frey
Well-known member
Absolutely correct! ...the problem for the opposition is that players such as Gilchrist and Symonds will only get better in the semi and final.Clearly they are the best batting, bowling, fielding side by quite a distance.
Absolutely correct! ...the problem for the opposition is that players such as Gilchrist and Symonds will only get better in the semi and final.Clearly they are the best batting, bowling, fielding side by quite a distance.
Nothing to do with your spelling, old son. The word means (literally) hard to penetrate & figuratively obscure or difficult to understand.Wow, I missed an "e", so crucify me...
Yes, I do know what impenetrable means - it's not exactly the hardest word on Earth, is it?
Nothing to do with your spelling, old son. The word means (literally) hard to penetrate & figuratively obscure or difficult to understand.
So either reading of it renders your original sentence meaningless, unless, of course, you're suggesting that Australia haven't been hard as hard to penetrate this year as in 2003, which isn't really fit discussion for a family forum & is potentially libellous too...
I was meaning at the start of the tournament, TBH.Actually there's a difference in what you said and what you're now arguing. Saying the 2003 Australian team is stronger than the 2007 version (and I'm not necessarily accepting that this is true) is not the same thing as saying that it looked more inpenetrable during the respective tournaments. Whether or not the 2007 team is better or worse than the 2003, it has not been as closely run in any of its matches thus far as happened to the 2003 team. They've looked less like losing a match at any stage during this WC than the 2003 team did at a couple of points during their WC.
Really there have been two dodgy spots for the Australians so far this tournament. 1 - When Smith and de Villiers were firing in pursuit of the 377, before Watto ran out de Villiers and Smith's fitness let him down, and 2 - when Bell and Pietersen were cruising along and it wasn't clear where a breakthrough would come, before Bell played a weak shot and Pietersen's fitness let him down. Both of those were concerning moments, but neither lasted long enough for the outcome of the match to be seriously in doubt, although the potential was there. But the Aussies have back their swagger that, even in situations like that, you're confident they'll manufacture a wicket from somewhere and turn things around.
What you said where?Didn't think you'd take what I said to heart Richard.
Smith's sarcasm-radar not working too well today either...
I evidently have missed the point, at least that which most others were getting at.I think Richard has missed the pont of this thread completely.
I wasn't using it in the 100& exactly-literal sense of the word, TBH.Nothing to do with your spelling, old son. The word means (literally) hard to penetrate & figuratively obscure or difficult to understand.
So either reading of it renders your original sentence meaningless, unless, of course, you're suggesting that Australia haven't been hard as hard to penetrate this year as in 2003, which isn't really fit discussion for a family forum & is potentially libellous too...
...like I didn't know you were being sarcastic. You're not exactly good at hiding it.Smith's sarcasm-radar not working too well today either...
Well, I think they were thinking along the lines of what your post actually said, not what it might possibly have meant but didn't say!I was meaning at the start of the tournament, TBH.
Maybe some people were thinking a slightly different thing to me.