Dear Guest
Thank you for visiting! est189 will soon be closing its doors (do forums have doors?) please visit the following thread - (to wail & cry perhaps?)
https://www.est1892.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=4002484#post4002484
Thanjk you.
Paul.S
I may, in common with others, have given the impression that England were a team of no-hopers whose ability at one-day cricket was limited to losing ineptly, unable to take a wicket without a mistake from opposition batsmen or to set a decent score against even the humblest opponents and whose best chance of escaping defeat was to rely on the vagaries of the English summer to rescue them through persistent rain resulting in the flooding of all the cricket pitches in the country.
In the light of yesterday's magnificent gubbing of India I now realise there was not a scintilla or jot of truth in these criticisms and that England are now the most fearsome machine the world of one-day cricket has ever seen.
. Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
I may, in common with others, have given the impression that England were a team of no-hopers whose ability at one-day cricket was limited to losing ineptly, unable to take a wicket without a mistake from opposition batsmen or to set a decent score against even the humblest opponents and whose best chance of escaping defeat was to rely on the vagaries of the English summer to rescue them through persistent rain resulting in the flooding of all the cricket pitches in the country.
In the light of yesterday's magnificent gubbing of India I now realise there was not a scintilla or jot of truth in these criticisms and that England are now the most fearsome machine the world of one-day cricket has ever seen.
I may, in common with others, have given the impression that England were a team of no-hopers whose ability at one-day cricket was limited to losing ineptly, unable to take a wicket without a mistake from opposition batsmen or to set a decent score against even the humblest opponents and whose best chance of escaping defeat was to rely on the vagaries of the English summer to rescue them through persistent rain resulting in the flooding of all the cricket pitches in the country.
In the light of yesterday's magnificent gubbing of India I now realise there was not a scintilla or jot of truth in these criticisms and that England are now the most fearsome machine the world of one-day cricket has ever seen.
Considering your ability to u-turn completely have you given any thought to taking a position in government or on the sports pages of a tabloid paper? I fear your talents are being wasted on internet forums.
"The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind."
-- William Blake
I may, in common with others, have given the impression that England were a team of no-hopers whose ability at one-day cricket was limited to losing ineptly, unable to take a wicket without a mistake from opposition batsmen or to set a decent score against even the humblest opponents and whose best chance of escaping defeat was to rely on the vagaries of the English summer to rescue them through persistent rain resulting in the flooding of all the cricket pitches in the country.
In the light of yesterday's magnificent gubbing of India I now realise there was not a scintilla or jot of truth in these criticisms and that England are now the most fearsome machine the world of one-day cricket has ever seen.
It's because collywobble has introduced a new pedalo regime which is motivating the troops and keeping them in peak physical condition
Considering your ability to u-turn completely have you given any thought to taking a position in government or on the sports pages of a tabloid paper? I fear your talents are being wasted on internet forums.
I know, one swallow doesn't make a summer. Or, um, something like that.
. Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
Comment