HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 5912ramasubr@vms.csd.mu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Ranji Trophy Rules
Date: 25 Jul 92 20:26:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: vms.0095E1A6.3F1A59C0
Reply-To: 5912ramasubr@vms.csd.mu.edu
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services

In article <1992Jul24.200421.22176@leland.Stanford.EDU>, urajan@leland.Stanford.EDU (Uday Rajan) writes:
>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? 

I think it has now become 12 runs a over. In fact from the last season
itself. The penalty is pretty stiff.

bye,
RAM            		       BULLS -93	
MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY            

Politicians' statements tend to have a low
specific gravity. They carry less weight
than their volume would suggest.
		- Jonathan Miller
******************************************
From: rajeev@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Rajeev Menon)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:13:44 GMT
Subject: Headingley post mortem
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Rosa, CA
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket

Congratulations to England and its supporters for a great win. It was
a very exciting test match. A few comments.

Pakistan probably has the most potent and varied attack in the world now.
Waqar is off and on, but when he is on he is unplayable. Definitely high
calibre. Akram is even more erratic, but the bursts of brilliance and
his ability to move the ball makes him a great one. Probably the best
all rounder in the world today. Aquib is not at par with the above, but
is still good. And Mushtaq. It was scary to hear him tantalize the
England batsmen the way he did in the second innings. At one stage he
had figures of 8-3-10-2. Very few batsmen in this series have shown the
ability to play Mushtaq. Why Javed keeps him back, I will never know.
Highly underrated.

I could sense the panic in the England dressing room when Gower walked
out. The score was 27/2. Smith and Atherton out, combined for 5 runs.
Stewart, Hick, Ramprakash, Lewis, Pringle, Munton and Mallender made 
a total of 10 runs between them in the first innings, so who knows ?
I could sense Asif Iqbal's dismay when discussing Gooch's run out. 
Apparently he was out by over a foot. Tempers ran high. An over from
Mushtaq had Gower almost lbw. "It was very close. I will leave it at
that." said Asif. In the same over, a huge appeal for catch behind
was turned down. Latif went into a war dance of rage, but Miandad put
the lid on. It was justice that Gooch was eventually dismissed and
had to watch Gower take England home. Scores of 73, 18*, 31* are not
too shabby. And Gooch felt that Gower was unfit to play for England !!
Poor Ramprakash. It must have been a night mare to come out with 
everything to lose and so little to gain. Of course, he saved his 
career by staying unbeaten. Hick looks all at sea, except when he is 
in the slips. He is running out of time.

If England batting is so weak and Pak bowling so good, how did Eng
win ? England bowlers ? Remember that Pringle, Mallender and Munton
were not even playing in the last test. Mallender, I don't think is a
strike bowler. But, he kept the right line and length. Pak batsmen are
stroke players and do not want to graft a long innings. Miandad, Malik
Shoaib and Akram (yes !) are the only batsmen with test match 
temparement. Inzamam needs to slow down. So do Aamir and Mujtaba. 

This match was decided by the opening stand of 168 between Gooch and
Atherton. But if I would have picked the man of the match it would
have been Malik. He is proving that the World Cup performance was
an aberration. Can't wait for the next test.

rajeev
From: jawad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jawad Ali)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: T4 D4 10 minutes to tea
Date: 31 Jul 1992 14:04:49 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


I seem to be the only one awake in net land this morning.  I have got
som reception on my radio finally.

England are 37/2, chasing a traget of perhaps less than 100.
Gower and Gooch seem to be batting comfortably.  The men out
so  far are.

Stewart lbw b. Waqar.....5
Smith c. sub b.Waqar.....0

I'll try to confirm this and get the csorecard for the Pakisan
inning.

j n a
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu (R. Bharat Rao)
Subject: Re: Why is cricket not an Olympic sport ?
Reply-To: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:44:12 GMT

ravi@wti.com (Ravi Raj) writes:

>The only reason I can think of is the sheer duration of 
>the game. A full 8-10 hours for every match is probably
>not financially feasible. But did you know that in the
>year 1900, cricket was a full medal Olympic event? And
>they probabaly didn't have a limited overs concept then,
>so each match must have taken 6 to 8 days to complete. But
>there probabaly were not more than 3 or 4 cricket playing 
>nations then...

