HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hasan@vxcrna.cern.ch 
Subject: Re: Double Internationals
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 12:19:00 GMT

In article <q1R-NV-@engin.umich.edu>, chaudhry@schroedinger.engin.umich.edu (Iblees) writes...
> 
>In article <22JUL199220035431@zeus.tamu.edu>, avs4700@zeus.tamu.edu (ANAND SRINIVASA) writes:
>> Michael Holding was a 400m runner and participated in the 
>> World University Games (not the Olympics). I am not sure
>> if he won any medal though.
>> 
>> Also, there was this captain of the English team of the 
>> forties - I don't remember his name (Douglas ?). But I 
>> sure do remember his initials : JWHT - because he was also
>> known as 'Johnny Won't Hit Today' ...
>> 
>> 
>> ____________
>> anand. 
>> 
> 
>His name was Johnny Douglas and he won a boxing gold medal in the Olympics ( I 
>think in 1908 ). BTW, if memory serves me right, he drowned to his death while 
>trying to save his father.
>

Captain of England in the forties who had won an olympic gold in boxing
in 1908 ...hmmm... as I imagine he should better have been called Johny
Can't Hit Today :) And I presume that his father had been attempting a
super geriatric feat, now that we know the son to have such geriatric
accomplishments in sports :)

>Although I am not sure of it [ no way to consult the record books here :-( ], 
>Pakistan's Farooq Hameed was also ( most probably ) a double international. He 
>played one test for Pakistan ( vs Australia ? ) in the 60's and was also an 
>international athlete. 
> 
>C.B.Fry, England's captain around 1910 was also a double international. He 
>played rugby (?) at an international level and was also a noted long jumper.
> 
>Can somebody having access to "Barclay's World of Cricket" please confirm the 
>other game Fry played? And if somebody has access to "25 Years of Sports in 
>Pakistan" he/she can confirm for the net whether Farooq Hameed represented 
>Pakistan in international athletics.
>

He was the national record holder in long jump during the mid sixties. 
And though he might have competed in what you call international athletics,
there have been very few Pakistanis I would term as international athletes.
But certainly he could have been part of a national athletics team selected
in those days.

>Nauman [ Iblees ] Chaudhry
>
-Hasan

>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> "Salim [Malik] bats, as it were, in velvet gloves. No one
>  playing the game today,not even David Gower at his best,
>  has a greater gift for effortlessness."
>     
>     John Woodcock in The Times June 9th,92
>      
>     Eat your hearts out David Gower fans :-) :-) :-)
> 
>     GO SALIM MALIK GO!!!!!
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: kre@cs.mu.oz.au (Robert Elz)
Subject: Re: Excitement and Controversy
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 21:39:45 GMT

In <1992Jul29.150232.11597@maths.nott.ac.uk> anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) writes:

| 	What you possibly didn't see [and certainly those listening to the
| radio didn't see!] was the second replay.

Thanks for the extra detail - which is about what I'd expected - its
usually possible to tell from slow motion replays just how quickly
things really happened (by just how much they have to slow it down before
things become easy to see).

However...

| 	Summary:  in my view, a mistaken decision, but not "terrible".

I still, or perhaps, even more so now, don't think it was a mistake
at all.  A Shamim said - the batsman is entitled to the benefit of the
doubt, in a case like this there is simply no way the umpire can be
certain - "not out" is the only correct decision.  In a case like this,
even where the slow motion replay shows that the batsman was out of
his ground, "out" would be the "terrible decision".

kre
From: js138@cus.cam.ac.uk (John Sloan)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Eng v Pak Day 2 (Close of play)
Keywords: Score
Date: 24 Jul 92 20:05:14 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

That should, of course be 216 (or so) for 1.
From: sagrawal@cco.caltech.edu (Sanjay Kumar Agrawal)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Pak 2nd Innings
Date: 25 Jul 92 14:02:53 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

Aamir just out, caught behind of Mallendar. Pakistan 11 for 1.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: suresh@lgc.com (Raghavan Suresh)
Subject: Imran Khan Charity Match
Organization: Landmark Graphics Corp., Houston, Tx
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:01:00 GMT

         The limited over Imran Khan Charity match for his Cancer hospital between India and Pakistan was abruptly terminated due to rioting by the Crowd. 
The match was played yesterday under floodlights at Crystal Palace in England.
Imran's plea over the Public address system to the crowd was of no avail and
the game had to be stopped.

