HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: karnik@exa.cs.umn.edu (Neeran M. Karnik)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: stiffer over rates for SA Tour ??
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:16:23 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota

In <1992Oct15.140255.3035@maths.nott.ac.uk> anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) writes:

>In article <00962127.CD5158E0@vms.csd.mu.edu>
>5912ramasubr@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
>>	       21 ovs/hr is impossible even in first class 
>>cricket (I mean non tests ).

>	It's hard to see why, in *principle*, Tests should be slower than
>FC cricket, or for that matter "serious" club cricket, but let that pass.
:
:

	Well, all this talk comes to nought, since it is now clear that the
required overrate is 15, not 21, for the Ind-SA series. Apparently, Ajit
Wadekar made some mistake in interpreting the requirements..... What with 
India playing four (or more?) "fast" bowlers, even 15 is going to be tough!

>Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  Neeran   Karnik  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dept. of Computer Science,      | Email: karnik@cs.umn.edu
University of Minnesota         |        karn0001@student.tc.umn.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: rammohan@usc.edu (Karthikeyan Rammohan)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Commentary
Date: 15 Oct 1992 12:08:47 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

	
	Does anyone know if there is going to be any commentary
broadcast to North America from SA or Zimbabwe for the forthcoming
Test/One day series?If so could you please post the frequencies?
Thanx.
rammohan
From: zcaccah@ucl.ac.uk (Mr Christopher Harrison)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Neutrality (was Re: Australian cricket season starts ......)
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:00:53 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

m0a1530@zeus.tamu.edu (ABBAS, MUSTAFA) writes:

>In article <1992Oct11.223135.15086@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU>, kumar@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (V.R.Kumar) writes...

>	you must be out of your mind to suggest that Pakistan are 
>Ex-OD Champs. The WC decided the championship for the next 4 years
>and no matter how bad Pak plays they will remain OD CHAMPS till '97. 

I will grant you that fact. They can be referred to as the "World
Champions", the fact of you is the best team is one for disputes
in fora like this one.

>	regarding, being thrashed by england in ODs... every body
>knows how much home advantage counts(specially home umpires). If
>I am not mistaken, there were few very doubtful lbws in the 
>second OD at a point when inzamam and javed were doing pretty good.

OHHH! Do I spy a sly dig at umpires? When will the subject of 
neutral umpires be laid to rest? Why is it when teams lose or have
erroneous decisions go against them they complain about bias? Umpires
stand out in the middle for approximately 6 hours every day (perhaps 
longer with the over rates some teams go through), during those hours
they will see some 6-800 deliveries. They must be on their toes for
every one of them, and to only make a handful of mistakes in a summer,
let only in just one day's play is remarkable enough. 

You may think that it's tough batting, but try taking a spell in an
umpire's coat, it's harder than you think. Especially when the fielding
side (naming no names) are convinced that you are baised and will 
do their best to intimidate you (2nd and 3rd slips appealing for LBWs,
that sort of thing).

>	Anyways, I believe the present pakistan team is THEEE best among 
>all and on a neutral soil with neutral umpires it can beat any team in 
>a series of either Tests or ODs.I am not talking about a single match,
>like the one played in a baseball dome.

What about the series defeat against England in the ODs? Or don't they 
count because of the 'biased' umpires???

>	just a reminder, in 1983 when india won the WC, it got a real
>thrashing, I mean REAL THRASHING, at the hands of WI IN INDIA. I 
>think WI won all the 5 or 6 ODs and also the test series without 
>any loss. Now, that was embarassing......loosing at home.

Also, don't forget the fact that in the league stage during the world
cup England whipped Pakistan. It was only the fact that it rained that
Pakistan shared the points and allowed them into the last four as a 
result of that extra points. They won on the day of the final, but
they did not dominate the tournament.

>	No body at that time suggested declaring india EX-Champs---
>even tho india was never the favourite to win in the first place.

Nobody is suggesting that Pakistan rescind their World Championship
or declaring them Ex-World Champions. But it must be borne in mind
that at this moment they are not the best, their are several teams
that, on their respective days, can take anyone on and best them
(neutral umpires on not).

Chris.
From: rajeev@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Rajeev Menon)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Zim Presidents XI vs India (One-Day)
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:49:30 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Rosa, CA

The following score card was mailed to me by a friend of mine. Haven't
seen it posted yet, so here it goes.

