OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[swaledale]

Don't let all that anger mess with your grammar, Swale

I'm not angry just ****ing incredulous that such stupidity actually exists!

[ramAnag]

...and breathe!
So, if you two could stop doing an impression of R4J arguing with TTR, here's something different to get your teeth into.
I know Andy's a cricket fan...me too...not sure about Swale but, not inappropriately, let's discuss the toss.
In any Test series winning the toss can be very important. Tradition says that there should be a toss to start each match. I've often thought this is unfair and that there should be a toss at the start of the series and beyond that the choice of who bats/bowls first should be taken in turns.
Having been accused by one of you as being a 'fence sitter' I'll say from the off that I favour this approach. Having been accused by the other of being Swales' 'rear gunner' I think it has now become clear that I'm not, but if we could discuss this without recourse to point scoring abuse that might make a pleasant change.

[roger_ramjet]

I think the fairest way would be to replicate what happens in the county championship. That is where the away side has the option to bowl first OR take their chances with the toss.

That way the deliberate preparation of a green seamer / bowlers wicket would be nullified. This would have the impact of creating more batsman friendly wickets which could result in more 627-7d plays 591-5 draws, which is tedious.

Im not so sure how this would work in India where the problem is more likely to be wickets made to break up into a minefield on day 2, and so batting first is key.

[Trickytreesreds]

NIMBY how do you work that one out? Your a xenophobic thick arsehole, no srtike that arseholes are useful your clearly not.

you're genius

[Trickytreesreds]

You would be wrong in your opinion whereas i am quoting an accurate historical assessment of the facts but clearly your content to be wrong. Exactly how is it insulting and unpatriotic and insulting to a previous generation? I've not said or commented on the previous generation.

Brag about my income eh? So you aren't sufficiently astute enough to understand the context in which whilst I am against brexit I qualify that with saying it is actually positive for me, or that when you especially accuse me of being a "pinko" I defend that by pointing out actually I pay a great deal of tax and don't begrudge one penny.

Mind you that fits with someone who likes to spout myths as if they were facts and gets shirty when the inaccuracies you spout are pointed out.

are you pissed?

[Andy_Faber]

...and breathe!
So, if you two could stop doing an impression of R4J arguing with TTR, here's something different to get your teeth into.
I know Andy's a cricket fan...me too...not sure about Swale but, not inappropriately, let's discuss the toss.
In any Test series winning the toss can be very important. Tradition says that there should be a toss to start each match. I've often thought this is unfair and that there should be a toss at the start of the series and beyond that the choice of who bats/bowls first should be taken in turns.
Having been accused by one of you as being a 'fence sitter' I'll say from the off that I favour this approach. Having been accused by the other of being Swales' 'rear gunner' I think it has now become clear that I'm not, but if we could discuss this without recourse to point scoring abuse that might make a pleasant change.

I'm Derby til I die but have no love for football, it's cricket that I love. It's enriched my life in so many ways as a player official and spectator including, ironically given recent spats, embracing those who look act and think differently to me. Cricket has always been way ahead of football in innovation (t20, Hawkeye) yet still has its quirks (playing in trousers FFS and yes, the toss.

This came up in discussion on TMS yesterday, the assumption being that toss winners elect to bat first because there is a built in advantage in doing so. Then an irrational **** like actually dragged up the stats which showed there was no such advantage.

SO, there is perceived advantage and there is the quirkiness of ceremony. On the basis of both I would retain it as a harmless ritual

[ramAnag]

I think the fairest way would be to replicate what happens in the county championship. That is where the away side has the option to bowl first OR take their chances with the toss.

That way the deliberate preparation of a green seamer / bowlers wicket would be nullified. This would have the impact of creating more batsman friendly wickets which could result in more 627-7d plays 591-5 draws, which is tedious.

Im not so sure how this would work in India where the problem is more likely to be wickets made to break up into a minefield on day 2, and so batting first is key.

Thank God for some sanity from RR, even though I'm not quite sure how that works. So the touring side would always have the option of either putting the host side in or going for the toss?

Playing in 'trousers' has always seemed eminently sensible to me Andy...especially in the UK in April or in Glossop and Buxton at any time of the year. Given the amount of protection that is worn nowadays I think they're essential.
Most sports seem to be ahead of football in terms of technology and innovation. Both rugby codes, tennis and cricket certainly are...it's just the toss that still seems prehistoric...sorry 'harmless ritual'.

I will be attending the routine massacre of my adopted county by my 'homeland' county at Old Trafford tomorrow. Origins outweigh my fondness for Derbyshire, wonder what that says about 'migration'. Maybe we could have a best of three tosses over Brexit...the Government is certainly blessed with a surfeit of those fully qualified to 'toss'.

[swaledale]

are you pissed?

I'm pissing myself laughing whenever you post!

[swaledale]

I'm Derby til I die but have no love for football, it's cricket that I love. It's enriched my life in so many ways as a player official and spectator including, ironically given recent spats, embracing those who look act and think differently to me. Cricket has always been way ahead of football in innovation (t20, Hawkeye) yet still has its quirks (playing in trousers FFS and yes, the toss.

This came up in discussion on TMS yesterday, the assumption being that toss winners elect to bat first because there is a built in advantage in doing so. Then an irrational **** like actually dragged up the stats which showed there was no such advantage.

SO, there is perceived advantage and there is the quirkiness of ceremony. On the basis of both I would retain it as a harmless ritual

Who gives a toss?

What i do like about cricket is the good natured abuse or sledging as its called!

[ramAnag]

Who gives a toss?

What i do like about cricket is the good natured abuse or sledging as its called!

Thought you might...believe me, it's not always good natured.