Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket
-
@virgil said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
When you appoint someone called Boof as coach what do you expect?
-
@virgil said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
When you appoint someone called Boof as coach what do you expect?
"Australia's captain Steven Smith and coach Darren Lehmann should be held accountable for encouraging David Warner's aggressive on-field behaviour, former captain Ian Chappell has said."
Umm....that came from Ian Chappell....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Chappell#The_ugly_Australians
-
"Australia's captain Steven Smith and coach Darren Lehmann should be held accountable for encouraging David Warner's aggressive on-field behaviour, former captain Ian Chappell has said."
Umm....that came from Ian Chappell....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Chappell#The_ugly_Australians
-
@donsteppa said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
@snowy People who now scream Get Off My Lawn were also a young person once...
I'm not a forgive and forget kind of guy. (ask @taniwharugby).
Nothing against TR. He just knows that companies that piss me off don't get my money. AMP
I am also old and grumpy.
-
The Saffers have been almighty sooks about this whole thing, as usual.
While they obviously have a better long-term record that us, they are hardly saints on this front either (Rabada's verbal send-offs have been pulled up twice in the last year, just for one).
The place it will cost them is on the field. This stuff will do what it's always done - galvanise and motivate the Australian side (who will go into 'us against the world' mode).
I'm more confident of a series victory now than I was two days ago.
-
The Saffers have been almighty sooks about this whole thing, as usual.
While they obviously have a better long-term record that us, they are hardly saints on this front either (Rabada's verbal send-offs have been pulled up twice in the last year, just for one).
The place it will cost them is on the field. This stuff will do what it's always done - galvanise and motivate the Australian side (who will go into 'us against the world' mode).
I'm more confident of a series victory now than I was two days ago.
@barbarian get your hand off it Barb. Why sooks? Didn't Faf pretty much say "yea, shit was said by both sides"?
Who is having a cry to the media about "lines", and not crossing them? Neither side is coming up well here.
You are right about one thing though. Your merry bunch of fuckwits do thrive on this shit. We've seen it before. Give out a fuck ton of verbal, get fired up when the opposition come back at them, cross an arbitrary line in the sand they themselves drew. Cry to the media. Create siege mentality.
I never understood why, considering generally Aus have the better players anyway (and certainly do this series).
-
The Saffers have been almighty sooks about this whole thing, as usual.
While they obviously have a better long-term record that us, they are hardly saints on this front either (Rabada's verbal send-offs have been pulled up twice in the last year, just for one).
The place it will cost them is on the field. This stuff will do what it's always done - galvanise and motivate the Australian side (who will go into 'us against the world' mode).
I'm more confident of a series victory now than I was two days ago.
@barbarian said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
The Saffers have been almighty sooks about this whole thing, as usual.
Staying away from Australian media lately?
-
@barbarian get your hand off it Barb. Why sooks? Didn't Faf pretty much say "yea, shit was said by both sides"?
Who is having a cry to the media about "lines", and not crossing them? Neither side is coming up well here.
You are right about one thing though. Your merry bunch of fuckwits do thrive on this shit. We've seen it before. Give out a fuck ton of verbal, get fired up when the opposition come back at them, cross an arbitrary line in the sand they themselves drew. Cry to the media. Create siege mentality.
I never understood why, considering generally Aus have the better players anyway (and certainly do this series).
@mariner4life said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
@barbarian get your hand off it Barb. Why sooks? Didn't Faf pretty much say "yea, shit was said by both sides"?
Well today the Saffer coach has come out and said De Kock has done 'nothing wrong'.
"We are appealing because we think Quinny didn't do anything. Quinny wasn't aggressive," Gibson said. "You saw some footage and the footage showed Quinny walking up the stairs and somebody else being restrained and then Quinny gets [charged with] a Level 1 [breach]. That doesn't seem fair."So instead of going 'shit happened, lets move on', they are fighting the charge. We now get bogged down into a he said/she said, where the only actual witness was Tim Paine. And he says that de Kock DID say something.
The story drags on for another day or two, we pour over grainy video like it's the Zapruder film, and get a few more days of opinion from all comers. And I can't see how De Kock beats the charge.
Warner carried on like a total cock, for sure. But by whipping all of this stuff up, I just can't see how the Saffers come out ahead.
-
@mariner4life said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
@barbarian get your hand off it Barb. Why sooks? Didn't Faf pretty much say "yea, shit was said by both sides"?
