FootballNews

Old Redback wrote:Not at all Bomber - I like the banter either way but Australians typically seem to go missing rather than stand up and take it but are very good at dishing it out.

Anderson whinged - was Clarke supposed to pre-empt this and make a stand when he was at the crease? Of course not, so he dealt with him there and then.
Best cop it on the chin for now, the series aint over.

Old Redback wrote:Not at all Bomber - I like the banter either way but Australians typically seem to go missing rather than stand up and take it but are very good at dishing it out.

I don't think Australia have gone missing in the past...they have copped a bit of a pasting from the expats over here....of course people only 'sing when they're winning' or if they are on the piss on foreign soil.....they still support, just looks a bit stupid singing victory songs when you don't win
The Australian team went missing are are quite capable of going missing again...it's good to have them back ( at present). Cricket is always a much more interesting game when both teams are competitive.
Sounds like Clarke might lose 20% of his match payment for his mild soft-serve comment.
The ICC are turning into Mr Whippy !

swannsong wrote:

Old Redback wrote:Not at all Bomber - I like the banter either way but Australians typically seem to go missing rather than stand up and take it but are very good at dishing it out.

I don't think Australia have gone missing in the past...they have copped a bit of a pasting from the expats over here....of course people only 'sing when they're winning' or if they are on the piss on foreign soil.....they still support, just looks a bit stupid singing victory songs when you don't win
The Australian team went missing are are quite capable of going missing again...it's good to have them back ( at present). Cricket is always a much more interesting game when both teams are competitive.
Sounds like Clarke might lose 20% of his match payment for his mild soft-serve comment.
The ICC are turning into Mr Whippy !

Does the I in the ICC stand for India?

Old Redback wrote:

Steve#4 wrote:

Old Redback wrote:Nice to see all the Australians rediscover their love for cricket after day one where they all went missing.
Yes Clarke chose to put the boot in but for mine didn't seem to have the guts to do it when it mattered - I think it would have showed more character if he'd have done the same to Cook at the start of the second innings rather than giving it to a tailender when the game is nearly done.

It will make it interesting when Anderson gets Clarke in the next test and I bet if Anderson gets him and sends him off in a brusque manner there'll be plenty of Aussie whingeing about it.

All in all England surely can't be that bad for two tests in a row?

Your new around here hey?

Difference between Cook and Anderson is Cook has earnt the Australians respect, Anderson is a loud mouth cry baby that has been found out as a rat when things get a little hot in his direction....

How Australian of him.

No, nationality has nothing to do with it... He's a cry baby fair and simple.

Steve#4 wrote:

Old Redback wrote:Nice to see all the Australians rediscover their love for cricket after day one where they all went missing.
Yes Clarke chose to put the boot in but for mine didn't seem to have the guts to do it when it mattered - I think it would have showed more character if he'd have done the same to Cook at the start of the second innings rather than giving it to a tailender when the game is nearly done.

It will make it interesting when Anderson gets Clarke in the next test and I bet if Anderson gets him and sends him off in a brusque manner there'll be plenty of Aussie whingeing about it.

All in all England surely can't be that bad for two tests in a row?

Your new around here hey?

Difference between Cook and Anderson is Cook has earnt the Australians respect, Anderson is a loud mouth cry baby that has been found out as a rat when things get a little hot in his direction....

Former #1 world ranked bowler, 2nd leading wicket taker in 2013. Guess who's #1?

Steve#4 wrote:

swannsong wrote:

Old Redback wrote:Not at all Bomber - I like the banter either way but Australians typically seem to go missing rather than stand up and take it but are very good at dishing it out.

I don't think Australia have gone missing in the past...they have copped a bit of a pasting from the expats over here....of course people only 'sing when they're winning' or if they are on the piss on foreign soil.....they still support, just looks a bit stupid singing victory songs when you don't win
The Australian team went missing are are quite capable of going missing again...it's good to have them back ( at present). Cricket is always a much more interesting game when both teams are competitive.
Sounds like Clarke might lose 20% of his match payment for his mild soft-serve comment.
The ICC are turning into Mr Whippy !

