Watching it from the Pavillion. He’s just passed his third century with a grinding run rate of 311 off 396 balls. Apparently he’s got a quadruple century before yet never been selected for England.
Never heard of him, and I'm quite a big cricket fan. Wish I was at Lords! I remember watching Gooch get 333 on TV in 1990.
Sam Northeast; been around for quite a while.
England curiously overlooked him nearly a decade ago, then he got half a chance of selection in 2017, and picked up a hamstring injury. And continued to be overlooked. One of the might have beens.
Also by all accounts however a difficult customer. Fired as Kent captain and left, fell out with Hampshire and left them too.
But - when you consider Pietersen, Broad and Anderson have all had long careers there must have been more to it than that.
KP has also been known to court controversy from time to time.
That was my point..,
Even going back in time they accommodated awkward players. John Snow being a prime example.
And, from time to time, Sir Geoffrey…
Indeed. The greatest living Yorkshireman……
When he’s gone, will TSE be in the running ?
That's the first time 'Boycott' and 'running' have been involved in the same sentence without 'not' or 'out his partner' involved somewhere.
Well he certainly didn’t score all those rounds in boundaries.
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes.
I believe a woman is a human being who belongs to the sex class that produces large gametes. It’s irrelevant whether or not her gametes have ever been fertilised, whether or not she’s carried a baby to term, irrelevant if she was born with a rare difference of sexual development that makes neither of the above possible, or if she’s aged beyond being able to produce viable eggs. She is a woman and just as much a woman as the others.
[..removed for brevity...]
Some people feel strongly that they should have been, or wish to be seen as, the sex class into which they weren't born. Gender dysphoria is a real and very painful condition and I feel nothing but sympathy for anyone who suffers from it. I want them to be free to dress and present themselves however they like and I want them to have exactly the same rights as every other citizen regarding housing, employment and personal safety. I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. I believe the ideology that preaches those tenets has caused, and continues to cause, very real harm to vulnerable people.
I am strongly against women's and girls' rights and protections being dismantled to accommodate trans-identified men, for the very simple reason that no study has ever demonstrated that trans-identified men don't have exactly the same pattern of criminality as other men, and because, however they identify, men retain their advantages of speed and strength. In other words, I think the safety and rights of girls and women are more important than those men's desire for validation.
I sincerely hope that answers your questions. You may still disagree, but as I hope this shows, I’m more than happy to have this debate.
Watching it from the Pavillion. He’s just passed his third century with a grinding run rate of 311 off 396 balls. Apparently he’s got a quadruple century before yet never been selected for England.
Never heard of him, and I'm quite a big cricket fan. Wish I was at Lords! I remember watching Gooch get 333 on TV in 1990.
Sam Northeast; been around for quite a while.
England curiously overlooked him nearly a decade ago, then he got half a chance of selection in 2017, and picked up a hamstring injury. And continued to be overlooked. One of the might have beens.
Also by all accounts however a difficult customer. Fired as Kent captain and left, fell out with Hampshire and left them too.
But - when you consider Pietersen, Broad and Anderson have all had long careers there must have been more to it than that.
KP has also been known to court controversy from time to time.
That was my point..,
Even going back in time they accommodated awkward players. John Snow being a prime example.
And, from time to time, Sir Geoffrey…
Indeed. The greatest living Yorkshireman……
When he’s gone, will TSE be in the running ?
That's the first time 'Boycott' and 'running' have been involved in the same sentence without 'not' or 'out his partner' involved somewhere.
Well he certainly didn’t score all those rounds in boundaries.
As was said about it at the time, it would have been cheaper to lower the ocean.
This is meant to be one of the reasons that a branch of ITV (like ITC or something) went out of the film business. They spent so much on Raise the Titanic and another film about The Village People, released just when disco had gone out of fashion, that they narrowly avoided collapse and went out of films.
My review Reasonable British thriller of the period, it's not bad, although it has its boring bits. The plot revolves around raising the Titanic to retrieve the only known stocks of an ore vital to a Cold War weapon. It's understated (hence the boring bits). In appearance it is very basic and looks like a television episode, a disadvantage it shares with its contemporaries North Sea Hijack! (1980), Omen III: The Final Conflict (1981) and Meteor (1979). I keep banging on about Moonraker (1979) being the peak of the British special effects and it was: other films began a long decline and it show here here and there. But it overcomes its disadvantages in two notable cases: the raising scene and the score, both of which are brilliant.
It didn't flop because it was bad, it flopped because it's budget was too much for its natural audience. Well worth watching on a slow Sunday afternoon with some whiskey in one hand and PB in the other.
Thanks, great summary!
The film also didn't have a big bankable star apparently because they spent the budget on 'raising the Titanic'. Really, imo they should have sunk the Titanic - costume drama would have played to the strengths of the studio more.
