FootballNews

Bomber wrote:

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

He doesn't though, so that's out the equation

God is an Englishman wrote:

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

No.... that is what you said, you accused clarke of saying that.. please provide the quote.

Steve#4 wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

steve - it's in the post directly above

No.... that is what you said, you accused clarke of saying that.. please provide the quote.

Look above, been explained many times now.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Steve#4 wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

steve - it's in the post directly above

No.... that is what you said, you accused clarke of saying that.. please provide the quote.

Look above, been explained many times now.

Either you can't read or you're just being plain obstinate...

Steve#4 wrote:
Either you can't read or you're just being plain obstinate...

Funnily enough I was thinking the same.

So a Stalemate is it?

Your like the guy that always calls misère in 500 and fucks up the game well and truly.

How the fuck did I get away with writhing "fucks"

Steve#4 wrote:So a Stalemate is it?

Your like the guy that always calls misère in 500 and fucks up the game well and truly.

calls what in what?

God is an Englishman wrote:

Steve#4 wrote:So a Stalemate is it?

Your like the guy that always calls misère in 500 and fucks up the game well and truly.

calls what in what?

Don't worry.... Just take it as the guy no one likes or invites but still ends up at the card game..

Steve#4 wrote:How the shiraz did I get away with writhing "fucks"

fucks that

Steve#4 wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Steve#4 wrote:So a Stalemate is it?

Your like the guy that always calls misère in 500 and fucks up the game well and truly.

calls what in what?

Don't worry.... Just take it as the guy no one likes or invites but still ends up at the card game..

I don't play cards

1-0 to the good guys!

bubu wrote:1-0 to the good guys!

you really do struggle with cricket don't you.

It's not 1-0 to England, unfortunately we lost.

Proof that we are the good guys is the ICC hasn't fined any of our players in this series yet for their misconduct. australia cannot say the same.

God is an Englishman wrote:

bubu wrote:1-0 to the good guys!

you really do struggle with cricket don't you.

It's not 1-0 to England, unfortunately we lost.

Proof that we are the good guys is the ICC hasn't fined any of our players in this series yet for their misconduct. australia cannot say the same.

no, the ONLY person struggling here is U!

1-0 to AUSTRALIA (THE GOOD GUYS)

bubu wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

bubu wrote:1-0 to the good guys!

you really do struggle with cricket don't you.

It's not 1-0 to England, unfortunately we lost.

Proof that we are the good guys is the ICC hasn't fined any of our players in this series yet for their misconduct. australia cannot say the same.

no, the ONLY person struggling here is U!

1-0 to AUSTRALIA (THE GOOD GUYS)

Proof that we are the good guys is the ICC hasn't fined any of our players in this series yet for their misconduct. australia cannot say the same

clutching at straws again pom?????


poms are the bad men, Aussie are the good guys


after game 5, we will see who has the most penalties on them

bubu wrote:

clutching at straws again pom?????


poms are the bad men, Aussie are the good guys


after game 5, we will see who has the most penalties on them

So then wog, you want to wait until game 5 for all the penalties but you're gloating about the score after game 1. You can't have it both ways.

Clearly the good guys are the ones not being penalised for their poor behaviour.

Good guys/bad guys - whatever/whoever.

Naughty boys 1, Cry-baby grasses 0

Bomber wrote:Good guys/bad guys - whatever/whoever.

Naughty boys 1, Cry-baby grasses 0

Not aware that anyone actually grassed or made an official complaint unlike McGrath to the umpire in the Sarwan incident. There is a long way to go but I appreciate that Australia is overjoyed at winning a test match as it has seemed to have been a while.

Old Redback wrote:

Bomber wrote:Good guys/bad guys - whatever/whoever.

Naughty boys 1, Cry-baby grasses 0

Not aware that anyone actually grassed or made an official complaint unlike McGrath to the umpire in the Sarwan incident. There is a long way to go but I appreciate that Australia is overjoyed at winning a test match as it has seemed to have been a while.