Well today the Saffer coach has come out and said De Kock has done 'nothing wrong'.
"We are appealing because we think Quinny didn't do anything. Quinny wasn't aggressive," Gibson said. "You saw some footage and the footage showed Quinny walking up the stairs and somebody else being restrained and then Quinny gets [charged with] a Level 1 [breach]. That doesn't seem fair."So instead of going 'shit happened, lets move on', they are fighting the charge. We now get bogged down into a he said/she said, where the only actual witness was Tim Paine. And he says that de Kock DID say something.
The story drags on for another day or two, we pour over grainy video like it's the Zapruder film, and get a few more days of opinion from all comers. And I can't see how De Kock beats the charge.
Warner carried on like a total cock, for sure. But by whipping all of this stuff up, I just can't see how the Saffers come out ahead.
@barbarian they don't. you are the one trying to find a "winner" with your sook allegation.
-
@mariner4life said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
@barbarian get your hand off it Barb. Why sooks? Didn't Faf pretty much say "yea, shit was said by both sides"?
Well today the Saffer coach has come out and said De Kock has done 'nothing wrong'.
"We are appealing because we think Quinny didn't do anything. Quinny wasn't aggressive," Gibson said. "You saw some footage and the footage showed Quinny walking up the stairs and somebody else being restrained and then Quinny gets [charged with] a Level 1 [breach]. That doesn't seem fair."So instead of going 'shit happened, lets move on', they are fighting the charge. We now get bogged down into a he said/she said, where the only actual witness was Tim Paine. And he says that de Kock DID say something.
The story drags on for another day or two, we pour over grainy video like it's the Zapruder film, and get a few more days of opinion from all comers. And I can't see how De Kock beats the charge.
Warner carried on like a total cock, for sure. But by whipping all of this stuff up, I just can't see how the Saffers come out ahead.
@barbarian said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
But by whipping all of this stuff up, I just can't see how the Saffers come out ahead.
I'm sure the Saffa team is happy this is the main story. It's much better than talking about the heavy loss they just had
-
@barbarian they don't. you are the one trying to find a "winner" with your sook allegation.
@mariner4life Because it's painted as one-sided, and I think that over-eggs it.
Go and have a look at Neil Manthorp's twitter feed: https://twitter.com/NeilManthorp
The narrative goes that what De Kock did was fine, because Warner 'mentioned his family'. What's the source for that? We don't know. But his actions were entirely justifiable.
But then Warner's similar allegation is essentially dismissed. It's made up. It's a cover for general ugliness.
I just don't buy it. I'd be far more amenable to that viewpoint if there was an admission (like Faf's) that the incident was two-sided, but brought on by previous Warner behaviour. You could easily point to Warner's aggression in the field, and say that poor old de Kock just snapped as anyone would.
But no, it has to be one step further. The Aussies are the only aggressors here, and the poor noble Saffers did absolutely nothing wrong.
I'm not arguing that Warner isn't a fluffybunny who deserved everything he got. I'm arguing that some of the views aired by Manthorp and co. over-egg the pudding.
-
I thought it interesting that immediately after the visual incident, the first spin was put on it about the content of de Kocks words.
Not who to blame interesting but interestimg in the immediate modern pr exercise of shifting the issue when it's clear that Warner acted like a fluffybunny despite the provocation.
Same thing channel 4 did by claiming a security issue when Jordan Petersen exposed that Cathy idiot in their interview.
The tactic of deflect the real ugliness.
Warner, in the raw footage, was way out of line regardless of the provocation. The pr spin suggests he was incapable of not retaliating.
All because someone said something horrible ( and baseless) about his wife.
Big fucken deal wee davey victim
"I thought Joe Roots fake beard was insulting Usman, so I had to punch him"
Always Warner but never his fault or a glaring lack of self control - from a celebrated leader.
Fick off
-
@mariner4life Because it's painted as one-sided, and I think that over-eggs it.
Go and have a look at Neil Manthorp's twitter feed: https://twitter.com/NeilManthorp
The narrative goes that what De Kock did was fine, because Warner 'mentioned his family'. What's the source for that? We don't know. But his actions were entirely justifiable.
But then Warner's similar allegation is essentially dismissed. It's made up. It's a cover for general ugliness.