But I haven't watched it yet - I'll do it soon in the way you suggest, except I only drink 'whisky', not whiskey.
Hopefully Christian or aligned heavy metal bands - some of the lyrics of conventional heavy metal would be completely inappropriate to a Church setting.
As was said about it at the time, it would have been cheaper to lower the ocean.
This is meant to be one of the reasons that a branch of ITV (like ITC or something) went out of the film business. They spent so much on Raise the Titanic and another film about The Village People, released just when disco had gone out of fashion, that they narrowly avoided collapse and went out of films.
My review Reasonable British thriller of the period, it's not bad, although it has its boring bits. The plot revolves around raising the Titanic to retrieve the only known stocks of an ore vital to a Cold War weapon. It's understated (hence the boring bits). In appearance it is very basic and looks like a television episode, a disadvantage it shares with its contemporaries North Sea Hijack! (1980), Omen III: The Final Conflict (1981) and Meteor (1979). I keep banging on about Moonraker (1979) being the peak of the British special effects and it was: other films began a long decline and it show here here and there. But it overcomes its disadvantages in two notable cases: the raising scene and the score, both of which are brilliant.
It didn't flop because it was bad, it flopped because it's budget was too much for its natural audience. Well worth watching on a slow Sunday afternoon with some whiskey in one hand and PB in the other.
Thanks, great summary!
The film also didn't have a big bankable star apparently because they spent the budget on 'raising the Titanic'. Really, imo they should have sunk the Titanic - costume drama would have played to the strengths of the studio more.
But I haven't watched it yet - I'll do it soon in the way you suggest, except I only drink 'whisky', not whiskey.
When I was a kid, my dad took me to Mousehole (in Cornwall) to see an old friend. I was excited because I'd seen the film, and Mousehole featured. Sadly, the friend was not as old as I'd hoped.
The next time I was in the Mosuehole area was on my coastal walk. I came across a man trimming a hedge on the coastal path. He asked me what I was doing, and I said I was walking the coast. He shook his head, and said: "I've lived here decades, and I've never seen anyone walking the coast. Now I've seen two in one day!"
The other was the great Tom Isaacs. It just so happened our walks coincided near this fellow's garden.
Comments
https://youtu.be/S0woRf9je_Y?si=2hJjSopWuT-r9vZ0
It was just that, rather like Hussain in his later years, he'd never hit a boundary except off a really filthy ball.
But then, even Chris Tavaré hit two sixes. Both in ODIs.
Looking at her majority this is a forlorn hope. But we are told by the Bible that while with Man it is impossible, with God all things are possible.
You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes.
I believe a woman is a human being who belongs to the sex class that produces large gametes. It’s irrelevant whether or not her gametes have ever been fertilised, whether or not she’s carried a baby to term, irrelevant if she was born with a rare difference of sexual development that makes neither of the above possible, or if she’s aged beyond being able to produce viable eggs. She is a woman and just as much a woman as the others.
[..removed for brevity...]
Some people feel strongly that they should have been, or wish to be seen as, the sex class into which they weren't born. Gender dysphoria is a real and very painful condition and I feel nothing but sympathy for anyone who suffers from it. I want them to be free to dress and present themselves however they like and I want them to have exactly the same rights as every other citizen regarding housing, employment and personal safety. I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. I believe the ideology that preaches those tenets has caused, and continues to cause, very real harm to vulnerable people.
I am strongly against women's and girls' rights and protections being dismantled to accommodate trans-identified men, for the very simple reason that no study has ever demonstrated that trans-identified men don't have exactly the same pattern of criminality as other men, and because, however they identify, men retain their advantages of speed and strength. In other words, I think the safety and rights of girls and women are more important than those men's desire for validation.
I sincerely hope that answers your questions. You may still disagree, but as I hope this shows, I’m more than happy to have this debate.
The film also didn't have a big bankable star apparently because they spent the budget on 'raising the Titanic'. Really, imo they should have sunk the Titanic - costume drama would have played to the strengths of the studio more.
But I haven't watched it yet - I'll do it soon in the way you suggest, except I only drink 'whisky', not whiskey.
After ‘bonkers gig’ at Huddersfield town hall paired doom metal bands with pipe organist, churches are keen to get in on the act
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2024/apr/06/uk-churches-keen-to-host-heavy-metal-bands-after-duet-with-organist-is-a-hit
NEW THREAD
The next time I was in the Mosuehole area was on my coastal walk. I came across a man trimming a hedge on the coastal path. He asked me what I was doing, and I said I was walking the coast. He shook his head, and said: "I've lived here decades, and I've never seen anyone walking the coast. Now I've seen two in one day!"
The other was the great Tom Isaacs. It just so happened our walks coincided near this fellow's garden.