I went to the double header T20 which featured a woman's T20 followed by Middlesex v Surrey

The woman's game was put on first (this is a device to stop spectators coming to the men's game before scarpering which tells its own story. ) .

My intent was to see (1) whether the woman's T20 game had improved and (2) whether it stood as a spectacle to challenge the men's game.

As far as improvement perhaps one could say that fielding has improved marginally in the past ten years or so but nothing like that of the men';s game. As for the spectacle of women's cricket versus men's cricket, the women's game failed miserably.

The the women's game is under powered and I doubt whether any half y decent man's club side would struggle to beat any woman's side. Men simply have more power and of course there are no meaningful pace bowlers in the women's game

As for the Middlesex , they were abject. They started well chasing 200 and at the halfway mark were well up with the rate but a few overs later they were lost.

My first sight of the young pace bowler Atkinson. Looked very promising.

Finally, a large crowd, possibly 12-15,000, attended as the stands were at least half filled - Lords has a capacity of around 30,000 now the rebuilding is now completed. .
RH

On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 09:08:27 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
> I went to the double header T20 which featured a woman's T20 followed by Middlesex v Surrey
>
>
'Course you did
>
>
> The woman's game was put on first (this is a device to stop spectators coming to the men's game before scarpering which tells its own story. ) .
>
>What a load of nonsense. The women's game is the support to the main event.
>
> My intent was to see (1) whether the woman's T20 game had improved and (2) whether it stood as a spectacle to challenge the men's game.
>
>What a totally dumb intention.
>
> As far as improvement perhaps one could say that fielding has improved marginally in the past ten years or so but nothing like that of the men';s game. As for the spectacle of women's cricket versus men's cricket, the women's game failed miserably.
>
>
Who decreed that the fixture was "a spectacle to challenge the men's game"?
>
> The the women's game is under powered and I doubt whether any half y decent man's club side would struggle to beat any woman's side. Men simply have more power and of course there are no meaningful pace bowlers in the women's game
>
Here's a tip for watching cricket. Compare men's cricket with men's cricket and women's cricket with women's cricket.
That way you won't broadcast how dumb you actually are.
>
> As for the Middlesex , they were abject. They started well chasing 200 and at the halfway mark were well up with the rate but a few overs later they were lost.
>
>
Did you borrow that match report from a primary school child?
>
> My first sight of the young pace bowler Atkinson. Looked very promising.
>
> Finally, a large crowd, possibly 12-15,000, attended as the stands were at least half filled - Lords has a capacity of around 30,000 now the rebuilding is now completed. .
> RH

On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 3:52:48 PM UTC+1, Najeeb ybo wrote:
> On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 09:08:27 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > I went to the double header T20 which featured a woman's T20 followed by Middlesex v Surrey
> >
> >
> 'Course you did
> >
> >
> > The woman's game was put on first (this is a device to stop spectators coming to the men's game before scarpering which tells its own story. ) .
> >
> >What a load of nonsense. The women's game is the support to the main event.

Increasingly the women's game is portrayed as being the equal o the men's game., RH

> >
> > My intent was to see (1) whether the woman's T20 game had improved and (2) whether it stood as a spectacle to challenge the men's game.
> >
> >What a totally dumb intention.

Only to a liberal bigot mind ... RH
> >
> > As far as improvement perhaps one could say that fielding has improved marginally in the past ten years or so but nothing like that of the men';s game. As for the spectacle of women's cricket versus men's cricket, the women's game failed miserably. > >
> >
> Who decreed that the fixture was "a spectacle to challenge the men's game"?

It doesn't need to be formally decreed, it just needs to be judged by anyone , RH

> >
> > The the women's game is under powered and I doubt whether any half y decent man's club side would struggle to beat any woman's side. Men simply have more power and of course there are no meaningful pace bowlers in the women's game
> >
> Here's a tip for watching cricket. Compare men's cricket with men's cricket and women's cricket with women's cricket.

A liberal bigot at full wriggle. RH

> That way you won't broadcast how dumb you actually are.

