HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bnataraj@uceng.UC.EDU (Bhaskar Natarajan)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: India in Zimbabwe
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:39:33 GMT
Organization: University of Cincinnati, Engineering College

In article <1992Oct16.154553.11672@oracle.us.oracle.com> sagrawal@oracle.com (Sanjay Agrawal) writes:
>
>India beat a Zimbabwe President's XI by 16 runs in a 30 (?) overs-a-side match.
>India scored 203 for 9, and the President's XI replied with 187 for 9. BBC didn't 
>give any details.

	It was 50 overs apiece. Guess who top-scored for India? Shastri (!)
Made 73 odd. The big *star batsmen* flopped badly.

And the latest is that Kapil was injured by a freak rising ball by Jadeja
in a practice session ( went thru the gap between his elbow and hit him
somewhere on the face ! )  It is doubtful whether he will be fit for the 
test match on Sunday.

Bye,
Bhaskar	

>Sanjay Agrawal
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: shiv@rs.com (Shiv)
Subject: Re: Worst Aussie side since 1970
Reply-To: shiv@rs.com
Organization: Renaissance Software, Inc.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:48:37 GMT

In article 27080@news.Hawaii.Edu, anurag@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Anurag Bist) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.164130.18687@cs.yale.edu> papadopoulos-dimitrios@CS.YALE.EDU (Dimitrios Papadopoulos) writes:
>>>>David Hookes (The Great White Hope)
>>I always thought Hookes was a terrific bat who never batted to his potential.
>>The two sixes he had off Andy Roberts after recovering from a broken jaw
>>(after being hit by the same bowler)in 1977 {Packer circus}still stand
>>out in my memory
>
> Also, not to forget, in the same series a brilliant short and sweet 
>knock of 25 odd runs which contained 6 fours - four of them consecutive
>off the bowling of Bob Willis (?) ...it was a match in which all the
>Aussie batsmen were failing and Hookes came in and played an innings
>which showed the potential. The match, in that Packer series,
>was won by England and another guy of a similar temperament
>from the English side - Dereck Randall - starred in that victory.
>
>Infact, Hookes belonged to a class of batsmen which were always so near
>and yet too far....their carefree attitude COULD HAVE
>cost them their careers but at
>the same time won the hearts of zillions of fans. I would put Randall,
>Gower, Brijesh Patel (India)  and Brian Lara (in current times)  a few
>of those falling in the same category.. 
>
>Anurag
>
>
>
> 
> 
>
>


If I remember right, the 25-odd runs were scored by Hookes in the Centenary test
against England. And the 4 consecutive fours were hit off Tony Greig (or Underwood), not Bob Willis. And the match was won by Australia, not England, by 45 runs -- exactly the same margin by which they had won a 100 years ago.


---
Shiv                      
Renaissance Software Inc. | email: shiv@rs.com 
175 S. San Antonio Road   | 
Los Altos, CA 94022       |
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 08:51:07 EDT
From: Spaceman Spiff <SXK129@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Australian cricket season starts ......
 <1992Oct14.031854.8532@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU>
 <1992Oct15.141005.21957@dvorak.amd.com> <719189425@flounder.cs.duke.edu>

In article <719189425@flounder.cs.duke.edu>, azhar@duke.cs.duke.edu (D. Salman
[Quintessential] Azhar) says:
>
>
>           "Those", who commented that India won the 1983 world cup by
>fluke, included our superhero Sunil Gavaskar. :-)
>
>>>India proved it was not
>>>by winning the 1985 Mini World Cup by defeating all its opponents.
>
>           Sunil Gavaskar Esquire labelled that as "FLUKE 2".
>
what's your source for these quotes? in none of the interviews after the
"mini" WC did sunny say it was a fluke. in fact india followed this series
with another 3 victories in the rothmans(?) cup in sharjah. you can't win
8 or 9 ODI's in a row by fluke.
>           Sir, you have got your facts wrong, for India did not beat at
>least 3 teams that it never played. :-)
>
however, india beat every team it played comprehensively, something that no
other WC winning team has done- even the WI of 75 and 79 had 2-3 close matches.

Stay cool,
The Thinker

Cogito ergo potum                               I think therefore I drink
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SXK129@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                                Penn State University

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conway's Law:
        In any organization there will always be one person who knows
        what is going on.