I guess if you have a go at someone's wife who is undergoing cancer treatment at the time they might react differently to what was said by Clarke...just saying

Very true Swanny but the question remains the same on whether/if there is a line? Personally I have never taken anything personally and have probably taken more than I have ever given and would only laugh it off. I would be more likely to react to something said to a team mate to be honest. Nonetheless you either allow it or you don't with the only moderator being peoples' self control.

swannsong wrote:

Old Redback wrote:

Bomber wrote:Good guys/bad guys - whatever/whoever.

Naughty boys 1, Cry-baby grasses 0

Not aware that anyone actually grassed or made an official complaint unlike McGrath to the umpire in the Sarwan incident. There is a long way to go but I appreciate that Australia is overjoyed at winning a test match as it has seemed to have been a while.

I guess if you have a go at someone's wife who is undergoing cancer treatment at the time they might react differently to what was said by Clarke...just saying

good point swanny.

swannsong wrote:

Old Redback wrote:

Bomber wrote:Good guys/bad guys - whatever/whoever.

Naughty boys 1, Cry-baby grasses 0

Not aware that anyone actually grassed or made an official complaint unlike McGrath to the umpire in the Sarwan incident. There is a long way to go but I appreciate that Australia is overjoyed at winning a test match as it has seemed to have been a while.

I guess if you have a go at someone's wife who is undergoing cancer treatment at the time they might react differently to what was said by Clarke...just saying

He didn't have a go at his wife at all. It was just a brilliant comeback and McGrath couldn't take it and had a sooky fit to the umpire.

bubu wrote:

swannsong wrote: I guess if you have a go at someone's wife who is undergoing cancer treatment at the time they might react differently to what was said by Clarke...just saying

good point swanny.

so if a convict does it, it's OK but an Englishman it's not.

More aussie hypocrisy

God is an Englishman wrote:

bubu wrote:

swannsong wrote: I guess if you have a go at someone's wife who is undergoing cancer treatment at the time they might react differently to what was said by Clarke...just saying

good point swanny.

so if a convict does it, it's OK but an Englishman it's not.

More aussie hypocrisy

I think if you reverse that question you'll find the hypocrisy is in the English camp...

Have I actually said it was OK for Jimmy to do it. I thought I said earlier I would have preferred him have chinned the mouthy cunt.

Major difference in them though - Jimmy didn't start the words with bailey and Clarke, McGrath did start the words with sarwaan and bit off more than he could chew.

God is an Englishman wrote:Have I actually said it was OK for Jimmy to do it. I thought I said earlier I would have preferred him have chinned the mouthy champagne.

Major difference in them though - Jimmy didn't start the words with bailey and Clarke, McGrath did start the words with sarwaan and bit off more than he could chew.

Oh dear, another cry/whinge - "mummy, he started it"...........

God is an Englishman wrote:Have I actually said it was OK for Jimmy to do it. I thought I said earlier I would have preferred him have chinned the mouthy champagne.

Major difference in them though - Jimmy didn't start the words with bailey and Clarke, McGrath did start the words with sarwaan and bit off more than he could chew.

So Clarke suggests some violent conduct, and he's a cheat.

You suggest violent conduct, and it's okay.

Bacon888 wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:Have I actually said it was OK for Jimmy to do it. I thought I said earlier I would have preferred him have chinned the mouthy champagne.

Major difference in them though - Jimmy didn't start the words with bailey and Clarke, McGrath did start the words with sarwaan and bit off more than he could chew.

So Clarke suggests some violent conduct, and he's a cheat.

You suggest violent conduct, and it's okay.

And as I said above, he would have quite rightly received a length ban for doing so. And as I have also said, if they ever prove he threatened to punch bailey the that should be 20% of his match fee gone.

God is an Englishman wrote:Have I actually said it was OK for Jimmy to do it. I thought I said earlier I would have preferred him have chinned the mouthy champagne.

Major difference in them though - Jimmy didn't start the words with bailey and Clarke, McGrath did start the words with sarwaan and bit off more than he could chew.

You really believe that???...Show me the proof of that mind blowing statement.

I think it started a long time before that final session, who started it is a moot point... Truth is Anderson couldn't cop the heat and had a cry. Then Flower uses one of his players illnesses to get up on his soap box and have a crack at the Australian side.... Class act this lot.