Oh dear, Najeeb ybolies on his back on the floor kicking his feet in the air as he has a tember tantrum... RH

> >
> > As for the Middlesex , they were abject. They started well chasing 200 and at the halfway mark were well up with the rate but a few overs later they were lost.
> >
> >
> Did you borrow that match report from a primary school child?

Unlike INajeeb ybo where possible I aaoid prolixity ... RH
> >
> > My first sight of the young pace bowler Atkinson. Looked very promising..
> >
> > Finally, a large crowd, possibly 12-15,000, attended as the stands were at least half filled - Lords has a capacity of around 30,000 now the rebuilding is now completed. .
> > RH

On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 16:36:49 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 3:52:48 PM UTC+1, Najeeb ybo wrote:
> > On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 09:08:27 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > > I went to the double header T20 which featured a woman's T20 followed by Middlesex v Surrey
> > >
> > >
> > 'Course you did
> > >
> > >
> > > The woman's game was put on first (this is a device to stop spectators coming to the men's game before scarpering which tells its own story. ) .
> > >
> > >What a load of nonsense. The women's game is the support to the main event.
> Increasingly the women's game is portrayed as being the equal o the men's game., RH
>
>
By who?
Give us a name
> > >
> > > My intent was to see (1) whether the woman's T20 game had improved and (2) whether it stood as a spectacle to challenge the men's game.
> > >
> > >What a totally dumb intention.
> Only to a liberal bigot mind ... RH
>
>
Ah I see, a mere hint of criticism gets a gibberish response.
> > >
> > > As far as improvement perhaps one could say that fielding has improved marginally in the past ten years or so but nothing like that of the men';s game. As for the spectacle of women's cricket versus men's cricket, the women's game failed miserably. > >
> > >
> > Who decreed that the fixture was "a spectacle to challenge the men's game"?
> It doesn't need to be formally decreed, it just needs to be judged by anyone , RH
>
>
Like who? Whose judgment decides on the informal decree that womens cricket is "a spectacle to challenge the men's game"?
> > >
> > > The the women's game is under powered and I doubt whether any half y decent man's club side would struggle to beat any woman's side. Men simply have more power and of course there are no meaningful pace bowlers in the women's game
> > >
> > Here's a tip for watching cricket. Compare men's cricket with men's cricket and women's cricket with women's cricket.
> A liberal bigot at full wriggle. RH
>
More gibberish
>
> > That way you won't broadcast how dumb you actually are.
> Oh dear, Najeeb ybolies on his back on the floor kicking his feet in the air as he has a tember tantrum... RH
> > >
> > > As for the Middlesex , they were abject. They started well chasing 200 and at the halfway mark were well up with the rate but a few overs later they were lost.
> > >
> > >
> > Did you borrow that match report from a primary school child?
>
> Unlike INajeeb ybo where possible I aaoid prolixity ... RH
>
>Translation: Karen Henderson has nothing valuable to say. It can't spell anyway
> > >
> > > My first sight of the young pace bowler Atkinson. Looked very promising.
> > >
> > > Finally, a large crowd, possibly 12-15,000, attended as the stands were at least half filled - Lords has a capacity of around 30,000 now the rebuilding is now completed. .
> > > RH

On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 1:36:49 AM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > >What a load of nonsense. The women's game is the support to the main event.
> Increasingly the women's game is portrayed as being the equal o the men's game., RH

In skill? Show me one example.
In right to exist? Of course it does.

On Fri, 26 May 2023 09:57:31 -0700 (PDT), Najeeb ybo
<najeebybo@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 16:36:49 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
>> On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 3:52:48?PM UTC+1, Najeeb ybo wrote:
>> > On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 09:08:27 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
>> > > I went to the double header T20 which featured a woman's T20 followed by Middlesex v Surrey
>> > >
>> > >
>> > 'Course you did
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > The woman's game was put on first (this is a device to stop spectators coming to the men's game before scarpering which tells its own story. ) .
>> > >
>> > >What a load of nonsense. The women's game is the support to the main event.
>> Increasingly the women's game is portrayed as being the equal o the men's game., RH
>>
>>
>By who?
>Give us a name
>> > >
>> > > My intent was to see (1) whether the woman's T20 game had improved and (2) whether it stood as a spectacle to challenge the men's game.
>> > >
>> > >What a totally dumb intention.
>> Only to a liberal bigot mind ... RH
>>
>>
>Ah I see, a mere hint of criticism gets a gibberish response.
>> > >
>> > > As far as improvement perhaps one could say that fielding has improved marginally in the past ten years or so but nothing like that of the men';s game. As for the spectacle of women's cricket versus men's cricket, the women's game failed miserably. > >

So someone who has gone along with the unshakeable conviction that
women's cricket is not and cannot be a game worth watching (unlike the
amazing 1950s men which he liked watching when he was a babe-in-arms),
has noted in his little book of things he hates and spewed it all over
a cricket newsgroup which almost nobody reads.

This lunatic spends a lot of time telling people that modern
wicketkeeping is awful and that nobody ever bowls spin any more, has
clearly never watched (not just attended, but taken some note of the
play) England's Amy Jones, who is the best wicketkeeper qua
wicketkeeper in the world - though admitting her chances of scoring
more than a lucky edge for 4 facing men's fast bowling are minuscule -
that at least a dozen more are better behind the stumps than English
county men, and that the reason they're good behind the stumps is that
while the fast bowling is nothing like Mark Wood's, the spinners are
the main strikers and are considerably better than the average male
county tweaker. Why doesn't he find a sport he actually likes and
plague its faqns incessantly with his utter drivel.

Cheers,

Mike

On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 10:13:31 AM UTC+1, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2023 09:57:31 -0700 (PDT), Najeeb ybo
> <naje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 16:36:49 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
> >> On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 3:52:48?PM UTC+1, Najeeb ybo wrote:
> >> > On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 09:08:27 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
> >> > > I went to the double header T20 which featured a woman's T20 followed by Middlesex v Surrey
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > 'Course you did
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > The woman's game was put on first (this is a device to stop spectators coming to the men's game before scarpering which tells its own story. ) .
> >> > >
> >> > >What a load of nonsense. The women's game is the support to the main event.
> >> Increasingly the women's game is portrayed as being the equal o the men's game., RH
> >>
> >>
> >By who?
> >Give us a name
> >> > >
> >> > > My intent was to see (1) whether the woman's T20 game had improved and (2) whether it stood as a spectacle to challenge the men's game.
> >> > >
> >> > >What a totally dumb intention.
> >> Only to a liberal bigot mind ... RH
> >>
> >>
> >Ah I see, a mere hint of criticism gets a gibberish response.
> >> > >
> >> > > As far as improvement perhaps one could say that fielding has improved marginally in the past ten years or so but nothing like that of the men';s game. As for the spectacle of women's cricket versus men's cricket, the women's game failed miserably. > >
> So someone who has gone along with the unshakeable conviction that
> women's cricket is not and cannot be a game worth watching (unlike the
> amazing 1950s men which he liked watching when he was a babe-in-arms),
> has noted in his little book of things he hates and spewed it all over
> a cricket newsgroup which almost nobody reads.

Oh dear master Unwholesome does not understand that with the men's game being much superior to the women's game in all aspect he is arguing that faced with a choice between a man's game and a woman's game the woman's game might be chosen (assuming the chooser is not choosing for ideological reasons or reasons of friendship etc) .

