Thanks Amila!
It’s great to
Thanks Amila!

It’s great to see a young, fast bowler from Sri Lanka who can actually bowl fast. We need to give this guy a lot of exposure, support and time to develop.
On this evidence, he has all the right attributes to be a potent weapon in our pace attack. If we are to ever become a force in away conditions (outside the sub-continent), then we need to nurture bowlers who have consistent pace AND movement, hence penetration. It’s time to look past the likes of Kulasekara and Welegedera. Vaas was the only exception to that rule.

@rahulraj (#45/#46)
@rahulraj (#45/#46)

Actually, we didn’t need to bring this conversation so far if you’d simply properly read what I’d written in my first comment for this article/blog.

It comes down to this – I do not have time to go around picking every little mistake up and commenting on it. That was never my intention and never will be. It was simply a case of my seeing a mistake by you regarding Sanga’s stats/record and correcting it, therefore, it was NEVER did I suggest the original blog doesn’t have any mistakes.

There’s no point arguing with someone like you who clearly does not have the patience required to actually read something and comprehend it.

Finally, your last sentence sums up your lack of maturity rather well. So, I’m exiting this debate now rather than continue to waste my time with someone who resorts such pathetic, inane, mindless drivel. Have a good life.

Just one last thing – your
Just one last thing – your use of the word “ignorant” to describe my comments is perhaps the funniest, most ironic thing I’ll see for a long time on this site. Thanks for the entertainment!

Oh dear. It’s no wonder the
Oh dear. It’s no wonder the England players were so confused about what the ‘spirit of cricket’ is during the SL tour! 😛

Oh dear. It’s no wonder the
Oh dear. It’s no wonder the England players were confused about the ‘spirit of cricket’ is during the SL tour! 😛

@rahulraj
#42: Seriously,
@rahulraj

#42: Seriously, just suck it up and move on. There’s no need to stoop so low as to call me names such as “Butthurt Srilankan”. Let’s just stick to a mature discussion (if you can). This sort of stuff just makes you silly and juvenile, especially after you’ve admitted that you were in the wrong.

You keep thinking that I am trying to argue that Sagakkara is the best! I am not. I don’t know how much simpler I can make that. Do you not understand that all I was doing was correcting to your statistical errors? At no point did I enter the “best batsman” debate. Can you show me any evidence that I made such an argument? All I did was provide the statistical facts! It would be nice if you could go back and re-read all my comments if you feel the need to respond to this. I repeat (for the umpteenth time), I am not trying to argue that Sangakkara, or anyone else for that matter, is the best batsman! I was simply correcting your statistical mistakes. As long as you keep bringing up the same moot point I will keep repeating this, in the hope (it seems a somewhat vain hope) that you will eventually understand something as simple as what I have said.

#43: I’ll correct whomever I want, but thank you for your suggestion.

I think you really need to let this go and move on now. It’s becoming tedious. Goodbye.

@rahulraj: You said – “Even
@rahulraj: You said – “Even If I agree About the batting averages of above 45 or 50 whatever as said…”

I’m sorry to have to tell you that you do not get a ‘choice’ as to whether to agree with something like a batting average. As I said in #39 above, it is not a matter of opinion. What you said there is like saying “Even if I agree that 5 + 5 = 10”.

@rahulraj: You say I missed
@rahulraj: You say I missed an important point you made. In addition, you try to engage me in this debate again. So, I feel I have to repeat myself yet again. I am not concerned about the debate. As I said previously, that would lead to a long discussion which this space would not facilitate. I was simply correcting the several statistical errors that you had made. You got the numbers wrong. I corrected you. There’s no point going on about something that I missed. There was nothing to “miss” with regard to anything other than the stats issue because I was only simply interested in correcting your stats mistakes.

Just accept that you got the stats wrong and move on. Otherwise, we could be here for months sending messages back and forth about who’s a better batsman. Because, that is a matter of opinion. It is subjective by definition. Stats, on the other hand, are NOT subjective. That is exactly why I wanted to chip in and correct you on a FACTUAL matter, NOT a matter of opinion (i.e. who’s the better batsman).

Okay, no worries. I’m sorry
Okay, no worries. I’m sorry about the misunderstanding then.

I’d say that Plunkett may have looked a bit more threatening in the 2nd Test when Anderson looked pretty jaded, but I think Anderson looked (slightly) better overall. Plunkett didn’t pick up any wickets in SL’s 2nd innings at Lord’s when Eng were trying to bowl SL out. That might’ve hurt Plunkett’s chances of picking up the award.

Having said that, I agree that Anderson wasn’t at his best. Yeah, it would’ve been a tough decision considering their lack of match-turning performances 😀

I have to admit, I’m still over the moon about this series win in England!

@delan82 – He was Eng’s man
@delan82 – He was Eng’s man of the series. SL’s was Angelo Mathews. Nowadays, they have a man of the series for each team. I’m not sure if that applies to every series. It could change depending on the sponsor I suppose.