Fat ****** to lead Lankan cricket

doremi wrote:He was their best captain ever, can't argue with that.

Still a vag though.

lardbucket wrote:Benaud took Meckiff off, of course. Must have been a weak captain.

How would Benaud have reacted if he believed Meckiff had a legal action and was being unfairly targetted by certain Pommie umpires? I think he would have stood up for his player.

That's cods.

Benaud believed:

rule 1) the umpire is always right
rule 2) when the umpire is wrong, see rule 1.


Ranatunga was a cheating piece of crap.

furriner wrote: Great man, Ranatunga.

In girth, clearly.

lardbucket wrote:Benaud believed:

rule 1) the umpire is always right
rule 2) when the umpire is wrong, see rule 1.


Ranatunga was a cheating piece of crap.

You are probably right about Benaud with regard to the game in progress. Nonetheless he would have protested in the strongest terms after the match and (if the Australians did not think Meckiff chucked) there would have been very serious repurcusions off the field.

Refering to a fine sportsman who achieved great things for his country as a cheat and "a piece of crap" is pretty ordinary IMO.

I'm fine with your opinion, Allan, Ranatunga wasn't a sportsman.

Sri Lanka would have become a force in Test cricket with or without Ranatunga.

lardbucket wrote:I'm fine with your opinion, Allan, Ranatunga wasn't a sportsman.

Allan?

Sorry, my mistake. I've done that before with you two, too.

lardbucket wrote:two, too.

Wrong thread

very true

Exactly how is Rangatunga a cheat?

For bowling Murali?

Paul Keating wrote:Exactly how is Rangatunga a cheat?

For bowling Murali?

No, not for that. He was in the team so he was entitled to bowl him.

lardbucket wrote:Sorry, my mistake. I've done that before with you two, too.

one-one was a racehorse
two-two was one too
two-two won one race
two-two won one too.

An easy mistake to make; "Allan_D" and "ten years after" are such similar names.

lardbucket wrote:Benaud believed:

rule 1) the umpire is always right
rule 2) when the umpire is wrong, see rule 1.

That kind of thinking was considered dated long before Ranatunga, and rightly so.

lardbucket wrote:

Paul Keating wrote:Exactly how is Rangatunga a cheat?

For bowling Murali?

No, not for that. He was in the team so he was entitled to bowl him.

Is this NSR on my behalf?

Anyways, how was Arjuna a cheat? No doubt he was a unsporting and a bit of a pRick? But what illegal activities did he get up to?

Paul Keating wrote:

lardbucket wrote:

Paul Keating wrote:Exactly how is Rangatunga a cheat?

For bowling Murali?

No, not for that. He was in the team so he was entitled to bowl him.

Is this NSR on my behalf?

Anyways, how was Arjuna a cheat? No doubt he was a unsporting and a bit of a pRick? But what illegal activities did he get up to?

Requesting a runner?

taipan wrote:

Paul Keating wrote:

lardbucket wrote:

Paul Keating wrote:Exactly how is Rangatunga a cheat?

For bowling Murali?

No, not for that. He was in the team so he was entitled to bowl him.

Is this NSR on my behalf?

Anyways, how was Arjuna a cheat? No doubt he was a unsporting and a bit of a pRick? But what illegal activities did he get up to?

Requesting a runner?

Unethical, but not illegal. If they're both the same, then guys who don't walk when they know they're out, etc. also equally deserve your hatred.

ten years after wrote:

lardbucket wrote:Sorry, my mistake. I've done that before with you two, too.

one-one was one racehorse
two-two was one too
two-two won one race
two-two won one too.

An easy mistake to make; "Allan_D" and "ten years after" are such similar names.

TYA ... I can only plead temporary insanity ... some lateral mental reference to Alan Davidson, perhaps, or some memory of you and Allan_D both taking me on in the notorious 'year minus 1' debate. You two do have a similar posting style, on cricketing matters at least.

taipan wrote:

Paul Keating wrote:

lardbucket wrote:

Paul Keating wrote:Exactly how is Rangatunga a cheat?

For bowling Murali?

No, not for that. He was in the team so he was entitled to bowl him.

Is this NSR on my behalf?

Anyways, how was Arjuna a cheat? No doubt he was a unsporting and a bit of a pRick? But what illegal activities did he get up to?

Requesting a runner?

Like Mark Boucher claiming catches on the bounce against Carl Hooper. No no cheating there.

HH_pink wrote:

taipan wrote:

Paul Keating wrote:

lardbucket wrote:

Paul Keating wrote:Exactly how is Rangatunga a cheat?

For bowling Murali?

No, not for that. He was in the team so he was entitled to bowl him.

Is this NSR on my behalf?

Anyways, how was Arjuna a cheat? No doubt he was a unsporting and a bit of a pRick? But what illegal activities did he get up to?

Requesting a runner?

Unethical, but not illegal. If they're both the same, then guys who don't walk when they know they're out, etc. also equally deserve your hatred.

No, if it is against the rules it is cheating, pure and simple.

>>>

Nonetheless he would have protested in the strongest terms after the match

<<<

... aye, which would have been the sporting thing to do.

Paul Keating wrote:

taipan wrote:

Paul Keating wrote:

lardbucket wrote:

Paul Keating wrote:Exactly how is Rangatunga a cheat?

For bowling Murali?

No, not for that. He was in the team so he was entitled to bowl him.

Is this NSR on my behalf?

Anyways, how was Arjuna a cheat? No doubt he was a unsporting and a bit of a pRick? But what illegal activities did he get up to?

Requesting a runner?

Like Mark Boucher claiming catches on the bounce against Carl Hooper. No no cheating there.

Are you stupid?

If he genuinely thought he took it cleanly then there is no cheating involved. Fatman knew the runner wasn't allowed.

Do you remember the catch, Taips?

How can someone not know it when it bounced at least 4 inches in front of you. One of the worst displays of cricket I have seen. CHEAT.