        This person must be fired.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: s8921366@macgraw.mqcs.mq.oz.au (Paul English)
Subject: Re: "We are the world " Team of 80's
Organization: Macquarie University, School of Mathematics, Physics, Computing and Electronics
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 12:05:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.121435.9213@vax.oxford.ac.uk> mcbean@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>In article <4OCT199217281776@zeus.tamu.edu>, fdm0886@zeus.tamu.edu (Faraaz) writes:
>> ... I agree, there's no room for both kapil and Imran on this team. 
>> Obviously Kapil would have to go as Imran is an added asset as the
>> obvious choice for captain.
>> 
>> .....Faraaz
>
>Pray tell why is Imran Khan the obvious choice for captain?  Much as I have my
>problems with Viv, in terms of achievement he and Clive Lloyd were the test
>captains of the '80s in terms of win/loss records.  In fact one of Viv's 
>lesser known records is that he is supposed to be the only long term captain
>who has never lost a series (12 I think).  Of course I'm sure to be corrected
>:-).

I suspect Bradman may also be a long term captain who never lost a series.
The only series I can think of him losing as a _player_ is the Bodyline
series (1932/3), and he wasn't captain then (if he did lose any others I'd
be interested in hearing of them, I'm not sure of some series in the late
'30s).  Off course Bradman played many fewer test series, partly because
fewer were played then, and mostly because of WWII.

>I know the counter-argument to that is the talent he had at his disposal, but
>in the 1960's the Windies team was just as talented, but sufferred from weak
>captaincy.  Just think, Sobers, Conrad Hunte, Seymour Nurse, Rohan Kanhai,
>3W's, Wes Hall, Charlie Griffith and Lance Gibbs should have been a world
>champion side but weren't.
>
>Imran certainly did a marvelous job for Pakistan, but doesn't he and Viv stand
>accused of the same flaw, an autocratic manner?
>
>McBean

Richards always struck me as a captain who tended to let his talented team
run itself, with little intervention.  This was the appropriate way to
manage the team he had on most occassions, but he didn't seem to do more
than rely on a special contribution from someone in his team if things
weren't going well.  He could save a game when in trouble, but didn't seem
to know how to turn a disadvantage into a possible win (though lack of
practice may account for some of this :-) ).

Khan would be my pick as captain as he would try something imaginative to
win a game if the chance was there, although to a foolhardy extent.  He
also looked more in control on the field, and seemed to be able to get the
best from his bowlers.  While it could be argued his more hands-on approach
would not be needed with this team, I think it makes him the better
choice.

--
    Paul English    |Email:                        |You can tell how far
   School of MPCE   |s8921366@mackay.mpce.mq.edu.au|we have to go when
Macquarie University|    paul@vulcan.anu.edu.au    |today's supercomputers
 Sydney, Australia  |                              |are programmed in FORTRAN
From: sudhama@engin.umich.edu (Sudhama Gopalan)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Best batting, bowling, and fielding sides
Date: 15 Oct 1992 08:44:03 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Abbas Mustafa writes:

The following are my opinions, and i believe are not very far from
reality.
        BEST BATTING SIDE:
        There is hardly any doubt that india has the best batting lineup
atleast on paper and based on individual performances. SRT, Azhar,
manjrekar, and shastri in this order is the backbone of indian batting.

_________________________________________________________________________

    Well chosen words, I must say. Given the fact that the Indian team lost
it's last four (?) series (OK, they were all overseas) I must say that this
much vaunted batting line-up will remain just that - paper tigers.
  Here's my analysis (for whatever it's worth) of the various batting lineups:
  Australia - (used to be soooo consistent but now looks as if all of them save
                AB have decided to take a looooong vacation)
 West Indies - (very brittle , home and away)
 Pakistan - (ditto, a lot better at home though)
 India - (brittle, if their bowling did a little more it would look a little
           more decent)
 England - (susceptible to a good bowling side, else reasonably consistent)
Sri Lanka - (talent galore that has never materialized)
New Zealand - (who?)
SA, Zim - (insufficient data)


Sudhama
From: sma@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Anderson)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: "We are the world " Team of 80's
Date: 15 Oct 92 11:01:53 GMT
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <1992Oct13.102723.9468@vax.oxford.ac.uk>, mcbean@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:

> I think you and I differ over what a mediocre bowler is.  Which other test side
> could Chatfield have played for?  Certainly not Australia, nor England, nor
> Pakistan nor the WI, and he would have had a difficult time making the Indian
> side (another one bowler side during that period).