Coming to the game itself, Indian's were well placed when the game got over.

India scored 220/4 in its alloted(?) overs. Kapil played a superb innings of
133 (7 sixers and 12 fours).

Pak in reply were 152/4 with only 8 overs remaining. Kapil got the first 3 wickets for 27 runs. Rameez made 61 and Javed was 55 n.o. (hopefully Chetan Sharma
was not playing for India!).




Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: papadopoulos-dimitrios@CS.YALE.EDU (Dimitrios Papadopoulos)
Subject: Re: info needed
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:08:33 GMT


--Pushkar






Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: mirza@vxcrna.cern.ch (MIRZA,I./EP)
Subject: Re: Question on Umpiring and LBW
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:18:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.084134@is.morgan.com>, andyc@is.morgan.com (Andrew Coad) writes...
> 
>I recently witnessed an umpire give "not out" under the following circumstances:
> 
>The bowler in question was in the habit of appealing to the umpire with a loud
>snort (or grunt - something like "aaaarrrrgggghh"). When a certain ball hit the
>back pad and was almost certainly out, the umpire gave "not out" on the grounds
>that a vigorous snort does not constitute an appeal.
> 
>The umpire explained that the Laws of cricket require the bowler to appeal with
>"How was that?". The bowler, on hearing this, appealed with "HOw was that?" and
>the umpire declined further on the grounds that the ball was now dead.
> 
>Was the umpire correct in the first refusal?
>Was the umpire correct in the second refusal?
> 
>Andrew Coad
>Morgan Stanley
>New York
>(212) 703-2112
	
	This question can only be answered if you let us know if the
        umpire was a "WHITE" or "BROWN" and also specify race of the
	bowler.

	{N.B. A related joke: A Gora (As we call in pakistan 
         people from western countries) asked a Pathan to
         guide him while he was reversing his car for parking.
         After a while the Pathan started shouting "Comeba.. Comeba.."
         The Gora thinking of it as "Come back" continued and hit the
         car in the pole. (In urdu Comeba means that there is a pole
         behind).}

Mirza Ilyas
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: urajan@leland.Stanford.EDU (Uday Rajan)
Subject: Ranji Trophy Rules
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 20:04:21 GMT

I don't remember the bonus point rules for the Ranji Trophy, but I do 
remember that there was a time when the bowling side was penalized by
4 (or was it 5) runs an over for every over below a target rate of 
15(?) per hour. Anyone know if such a rule is still in effect, or whether
something like this has been tried anywhere else in the world? Seems a 
little arbitrary, but monetary fines wouldn't be meaningful at that level;
a better idea may be to have a minimum number of overs bowled per day.

Uday
From: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu (R. Bharat Rao)
Subject: Re: LBW rules: Expert Opinion needed
Reply-To: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:11:15 GMT

aksimha@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Arun Simha) writes:

>   Hi,
>      There seems to be quite a lot of confusion regarding the LBW rule.
>      (Yeah, What's new?). Most cricketers interpret the rule differently,
>       especially when it comes to an LBW appeal off a leg break. Now, as
>       I have always understood it, a batsman cannot be given out off a 
>       leg-break, right? 

No that is not it -- the way the law is written makes it very hard to
get an lbw of a leg break (the leggies get plenty of lbw's on their
wrong 'un so shed no tears:-).

In a lbw decision the umpire must note 3 features.

1. Where did the ball pitch?
2. Where did the point of impact occur?
3. Did the batsman play a stroke (only relevant if the answer to BOTH
   1 and 2 is "outside the off-stump").

If the answer to (1) is outside the leg-stump then the batsman is not
out.  Hence the difficulty of getting an lbw off a leg break.  If it
was going to hit the stumps it probably pitched outside the leg stump;
if it pitched on the stumps, it may well have spun past the stumps.
Of course, if its turning very slowly, then you can give a batsman
out, but it is very hard to do so usually.

