Jump to content

Please Disable Your Adblocker. We have only advertisement way to pay our hosting and other expenses.  


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/03/2018 in Posts

  1. 2 points
    Here at Fundayforum, we require high quality posts. If you're just here to unlock content and download something, you're at the wrong place. What we consider spam and/or low quality: Short messages like "cool", "thanks", "lol" etc. General thank-you post. We have a like button for a reason. Posts in other languages. Only English , Urdu, Punjabi,Hindi languages are allowed. Undescriptive thread titles like "Please help". Off-topic posts or anything that has nothing to do with the thread. Threads which will get you banned: What's your favourite X? (Example: What's your favourite food?) X vs X? (Example: Playstation or Xbox?) Will X die?/Is X dying? Any thread about the unlock requirements. Any thread about the unlock limits. Any thread that is low quality, as described above. How can I unlock and download something without getting banned for leeching? Involve yourself in the community and contribute something useful. Post a tutorial or guide, share a great story you experienced or just provide leaks. What if I don't want to contribute? Don't even bother staying here. You'll just get banned. We have a zero tolerance policy against leechers.
  2. 1 point
    I watched most of India's batting on the 3rd day after waking up early on Saturday morning to do so. When I went to sleep on Friday night, I feared that Australia might still be batting, with Mitchell Starc and Travis Head doing their best impression of Jason Gillespie and Steve Waugh. But India earned lead of 15, which, from 127/6 still mean that the last 4 Australian wickets added 108. Murali Vijay played as though he knows he is keeping the spot warm for Prithvi Shaw. KL Rahul played like a left-wing legislator who, having come through a surprisingly close challenge in an election, votes and speaks as though he's determined never again to be challenged on the basis of not being left-wing enough. Rahul spent much of the series in England speculating hopelessly outside off stump while the ball moved extravagantly off the pitch. At the Oval he turned the tables on that area outside the off stump, slaughtering most deliveries hung out there by England's expectant seamers. He seems to have carried that vengeance with him to Australia. The Adelaide wicket has been cagey. Its not flat and its not a flier. There's always been a little bit for the bowlers off the pitch. Not enough to bother the player who is prepared to bide his time and play late. But enough to make the more cavalier style of batting a risky proposition. The outfield has been slower than any in recent memory anywhere in the world, testing patience even more than usual. Australia's right-arm seamers bowled well today. Mitchell Starc seems to be enervated by the pitch and looked well below his best. More than Cummins or Hazlewood, Starc appeared far more anxious about his choice of length. I haven't watch Ashwin bowl in this Test, but I did watch the superb Nathan Lyon. It took all of Cheteshwar Pujara's experience to keep him at bay. Pujara's batting against Lyon reminded me of his innings against Monty Panesar (especially) and Graeme Swann at the Wankhede stadium in 2012. Watching Pujara gets me thinking about transport. He runs between wickets like a large leisure boat. But more importantly, he bats like a train. He has his track and he sticks to it. Against Lyon, Pujara batted according the field set to him. Lyon consistently kept a slip and a two man leg-trap with a short-leg and leg-gully, but no silly mid-off. He bowled for the foot marks outside the right hander's off stump. Pujara kept kicking the ball away with the bat glued to the inside of the pad, drawing Lyon's line closer to his middle and leg-stump, at which point he would try to score into the leg side. Pujara's bat never advanced past the pad. He seemed absolutely confident that the ball was never hit the stumps from that line of attack. We know he was right because once, after Pujara had kicked the ball away after advancing a step down the pitch, the umpire gave the LBW to Lyon, only to have it reversed on review. Lyon might have moved that leg-slip to silly mid-off with some advantage. Pujara does not sweep or paddle, and the silly mid-off might have forced the batsman to change tracks. Australia defended deeper against Kohli. Nathan Lyon had a deep mid-wicket to Kohli for most of his innings. He also didn't have the leg-gully. Kohli played with the bat far more than Pujara. This meant that he would score more runs, especially into the off side, but it also meant that Lyon was offered both edges of Kohli's bat. With the wicket beginning to wear from nearly 120 overs from each end, the likelihood of the ball misbehaving out of the rough is improving steadily. Towards the end of the day, there was a break in play. Almost immediately after that, Kohli played at Lyon's stock ball to the right-hander with the bat well in front of the pad, and the catch popped up to Aaron Finch at short leg. For Lyon, it was a reward for some magnificent bowling. But I can't help wondering if he might have benefited more if he had not allowed Pujara to play him to a stalemate. Lyon could have gotten Pujara, but the batsman's methods ensured that the odds of this happening were minimized. It was a terrific session of play all in all. The match situation favors India, if only because Australia have to bat last, the wicket is beginning to wear and nobody has scored freely on this pitch.