Enjoy

rajeev
========================================================================
From: shrikant@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us (shrikant hosangadi)

RTs  10/15 1419  SPORT-ZIMBABWE SCOREBOARD (CRICKET)
     HARARE, Oct 15, Reuter - Scoreboard in the one-day (50 overs) cricket match
between Zimbabwe President's X1 and India on Thursday:

 India

 R.Shastri c Hira b Crocker        73
 W.Raman c James b Brain           17
 M.Azharuddin c Essop-Adam b Hira  10
 S.Tendulkar c Dekker b Hira        6
 S.Manjrekar c Brain b Crocker      5
 P.Amre c Brain b Peall            19
 M.Prabhakar b Rennie              11
 K.More c Dekker b Crocker          9
 A.Kumble not out                  23
 S.Banerjee c Briant b Rennie       3
 J.Srinath not out                 16
 Extras (w-7 lb-3 b-1)             11
 Total (for nine wickets)         203

 Fall of wickets: 1-31 2-44 3-50 4-76 5-123 6-148 7-156 8-169 9-176
 Bowling: Brain 10-2-38-1 (3w), Hira 10-1-34-2 (4w), 
          Crocker 10-3-18-3, Peall 10-0-60-1, Rennie 10-0-49-2

 President's X1 

 M.Dekker lbw  b Srinath             27
 C.Evans lbw  b Prabhakar             0
 A.Campbell c More b Srinath         25
 E.Essop-Adam c More b Shastri       25
 G.Briant not out                    51
 W.James st More b Shastri            5
 S.Peall lbw  b Kumble                8
 G.Crocker b Banerjee                 6
 D.Brain c Raman b Prabhakar          6
 J.Rennie run out                     2
 H.Hira not out                       5
 Extras (w-7 nb-8 lb-12)             27
 Total (for nine wickets)           187

 Fall of wickets: 1-10 2-64 3-65 4-109 5-115 6-131 7-144 8-163 9-169
 Bowling: Prabhakar 10-0-49-1 (4w, 5nb), Banerjee 10-0-39-1 (3w), 
          Shastri 10-3-21-2, Srinath 10-2-33-2 (3nb), Kumble 10-0-33-1
 Result: India won by 16 runs
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: No.11s padding up to spinners
From: John.Mcmullan@comp.vuw.ac.nz (John Michael McMullan)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:48:43 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., Victoria Uni. of Wellington, New Zealand.


I'm sorry I can't quote the original posting but someone said something to
the effect of "any no.11 batsman can pad up to a spinner"

It takes a lot more technique than most No.11s in the world have to pad up
to a spinner properly. But you're right in one respect (whoever you are),
against a team full of No.11 batsmen I would have 1 nice quick bowler under
instructions to york every batsmen in the team. On the other hand a well
thought out and varied batting line up would require a well thought out and
VARIED bowling line up for the bowling team to have any chance of taking
enough wickets to win a test match.

In New Zealand there are very few people who play spin correctly (Martin
Crowe being an exception) every one else relies on being able to smack
the spinner around for two overs, (and get away with it) so that he is
taken off and a nice quick (read ordinary) bowler brought on. BTW when
this technique fails (ie. the batsman goes out in the first two overs)
people always say that the batsman got himself out slogging, no credit
goes to the poor spin bowler.


PS Yes I am a spin bowler. I hate facing the stuff when I'm batting. Thank
God noone thinks to bowl it at me!
From: pmc5@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Paul M Corballis)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: The Naenae express
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:40:13 GMT
Reply-To: pmc5@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Paul M Corballis)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Oct15.120238.9566@vax.oxford.ac.uk> mcbean@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.164827.801@news.columbia.edu>, pmc5@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Paul M Corballis) writes:
>> In article <199210140337.AA19351@circa.comp.vuw.ac.nz> warren@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Warren Turner) writes:

[much about Chatfield deleted]

>>>
>> Thank you!  At last someone has articulated what I've been fuming 
>> incoherently about for days.  Many people have mistakenly said
>
>I didn't realise I had you fuming!  As the Brits say, "Sorry old chap.." -:)

No offense taken.  I was only fuming to keep the thread going, not 
out of any real sense of personal insult.  There's nothing like a lively
debate to get to the bottom of things...

>
>> that NZ were a one-man side through the "Hadlee era", only to eat
>> their words later on.  Mike Gatting compared NZ w/o Hadlee to the
>> "Ilford 2nd XI", only to lose to them...  NZ were virtually 
>
>But England were the Ilford 2nd X1 back then.

True enough...