>However, one often comes across umpires who feel
>       that such appeals such be sustained if the batsmen are way on their
>       backfoot, covering the wickets. Could a kind soul post the *EXACT*
>       wording of the LBW rule (law?) from the Cricket Rule book, please?
>       ..and let us debate over it :-) :-)

I don't have the wording, but it is as follows.  The following all
assumes that the umpire believes the ball would have hit the stumps,
of course.

If the ball pitches between the stumps or outside the off stump, and
the point of impact is in direct line with the stumps (i.e., in the
rectangle formed by the stumps at either end when viewed from above),
then the batsman is out.

If the ball pitches outside off stump, and the point of impact is also
OUTSIDE off stump, then the batsman is out only if he was not offering
a stroke.

>  Cray for me,
   ^^^^^^^^^^^
new one that :-)

>  Arun Simha
> 

Bharat
From: cdcs@st-andrews.ac.uk (Colin D. C. Steele)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Tour Match 1992 July 20 (Monday)
Date: 21 Jul 92 00:49:03 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.


Tour Match at Derby
Derbyshire v Pakistan XI
1992 July 20 (Monday)
Day 3 of 3


DERBYSHIRE

  PD Bowler                  b Mushtaq    28              b Sohail    79
  AM Brown       c Mujtaba   b Mushtaq    27     c Moin   b Rehman    43
* JE Morris      c Moin      b Akram      49     c Sohail b Rehman     0
  TJG O'Gorman   c Miandad   b Akram      46              b Akram     42
  CJ Adams       c Malik     b Rehman     51         not  out         29
  FA Griffith           not  out           2 (7)     not  out          4
+ KM Krikken     c Moin      b Waqar       4
  RW Sladdin             lbw b Waqar       0 (6)          b Waqar      0
  AE Warner                  b Akram       4
  DE Malcolm                 b Akram       0
  OH Mortensen               b Akram       0

  Extras                                   5                          15

  TOTAL                                  216                         212-5 dec

  Wasim Akram  5 - 59



PAKISTAN XI

  Aamir Sohail   c Krikken   b Malcolm     2
  Ramiz Raja             lbw b Warner      7
  Asif Mujtaba   c Warner    b Malcolm    40
  Inzamam-Ul-Haq             b Griffith   43
  Salim Malik            c & b Sladdin    21
* Javed Miandad          c & b Malcolm     6
  Wasim Akram                b Mortensen  26
+ Moin Khan             not  out          35
  Waqar Younis           lbw b Mortenson   2
  Mushtaq Ahmed c Brown      b Sladdin    12
  Ata-Ur-Rehman c O'Gorman   b Sladdin     0

  Extras                                   3

  TOTAL                                  197




Various Rain Interruptions Today. 
MATCH DRAWN
From: dlow@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au.ua.oz (David J Low)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: LBW rules: Expert? Opinion needed
Date: 23 Jul 92 23:37:55 GMT

[4 million people wrote:]
> Dave got it wrong - he wrote "pitch" instead of "hit"

      Did my correction note to this not get through?  Or are we just suffering
      from the "reply immediately" malady? :-)

      One little brain fade and the world pounces....:-)

--
   ___          ~~            | David J. Low, Atmospheric Group, Dept. Physics
  /  /-----^-/~~~             | Adelaide University, South Australia 
 /  /-------/~  "I'll be back"| 
<__/  '            --- Arnie  | E-Mail : dlow@physics.adelaide.edu.au
From: aksimha@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Arun Simha)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Double Internationals
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:59:34 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Jul22.165835.27340@unislc.uucp> ramana@unislc.uucp (Ramana Ramachandran) writes:
>The other day I heard that kapil is playing for east bengal in soccer 
>which made me think how many cricketers have represented their country
>in another sport?
>

    Denis Compton - Soccer and Cricket - England.
     
   Weren't there some table tennis players, too?

