 | | Re: "Centuries old piece of paper" still pretty darn good
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GL3vzG.1zB@lugnet.com... (...) There is no way that the US can be considered better than the UK. Name me one time ever you beat us at Cricket. lawrence (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Not Cricket (was Re: "Centuries old piece of paper" still pretty darn good
|
|
(...) Not ever even playing you... now that *in itself* proves our superiority. BTW you set FUT wrong... the very IDEA of Cricket is laughable so this is FUT .fun ++Lar (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Not Cricket (was Re: "Centuries old piece of paper" still pretty darn good
|
|
(...) BWAAAA! I can't disagree there. I did see some people playing cricket here in NJ down by the Raritan, which was a pretty odd spectacle; however, most of them were Indian, Bangladeshi, and/or Pakistani, and cricket *is* of course the consummate (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: "Centuries old piece of paper" still pretty darn good
|
|
(...) I'm pretty sure they have, did the USA not have a good cricket system in the 1800's? Scott A (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not Cricket (was Re: "Centuries old piece of paper" still pretty darn good
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GL3xM2.7E3@lugnet.com... (...) the (...) the (...) in the (...) Well if you're going by cricket loss/win, doesn't that make -Australia- somewhere near the top? Hell, it even puts New (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