>
>> unbeatable at home for many years, largely due to bowlers like
>> Chatfield, Sneddon and Watson bowling appropriately for local 
>> conditions.  The much vaunted WIndies pace quartets struggled 
>> on the last 2 tours to NZ, losing one series, and drawing the next.
>
>The 1980 series was full of acrimony over Mr. Goodall, but I don't want to
>start a debate on umpiring there.  In 1986/87, WI had just lost Lloyd and the
>other players from that era and were rebuilding.  I seem to remember in between
>that NZ coming to WI and getting thrashed in a 4 match series 2-0, in 1984-85.

True enough.  I don't think Goodall was the best umpire NZ has produced,
but I also don't think he was cheating.  Croft showed a distinct lack of
sportsmanship when he barged him while running in to bowl.  I hate 
to think what might have happened if Aaqib had tried that in England this
summer...

>
>> I would say more, but I fear for McBeans sides, which must have
>> ruptured by now :-)
>
>I'm still laughing-:).  To give NZ their due they were
>the last side to beat the WI in a series way back when, something the
>pretenders to the world #1 spot have yet to achieve since 1980.

Laughter makes the world go round. -:) (sic.)

>
>McBean

Cheers, Paul
From: pavenant@dos-lan.cs.up.ac.za (Paul Avenant)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Possible S.A. team vs. India
Keywords: my selection
Date: 14 Oct 92 06:54:57 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Pretoria

>	Well Colin, thanks for the report on the SA team. Lots of the
>players are familiar, obviously, but the news on the pitches is new (I'd
>heard of the grounds, but had no idea how they behaved). 
>	Now, some questions. Have been hearing about this guy, supposedly a
>paceman , called Tertius Bosch. From what I've gathered , he's faster than
>maybe a McMillan and Snell ? How about Pringle, is he faster than him too
>(I don't suppose he's close to Donald's pace is he ? For the sake of the
>Indian team, I hope not :-) Is he likely to make the team at all ?

Bosch is reasonably pacy (not like Donald) but gets quite a lot of bounce. 
Pringle is only fast-medium but swings the  quite a lot and quite late.

>	Also, read this book by Richard Evans  on the rebel England tour,
>he mentioned Omar Henry as a prospectively terrific test bowler, tho he
>didn't seem to think much of him for the ODI's . Is that true ? I mean,
>is he one of the last few guys left who has the guts to flight the ball, or
>does he bowl flat as well ? 
>	And Evans also mentioned Mark Rushmere in the book, claimed he was
>very very good. I've tried to follow Rushmere a bit since, he hasnt been
>terrific - one inning for about 35 in the WC and not much in WI. Will he
>make the team , do you think, maybe at #3 ? After all, you wouldn't have to
>look for someone like Rhodes to be 5, could just drop someone down the
>order. 
>	And finally, about the keeper slot. Forgotten the guys name, but
>Evans mentioned the guy who kept in the rebel test as comparable to anyone
>in the world, and claimed Richardson only played the ODI's because he
>was considered to be able to "get a move on" better than this other guy. Is
>Richardson now a certainty for the test team as well ? 
>	Thanks in advance.
>
>			Sadiq [ always curious ] Yusuf
From: 5912ramasubr@vms.csd.mu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: stiffer over rates for SA Tour ??
Date: 14 Oct 1992 14:02:10 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 5912ramasubr@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsd.csd.mu.edu

In article <1992Oct14.052052.16651@uceng.UC.EDU>, bnataraj@uceng.UC.EDU (Bhaskar Natarajan) writes:
>
>	I just read that the minimum overs per hour required to be
>bowled on the Indian our to Zim. and SA is 21 !!  Apparently, Wadekar
>asked the players to prepare themselves.
>

I also read/heard that it was going to be 21 overs per hour.
I don't really know who was that brain dead person who made
the decision. 21 ovs/hr is impossible even in first class 
cricket (I mean non tests ).
Bye,

************************************************************
N.Ramasubramanian          	    

Dept. of Mech. Engg.	        Listach for ROY
Marquette University       
************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: g9220348@cc.uow.edu.au (adil shaikh)
Subject: Re: "Pakistan" Champion again
Organization: University Of Wollongong
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 07:21:12 GMT

A.Qadir@massey.ac.nz (A. Qadir) writes:


>Pakistan beat India in Hong Kong six a side "Final"
>Wendies beat New Zealand for third position match.

>So,   P A K I S T A N prove its power again.




Pakis are trouble makers.

They play when they are on the death bed.



Bye
Adil
From: tjohn@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (THIAGARAJ JOHN : THIRD)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Programme for Triangular Tournament with SA, WI and PAK.
Date: 12 Oct 1992 07:45:27 GMT
Organization: Electronic Eng., Univ. Natal, Durban, South Africa
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: pc77.ee.und.ac.za
Keywords: South Africa, Pakistan, West Indies, Tournament

In article <1b0gveINN3tk@daisy.ee.und.ac.za> fkhan@daisy.ee.und.ac.za (Feroz Khan) writes:

>Annonced this week was a triangular tournament featuring South Africa, Pakistan
>and the West Indies to be played int February 1993.

>Following is the full program:

>Feb  8 : West Indies  v Nicky Oppenheimer XI    (Halfway House)
>Feb  9 : South Africa v Pakistan                (Kingsmead)
>Feb 11 : South Africa v West Indies             (St George's Park)
>Feb 13 : West Indies  v Pakistan                (Wanderers)
>Feb 15 : South Africa v Pakistan                (Buffalo Park)
>Feb 17 : South Africa v West Indies             (Newlands)
>Feb 19 : West Indies  v Pakistan                (Kingsmead)
>Feb 21 : South Africa v Pakistan                (Centurion Park)
>Feb 23 : South Africa v West Indies             (Springbok Park)
>Feb 25 : West Indies  v Pakistan                (Newlands)
>Feb 27 : Final                                  (Wanderers)
>Feb 28 : Second day for final if neccesary

>A pretty hectic schedule with a match every second day.

>All in all not a bad season if you are South African supporter with India
>coming here at the end of this month and following their departure the
>arrival of the West Indians and the Pakistanis for the triangular series.

>Feroz

Thanks for your posting, but could maybe repost the schedule around the 
begining of February.

Thanks.
TJ.
From: pmc5@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Paul M Corballis)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: "We are the world " Team of 80's
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:02:23 GMT
Reply-To: pmc5@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Paul M Corballis)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Oct8.140340.9354@vax.oxford.ac.uk> mcbean@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.154513.11307@waikato.ac.nz>, sma@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Anderson) writes:
>> In article <92281.195206HH9679A@auvm.american.edu>, Howard E. Hill-Esbrand 
>> <HH9679A@auvm.american.edu> writes:
>
>The counter argument to this, is that instead of one bowler coming up with the
>magnificent wicket taking deliveries, all four do, sharing the wickets.  If
>people ended up taking risks against the lesser bowlers, why is it that Ewan
>Chatfield had no earth-shattering figures to speak of?
>

As I pointed out in a previous posting, and in several other messages 
that followed, bowling partnerships are as important as batting 
partnerships in cricket - maybe just less well understood.  Chatfield
may have been a "lesser" bowler than Hadlee, but did his job admirably.
That is, he kept the pressure on the batsman by bowling a tight line
and length, and making the runs hard work.  This is not to say that a
bowler of the ability of Marshall, Holding, Garner, Croft (...) would
have done a worse job, but that Chatfield was not the bunny people
are making out.  While on occasion he did turn in some very 
respectable figures, it is also instructive to see how many wickets
fell at the other end when he was bowling.  Sure it was Hadlee at the
other end, but Chatfield can hold his head high as a part of one of
Crickets great bowling partnerships.

Cheers, Paul
From: tom@cs.su.oz.au (Thomas James Jones)
Subject: Re: Six sixers in the same over!
Reply-To: tom@cs.su.oz.au
Organization: Basser Department of Computer Science
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:36:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.085716.4711@mailhost.ocs.mq.edu.au>, s8921366@macgraw.mqcs.mq.oz.au (Paul English) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct9.070736.26391@cc.uow.edu.au> g9220348@cc.uow.edu.au (adil shaikh) writes:
|> >hiranya@leland.stanford.edu (Pratheep Balasingam) writes:
|> >
|> >
|> >>I recall that Gary Sobers, and Frank Heyes both managed to hit
|> >>six sixers in the same over off the same bowler : Malcolm Nash.
|> >>Is this correct, or am I imagining this? Please clarify. Also
|> >>I think Ravi Shastri too has hit six sixers in the same over
|> >>in a first-class match. Are there any other such instances? 
|> >
|> >
|> >Ravi shashtri hit six sixers in Ranjit Trophy(First Class Match).
|> >
|> >
|> >I don't have any idea who was the bowler.
|> >
|> 
|> I remember one of the English spinners, possibly Phil Emburey (sp?) being
|> hit for six sixers in a tour game in India a few years back, but this may
|> not have been a first class match.  Anyone have any details?
|> 
|> 
	Just a little question, why does everybody seem to talk
	about 'sixers' rather than 'sixes'? 
	Did I miss something somewhere?