Does the I in the ICC stand for India?

India has huge power and influence in the ICC.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Steve#4 wrote:

Old Redback wrote:Nice to see all the Australians rediscover their love for cricket after day one where they all went missing.
Yes Clarke chose to put the boot in but for mine didn't seem to have the guts to do it when it mattered - I think it would have showed more character if he'd have done the same to Cook at the start of the second innings rather than giving it to a tailender when the game is nearly done.

It will make it interesting when Anderson gets Clarke in the next test and I bet if Anderson gets him and sends him off in a brusque manner there'll be plenty of Aussie whingeing about it.

All in all England surely can't be that bad for two tests in a row?

Your new around here hey?

Difference between Cook and Anderson is Cook has earnt the Australians respect, Anderson is a loud mouth cry baby that has been found out as a rat when things get a little hot in his direction....

Former #1 world ranked bowler, 2nd leading wicket taker in 2013. Guess who's #1?

I didn't comment on his bowling, I commented on his ability to man up under pressure.... he's a big sook.

Steve#4 wrote:I didn't comment on his bowling, I commented on his ability to man up under pressure.... he's a big sook.

so you don't respect being the 2nd highest wicket taker this year?

God is an Englishman wrote:

Steve#4 wrote:I didn't comment on his bowling, I commented on his ability to man up under pressure.... he's a big sook.

so you don't respect being the 2nd highest wicket taker this year?

Probably as much respect you gave Ponting when he was a year's high run getter.

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Steve#4 wrote:I didn't comment on his bowling, I commented on his ability to man up under pressure.... he's a big sook.

so you don't respect being the 2nd highest wicket taker this year?

Probably as much respect you gave Ponting when he was a year's high run getter.

always respected him as a batsmen

God is an Englishman wrote:

Steve#4 wrote:I didn't comment on his bowling, I commented on his ability to man up under pressure.... he's a big sook.

so you don't respect being the 2nd highest wicket taker this year?

That is not what I am discussing for the umpteenth time :?

Steve#4 wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Steve#4 wrote:I didn't comment on his bowling, I commented on his ability to man up under pressure.... he's a big sook.

so you don't respect being the 2nd highest wicket taker this year?

That is not what I am discussing for the umpteenth time :?

Answer the question or you'll end up on the "GIAE list" !

swannsong wrote:Answer the question or you'll end up on the "GIAE list" !

The question is a diversion because he is losing this argument.... That's one of his most used tools in a discussion

Steve#4 wrote:

swannsong wrote:Answer the question or you'll end up on the "GIAE list" !

The question is a diversion because he is losing this argument.... That's one of his most used tools in a discussion

GIAE using diversion tactics.....never!

Steve#4 wrote:

swannsong wrote:Answer the question or you'll end up on the "GIAE list" !

The question is a diversion because he is losing this argument.... That's one of his most used tools in a discussion

losing?

I am just amazed that you're all trying to defend the indefensible. Be careful or I'll give my mates onto you, ACT OF A COWARD!

Don't see how it's a diversion, you said there's no respect for anderson. I've shown you good reasons why he has earnt his respect.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Steve#4 wrote:

swannsong wrote:Answer the question or you'll end up on the "GIAE list" !

The question is a diversion because he is losing this argument.... That's one of his most used tools in a discussion

losing?

I am just amazed that you're all trying to defend the indefensible. Be careful or I'll give my mates onto you, ACT OF A COWARD!

Don't see how it's a diversion, you said there's no respect for anderson. I've shown you good reasons why he has earnt his respect.

You make no sense, but all I can see is that your trying to divert the topic at hand.

As for Anderson, he is the coward.
He can give crap to the batsmen, but cant take it. Thats a SOOK in my book.
I bet you wont call him a grass, for dobbing to the umpires

God is an Englishman wrote: losing?

I am just amazed that you're all trying to defend the indefensible. Be careful or I'll give my mates onto you, ACT OF A COWARD!