  3. 1 point
    Hello, I am java developer and I want to setup my own forum.
  4. 1 point
    Mithali Raj is a great player. She has a Test double hundred, more ODI runs than any player in history, and more than 200 international caps for India. She was left out of India’s eleven for their semi final in the recently concluded T20 World Cup. India lost that game. A player of Raj’s ability being dropped in such an important is unusual but not unheard of. Anil Kumble was left out of the eleven at the 2003 World Cup final. At the time, Kumble of one of only two Indian bowlers who have more than 300 limited overs wickets and had been the mainstay of India’s limited overs attack in the previous decade. Matters exploded spectacularly after Raj wrote to the BCCI CEO and Cricket Operations General Manager (and former India wicketkeeper) Saba Karim to complain about being left out. Her letter to the BCCI is essentially a complaint against two individuals - Diana Edulji and Ramesh Powar. Her first complaint against Powar is that he changed the batting order and asked her to bat in the middle order. Mithali Raj found this unsuitable. Her second complaint against him is that he dropped her from the eleven for the semi final. She writes that she went to the team manager because she didn’t like what the head coach was saying. In the letter, Raj casts the decision to drop her as the coach’s decision. The Indian captain Harmanpreet Kaur has also written to the BCCI and flatly contradicts Raj's characterization of the decision as one made by the coach. The Indian Vice-Captain Smriti Mandhana has also written to the BCCI and agrees with the captain. She writes that all playing elevens were selected using the same procedure. Raj's complaints against the head coach and her disappointment at being dropped is understandable. The team management is perfectly within its rights to decide things like the batting order. Besides, given that Raj went to the team manager to ask her to referee her dispute with the head coach, its hardly surprising that the head coach and the team manager agreed with the captain and vice-captain that she should be left out of the eleven. If she was required in the middle-order and didn't bat want to bat in the middle-order, it's best for everybody if she didn't play at all. In any event, based on Raj's accounts and the accounts of others, its clear that this was a cricketing matter, and no matter what you might think of the merits of the decision, the legitimacy of the decision is not in question. It is more than a little bit surprising that a player of Raj's excellence and experience should let her disappointment get the better of her in this way. Raj's complaint against Edulji seemed puzzling from the beginning. It appears in the first part of the letter, before the case against the head coach is laid out. The idea that a member of the CoA or the CoA should interfere with who gets picked in the eleven from the squad is as preposterous as asking Jagmohan Dalmiya to get involved in such a dispute. Edulji rightly took the view that the CoA wouldn't get involved in team selection. Tushar Arothe, Ramesh Powar's predecessor as head coach, has added his voice to Raj's. His intervention is bizarre because he suggests that Edulji interfered with the team selection at the Asia Cup because, after the tournament ended, she inquired into the selection decisions made by the team management. It is not unusual for former players to express opinions about team selection even though they may be office holders at BCCI. Sourav Ganguly played over a hundred Tests for India and captained India. He is currently the President of the Cricket Association of Bengal which is a member association of the BCCI. He often comments on the selection and performance of men's team. It would be very surprising if he didn't offer his opinion to the players and the selectors in private as well. But this does not mean that the Cricket Association of Bengal is interfering with selection. Mithali Raj has written to the BCCI CEO Rahul Johri (Her letter is addressed to "Rahul Sir and Saba) complaining about Diana Edulji only a few days after Edulji disagreed with the CoA chairman Vinod Rai's decision to keep Johri in his job following an inquiry into allegations of improper behaviour against Johri by a BCCI employee. The committee which inquired into the allegations against Johri did not return a unanimous verdict. One of the three members dissented, and accused the BCCI and CoA of not following the law (specifically, the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013). At the CoA, the chairman Vinod Rai is accused of suppressing the dissenting voice in the inquiry committee and ignoring Edulji's opposition to grant Johri a "clean chit". Apart from the fact that Raj's complaint against Edulji is substantively feeble, it is remarkable that she has written to the BCCI's CEO to complain about a member of the CoA, who's job is to supervise the CEO. It is an incredible coincidence that Johri should receive a written complaint against Edulji a a few days after Edulji opposed Johri's reinstatement following an inquiry which did not unanimously exonerate him. If Raj was advised by her advisors to complain in writing, then she was advised poorly. If any part of this advice came from Johri, this would be obviously inappropriate. Did Johri (directly or indirectly) advise Mithali Raj to put her complaints against Diana Edulji in writing? Only Mithali Raj and Rahul Johri can answer this question. Note that Raj's letter appeared in public on November 27. It was reported that she met the BCCI CEO and General Manager on November 26. At first Raj's letter seemed to be an ill-judged expression of disappointment. Now that subsequent communications by the head coach, captain and vice-captain have been made public, it looks worse than ill-judged. It is very sad that a great player has allowed herself to be put in such a terrible position where in she has been contradicted by her head coach and her colleagues. It would be even sadder if her obvious disappointment has been exploited in a larger political power struggle at the BCCI.