 Arun
From: ccsdgdc@gdt.bath.ac.uk (Douglas Clark)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: England 2nd Innings
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:22:04 GMT
Organization: Bath University Computing Services, UK


Regarding neutral umpires Mike Brearely had a pertinent article in
Sunday's Observer. He said that he had come to the conclusion that
umpires had an unconscious bias and would welcome the introduction
of neutrals. This would seem to fit in with the
LBW decisions . Although Wasim Akram usually pitched the ball outside
the line of the stumps and brought it back; and the Gooch run-out
was only obvious in slow-motion.
-- 
Douglas Clark                                  Voice : +44 225 826039
Regional Services,                       JANET : D.G.D.Clark@uk.ac.bath
Bath University Computing Services, UUCP : ...uunet!mcsun!uknet!gdr!D.G.D.Clark
Bath, Avon, England BA2 7AY    ARPA : D.G.D.Clark%bath.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
From: cdcs@st-andrews.ac.uk (Colin D. C. Steele)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: First Class Averages to 1992 July 27
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:47:52 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

First Class Averages. Matches include Tests, Coonty Championship,
Tour Matches, University Games etc. but not limited over games.

Batting Averages to 1992 July 27 
Qualification - 6 innings

Player           Team   Inns.  NO   Runs   HS   Ave
PD Bowler          De    24     6   1655  241*  91.94
MW Gatting         Mx    21     4   1395  170   82.05
GA Gooch           Ex    16     1   1164  160   77.60
ME Waugh           Ex    24     7   1314  219*  77.29
DM Jones           Dh    23     7   1179  157   73.68
MA Roseberry       Mx    26     4   1621  173   73.68
Salim Malik        P     18     5    941  165   72.38
C White            Y     13     5    579   79*  72.37
RT Robinson        Nt    20     4   1132  189   70.75
MD Moxon           Y     13     1    833  183   69.41
TS Curtis          Wo    30     4   1589  228*  61.11
NJ Speak           La    26     2   1456  232   60.66
TC Middleton       H     25     2   1382  221   60.08
AJ Lamb            Nh    21     3   1071  209   59.50
GR Cowdrey         K     18     3    886  147   59.06
Asif Mujtaba       P     21     5    920  154*  57.70
DI Gower           H     22     5    976  155   57.41
CL Hooper          K     19     3    884  131   55.25
TL Penney          Wa    13     4    488  102*  54.22
MA Crawley         Nt    28     9   1006  160*  52.94
NR Taylor          K     20     5    790   90   52.66
D Ripley           Nh    21     8    671  107*  51.61




Bowling Averages to 1992 July 27
Qualification - 20 wickets

Player           Team    Overs    Mdns.  Runs   Wkts    Ave
CA Walsh           Gc     363.2    89     907    62     14.62
Wasim Akram        P      352      97     921    54     17.05
IR Bishop          De     271.3    65     631    34     18.55
DJ Millns          Le     414.5    99    1304    69     18.89
JR Ayling          H      217.2    50     594    29     20.48
AA Donald          Wa     368.2    85    1046    51     20.51
VJ Wells           Le     280      89     692    33     20.97
MA Robinson        Y      175      31     471    22     21.40
NA Mallander       So     276.2    61     816    38     21.47
JE Emburey         Mx     582.1   186    1295    58     22.32
RP Davis           K      315.3    72     962    41     23.46
JH Childs          Ex     480.3   145    1262    53     23.81
PJ Newport         Wo     448.2    97    1286    53     24.26
Mushtaq Ahmed      P      488.2   119    1369    56     24.44
P Carrick          Y      417.4   134     886    36     24.61
FD Stephenson      Sx     255.2    66     651    26     25.03
MP Bicknell        Sy     383.4    65    1159    46     25.19
RG Twose           Wa     176.3    41     543    20     27.15
PJ Hartley         Y      321.3    67     929    34     27.32
MD Marshall        H      325.3    82     866    31     27.93
NV Radford         Wo     388      69    1264    45     28.08
AD Mullally        Le     313      79     816    29     28.13



CDC
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: tom@cs.su.oz.au (Thomas James Jones)
Subject: Re: The Hick tendency
Reply-To: matty@cs.su.oz.au
Organization: Basser Department of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 01:34:17 GMT