Don't see how it's a diversion, you said there's no respect for anderson. I've shown you good reasons why he has earnt his respect.

Love Jimmy's answer to the question "are you handy in a fight ? "..."Eeehhh...no, but I've got some big mates....hahhah...I can run fast as well. "


Jimmy Anderson

swannsong wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote: losing?

I am just amazed that you're all trying to defend the indefensible. Be careful or I'll give my mates onto you, ACT OF A COWARD!

Don't see how it's a diversion, you said there's no respect for anderson. I've shown you good reasons why he has earnt his respect.

Love Jimmy's answer to the question "are you handy in a fight ? "..."Eeehhh...no, but I've got some big mates....hahhah...I can run fast as well. "


Jimmy Anderson

Are you actually taking that seriously?

stop stop stop it.....all this sledging, i might have to go home to mummy!!

God is an Englishman wrote:

swannsong wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote: losing?

I am just amazed that you're all trying to defend the indefensible. Be careful or I'll give my mates onto you, ACT OF A COWARD!

Don't see how it's a diversion, you said there's no respect for anderson. I've shown you good reasons why he has earnt his respect.

Love Jimmy's answer to the question "are you handy in a fight ? "..."Eeehhh...no, but I've got some big mates....hahhah...I can run fast as well. "


Jimmy Anderson

Are you actually taking that seriously?

As seriously as you are taking Michael Clarke's comments

swannsong wrote:

As seriously as you are taking Michael Clarke's comments

one was clearly a joke, the other is clearly a poor attempt at intimidation

God is an Englishman wrote:

swannsong wrote:

As seriously as you are taking Michael Clarke's comments

one was clearly a joke, the other is clearly a poor attempt at intimidation

I don't think Anderson intimidated the interviewer :? So maybe you're right

adelaidebloke wrote:stop stop stop it.....all this sledging, i might have to go home to mummy!!

Hello Jonathan, haven't you arrived in Cape town yet?

God is an Englishman wrote:

Steve#4 wrote:

swannsong wrote:Answer the question or you'll end up on the "GIAE list" !

The question is a diversion because he is losing this argument.... That's one of his most used tools in a discussion

losing?

I am just amazed that you're all trying to defend the indefensible. Be careful or I'll give my mates onto you, ACT OF A COWARD!

Don't see how it's a diversion, you said there's no respect for anderson. I've shown you good reasons why he has earnt his respect.

You have shown bugger all on this debate and you still won't answer my question to back up your statements...

I may have to dig up that topic in the Wild West to get my answer.

Oh dear steve - you have all the answers here on this thread as to clarke threatening to get his mates and also that anderson deserves respect.

Ok you've convinced me........................... Psyche.

Please Show me where Clarke says what you said he did....I can't ask any nicer than that.

Steve#4 wrote:Ok you've convinced me........................... Psyche.

Please Show me where Clarke says what you said he did....I can't ask any nicer than that.

What was Clarke talking about when he made his ridiculous comment about a broken arm? Being hit by the ball when facing the bowler.
Is Clarke's bowling good enough or fast enough to break someone's arm? NO.

So, clearly he was going to have to hide behind his mates to do it for him. Therefore he was threatening to get his mates onto him

QED!

At least he didn't say IU'll get my mates to deal with you like a coward

Show me where he said this?????

Why wont you back up what you write????

Steve#4 wrote:At least he didn't say IU'll get my mates to deal with you like a coward

Show me where he said this?????

Why wont you back up what you write????

steve - it's in the post directly above

God is an Englishman wrote:

Steve#4 wrote:Ok you've convinced me........................... Psyche.

Please Show me where Clarke says what you said he did....I can't ask any nicer than that.

What was Clarke talking about when he made his ridiculous comment about a broken arm? Being hit by the ball when facing the bowler.
Is Clarke's bowling good enough or fast enough to break someone's arm? NO.

So, clearly he was going to have to hide behind his mates to do it for him. Therefore he was threatening to get his mates onto him

QED!

If Jimmy fielded in close enough, Clarke could smash the ball into him and break his arm