HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cdcs@st-andrews.ac.uk (Colin D. C. Steele)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Tour Match 1992 August 18
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:58:46 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.


Tour Match 1992 August 18
Gloucestershire v Pakistan XI at Bristol
Day 3 of 3

PAKISTAN XI 357-8 dec  (Ramiz Raja 135)    (I'll try to fill in the details
                                                                     later)

and      Aamir Sohail               c & b Smith      30
         Shoaib Mohammad     c Alleyne  b Babington  14
         Ijaz Ahmed          c Russell  b Vaughan    31
         Inzamam-Ul-Haq            not  out          54
         Rashid Latif        c Alleyne  b Davies     42
         Navid Anjum               not  out           6

         Extras                                       7

         TOTAL                                      184-4 dec


GLOUCESTERSHIRE

  MW Alleyne      c Latif    b Aqib      8   c Latif   b Mushtaq   27
* AJ Wright       c Haq      b Akram     5         lbw b Aqib      13
  RI Dawson              c & b Akram    19   c Latif   b Akram     11
     Vaughan      c Haq      b Aqib      3   c Haq     b Aqib      20
+ RC Russell      c Mushtaq  b Aqib     18             b Akram      7
  THC Hancock     c Latif    b Akram    11   c Ijaz    b Akram     27
  RC Williams     c Anjum    b Aqib     17   c Latif   b Akram      0
  GD Hodgson             lbw b Akram     7        lbw  b Akram      3
  AM Smith        c Latif    b Akram     0             b Akram      4
  M Davies              not  out        22   c Latif   b Mushtaq    3
  AM Babington    c Haq      b Aqib      8       not   out          4

  Extras                                 3                          5

  TOTAL                                123                        126


PAKISTAN XI won by 292 runs


CDC
From: karnik@mega.cs.umn.edu (Neeran M. Karnik)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: 5th test
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:00:24 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota

In <1992Aug11.223148.20024@walter.bellcore.com> shamim@.bellcore.com (Shamim Naqvi,MRE-2E342,829-4813,,21272) writes:

>John Woodcock said that people who were bringing the swing into
>question were ignorant and that whenever an athlete sets new standards
>the world views it with suspicion. Waqar and Wasim are setting new
>standards for high speed swing bolwing.

	Good point there by Woodcock. There are other examples too, like the
great hockey player, Dhyan Chand, whose skill at controlling the ball was so
great, that he was suspected of using glue or some such on his hockey stick!
Also, thanks to the Ben Johnson affair, every new world record in athletics is
now considered suspect by the average person. IMHO, the W & W case is another
example of the same...

>	--SAN

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  Neeran  Karnik  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dept. of Computer Science,      | Email: karnik@cs.umn.edu,
University of Minnesota         |        karnik@atto.cs.umn.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: papadopoulos-dimitrios@CS.YALE.EDU (Dimitrios Papadopoulos)
Subject: Re: AU vs SL, 1st Test, 1st Day, Scoreboard
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 03:13:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.221310.2690@ipsa.reuter.com> jka@ipsa.reuter.com (Jan Arendtsz) writes:
>Scoreboard at the end of the 1st day of the 1st cricket test between 
>Australia and Shri-Lanka:
>
>AUSTRALIA 1st Innings
>
>M. Taylor LBW B Wickremasinghe		42
>T. Moody LBW B Ramanayake		01
>D. Boon C Ram'ake B Hathurusinghe	32
>D. Jones LBW B Hathurusinghe		10
>M. Waugh C Kaluwitharana B Hathu'ghe	05
>A. Border B Hathurusinghe		03
>G. Matthews LBW B Ramanayake		06
>I. Healy NOT OUT			66
>C. McDermott C Ranatunga B Ram'ake 	22
>S. Warne C and B Anurasiri		24
>M. Whitney C and B Wickramasinghe	13 
>
>EXTRAS					 ?
>
>TOTAL (All Out)			       25

Hun!!4 lbws-seems australians are getting dose of their
own medicine.:-):-)Not long back there were 4 lbws in each of
indian innings(Adelaide?) with ones against vengsarkar,tendulkar
and manjrekar raising quite a few eyebrows.