>Any input?

Actually, with the introduction of the one-day game, a knock-out
tourney would be very feasible.  The only problem I can see is that
the host country will in all likelihood not have the
grounds/facilities.  

But, if a regional qualifying was held to get it down to 16 teams for
the Olympics, you could probably manage with 4-6 grounds (assuming
that the pitches could be repaired sufficiently quickly, or to prepare
several pitches on each ground).  With many more countries having
national cricket teams (how many members of the ICC in all, anyone
know?), now could be the time to try again, maybe in 2000....

>Ravi N. Raj					ravi@wti.com

Bharat
From: craa27@vaxa.strath.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Double Internationals
Date: 27 Jul 92 15:39:24 GMT
Organization: Strathclyde University VAX Cluster

In article <23JUL199219104255@zeus.tamu.edu>, avs4700@zeus.tamu.edu (ANAND SRINIVASA) writes:
> 
> In article <23JUL199213191773@vxcrna.cern.ch>, hasan@vxcrna.cern.ch
> writes:
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
>> Probably true. Legend also has it that the king of some African country
> (Monrovia?) was so impressed by Fry's feats that he offered Fry the
> presidentship of his country. Of course, the cricketer-rugbier(?)-
> long jumper-gentleman that Fry is, he quietly declined the invitation.

   Well, without a source, but from memory.

   I believe that Fry was invited to attend the League of Nations as
   part of a delegation led by his friend Ranjhitsinjhi. This being the
   time when the victors were dividing up their winnings after the firse
   World War, leaders were sought for lawless areas. Ranjhitsinjhi with
   regard to Fry's organisational ability (and independent wealth) suggested
   him as the King of Albania. I believe that he declined the offer.jjj
> 
> 
> 
> ________________
> anand.
-- 
Steve Holmes 
craa27@uk.ac.strath.vaxa
Strathclyde University
041 522 4400 X 3576
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: andyc@is.morgan.com (Andrew Coad)
Subject: Re: Cricket as an Olympic Sport
Organization: Morgan Stanley - IS
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:30:15 GMT


My original comment:
In my opinion no team sport (with possibly the exception of the relay - which
i don't classify as a *team* sport anyway) should be part of the Olympics. The
Olympics was always to do with the achievement of the individual not the
collective efforts of the 'Harlem Globetrotters'.
 
So i'm glad cricket is not on the roster.

 
Patri Rao's comment:
In that case why is it that sports like hockey are included in the Olympics?
A clear case of inconsistency, right?

My new comment:
Please re-read the first sentence of my original comment.

End of thread

Andrew Coad
Morgan Stanley
New York
(212) 703-2112
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: andyc@is.morgan.com (Andrew Coad)
Subject: Cricket as an Olympic Sport
Organization: Morgan Stanley - IS
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:09:51 GMT

In my opinion no team sport (with possibly the exception of the relay - which
i don't classify as a *team* sport anyway) should be part of the Olympics. The
Olympics was always to do with the achievement of the individual not the
collective efforts of the 'Harlem Globetrotters'.

So i'm glad cricket is not on the roster.

Andrew Coad
Morgan Stanley
New York
(212) 703-2112
From: ccsdgdc@gdt.bath.ac.uk (Douglas Clark)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Neutral Umpires ---> Pick your own !
Date: 30 Jul 92 13:32:40 GMT
Organization: Bath University Computing Services, UK


It seems the article I posted on Monday didn't get out.
I was reporting an article by Mike Brearely in Sunday's Observer.
He said that he had come to the conclusion that umpires have an
unconscious bias and now supported the idea of neutral umpires.
He emphasised that he had seen no conscious bias.

This would seem to support the general thinking of r.s.c
The practicalities of organising and paying for neutral umpires
are something to be taken into consideration. But it seems that
the idea is getting off the ground.
-- 
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: Test Match 1992 July 24 (2nd Day)
Date: 25 Jul 92 00:35:57 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.