>
> This lunatic spends a lot of time telling people that modern
> wicketkeeping is awful and that nobody ever bowls spin any more,

Wrong. I simply object to the element of variety provided by spin being squeezed out of the game.,. RH

has
> clearly never watched (not just attended, but taken some note of the
> play) England's Amy Jones, who is the best wicketkeeper qua
> wicketkeeper in the world - though admitting her chances of scoring
> more than a lucky edge for 4 facing men's fast bowling are minuscule -
> that at least a dozen more are better behind the stumps than English
> county men, and that the reason they're good behind the stumps is that
> while the fast bowling is nothing like Mark Wood's, the spinners are
> the main strikers and are considerably better than the average male
> county tweaker. Why doesn't he find a sport he actually likes and
> plague its faqns incessantly with his utter drivel.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
Translation: master Unwholesome at full fantasy ...... RH

On Sat, 27 May 2023 10:13:27 +0100, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>On Fri, 26 May 2023 09:57:31 -0700 (PDT), Najeeb ybo
><najeebybo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 16:36:49 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
>>> On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 3:52:48?PM UTC+1, Najeeb ybo wrote:
>>> > On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 09:08:27 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
>>> > > I went to the double header T20 which featured a woman's T20 followed by Middlesex v Surrey
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > 'Course you did
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > The woman's game was put on first (this is a device to stop spectators coming to the men's game before scarpering which tells its own story. ) .
>>> > >
>>> > >What a load of nonsense. The women's game is the support to the main event.
>>> Increasingly the women's game is portrayed as being the equal o the men's game., RH
>>>
>>>
>>By who?
>>Give us a name
>>> > >
>>> > > My intent was to see (1) whether the woman's T20 game had improved and (2) whether it stood as a spectacle to challenge the men's game.
>>> > >
>>> > >What a totally dumb intention.
>>> Only to a liberal bigot mind ... RH
>>>
>>>
>>Ah I see, a mere hint of criticism gets a gibberish response.
>>> > >
>>> > > As far as improvement perhaps one could say that fielding has improved marginally in the past ten years or so but nothing like that of the men';s game. As for the spectacle of women's cricket versus men's cricket, the women's game failed miserably. > >
>
>So someone who has gone along with the unshakeable conviction that
>women's cricket is not and cannot be a game worth watching (unlike the
>amazing 1950s men which he liked watching when he was a babe-in-arms),
>has noted in his little book of things he hates and spewed it all over
>a cricket newsgroup which almost nobody reads.
>
>This lunatic spends a lot of time telling people that modern
>wicketkeeping is awful and that nobody ever bowls spin any more, has
>clearly never watched (not just attended, but taken some note of the
>play) England's Amy Jones, who is the best wicketkeeper qua
>wicketkeeper in the world - though admitting her chances of scoring
>more than a lucky edge for 4 facing men's fast bowling are minuscule -
>that at least a dozen more are better behind the stumps than English
>county men, and that the reason they're good behind the stumps is that
>while the fast bowling is nothing like Mark Wood's, the spinners are
>the main strikers and are considerably better than the average male
>county tweaker. Why doesn't he find a sport he actually likes and
>plague its faqns incessantly with his utter drivel.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike

As far as a spectacle goes, it probably is a spectacle if you are a
woman or a man who appreciates the game and understands the nuances of
play, or a young girl wanting to get into the game like her role
model. Or someone who wishes to see the womens game develop as an
enterprise.
All of this crap about the quality of players and the standard of the
game not being equal to the mens game is a total nothing that exists
only between the lugs of a total nobody, I mean to attempt to compare
both games is cringe worthy.. It's like comparing superstox to F1.

Apart from one unreliable source I've never heard that the womens game
is portrayed as equal to the men's.

max.it

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 4:06:42 PM UTC+1, max.it wrote:
> On Sat, 27 May 2023 10:13:27 +0100, Mike Holmans <sp...@jackalope.uk>
> wrote:
> >On Fri, 26 May 2023 09:57:31 -0700 (PDT), Najeeb ybo
> ><naje...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 16:36:49 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
> >>> On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 3:52:48?PM UTC+1, Najeeb ybo wrote:
> >>> > On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 09:08:27 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
> >>> > > I went to the double header T20 which featured a woman's T20 followed by Middlesex v Surrey
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > 'Course you did
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > The woman's game was put on first (this is a device to stop spectators coming to the men's game before scarpering which tells its own story. ) .
> >>> > >
> >>> > >What a load of nonsense. The women's game is the support to the main event.
> >>> Increasingly the women's game is portrayed as being the equal o the men's game., RH
> >>>
> >>>
> >>By who?
> >>Give us a name
> >>> > >
> >>> > > My intent was to see (1) whether the woman's T20 game had improved and (2) whether it stood as a spectacle to challenge the men's game.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >What a totally dumb intention.
> >>> Only to a liberal bigot mind ... RH
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Ah I see, a mere hint of criticism gets a gibberish response.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > As far as improvement perhaps one could say that fielding has improved marginally in the past ten years or so but nothing like that of the men';s game. As for the spectacle of women's cricket versus men's cricket, the women's game failed miserably. > >
> >
> >So someone who has gone along with the unshakeable conviction that
> >women's cricket is not and cannot be a game worth watching (unlike the
> >amazing 1950s men which he liked watching when he was a babe-in-arms),
> >has noted in his little book of things he hates and spewed it all over
> >a cricket newsgroup which almost nobody reads.
> >
> >This lunatic spends a lot of time telling people that modern
> >wicketkeeping is awful and that nobody ever bowls spin any more, has
> >clearly never watched (not just attended, but taken some note of the
> >play) England's Amy Jones, who is the best wicketkeeper qua
> >wicketkeeper in the world - though admitting her chances of scoring
> >more than a lucky edge for 4 facing men's fast bowling are minuscule -
> >that at least a dozen more are better behind the stumps than English
> >county men, and that the reason they're good behind the stumps is that
> >while the fast bowling is nothing like Mark Wood's, the spinners are
> >the main strikers and are considerably better than the average male
> >county tweaker. Why doesn't he find a sport he actually likes and
> >plague its faqns incessantly with his utter drivel.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Mike
> As far as a spectacle goes, it probably is a spectacle if you are a
> woman or a man who appreciates the game and understands the nuances of
> play, or a young girl wanting to get into the game like her role
> model. Or someone who wishes to see the womens game develop as an
> enterprise.
> All of this crap about the quality of players and the standard of the
> game not being equal to the mens game is a total nothing that exists
> only between the lugs of a total nobody, I mean to attempt to compare
> both games is cringe worthy.. It's like comparing superstox to F1.
>
> Apart from one unreliable source I've never heard that the womens game
> is portrayed as equal to the men's.
>
>
> max.it

Happens all the time, Lazarus, by the simple device of talking about and reporting about women's cricket in the same manner that men's cricket is discussed. Members of the ng may also have noted the disproportionate number of women now appearing commenting men's cricket.. RH

On Sun, 28 May 2023 16:06:38 +0100, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:

>Apart from one unreliable source I've never heard that the womens game
>is portrayed as equal to the men's.

Yes, well, he gets everything else wrong. He's a great fan of burning
straw men (unfortunately not including himself).

Cheers,

Mike

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 3:14:33 AM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> Happens all the time, Lazarus, by the simple device of talking about and reporting about women's cricket in the same manner that men's cricket is discussed.

Wow, you're such a snowflake. You'd like that... snowflakes are pure white. But I didn't mean it as a compliment.

On 28/05/2023 18:14, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 4:06:42 PM UTC+1, max.it wrote:

>> Apart from one unreliable source I've never heard that the womens game
>> is portrayed as equal to the men's.
>
> Happens all the time, Lazarus, by the simple device of talking about and reporting about women's cricket in the same manner that men's cricket is discussed.

So cricket is discussed in the same manner as cricket. How would you
suggest it be discussed?

Members of the ng may also have noted the disproportionate number of
women now appearing commenting men's cricket.. RH

Disproportionate to what?

--
David North

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 1:55:09 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> Members of the ng may also have noted the disproportionate number of
> women now appearing commenting men's cricket.. RH
> Disproportionate to what?

Disproportionate to the amount of women in his life that he respects

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 4:55:09 AM UTC+1, David North wrote:
> On 28/05/2023 18:14, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 4:06:42 PM UTC+1, max.it wrote:
>
> >> Apart from one unreliable source I've never heard that the womens game
> >> is portrayed as equal to the men's.
> >
> > Happens all the time, Lazarus, by the simple device of talking about and reporting about women's cricket in the same manner that men's cricket is discussed.
> So cricket is discussed in the same manner as cricket. How would you
> suggest it be discussed?
> Members of the ng may also have noted the disproportionate number of
> women now appearing commenting men's cricket.. RH
> Disproportionate to what?
>
> --
> David North
Disproportionate to their experience of experience of cricket.