	tom 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: ravikane@leland.Stanford.EDU (Ravindra Shantaram Kane)
Subject: Re: Six sixers in the same over!
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 02:47:09 GMT
From: karnik@exa.cs.umn.edu (Neeran M. Karnik)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Misc News....
Date: 16 Oct 92 23:16:15 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota

In <1bnd33INN3kq@skat.usc.edu> ynesiah@skat.usc.edu (Yogala Nesiah) writes:

>* Dennis Lillee

>The 42 year old fast (used to be) bowler and Bruce Yardley another
>40+ year old bowler (spinner) have been recalled to First Class cricket.
>The two bowlers will represent the Board President's XI in a game against
>the visiting West Indians.  

	Something similar was reported when India visited Australia last year
and in fact, Lillee played against the Indians in one game. However, this does
not mean he's making a comeback!

>---------------------

>* Viv Richards

>Viv Richards captained the West Indian team in the recently completed
>Hong Kong Sixes tournament.  Does this mean that he is coming back?

	Well, Maninder played for India, and....

>- Short-square-leg
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	Hey, tired of fielding on the boundary line ? :-) Or did the crowd 
start pelting you with orange peels ? :-)

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  Neeran   Karnik  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dept. of Computer Science,      | Email: karnik@cs.umn.edu
University of Minnesota         |        karn0001@student.tc.umn.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: colin@physci.uct.ac.za (COLIN HENDERSON)
Subject: Re: Possible S.A. team vs. India
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 09:54:50 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town
Keywords: my selection


(General agreement about Henry and Bosch)
Henry has always been known as a master of flight, but hasn't been getting 
much turn.  Most of his wickets get caught on the boundary, nowadays.  Mixed 
in with the odd bat-pad and stumping.

Bosch maybe needs to bowl a bit slower to find "the spot" and then speed 
up.  He has always seemed to me to be brute strength, which needs to be 
controlled and channeled properly.


>>make the team , do you think, maybe at #3 ? After all, you wouldn't have to
>>look for someone like Rhodes to be 5, could just drop someone down the
>>order. 
>I'm not too much of a Ruchmere fan. He lacks the class of the other
>openers / #3. With a large number of promising top and middle order batsmen,
>he is doubtful. The selectors have included Jimmy Cook in the national
>squad and this might exclude Rushmere.

Rushmere has performed extremely well at a provincial level, but hasn't 
really been given enough chance at int. level to say whether he's capable 
enough. When Jimmy and Keps and Kirsten retire, he might get a look-in.
Which will be soon.

>>       And finally, about the keeper slot. Forgotten the guys name, but
>>Evans mentioned the guy who kept in the rebel test as comparable to anyone
>>in the world, and claimed Richardson only played the ODI's because he
>>was considered to be able to "get a move on" better than this other guy. Is
>>Richardson now a certainty for the test team as well ? 

>  [ ....Ray Jennings.... ]
>Richardson was played because he is supposedly a better bat. (He
>started of as an opener for Eastern Province, where they made a keeper
>out of him.) It should be clear to everyone now that he can't bat and
>can't keep [....]

I'd call Richardson 'useful' lower down in the order, but I wouldn't go so 
far as to say he can't bat or keep. Sure, he's not as good a keeper as 
Jennings or Ryall (who I think is now the best keeper in the country, though 
he's getting on a bit - pity he can't bat to save his life).  Jennings at 
his prime was as good a keeper-(lower-order) batsman as you could wish for.
Jennings' batting has let him down somewhat, lately -- though Snell, Jack 
and Eksteen have kept him busy behind the stumps.

Someone asked about young players they were going to 'blood'.  I was going 
to type in the 'president's XI', but have lost the relevant piece of 
paper :-<

I think it included Lazard, Rushmere, Koen, Pienaar (?), Rhodes, Cronje, 
Stewart (An attempt at solving the keeper problem?) Rundle, Bosch, van 
Zyl (?) (getting very hazy here...) ah, yes, Mulanga, who went to the 
Windies with the "development team" and was very successful, though I'm not 
sure what his speciality is.
--

Colog "nku-e-shweleng" the Henderdog
Physics Dept, UCT, South Africa.