|
|
Post by flashblade on Jun 3, 2014 7:12:38 GMT
.....because he has a ' loose canon ' reputation, he needs to remain squeaky clean. Perhaps it's Essex's way of controlling him. Three strikes and you're out? then the bishop should be told immediately . . .  |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jun 5, 2014 12:21:41 GMT
Monty is not selected for the Essex T20 Blast game against Glamorgan on Friday. A continued part of his punishment or are his dreams of playing 20/20 floundering? www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/27716584 |
|
|
|
Post by twelvegrand on Jun 17, 2014 17:48:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jun 17, 2014 18:57:10 GMT
This link doesn't seem to work, twelvegrand.  What is this "accumulation of offences"? Does anyone know what Monty's been up to? |
|
|
|
Post by twelvegrand on Jun 17, 2014 19:00:58 GMT
Mmm. How's about this.Nothing more in the article but a teasing hint (as per last year at Sussex) that there is something going on.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jun 17, 2014 20:07:04 GMT
Mmm. How's about this.Nothing more in the article but a teasing hint (as per last year at Sussex) that there is something going on. Thanks, 12g. Sounds as if Moores would dearly like Monty to get his act together. |
|
|
|
Post by twelvegrand on Jun 17, 2014 20:16:03 GMT
I imagine so - a bat deep seaming side (i.e Stokes at 6) with Monty at 11 is right up Moore's playbook.
I just hope we are not witnessing the semi-private decline of a decent cricketer into the semi-tragedy of fading/ertswhile sportsman life. I must admit I occasionally think of him as Monty Podmore.
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jun 17, 2014 21:11:26 GMT
I imagine so - a bat deep seaming side (i.e Stokes at 6) with Monty at 11 is right up Moore's playbook. I just hope we are not witnessing the semi-private decline of a decent cricketer into the semi-tragedy of fading/ertswhile sportsman life. I must admit I occasionally think of him as Monty Podmore. This looks like yet more gossip and nudge-nudge maligning of Panesar. And from what a source. Consider this from the sage Pringle, when asking who is there to provide spin: A quick scan round the counties reveals a smattering of spinners but not in numbers from which greatness tends to evolve. Adam Riley is building a decent reputation as an off-break bowler at Kent, while Stuart Kerrigan remains a force for Lancashire with his left-arm orthodox. Of course Scott Borthwick may come again with his springy wrist-spin but compared to Swann they are ugly ducklings.
Wonderful collection of non sequiturs, inaccuracies and plain fourth double-whisky writing: how does greatness evolve from numbers exactly? Who the hell is Stuart Kerrigan and what does he have to do with the spin bowler Simon? In what sense does this relative of Twizzle with his springy wrists resemble an ugly duckling? I'm prefectly prepared to belive that Moores wants a spinner in the team, but this article does nothing for Moores, for Panesar, and worse than nothing for Pringle. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2014 21:51:02 GMT
I imagine so - a bat deep seaming side (i.e Stokes at 6) with Monty at 11 is right up Moore's playbook. I just hope we are not witnessing the semi-private decline of a decent cricketer into the semi-tragedy of fading/ertswhile sportsman life. I must admit I occasionally think of him as Monty Podmore. This looks like yet more gossip and nudge-nudge maligning of Panesar. And from what a source. Consider this from the sage Pringle, when asking who is there to provide spin: A quick scan round the counties reveals a smattering of spinners but not in numbers from which greatness tends to evolve. Adam Riley is building a decent reputation as an off-break bowler at Kent, while Stuart Kerrigan remains a force for Lancashire with his left-arm orthodox. Of course Scott Borthwick may come again with his springy wrist-spin but compared to Swann they are ugly ducklings.
Wonderful collection of non sequiturs, inaccuracies and plain fourth double-whisky writing: how does greatness evolve from numbers exactly? Who the hell is Stuart Kerrigan and what does he have to do with the spin bowler Simon? In what sense does this relative of Twizzle with his springy wrists resemble an ugly duckling? I'm prefectly prepared to belive that Moores wants a spinner in the team, but this article does nothing for Moores, for Panesar, and worse than nothing for Pringle. HH what is so unfulfilled about your life, that you seem to delight in decomposing the literacies of sentences, when the meaning is clear to the rest of us? |
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Jun 17, 2014 22:09:34 GMT
Yeah you tell him Sussexfan. I thought it was BM talking about Dobell for a minute. I dunno what journalism was like when those two were young, records don't go there, but journalists are taught to use as much rhetoric as possible these days, rightly or wrongly - not that Pringle's been to Uni lately, I doubt.
P.S. Greatness is more likely to evolve from big numbers than small numbers, obviously.
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jun 18, 2014 8:17:58 GMT
Yeah you tell him Sussexfan. I thought it was BM talking about Dobell for a minute. I dunno what journalism was like when those two were young, records don't go there, but journalists are taught to use as much rhetoric as possible these days, rightly or wrongly - not that Pringle's been to Uni lately, I doubt. P.S. Greatness is more likely to evolve from big numbers than small numbers, obviously. My dear old fraudster, you're confusing rhetoric with rubbish. Pringle's writing here is lazy, inaccurate and incompetent - so why should we give credence to his further unsubstantiated innuendo? Indeed he did go to Uni, and was much censured for being the first University player (and Captain) to turn down the "honour" of appearing in the Varsity match in favour of playing for England - not that it did him much good in the long run. And on the subject of greatness (the quality of genius)....how many Newtons or Einsteins will you find in a school of 20 pupils? How many more will you find in a school of 100? 1000? It's about probability you see, and having a pool of spinners regularly playing in the top level of competition, as Australia did from the retirement of Benaud in the 60s to the emergence of Warne in the 90s doesn't guarantee that any of them will be great. Now we could start discussing the influence of nurture versus nature and going into the statistical evidence (none for "evolution" I'm afraid) , but I can see your eyes glazing over there. As for Sussexfan, no idea what I've done to you that you should start calling me names. If you don't agree with what I've written, by all means put up a counter-argument and let's discuss it, or just ignore it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2014 8:28:26 GMT
I generally like Pringle as a writer, but hh is right that he was spouting lazy rubbish there - and his inability even to get Kerrigan's name right makes one question everything else Dominic Pringle has to say in that sentence.
And yes - 'sussexfan', glad your life is so fulfilled but there is no need for the personal abuse of others, about whose lives you know nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by twelvegrand on Jun 18, 2014 8:35:23 GMT
HH - I've read your post three times - can you clarify your view on the impact of the number of people playing a given sport? There seem to be a few confusions here around probability, luck and statistical distributions of talent (or 'genius')?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2014 9:23:41 GMT
Dominic Pringle's Telegraph piece has now mysteriously been edited to get Stuart Kerrigan's name right without any word of explanation. Whenever anything is edited post publication on the websites of The Guardian and almost all American papers, there is line in italics at the bottom of the piece explaining the original error and the nature of the correction. A shame that the Telegraph does not follow this widespread and honest practice.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jun 18, 2014 9:27:29 GMT
HH - I've read your post three times - can you clarify your view on the impact of the number of people playing a given sport? There seem to be a few confusions here around probability, luck and statistical distributions of talent (or 'genius')? Sorry to intrude, but isn't it obvious that the more spinners we have playing in county cricket, the more likely it is that one of them will prove to be good enough for England. Not sure that we need statistical skills here?  |
|
