENT.

Unfortunately, even when advice is relevant, I do not always adhere to it.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by butchering lee

Unfortunately such an equation is little more than sentiment itself (and therefore judgemental) not mathematics. So, although I welcome all suggestions with the same enthusiasm, I accept that not all will be useful or relevant to me in its given context.

Ahhh. I see the problem. Being left-brain dominant, i tend to forget about the righties

I will lay it out this way .

Entering at the end conversation without hearing what has been said (4+5)

Commenting on a substance of a thread without reading it beforehand (3+6)

= Ignorance of subject matter (9)


Now, i could walk in to the local church while the minister is giving his final sermon and interrupt him "Dude, you lot have been talking about this subject for 2000 years already! It's soooo friggin boooring! Why don't you just hand out a bible to these people, let them just read it themselves, and stop talking about it over and over and over!"

The minister would probably then (rightfully) say "Sir, if you find this subject so boring then you do not have to enter. No-one is forcing you. This is a free country, and just as we have a right to discuss this subject, you have a perfect right not to. But if you wish to join us and listen, you may possible gain some fresh insights on this subject, as we often do. If you don't then you may quietly leave us in peace."

You make some good posts butchering lee, no doubt, but denigrating subjects that others wish to discuss does not fall into that category. IMO.

[butchering lee]

Originally Posted by Seamer

Ahhh. I see the problem.

No, Seamer, you really haven't...you haven't actually even read it...or you would see that i have responded completely to your latest post in my previous two. And that's pretty good foresight, even for a poster as good as me

Originally Posted by Seamer

denigrating subjects that others wish to discuss does not fall into that category. IMO.

When the thread itself is an ode to denigrating, being denigrating in it is simply contributing. If everyone in church is denigrating others, why would my shout of "boring because..." (as my post, if you had actually read it, was not shouting "boring" but explaining why. *see above for my acknowledgement of the wording of it) be the one drawing attention? [there is an answer to that and it's in the question].

The problem may lie not in maths but in symantic disagreement about what a "discussion" is. In an infinite world I guess there are infinite possibilities.

[butchering lee]

I will add, seamer, my post that was deleted was intended to be pointedly criticising the older posters I accepted the deletion of my post not only because of its (imo, misunderstood) tone [acknowledged already] but because there are newcomers who may find something new, unbiased and pleasantly put somewhere in the thread. Three Murali threads on this page: two have deleted posts. My 'boring' was certainly misplaced [already acknowledged] but the sentiments in the post were real ... and not intended to denigrate.