Page 3 of 8
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:47 pm
by Nines
Egan wrote:So can we move this debate on
If we all understand that you agree that cricket has benefited from the involvement of Australian Football .
All that is required is a simple yes or no .
Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:16 am
by Egan
No, because Australian Rules Football has benefited from cricket just as much.
Agree with that and i will move on...
Plus theres no point debating with someone who shifts the argument so many times, that he is already discredited.
Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:18 am
by Nines
Egan wrote: theres no point debating with someone who shifts the argument so many times,.
Shifts the arguement ? Are you crazy ?
I started this thread that cricket has benefited from the involvement of Australian Football and you cannot agree .
It's a very simple statement , a very obvious statement and you cannot find it in youself to agree .There's no degree or comparison to worry about - so it's a straight forward question .
.
Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:19 pm
by the crow
Speak to vetran members of these clubs and most will say that AFL is a parrisite they would like to pull from their grounds, along with one day and 20/20 cricket.
Im getting so sick of these arguments
Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:48 pm
by Nines
the crow wrote:Speak to vetran members of these clubs and most will say that AFL is a parrisite they would like to pull from their grounds, along with one day and 20/20 cricket.
Im getting so sick of these arguments
So I take it you don't believe cricket has benefited from the involvment of Australian Football ?
Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 8:12 pm
by Rob
FFS Nines, you don't need to labour the point.
Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 8:29 pm
by Jeffles
Nines wrote:the crow wrote:Speak to vetran members of these clubs and most will say that AFL is a parrisite they would like to pull from their grounds, along with one day and 20/20 cricket.
Im getting so sick of these arguments
So I take it you don't believe cricket has benefited from the involvment of Australian Football ?
He's not making that point. The point is more about narrow minded people with complexes about their sport.
Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:02 pm
by Nines
Rob wrote:FFS Nines, you don't need to labour the point.
Sorry but that was the whole point so to speak .
Certain people can't agree to a simple point because that would mean that they had shown a positive side of Australian Football .
Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:44 pm
by Egan
Nines wrote:
Shifts the arguement ? Are you crazy ?
I started this thread that cricket has benefited from the involvement of Australian Football and you cannot agree .
It's a very simple statement , a very obvious statement and you cannot find it in youself to agree .There's no degree or comparison to worry about - so it's a straight forward question .
.
This whole thread is a continuation from the Western Sydney thread when I refused to state that without Australian Rules Football the WACA, SACA and the MCG would not be like they are today.
Now you are altering your argument to try and credit that Australian Rules Football has helped out cricket more than the other way round.
I suggest you read histories that allowed Australian Rules football onto these cricket grounds that allowed the sport to flourish. But, I doubt you will...
Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:36 pm
by Nines
Egan wrote:Now you are altering your argument to try and credit that Australian Rules Football has helped out cricket more than the other way round...
The only altering I have down is to simplify the statement to it's most basic unambiguous "
cricket has benefited from the involvement of Australian Football " .
.
Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:51 pm
by deejaybee
That's pretty ambiguous to me.
While there's no doubt that it has, its not definite, nor is it one-way.
That's my opinion, and Egan has stated his.
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:43 am
by Nines
deejaybee wrote:That's pretty ambiguous to me.
While there's no doubt that it has, its not definite, nor is it one-way.
Hello ??????????
While there's
no doubt that it has(benefited)
i.e. In your eyes there is no doubt, not any, that cricket has benefited from the involvement of Australian Football .
But wait there's more !
It's not definite ? Please explain .
There is no doubt that I'm definitely confused by that statement .
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:45 am
by Simmo79
well you shouldn't be - what DJB is saying is obvious to everyone else
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:11 pm
by Nines
Simmo79 wrote:well you shouldn't be - what DJB is saying is obvious to everyone else
So obviously he's saying that there is no doubt football has benefited from the involvement of Australian Football .
So I take it that he's saying the measure of how much cricket has benefited from the involvement of Australian Football is not definite .
If that is the case ,then that requires acceptance of the first point .
which a few people seemingly disagree with .
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:32 pm
by deejaybee
Mate, what you are referring to? The quality of the grounds, the winter tenants, the inception of Aussie-Rules as a way to keep cricketers fit during winter, or the actual game of cricket???
That's the ambiguous part.
Also, if you read up on some history, you will find that in the early days of Australian Football, they were playing on whatever unused cricket grounds they could find (eg: East Melb. Cricket ground). They had to fight to get to play on the cricket pitches of the MCG and other grounds around Australia.
That's what I think that Egan is referring to.
Australian Football itself has benefited from input from many other sports.