It is noticeable that female commentators lack not only the experience of playing cricket at a serious level but also a library of anecdotes derived from cricket . High pitched female voice also do not help. ..RH

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 9:11:57 AM UTC+1, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 1:55:09 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> > Members of the ng may also have noted the disproportionate number of
> > women now appearing commenting men's cricket.. RH
> > Disproportionate to what?
> Disproportionate to the amount of women in his life that he respects

Count up the number of women employed in the BBC Radio coverage.

In message <c6d1d530-c01b-47e7-b9f1-fd742c2d5cdfn@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>It is noticeable that female commentators lack not only the
>experience of playing cricket at a serious level but also a library
>of anecdotes derived from cricket .

Untrue on both counts for Isa Guha, Ebony Rainford-Brent, Lydia Greenway
and the Australian Mel Jones, to name most of the leading female
commentators in England. In fact the only female commentator who comes
to mind for whom at least the first is true is Alison Mitchell. who
nevertheless is a good commentator. (And John Arlott never played
cricket at a serious level either, but it didn't seem to overly handicap
him.)

> High pitched female voice also do not help. ..RH

In general I find female voices clearer than male ones.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 6:27:23 PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> It is noticeable that female commentators lack not only the experience of playing cricket at a serious level but also a library of anecdotes derived from cricket . High pitched female voice also do not help. ..RH

How much cricket have these lads played?

Jim Maxwell
Simon Mann
Harsha Bhogle
Tony Cozier?

On Mon, 29 May 2023 10:03:05 +0100, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <c6d1d530-c01b-47e7-b9f1-fd742c2d5cdfn@googlegroups.com>,
>Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>>It is noticeable that female commentators lack not only the
>>experience of playing cricket at a serious level but also a library
>>of anecdotes derived from cricket .
>
>Untrue on both counts for Isa Guha, Ebony Rainford-Brent, Lydia Greenway
>and the Australian Mel Jones, to name most of the leading female
>commentators in England. In fact the only female commentator who comes
>to mind for whom at least the first is true is Alison Mitchell. who
>nevertheless is a good commentator. (And John Arlott never played
>cricket at a serious level either, but it didn't seem to overly handicap
>him.)
>
>> High pitched female voice also do not help. ..RH
>
>In general I find female voices clearer than male ones.

But they're talking about women's cricket in the same terms as people
talking about men's, which is totally wrong because I say so even
though I'm a cretinous moron... RH

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 9:39:02 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> But they're talking about women's cricket in the same terms as people
> talking about men's, which is totally wrong because I say so even
> though I'm a cretinous moron... RH

They're so inept at talking about cricket, they get off-spin and leg-spin confused. RH.

On Mon, 29 May 2023 10:03:05 +0100, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <c6d1d530-c01b-47e7-b9f1-fd742c2d5cdfn@googlegroups.com>,
>Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>>It is noticeable that female commentators lack not only the
>>experience of playing cricket at a serious level but also a library
>>of anecdotes derived from cricket .
>
>Untrue on both counts for Isa Guha, Ebony Rainford-Brent, Lydia Greenway
>and the Australian Mel Jones, to name most of the leading female
>commentators in England.

What he's really annoyed about is that no-one ever mentions Peter May
or Brian Statham when telling boring stories.