  5. 1 point
    ساری دنیا میں مرے جی کو لگا ایک ہی شخص ایک ہی شخص تھا ایسا بخدا ایک ہی شخص ایسا لگتا ہے سبھی عشق کسی ایک سے تھے ایسا لگتا ہے مجھے ملتا رہا ایک ہی شخص وہ جو میں نے اُس کی محبت بھی کسی اور سے کی اُن دنوں شہر کا ہر شخص لگا ایک ہی شخص میں تو اے عشق تیری کوزہ گری جانتا ہوں تو نے ہم دو کو ملایا تو بنا ایک ہی شخص مجھ سے ناراض نہ ہونا مرے اچھے لوگو ! کیا کروں میری محبت نے چُنا ایک ہی شخص تو جو کہتا ہے ترے جیسے کئی اور بھی ہیں تجھ کو دعویٰ ہے تو پھر خود سا دِکھا ایک ہی شخص تو جسے چاہتا ہے میں بھی اُسے چاہتا ہوں اچھا لگتا ہے مجھے تیرے سوا ایک ہی شخص دوست ! سب سے کہاں کھنچتا ہے غزل کا چلّہ حجرہء میر میں ہوتا ہے سدا ایک ہی شخص!
  6. 1 point
    ﮐﭽﮫ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﺎﺭِ ﺷﮩﺮِ ﺳﺘﻤﮕﺮ ﮨﯽ ﻟﮯ ﭼﻠﯿﮟ ﺁﺋﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﺱ ﮔﻠﯽ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺗﻮ ﭘﺘﮭﺮ ﮨﯽ ﻟﮯ ﭼﻠﯿﮟ ﯾﻮﮞ ﮐﺲ ﻃﺮﺡ ﮐﭩﮯ ﮔﺎ ﮐﮍﯼ ﺩﮬﻮﭖ ﮐﺎ ﺳﻔﺮ ﺳﺮ ﭘﺮ ﺧﯿﺎﻝِ ﯾﺎﺭ ﮐﯽ ﭼﺎﺩﺭ ﮨﯽ ﻟﮯ ﭼﻠﯿﮟ ﺭﻧﺞِ ﺳﻔﺮ ﮐﯽ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﻧﺸﺎﻧﯽ ﺗﻮ ﭘﺎﺱ ﮨﻮ ﺗﮭﻮﮌﯼ ﺳﯽ ﺧﺎﮎِ ﮐﻮﭼۂ ﺩﻟﺒﺮ ﮨﯽ ﻟﮯ ﭼﻠﯿﮟ ﯾﮧ ﮐﮩﮧ ﮐﮧ ﭼﮭﯿﮍﺗﯽ ﮨﮯ ﮨﻤﯿﮟ ﺩﻝ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﮕﯽ ﮔﮭﺒﺮﺍ ﮔﺌﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺁﭖ ﺗﻮ ﺑﺎﮨﺮ ﮨﯽ ﻟﮯ ﭼﻠﯿﮟ ﺍﺱ ﺷﮩﺮِ ﺑﮯ ﭼﺮﺍﻍ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﮔﯽ ﺗُﻮ ﮐﮩﺎﮞ ﺁ , ﺍﮮ ﺷﺐِ ﻓﺮﺍﻕ ! ﺗﺠﮭﮯ ﮔﮭﺮ ﮨﯽ ﻟﮯ ﭼﻠﯿﮟ ﻧﺎﺻﺮؔ ﮐﺎﻇﻤﯽ
  7. 0 points
    I just completed this quiz. My Score 10/100 My Time 52 seconds  
This leaderboard is set to Karachi/GMT+05:00