Yes, well England certainly had a devastating bowling attack during the
Chatfield years.  Lets face it, Chats took consistently kept the reigns on
world class batsmen.  For that you have to be a bit more than your club regular
line and length bowler.  He also took a couple of wickets as well.

> That's comparing chalk and cheese.  Thompson was just as feared as Lillee in
> his heyday, and was a wicket taker and a nasty bowler.  As I type this I'm
> rolling around in laughter at my teminal.  Thanks for the comic relief! 
> Thompson/Lillee comp. to Hadlee/Chatfield..
I think you missed the point.  Thommo was faster than Lillie, and tended to
bounce the ball up into the ribcage.  Hence batsmen tended to relax a little
against Lillie, forgetting that he had the full armoury to be even more deadly
than Thompson.  So Lillie took a number of Wickets because Thommo was at the
other end.


Stephen..
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: pvr@argo.rice.edu (PVR Narasimha Rao)
Subject: Re: A few snippets from Times Of India
Organization: Rice University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 04:19:30 GMT


In article <karnik.718815669@hecto>, karnik@hecto.cs.umn.edu (Neeran M. Karnik) writes:


|> 	Incidentally, the TOI reporter's comment on Kumble's bowling in the
|> first innings was something like:- ordinary but accurate. The Delhi batsmen
                                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But, "accuracy" is no "ordinary" trait! :-)

All a bowler in the mould of Kumble (or anyone for that matter) needs in
order to be successful is accuracy.


Let us see what Kumble should've done in order to make the TOI reporter
call his "accurate" bowling above "ordinary".

(1) He should have turned the ball by huge angles.
	No, he rarely does it. It's not his type.

(2) He should have given a lot of flight to the ball.
	No, he rarely does it. It's not his type.


To put it bluntly, many cricket fans develop certain prejudices knowingly
or unknowingly. We tend to quantize bowling as pace/spin. For different
styles of bowling, we have standards set. We think of a good (or
threatening) legspinner as someone who has certain qualities etc etc.

But the problem with Kumble is he is neither a spinner nor a medium pacer.
To quote myself (from the WC time), "Kumble should not be looked upon as a
spinner. He is a spinner-cum-medium-pacer. He adds a lot of variety to the
bowling attack." We should not apply our ideas of a good spinner to judge
him because he is not exactly a pure spinner.

He comes in with the run-up of a medium pacer. His deliveries are very quick
for a spinner. His turn (leg) is usually gentle, but he keeps varying it a
lot. He changes his speed and bounce (top-spin) considerably along with the
turn. He is not at all an orthodox spinner. Just imagine yourself facing a
bowler who is turning the ball gently, but is varying the speed, bounce and
turn very much and, moreover, is bowling with a lot of control. It's not
easy to read him and play freely. You can easily get confused and troubled.

This kind of mixture of pace and spin can be as effective in troubling the
batsmen as pace/spin if the bowler has control over his deliveries. But,
because of the prejudices we have, we tend to think that he's not bowling
threateningly.

One good thing with Kumble is he can do well irrespective of whether the
pitch is a spinner's paradize or a green top. Depending on the condition
of the pitch, he will bowl more like a medium pacer or more like a spinner.

When Kumble bowled more like a spinner in the second innings (with a
crumbling pitch), the same TOI reporter says he (Kumble) was "much more
threatening"!!


|> played for the spin which just wasn't there, in his almost medium-paced
|> deliveries. However, in the second innings, with a crumbling pitch, he bowled
|> much more threateningly.


|> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  Neeran   Karnik  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


PVR
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: arkay@leland.Stanford.EDU (Abdur Khan)
Subject: Re: "We are the world " Team of 80's
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 06:20:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.134944.9353@vax.oxford.ac.uk> mcbean@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.120543.13354@mailhost.ocs.mq.edu.au>, s8921366@macgraw.mqcs.mq.oz.au (Paul English) writes:
>> Richards always struck me as a captain who tended to let his talented team
>> run itself, with little intervention.  This was the appropriate way to
>> manage the team he had on most occassions, but he didn't seem to do more
>> than rely on a special contribution from someone in his team if things
>> weren't going well.  He could save a game when in trouble, but didn't seem
>> to know how to turn a disadvantage into a possible win (though lack of
>> practice may account for some of this :-) ).
>
>I can't totally agree with this assessment.  On the one hand Richards is
>supposed to be a domineering personality, yet he let's the team run with little
>intervention.  What I would interpret it as, is that everybody knows what is
>expected of them, and communication is done without histrionics.