Test Match 1992 July 24 (Friday)
Day 2 of 5
4th Test Match England v Pakistan
Headingley Cricket Ground, Leeds

Pakistan won toss

  PAKISTAN

  Aamir Sohail     c Atherton   b Mallander 23
  Ramiz Raja                    b Pringle   17
  Asif Mujtaba                  b Mallander  7
* Javed Miandad    c Smith      b Pringle    6
  Salim Malik              not  out         82
  Inzamam-Ul-Haq   c Hick       b Munton     5
  Wasim Akram              run  out         12
+ Moin Khan        c Hick       b Lewis      2
  Waqar Younis     c Hick       b Mallander  6
  Mushtaq Ahmed                 b Lewis     11
  Aqib Javed       c Hick       b Munton     0

  Extras        b 1  lb 2   w 7   nb 16     24

  Total                                    197

  Fall       34-1 (Sohail)   54-2 (Mujtaba)
             60-3 (Ramiz)    68-4 (Miandad)
             80-5 (Inzamam) 111-6 (Akram)
            117-7 (Moin)    128-8 (Waqar)
            192-9 (Mushtaq) 197-10 (Aqib)

                      O     M      R     W
  Lewis              23     6     48     2
  Mallander          23     7     72     3
  Pringle            17     6     41     2
  Munton             10.3   3     22     2
  Gooch               6     3     11     0



  ENGLAND

* GA Gooch               not  out        93
  MA Atherton                 b Akram    76
  RA Smith               not  out        22
+ AJ Stewart
  DI Gower
  GA Hick
  MR Ramprakash
  CC Lewis
  DR Pringle
  TA Munton
  NA Mallander

  Extras                                 25

  Total                                 216 - 1
 


Match continues Saturday, Sunday, Monday


CDC
From: cdcs@st-andrews.ac.uk (Colin D. C. Steele)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: England XI v Rest of World 1992 July 29
Date: 29 Jul 92 23:42:19 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.


Heritage Homes Festival Match at Jesmond

England XI v Rest of World
55 overs per side

REST OF WORLD

  DL Haynes     c Lewis    b Malcolm    28
  MJ Greatbatch       run  out          43
  PV Simmons    c Lewis    b Malcolm    10
  RB Richardson c Rhodes   b Fraser      6
  MD Crowe      c Cork     b Tufnell    56
  SR Tendulkar  c Broad    b Lewis     100
  DN Patel            not  out          58
  MD Marshall         not  out           0
+ AC Parore
  C/M Pringle
  AN Other

  Extras                                18

  Total                                319-6


ENGLAND XI

  BC Broad       c Marshall   b Simmons   37
  MA Roseberry   c Greatbatch b Marshall  47
  AJ Stewart              lbw b Marshall  10
  JE Morris      c Richardson b Pringle   72
  NH Fairbrother c Tendulkar  b Patel     22
  CC Lewis       c Parore     b Simmons   66
+ SJ Rhodes              not  out         39
  DG Cork                not  out          9
  ARC Fraser
  PCR Tufnell
  DE Malcolm

  Extras                                  18

  Total                                  320-6

ENGLAND XI won by 4 WICKETS
From: hasnie@ed.ecn.purdue.edu (Rizwan Hasnie)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Hockey Info needed!!!
Date: 23 Jul 92 00:13:30 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <14kku1INNev8@agate.berkeley.edu>, kashif@ocf.berkeley.edu (Mohammad K. Qayyum) writes:
> Sorry for intruding on the Cricket Stuf, but does anyone know how to
> see/hear the hockey mathes from the Olympics here in the U.S.? 
> Apparently NBC is not showing them. Is there any hockey fan out there???
> Heeeeellllllllppppppppp !!!!!!
> ..


  Subscribe to rec.sport.hockey.field for informations.