Chers,

Mike

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 12:39:02 PM UTC+1, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2023 10:03:05 +0100, John Hall
> <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In message <c6d1d530-c01b-47e7...@googlegroups.com>,
> >Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
> >>It is noticeable that female commentators lack not only the
> >>experience of playing cricket at a serious level but also a library
> >>of anecdotes derived from cricket .
> >
> >Untrue on both counts for Isa Guha, Ebony Rainford-Brent, Lydia Greenway
> >and the Australian Mel Jones, to name most of the leading female
> >commentators in England. In fact the only female commentator who comes
> >to mind for whom at least the first is true is Alison Mitchell. who
> >nevertheless is a good commentator. (And John Arlott never played
> >cricket at a serious level either, but it didn't seem to overly handicap
> >him.)
> >
> >> High pitched female voice also do not help. ..RH
> >
> >In general I find female voices clearer than male ones.
> But they're talking about women's cricket in the same terms as people
> talking about men's, which is totally wrong because I say so even
> though I'm a cretinous moron... RH

More forgery by master Unwholesome

RH

On Mon, 29 May 2023 10:03:05 +0100, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <c6d1d530-c01b-47e7-b9f1-fd742c2d5cdfn@googlegroups.com>,
>Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>>It is noticeable that female commentators lack not only the
>>experience of playing cricket at a serious level but also a library
>>of anecdotes derived from cricket .
>
>Untrue on both counts for Isa Guha, Ebony Rainford-Brent, Lydia Greenway
>and the Australian Mel Jones, to name most of the leading female
>commentators in England. In fact the only female commentator who comes
>to mind for whom at least the first is true is Alison Mitchell. who
>nevertheless is a good commentator. (And John Arlott never played
>cricket at a serious level either, but it didn't seem to overly handicap
>him.)
>
>> High pitched female voice also do not help. ..RH
>
>In general I find female voices clearer than male ones.

Henderson was on R5 phone in back in the day.
His voice is squeaky and shrill, a bit like the clangers.

max.it

On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 5:00:30 PM UTC+1, max.it wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2023 10:03:05 +0100, John Hall
> <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
> >In message <c6d1d530-c01b-47e7...@googlegroups.com>,
> >Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
> >>It is noticeable that female commentators lack not only the
> >>experience of playing cricket at a serious level but also a library
> >>of anecdotes derived from cricket .
> >
> >Untrue on both counts for Isa Guha, Ebony Rainford-Brent, Lydia Greenway
> >and the Australian Mel Jones, to name most of the leading female
> >commentators in England. In fact the only female commentator who comes
> >to mind for whom at least the first is true is Alison Mitchell. who
> >nevertheless is a good commentator. (And John Arlott never played
> >cricket at a serious level either, but it didn't seem to overly handicap
> >him.)
> >
> >> High pitched female voice also do not help. ..RH
> >
> >In general I find female voices clearer than male ones.
> Henderson was on R5 phone in back in the day.
> His voice is squeaky and shrill, a bit like the clangers.
>
> max.it

Translation : Lazarus lies yet again... RH

On Tue, 30 May 2023 17:00:25 +0100, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:

>On Mon, 29 May 2023 10:03:05 +0100, John Hall
><john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <c6d1d530-c01b-47e7-b9f1-fd742c2d5cdfn@googlegroups.com>,
>>Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>>>It is noticeable that female commentators lack not only the
>>>experience of playing cricket at a serious level but also a library
>>>of anecdotes derived from cricket .
>>
>>Untrue on both counts for Isa Guha, Ebony Rainford-Brent, Lydia Greenway
>>and the Australian Mel Jones, to name most of the leading female
>>commentators in England. In fact the only female commentator who comes
>>to mind for whom at least the first is true is Alison Mitchell. who
>>nevertheless is a good commentator. (And John Arlott never played
>>cricket at a serious level either, but it didn't seem to overly handicap
>>him.)
>>
>>> High pitched female voice also do not help. ..RH
>>
>>In general I find female voices clearer than male ones.
>
>Henderson was on R5 phone in back in the day.
>His voice is squeaky and shrill, a bit like the clangers.
>
>max.it

I remember now, Henderson was on Victoria Derbyshire's R5 morning
programme (14 Feb 2005). He asked Sir Andrew Green a question about
migration.

max.it

On Monday, 29 May 2023 at 09:27:23 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
> High pitched female voice also do not help. ..RH

Narrator's voice: "Robert last spoke socially to a woman in 1973".