In article <keOhjF_00WBNM2oVFQ@andrew.cmu.edu>, Milind Kandlikar <mk49+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
|> >Just some facts to remind people why such great things are expected of 
|> >Hick.  Personally, I'm such a fan since I come from Worcestershire,
|> >so expect bias!  I remember when he came into the side and someone 
|> >in authority said he would be a better player than Glenn Turner: I thought
|> >this was typical Worcester optimism - well it wasn't!
|> > 
|> >As I say, just to remind you why he is still a great prospect.
|> > 
|> >He is 26 years old, and has scored a total of 66 centuries (is that
|> >right) in first class cricket.  That is more than David Gower, for
|> >example, has scored in his career, as well as players like Ian
|> >Chappell, Rhodes, Hanif Mohammed, Vengsarker, Dexter, A C Maclaren,
|> >Viswanath, Jessop, Trumper,...
|> > 
|> >In the 1991 Wisden his career average is given as 64.17, the fifth highest
|> >of those who have scored 10,000 runs.  Presumably it has now declined
|> >somewhat, but it must still be among the highest.  
|> > 
|> >In 1988 he became only the second player since the war, and the first
|> >county cricketer, to score 1000 runs before the end of May (the previous
|> >one was the aforementioned Glenn Turner, playing for New Zealand)
|> >in an English season. 
|> > 
|> >My fingers are crossed for the next match... at least he's scored about 
|> >400 runs in the last week!  
|>  
|> >Ian
|> 
|> He also came apart miserably in the most important match of his career,
|> the World Cup final. So much for those meaningless English county
|> stats..........

	I think most cricketers would regard their Test matches
	as the 'most important matches' of their careers, although
	for Hick this is not much redemption...

	tom
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: ramana@unislc.uucp (Ramana Ramachandran)
Subject: Re: Three umpires at a cricket match
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:53:52 GMT

ccrob@uqvax.cc.uq.oz.au writes:
: In article <1992Jul22.193204.27648@leland.Stanford.EDU>, urajan@leland.Stanford.EDU (Uday Rajan) writes:

[...]

: whether it was for Test, or just First Class or what. In any case, the plan 
: is that Umpires A & B do the morning session, B & C do after lunch, and C & 
: A do the final session. The idea is that umpire fatigue will be reduced.

A few random thoughts ...
Iam highly skeptical about "rotating the umpires" concept.The idea that
fatigue will be reduced is all crap.An International umpire ought to have
it.But the main reason Iam against it that there wont be consistency in
umpiring.Every (fair) umpire has a bias while calling certain
subjective calls like "wide".The players accept that as long as there is
consistency in these calls throughout the match.Human nature being unique,
what we will be witnessing will be different standards of umpiring which
takes away a little bit of the "fairness" from the game.

Let me reiterate Iam NOT against an 3rd umpire but simply against the 
concept of rotating the umpires.

ramana ramachandran
ramana@unislc.slc.unisys.com

PS: Does any other game have this ridiculous concept of rotating the 
umpires during a game????


Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: pmc5@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Paul M Corballis)
Subject: Re: 2 questions and a comment
Reply-To: pmc5@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Paul M Corballis)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:02:05 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.035434.12275@leland.Stanford.EDU> urajan@leland.Stanford.EDU (Uday Rajan) writes:
>Congrats to England on their win, and to both sides for some exciting cricket.
>2 questions:
>(1) Does anyone out there know how many first-class centuries Gooch now has? I 
>think he had 91 before the start of this English season, so he should be 
>pretty close to a 100..
>(2) How do England manage to win so many Tests with a bowling attack that, on 
>paper, is rather less than awe-inspiring?

It has been quite a while since England were regularly winning test 
matches...  While on the subject of English bowling, I have often wondered
what took them so long to bring Mallender into the side.  He always
impressed me playing in New Zealand (Otago?), and seems to be one of the
few English bowlers with any heart.

Back to your question, though, my guess is that the English bowling seems
a bit more innocuous than it really is, given the right conditions for
swing bowling.  New Zealand did pretty well (especially at home) for years
with a bowling attack that relied on medium pace swing and seam bowling
rather than blistering pace (of course, having Sir Richard Hadlee helped).

>
>Comment (not mine, Vic Marks on BBC):
>"Of all the fast bowlers I have seen in full cry, Waqar is the most 
>exhilarating, because, more than anyone else, he goes straight for the middle
>stump".
>
>Uday

Cheers, Paul


Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket