cricket

[bonj2]

If you have a degree in physics then it must have been awarded by your mum, because you clearly know f*ck all.
The only pseudo force at work here is your intellect.

no it was awarded by, strangely enough, a uni but only on proof that i'd paid the library fines

 

[User482]

you'd have to be very unlucky to have your fingers broke, especially as your fingers are moving at the time the ball reaches you.
What's this, turned from 'cricket is physically exersionary' to 'well you might get your fingers broke?' scraping the bottom of the barrel here a bit aren't we User482...

I have no idea what "exersionary" means, I was simple responding to one of your (many) daft suggestions about how a batsman can avoid injury.

It's amazing to think that no-one has ever followed your suggestion for standing at the side of the wicket and holding your bat in front of the stumps.

 

[Arch]

That's no dogeaten tennis ball, it's bonj's brain! Quick, get it back off that labrador...

Actually, don't bother...

 

[User482]

Well he must have been quite stupid not to hold the bat at the same height as the ball then. It's not hard, i have played it before you know! And with people doing overarm bowls not just kid's cricket in the back garden with a dogeaten tennis ball.

I simply pointed out what happened when a batsman did something approximating your suggestion. Yes, it absolutely was stupid.

 

[User482]

That's no dogeaten tennis ball, it's bonj's brain! Quick, get it back off that labrador...

Actually, don't bother...

The range of topics on which Bonj holds opinions untroubled by facts, never fails to amaze me.

 

[bonj2]

I have no idea what "exersionary" means, I was simple responding to one of your (many) daft suggestions about how a batsman can avoid injury.

It's amazing to think that no-one has ever followed your suggestion for standing at the side of the wicket and holding your bat in front of the stumps.

they probably do.

 

[bonj2]

I have no idea what "exersionary" means, I was simple responding to one of your (many) daft suggestions about how a batsman can avoid injury.

It's amazing to think that no-one has ever followed your suggestion for standing at the side of the wicket and holding your bat in front of the stumps.

you don't even know what you're arguing about do you.
If you haven't got any evidence that cricket is physically exertionary and thus is deserving of being classed as a sport, then kindly shut up - as it is becoming evident that you have lost the argument by your failure to produce any such evidence.

 

[bonj2]

I simply pointed out what happened when a batsman did something approximating your suggestion. Yes, it absolutely was stupid.

Well - what about this. If he isn't quite sure what height the ball's going to bounce to, then he can hold the bat VERTICALLY, in line with the plane of motion of the ball (which he can see as soon as it leaves the bowler's hand) so that however high it bounces, it will hit the bat.
anyhow this is a pretty stupid way of playing cricket for idiots that don't really know how to bat properly like you obviously don't User482. normal people would just swing the bat at the ball

 

[bonj2]

it's a pointless argument anyway - tennis players don't get injured when the ball is travelling at well over 100mph on the serve. This is largely because, a) they can see its direction of travel before it hits the ground (as in cricket), and ( the simple fact of it hitting the ground takes a lot of its speed off it. What about when in tennis it bounces on the floor and then hits the linesman? he's fine, because it's travelling slow by then, due to it having hit the ground. If it doesn't hit the ground, it's a no ball.

 

[User482]

Well - what about this. If he isn't quite sure what height the ball's going to bounce to, then he can hold the bat VERTICALLY, in line with the plane of motion of the ball (which he can see as soon as it leaves the bowler's hand) so that however high it bounces, it will hit the bat.
anyhow this is a pretty stupid way of playing cricket for idiots that don't really know how to bat properly like you obviously don't User482. normal people would just swing the bat at the ball

And with that, we have incontrovertable proof that there is no point in arguing with an idiot.

 

[Arch]

"tennis players don't get injured when the ball is travelling at well over 100mph on the serve"

You don't think it might also be something to do with a tennis ball being hollow and fluffy (like your brain) and a cricket ball being wood, covered in stitched leather?

 

[User482]

it's a pointless argument anyway - tennis players don't get injured when the ball is travelling at well over 100mph on the serve. This is largely because, a) they can see its direction of travel before it hits the ground (as in cricket), and ( the simple fact of it hitting the ground takes a lot of its speed off it. What about when in tennis it bounces on the floor and then hits the linesman? he's fine, because it's travelling slow by then, due to it having hit the ground. If it doesn't hit the ground, it's a no ball.

Ah yes, being hit by a tennis ball and a cricket ball is exactly the same thing.

You're not very good at this.

 

[bonj2]

And with that, we have incontrovertable proof that there is no point in arguing with an idiot.

no, we have incontrovertible proof that you haven't got any incontravertible proof.

 

[User482]

You don't think it might also be something to do with a tennis ball being hollow and fluffy (like your brain) and a cricket ball being wood, covered in stitched leather?

Dammit woman, don't let facts get in the way! You'll make his head explode.

 

[bonj2]

You don't think it might also be something to do with a tennis ball being hollow and fluffy (like your brain) and a cricket ball being wood, covered in stitched leather?

a cricket ball isn't SOLID! anyhow a tennis ball while lighter than a cricket ball, is at least half as heavy, but it travels over 50% faster. therefore it has as much if not more momentun.