this is my personal opinion but richards, though a great batsmen was
no where near as competent a captain. You felt as if the team was captainless
as richards would be to pre-occupied with himself. An error often made is to
name your best batsmen as captain, alot of people thought greenidge would have
been a great captain, but i would have liked Marshall as he would have been 
a really aggressive one.
>
>> Khan would be my pick as captain as he would try something imaginative to
>> win a game if the chance was there, although to a foolhardy extent.  He
>> also looked more in control on the field, and seemed to be able to get the
>> best from his bowlers.  While it could be argued his more hands-on approach
>
>I see... Khan seemed to get the best from his bowlers, but when Ambrose et al,
>put in a devastating bowling performance on a placid pitch, Richards has
>nothing to do with it.  As I said before, the impression has always been that
>all you have to do with the WI team is let them loose on the field and they run
>on automatic.   If you need any proof of what weak captaincy will do, look at
>the performances in the World Cup and the one-off test against SA.

Imran's other asset as a captain was team selection or insistence on standing
behind his decision, while one of the greatest problems during Viv's captaincy
was suspect selection.
Reading Lloyds book i can understand the problem faced by a west indian captain
in trying to select the best players but ofcourse Lloyd did just that.

sahibzada rafay khan [ Richards now that was a great batsmen!!!!]
From: SOCC9241430E@LUST.LATROBE.EDU.AU (JACKSON,Chris)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Matthew Hayden
Date: 10 Oct 92 17:25:43 GMT
Organization: La Trobe University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

Well as the first state limited overs matches have just finished this week-
end and already the fight for Australian baggies is hotting up.  First of
all, the opening spot tha is up for grabs is the main point of interest!
Moody is definately out of the race (thankfully), but the two men that I 
envisage as being the major chances (Marsh and Hayden) both performed well.
In an absolute flogging of the Vics, the boys from the west won by ten 
wickets, with Marsh and Veletta both with half centuries, giving Marsh
more confidence in search of another chance.  However, Hayden blitzed also
with a brilliant 73*...who gets the nod?  First blood to Hayden in the 
openers race!  Good form is obviously not a known commodity, but is 
interesting to note that Hayden has scored more than 300 district runs 
in two matches....only district (calm down critics)....but when runs are
flowing from a willow blade, the wielder feels in control...even in the
lower grades.

As for the middle order, no real contenders showed anything special in the
first games.  Still with positions like M Waugh, a possible position if 
the five foot Tasmanian with the flared pants is thrown in to open, possibly
available it will be interesting to see Bevan, S Waugh, Law, Lehmann, Siddons,
Moody(?) and Martyn (bowl him!!! 3-3!) fight it out.  

		** Flame Away ** or agree if you've got balls!!

Chris.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: tom@cs.su.oz.au (Thomas James Jones)
Subject: India Scrape In
Reply-To: tom@cs.su.oz.au
Organization: Basser Department of Computer Science
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 02:19:33 GMT

HARARE: India recovered from 5-76, battling to a 16-run victory
	over a Zimbabwe Pres. XI in the opening match
	of their cricket tour on Thursday.  After struggling
	to 9-203 in their 50 overs, the Indians had to work hard
	in the afternoon session to prise out the gritty
	Zimbabweans, who ended on 9-187. Opener and vice captain
	Ravi Shastri anchored the Indian innings with 73 off 125 balls.

	India 9-203 (Shastri 73, Crocker 3-18) d
	Zimb  9-187 (Briant 51*, Shastri 2-21)

	(source, Australian 17 October)



	tom
From: parama@schoenberg.cs.unc.edu (Paramasivan)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Some stats re the Indian team to tour SA/Zim
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:54:23 GMT
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

In article <GANESH.92Oct12094921@karp.albany.edu> ganesh@cs.albany.edu (Ganesh Murugesan) writes:
>Break Up of Kapil's Hundred's (that i remember)
>
>1. 126* against West Indies at Kanpur 1978-79
At New Delhi.
>2. 125* against WI at Port of Spain 1982-83
100.
>3. 104  against Australia in Madras 1985-86 (Tied Test)
119.
>4. 156* against Sri Lanka, Kanpur 1987 (Azar made 199 in this  match)
>5.
5.116 vs England, at Kanpur, 1981-82.
>6.
6.110 vs England at the Oval, 1990.
>7.
7.109 vs West Indies at Madras, 1987
>