[Don't miss the smileys]

--Pushkar
From: sudhama@engin.umich.edu (Sudhama Gopalan)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: New York Cricket (Pak vs ROW)
Date: 14 Aug 1992 10:38:23 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Andrew Coad reports:

Here is the info that I have:

Pakistan are playing ROW at Downing Stadium, Randalls Island New York of
SPETEMBER 26th, 1992 start time 11.00 a.m. The teams are as follows:

Pakistan:
Imran Khan
Javed Miandad
Wasim Akram
Waqar Younis
Inzamam-ul-Haq
Aamir Sohail
Aqib Javed
Shoaib Mohammed
Moin Khan
Mustaq Ahmed
Ata-Ur-Rehman

Rest OF World:
Viv Richards
Desmond Haynes
Richie Richardson
Ian Bishop
Brian Lara
Mohammed Azaruddin
Sachin Tendulkar
Sanjay Manurekar
Kiren More
Navjit Sidhu
Mark Ramprakash

______________________________________________________

    Amazing ROW team, only one real bowler. An amalgamation of the best batsmen
West Indies and India have. Any guesses what audience is being targeted??
And what level is seriousness is likely in the actual game?? I'd think Mark
Ramprakash is probably some kind of 11th hour replacement - for Kapil Dev 
perhaps?? Whoever has organised this game is obviously a master of American
style-hardsell - another all-star game.

Sudhama
From: shiv@rs.com (Shiv)
Subject: Re: On playing swing bowling ......
Reply-To: shiv@rs.com
Organization: Renaissance Software, Inc.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:31:56 PDT

While on the topic of late swing, I recall a ball that Roger Binny had
bowled to Allan Lamb in a Test match in a series in England (forgot the
year, but this was the series that Kapil had captained and India had
won 2-0). The ball bowled was straight, very straight in the air; after
pitching short of a good length. Lamb was right in line to play a defensive
stroke off the back foot. But just before the ball would have hit the centre
of the bat (Lamb was positioned OK), the ball swung in the air, caressed the 
outer edge of the bat, and Lamb was gone; caught by More. Lamb was woefully 
out of touch in that series, and unfortunately had to get a virtual unplayable 
(in the words of BBC commentator) ball. Binny was always a captain's embarassment;
he mixes some dream balls in the midst of expensive half-volleys. The captain
was always in a fix whether to remove him from the attack; he was expensive on
most occasions.
---
Shiv                     
Renaissance Software Inc. | email: shiv@rs.com 
175 S. San Antonio Road   | 
Los Altos, CA 94022       |


Xref: sparky rec.sport.cricket:14363 soc.culture.pakistan:13800
From: shamim@.bellcore.com (Shamim Naqvi,MRE-2E342,829-4813,,21272)
Subject: Re: 5th test (merci, SAN!)
Reply-To: shamim@.bellcore.com
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Morristown, NJ
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 14:30:57 GMT

In article 13AUG199215165363@vxcrna.cern.ch,  hasan@vxcrna.cern.ch  writes:

>But tell me one thing: how in the world were you so sure of Rasheed Latif,
>not previously known for his batting prowess, making an impressive test
>debut? 
Well, I had seen him bat in the nets, I had seen him play for his team
in Pakistan (#5 usually) and I had heard some very knowledgable people
speak highly of his batting talents, people who know a lot about
cricket.  When you think about it, it was a safe bet; considerably
safer than say listening to a friend talking about a horse and betting
on it. But in the end, it was the same as every other bet: gut
feeling.

The reason he didn't get to play earlier is simpy becuase Moin Khan had
had a very good world cup and it isn't easy to drop a person like
that.  Javed Miandad should get the credit for taking a chance on
Latif, not to mention Shoiab. It is precisely this sort of thing that
can either pay off and make one look smart or fail utterly and get one
into all kinds of trouble.