I just don't buy it. I'd be far more amenable to that viewpoint if there was an admission (like Faf's) that the incident was two-sided, but brought on by previous Warner behaviour. You could easily point to Warner's aggression in the field, and say that poor old de Kock just snapped as anyone would.
But no, it has to be one step further. The Aussies are the only aggressors here, and the poor noble Saffers did absolutely nothing wrong.
I'm not arguing that Warner isn't a fluffybunny who deserved everything he got. I'm arguing that some of the views aired by Manthorp and co. over-egg the pudding.
@barbarian is that irony? are you being ironic? because somewhere there is a South African making the exact same statement about the Aussie media. Or indeed the Aussie players, who pretty much think the only thing "Davey" did wrong was try and get physical. Up to that point everything he did and said was all good. That's just how they play. And will continue to play.
There. Is. No. Moral. High. Ground. Here. For anyone.
-
@barbarian is that irony? are you being ironic? because somewhere there is a South African making the exact same statement about the Aussie media. Or indeed the Aussie players, who pretty much think the only thing "Davey" did wrong was try and get physical. Up to that point everything he did and said was all good. That's just how they play. And will continue to play.
There. Is. No. Moral. High. Ground. Here. For anyone.
@mariner4life Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. I don't like the attempts by the Saffers to claim the moral high ground.
Because I will readily acknowledge we don't have it, and never will. But fuck knows they aren't near it either.
At least Warner copped the charge.
-
@mariner4life Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. I don't like the attempts by the Saffers to claim the moral high ground.
Because I will readily acknowledge we don't have it, and never will. But fuck knows they aren't near it either.
At least Warner copped the charge.
@barbarian said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
@mariner4life Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. I don't like the attempts by the Saffers to claim the moral high ground.
Because I will readily acknowledge we don't have it, and never will. But fuck knows they aren't near it either.
At least Warner copped the charge.
have you read his statement? He's absolutely trying to claim the moral high ground! It was all in defense of a lady!
Copping his whack is only part of it.
-
@barbarian said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
@mariner4life Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. I don't like the attempts by the Saffers to claim the moral high ground.
Because I will readily acknowledge we don't have it, and never will. But fuck knows they aren't near it either.
At least Warner copped the charge.
have you read his statement? He's absolutely trying to claim the moral high ground! It was all in defense of a lady!
Copping his whack is only part of it.
@mariner4life said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
It was all in defense of a lady!
That is his wife you are referring to right?
The lady bit?
She married David fucking Warner. I did get your point but "lady" might be the wrong term.I could go on a rant about personal responsibility here but I will save you all by not doing it.
-
@mariner4life said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
It was all in defense of a lady!
That is his wife you are referring to right?
The lady bit?
She married David fucking Warner. I did get your point but "lady" might be the wrong term.I could go on a rant about personal responsibility here but I will save you all by not doing it.
@snowy said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
@mariner4life said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
It was all in defense of a lady!
That is his wife you are referring to right?
The lady bit?
She married David fucking Warner. I did get your point but "lady" might be the wrong term.I could go on a rant about personal responsibility here but I will save you all by not doing it.
that's crossing the line.
-
@snowy said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
@mariner4life said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
It was all in defense of a lady!
That is his wife you are referring to right?
The lady bit?
She married David fucking Warner. I did get your point but "lady" might be the wrong term.I could go on a rant about personal responsibility here but I will save you all by not doing it.
that's crossing the line.
@mariner4life said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
@snowy said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
@mariner4life said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
It was all in defense of a lady!
That is his wife you are referring to right?
The lady bit?
She married David fucking Warner. I did get your point but "lady" might be the wrong term.I could go on a rant about personal responsibility here but I will save you all by not doing it.
that's crossing the line.
Nice work.
The NZ v England series is just making it more obvious what de Kocks some of the other players are. It really doesn't have to be "war". The on field contest is what counts, not the biggest dickhead. Unfortunately the Aussie cricket team win most of the time on both counts.
-
@barbarian said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
@mariner4life Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. I don't like the attempts by the Saffers to claim the moral high ground.
Because I will readily acknowledge we don't have it, and never will. But fuck knows they aren't near it either.
At least Warner copped the charge.
have you read his statement? He's absolutely trying to claim the moral high ground! It was all in defense of a lady!
Copping his whack is only part of it.
@mariner4life It's a pretty big part, though. At least he said he went too far. He did add the 'but he called my wife a slag', and once again I grant you he's a dickhead. And we end up right back where we started.