Rizwan.
.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: venki@mpg.phys.hawaii.edu (N. Venkateswaran)
Subject: Relocating to Reston, Virginia
Organization: University of Hawaii, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:16:41 GMT


	Hi,

	My friend is relocating to Reston, Virginia. Being a cricket
	enthusiast, he is naturally interested in hearing about cricket
	clubs in the vicinity. Your help in this regard is appreciated.
From: mcbean@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Anatomy of a great team
Date: 21 Jul 92 10:35:53 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAXcluster

In article <1992Jul20.134405.15877@walter.bellcore.com>, shamim@.bellcore.com (Shamim Naqvi,MRE-2E342,829-4813,,21272) writes:
> In article 7647@vax.oxford.ac.uk,  mcbean@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>>I'm taking aother idle break from my thesis!  With all the jingoism on the net
>>in recent months about some current "great teams" I decide to be bloodyminded
>>and post some thoughts about what should constitute a great team, based of
>>course on my own WI team of the 80's.
>>
>>Should have an opening pair rated among the all time greats.
>>Should have a #3 who can destroy the bowling to set up winning totals quickly
>>or chase quickly.
>>Team Achievements.
>>
>>Undefeated at home for the last 19 years in a series.  
> 
> And have the umpires so afraid of the public that they confess off the
> field that had they given a few decisions against them, their homes
> would have been fire bombed. :-))

Fire-bombings? threats from crowds?  We're talking about the West Indies not
the East Indies here :-)  You really ought to brush up on your geography
Shamin:-)

McBean
From: 5912ramasubr@vms.csd.mu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Scores
Date: 26 Jul 92 14:47:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: vms.0095E250.CE60D000
Reply-To: 5912ramasubr@vms.csd.mu.edu
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services

Hi there
I don't know if this has been posted yet but
anyway 

Pakistan all out 221 in their second innings
England need 99 to win. 
They are 27 for one.
Atherton out. lbw Waqar Younis.
bye,

************************************************************
RAM            		       BULLS -93	

Politicians' statements tend to have a low specific gravity.
They carry less weight  than their volume would suggest.
		- Jonathan Miller
************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: psbapat@maxwell15.ee.mtu.edu (BAPAT)
Subject: Re: Pakistani Players Use Filthy Language!?
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:45:24 GMT

In article <92206.095447SXK129@psuvm.psu.edu>, Spaceman Spiff <SXK129@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
|> In article <1992Jul23.213153.2012@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
|> arkay@leland.Stanford.EDU (Abdur Khan) says:
|> >
|> >also how come no one talks about gavaskar's hundred against New Zealand,
|> >which would have been the fastest if he had not slowed down near the hundred
|> >mark.
|> >
|> no. he was pretty quick till 95 (71 balls) but then he slowed down and got his
|> 100 off 85 balls. however, the record (62 balls) by azharuddin was never
|> seriously threatened.
|> 
|> Stay cool,
|> The Thinker
|> 

   What was probably meant was - the fastest century in World Cup matches,
   the record for which belonged to Clive Lloyd (and probably does till today?)
   till the Reliance World Cup of 1987.


-- 

Pushpak Bapat                      | LIFE IS LIKE A SEWER; WHAT 
e-mail: psbapat@mtu.edu            | YOU GET OUT OF IT DEPENDS  
Michigan Technological University  | ON WHAT YOU PUT INTO IT !!
From: jawad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jawad Ali)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: T4 D4 10 minutes to tea
Date: 31 Jul 1992 14:05:49 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


I seem to be the only one awake in net land this morning.  I have got
som reception on my radio finally.

England are 37/2, chasing a traget of perhaps less than 100.
Gower and Gooch seem to be batting comfortably.  The men out
so  far are.

Stewart lbw b. Waqar.....5
Smith c. sub b.Waqar.....0

I'll try to confirm this and get the csorecard for the Pakisan
inning.

j n a
From: afrance@acorn.co.uk (Alastair France)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: 4th test scorecard close of play
Date: 24 Jul 92 08:21:33 GMT
Organization: Acorn Computers Ltd, Cambridge, England

Close of play scorecard from 23rd July
Commentary from BBC1 Ceefax (teletext)

ENGLAND v PAKISTAN  Pakistan won toss  
PAKISTAN 1st innings:                  
Sohail     c Atherton   b Mallender 23 
Ramiz                   b Pringle   17 
Mujtaba                 b Mallender  7 
Miandad    c Smith      b Pringle    6 
Malik      not out                  57 
Haq        c Hick       b Munton     5 
Akram      run out                  12 
Moin       c Hick       b Lewis      2 
Younis     c Hick       b Mallender  6 
Mushtaq    not out                   6 
                        Extras      24 
TOTAL (for 8 wickets)              165 
                                       
                                CLOSE  
Fall: 1-34 2-54 3-60 4-68 5-80 6-111   
      7-117 8-128         
                                       
Neil Mallender had a dream debut as he took advantage of the notorious        
Headingley strip to leave Pakistan reeling at 165-8 at close.
            
The Somerset seamer made the early breakthrough by tempting Sohail, and
Mujtaba soon followed suit.
          
Only rain delays held up England's progress but Derek Pringle took up where
Mallender left off to remove Miandad and Ramiz.                     

Chris Lewis and Tim Munton were also on target, Mallender claimed Younis as
his third scalp, and only Malik (57 no) offered any resistance.
____________________________________________________________________________

     Alastair France, Acorn Computers Ltd, Cambridge CB5 8PB, England

      Views expressed are my own, and not necessarily those of Acorn

   ...and the words of the prophet are written on the subway walls...

                                      Simon and Garfunkel, Sound of Silence
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: shamim@.bellcore.com (Shamim Naqvi,MRE-2E342,829-4813,,21272)
Subject: Re: Excitement and Controversy
Reply-To: shamim@.bellcore.com
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Morristown, NJ
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 15:24:05 GMT

In article 17363@dmpe.csiro.au,  mohan@phi.mel.dms.CSIRO.AU (Mohan Krishnamoorthy) writes:
>I am not entirely sure of what Kre is trying to say here.  

What kre is saying, if I may be bold enough to clarify, is that the
batsman gets the benefit of the doubt in close decisions. Everybody in
cricket agrees with this rule. The problems are what I would refer to
as "closeness" and "consistency." How close does a decision have to be
before the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt?  How consistent is
the umpire in giving the batsman the benefit of the doubt?

Now anybody who has played a little bit of serious cricket knows that
umpires do not usually make mistakes on obvious decisions. A loud
snick, a plumb LBW, a clear bat and pad are all given. (BTW allow me to
mention that most umpires agree that the hardest decision in present
day cricket is the bat and pad; LBWs and run outs are not considered
that difficult to arbitrate.) No first class cricketer expects an
umpire to not make mistakes. What they all want is the umpire to make
the mistakes consistently. I'll take a simple example: the question of
calling wides down the leg side in OD games. You will have seen many
bowlers complaining to the umpires in the recent WC because they
thought the umpire was not being consistent in his calling of wides.
This is exactly what happens in close LBW, run out and bat and pad
decisions. If the batsman is to get the benefit of the doubt, let him
get the doubt consistently. In the recent test match, Gooch, Smith and
Gower got the benefit of the doubt on several occasions. Yet, to take
one example, Asif Mujtaba played a ball off his toe and was given out
caught in the slips.  Certainly Inzamam was run out at Lords in the
second innings when Pakistan were chasing 138 to win but was he out by
more than 2 feet? He didn't get the benefit of the doubt but Gooch did
when England were chasing 99 and Gooch was out by 2 feet. This sort of
inconsistency  raises doubts in a player's mind.

--shamim

	--SAN

Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: hasan@vxcrna.cern.ch 
Subject: Re: England 13 ...?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:57:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.164711.23659@walter.bellcore.com>, shamim@.bellcore.com writes...
>In article 22JUL199210594703@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu,  diwadkva@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.ed(Vaibhav A. Diwadkar) writes:
>>I read (or heard) somewhere that England have made four changes in their
>>team for the Headingley (?) test.  I haven't seen anything on rsc about this.
>>I believe Phil Newport and Neil Mallender are included in the squad.
>>My guess is Salisbury, Hick, Russell and Atherton are casualties.  Anyone
>>with a confirmation on this?
>>
>>					- Vaibhav.
> 
> 
>I posted a small item a few days ago about this but perhaps you 
>missed it. Russell, Salisbury and Malcolm are out; 
>Mallender, Childs, Ramprakash and Newport are in. 
>--shamim
> 
>---
>	--SAN
> 
	According to news reports, it was an unusually long
	meeting of the selectors. And it seems, in case of
	Hick, optimism won over experience.
	
	-Hasan