--P2
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: rsiva@active.UVic.CA (Sivakumar  Radhakrishnan)
Subject: Re: WA V Vic MM Cup
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 19:40:31 GMT

In article <92286.121902SXK129@psuvm.psu.edu> Spaceman Spiff <SXK129@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.220143.21079@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>s1172217@giaec.cc.monash.edu.au (Mark Smith) says:
>>
>>The first game of the MM cup was played last night in Perth, heres the
>>scorecard:
>>Vic won toss and batted
>>Phillips    22
>>Nobes       25
>>Jones       22
>>Lehmann     37
>>Ayres       17
>>O'Donnell    0
>>Maxwell      0
>>Dodemaide    0
>>Reiffel      0
>>Hughes       0
>>Berry        0*
>>Extras       9
>>All out    132 in 42.3 overs
>
>what the hell happened here? a hat-trick or two? i've never seen a longer line
>of 0's in a scorecard
>
>Stay cool,
>The Thinker
>

In a bizarre league match in Victoria, B.C, Canada last summer, one of the teams
was shot out for 42 runs with the opener scoring 26 odd runs and carried
his bat through. The rest of the runs came from Mr. Extras and the 
remaining 10 batsmen scored ducks. There were no hat-tricks though.

Has someone come across any parallel incident to this at any level of
cricket?


Regards,

Sivakumar Radhakrishnan
From: mcbean@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Sobers on batting
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:55:02 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1992Oct12.123400.1400@gdr.bath.ac.uk>, mapsj@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Simon Juden) writes:
> In the referenced article, mcbean@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>>
>>"The selectors, it seems," continued Sobers, "must be keeping them in the team
>>in order to prove a point, no doubt hoping that they will eventually come good
>>and so justify their early opinion of them.  That cannot be right, and it is
>>certainly not fair to the other players."
> 
> ...does this make anyone else think of Mr. Hick?
> Simon

Yes and no.  Hooper looks extremely good while at the crease and then to the
astonishment of everybody gets out.  Hick on the hand makes you astonished when
he scores some runs...

McBean
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: tom@cs.su.oz.au (Thomas James Jones)
Subject: Re: "We are the world " Team of 80's
Reply-To: tom@cs.su.oz.au
Organization: Basser Department of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 06:17:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.144343.901@walter.bellcore.com>, shamim@bellcore.com (Shamim Naqvi,MRE-2E342,829-4711,,21273) writes:
|> In article 195206HH9679A@auvm.american.edu,  Howard E. Hill-Esbrand <HH9679A@auvm.american.edu> writes:
|> >How can any team play Qadir before Holding or Garner? 
|> 
|> To lend versatilityto the attack. After all why play 5 fast bowlers? 

	 I don't know, ask the WI, they seem to have found reasonable
	success with this tactic...

|> On the other hand there are some people who believe in simply playing the best 
|> and not worrying about balanced attacks, etc. Remember the time Imran played two 
|> leg spinners (Qadir and Mushtaq) in the same ODI? So arguments can be made for both 
|> views. 
|> 
|> In a private conversation in Lahore Viv Richards joked that he would gladly 
|> give up two fast bowlers to get one Qadir (this was after Qadir had dismissed 
|> WI for 50+ at Faisalabad). He was referring to the fact that whereas WI seems 
|> to have a never ending supply of fast bowlers they have not produced a world 
|> class spinner in quite some time. 
|> 
|> Interesting to wonder what it would have been like to play the WI if they had 
|> three quickies (Marshall, Holding and Garner) and Qadir. A sample of this was
|> provided by Pakistan to England this summer. As Woodcock wrote in The Times and 
|> I am parapharsing: imagine you are Salim Malik. You have just seen a torrid spell by 
|> Malcolm which you have survived and with relief you see him taking his sweater 
|> and being replaced by Pringle. Now imagine you are Robin Smith. From one end, Mushtaq
|> is asking questions that often make you guess. From the other Waqar is bowling as fast as you 
|> you have probably ever faced and making the ball swing at that pace. With relief you 
|> watch Waqar take his sweater but then you realize that his place is being taken by Wasim 
|> who starts bowling just as fast and making the ball do just as much as Waqar. 
|> 
|> 
|> 	--SAN
|> 
	Not really sure what the point is here.  Imagine that you 
	were playing the West Indies and Garner came of so that Marshall
	could come on who came off so that Walsh could....	
	As the cricketing world knows, this may not be very versitile,
	but it's pretty effective.
	WI hardly lacked much in the eighties did they?

	tom

Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket