How many years have you been forumming before you joined FB?

tac wrote:
Noice . . . I take it merls is the gran?

Aye, can picture it now :

Merlin : In my day.... Middx.... gotta love Jardine... Brearley... Thatcher....

JKL : Ooh come on Grandad... oops ow's yer fatheh? It was a long time ago....

BM: Pass the biscuits.

JKL: Oooh Monkey, you're being a bit Brasseh.

Merlin: In my day.... that was ...... called a circle jerk... I won every time...

Quality, Danny . . ..

Has the forum all taken magic mushrooms in the past 24 hours? You crazy mofos...

January 2003. Not sure why then, or even why, but hey, i'm still around. Sometimes.

Henry wrote:July 1999 when Cricinfo hosted the C4 forum. I remember some good debates about the make up of the England side to play New Zealand that summer.

I remember taking part in those discussions.

I think it says a lot about English cricket at the time that I was pushing for the selection of Chris Schofield and Darren Maddy.

Mofos? Mofus?

We were all fooled by the Schofield phenomenon.

England had been starved of any kind of spinner for about 20 years, and then this leggie comes along, takes a shit-load of wickets on an A tour to NZ and Bangladesh (who didn't even have Test status back then), so it was only natural to hop on the bandwagon and embarrass yourself.

We all did it. And I still say he would've done a better job against NZ than whoever the f*ck we did pick for that awful, awful series...

Sir Ron of Irani, Aftab Habib.....

As for reminicsing in general... there's nothing sad about it. Whenever you're out with friends you spend half the time talking about the great times you had in the past. It's human nature.

Just because forum conversations take place on the net doesn't mean they're not real. Ideas are still exchanged, jokes are still laughed at.

I've learnt a lot from my time spent on the forum - it's worth looking back on that time if only to remind us of interesting conversations that have slipped our mind.

It was Tufnell - and Peter Such for the OT Test.

Good times...

Giddins, Such, Hick, Butcher, Mullally, Irani, Ramps, Tudor.

They all had a bowl in that series. Shudder . . .

Although ironically it was the batting that really stunk the place out.

Tudor's (match-winning) 99* as nightwatchman at Edgbaston was comfortably England's top score of the series.

Did Tudor often bat with Stewart?

Dello wrote:We were all fooled by the Schofield phenomenon.

England had been starved of any kind of spinner for about 20 years, and then this leggie comes along, takes a shit-load of wickets on an A tour to NZ and Bangladesh (who didn't even have Test status back then), so it was only natural to hop on the bandwagon and embarrass yourself.

We all did it. And I still say he would've done a better job against NZ than whoever the f*ck we did pick for that awful, awful series...

True. Chris Schofield wasn't the answer. But neither was any other spinner.

I suggested the smartest thing to do would be to go in with a four-man pace attack. The English selectors thought otherwise.

To be fair, it probably didn't make much difference at the time.

Hass wrote:

Dello wrote:We were all fooled by the Schofield phenomenon.

England had been starved of any kind of spinner for about 20 years, and then this leggie comes along, takes a shit-load of wickets on an A tour to NZ and Bangladesh (who didn't even have Test status back then), so it was only natural to hop on the bandwagon and embarrass yourself.

We all did it. And I still say he would've done a better job against NZ than whoever the f*ck we did pick for that awful, awful series...

True. Chris Schofield wasn't the answer. But neither was any other spinner.

I suggested the smartest thing to do would be to go in with a four-man pace attack. The English selectors thought otherwise.

I can't even remember what I suggested. Probably something along the lines of "give Owais Shah a go".

But I'm pretty certain I never advocated the selection of Darren Maddy, Ronnie Irani, Ed Giddins, the (final) recall for Graeme Hick and all the other nonsense picks the despicable trio of Graveney, Gooch and Gatting forced upon us.

Gooch and Gatting had the good grace to get fired as a result of the debacle. Graveney gave himself a promotion...

Dello wrote:We were all fooled by the Schofield phenomenon.

England had been starved of any kind of spinner for about 20 years, and then this leggie comes along, takes a shit-load of wickets on an A tour to NZ and Bangladesh (who didn't even have Test status back then), so it was only natural to hop on the bandwagon and embarrass yourself.

We all did it. And I still say he would've done a better job against NZ than whoever the f*ck we did pick for that awful, awful series...

Salisbury could have had an effective career if he had been handled better.

Or if he had bowled better. Or just been better.

If he had been more like Warney.

Mike ' yeah, apart from his 45 average what else does Thorpe bring to the table?' Gatting....

And now the qunt has wangled himself a job high up the structure somewhere.

JKLever wrote:Mike ' yeah, apart from his 45 average what else does Thorpe bring to the table?' Gatting....

Perhaps he was hoping the answer would be "Ketchup".

Dello wrote:Or if he had bowled better. Or just been better.

In his first test against Pakistan, he took some wickets and looked the part, then went to OT and took none for millions on a road and was then dropped. Probably a fragile flower, but better use could have been made of him.

He now demeans himself by playing for the Bears.

Dello wrote:

JKLever wrote:Mike ' yeah, apart from his 45 average what else does Thorpe bring to the table?' Gatting....

Perhaps he was hoping the answer would be "Ketchup".

Or even more likely, "the pies".

Or "seconds".

Followed by, "the cakes".

Or "a bucket" and "a toilet"