I was speaking to some Pakistani journalists at the Oval and one
gentleman was adamant that the Leeds selection was wrong. He said that
Ata-ur-Rehman ought to have played for Aaqib and Shoiab for Inzi at
Leeds. Finally, he thought Pakistan should not have batted first. I
tried to explain to this guy that taking risks like this is all part of
being a captain. JM certainly knew that Headingley misbehaves under
cloud cover.  Yet if Pakistan had scored 300 runs in the first innings
he would have won the match and people would have called him a genius.

Take the English selection for the Oval test. After a bold decision at
Leeds to play Mallender they really ought not to have played him at the
Oval: it wasn't his type of wicket. (Pringle should not have played
also. I would have picked Salisbury for Pringle. ) But Mallender had
taken 8 wickets at Leeds, so how can you not play him?

>	-Hasan

	--SAN

Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: cobra@chopin.udel.edu (Jay Bhartkumar Patel)
Subject: Question about the Cricket Game for IBM !!!!!!!!
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:02:02 GMT
From: vigneswa@ecs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Score cards:  Help needed......
Date: 17 Aug 92 11:00:39 GMT

	Could somebody send me the score cards of last three tests of the
series between England and  Pakistan?  Sure I saved  them, but I couldn't 
find them now.  I need them to update my statistics file.  Thanks in anti-
cipation.

Thank you,

Vicky:
UMass, Aug 17
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: karra@mr-pibb.cs.wisc.edu (Vishwanath Karra)
Subject: Re: Vengsarkar's Record
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 05:09:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.033750.17352@cs.yale.edu> papadopoulos-dimitrios@CS.YALE.EDU (Dimitrios Papadopoulos) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.025012.2646@tamsun.tamu.edu> svb0224@zeus.tamu.edu (BALIJEPALLI, SRIDHARREDDY V) writes:
>>
>>         Career Record of Dilip Vengsarkar:
>>
>>         Break up of test centuries :
>>
>>         5 against England : 103 Lord's 1979, 157 Lord's 1982, 126* Lord's
>>         1986, 102* Leeds 1986, 137 Kanpur 1984-85.
>>
>>         6 against West Indies : 157* Calcutta 1978, 109 Delhi 1978, 159
>>         Delhi 1983, 102* Calcutta 1987, 102 Delhi 1987, 100 Bombay 1983.
>>
>>         2 against Australia : 112 Bangalore 1979, 164* Bombay 1986.
>>         2 against Pakistan : 146* Delhi 1979, 109 Ahmedabad 1987.
>>         2 against Sri Lanka : 166 Cuttack 1986-87, 153 Nagpur 1986-87.
>
>Isn't it interesting to note that except against england-he hasn't scored
>a century against any other country outside India.
>
>--Pushkar

Before this turns into a flame-war similar to the one about JM, let's get some
facts straight:

	  Most of Vengsarkar's centuries came in two bursts - 1978-79 and 1986-87.
In 78-79, he got a chance to plunder runs from popgun attacks, which he took
full advantage of.
      Vengsarkar was in devastating form in 1986 and 1987 ( Gavaskar's last 4
series + the one against WI right after the Reliance Cup). It just happened that
India played much more at home than abroad during this time.I am sure that the 
results would have been the same wherever he played during that period.
This was the period when he was #1 in the Deliottes (sp?) ranking. And, BTW,
in quite a few of the matches in this time, he was the only Indian batsman
with a reasonable score. In fact in the 1987 series against WI , he was
the only Indian batsman who made any runs at all (the great Azharuddin was
showing us his acrobatic leaping ability in this series).

-Vishwanath
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: kre@cs.mu.oz.au (Robert Elz)
Subject: Re: English Umpiring, hello Rajeev
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 05:49:59 GMT

In <1992Aug12.124832.6036@walter.bellcore.com> shamim@.bellcore.com (Shamim Naqvi,MRE-2E342,829-4813,,21272) writes:

| The frame of view includes both the stumps and the crease.
| If the bat reaches the crease whilst the bails are still undisturbed, 
| the batsman is not out. 

Sure, that's easy - but the other way isn't, if the bat reaches the
crease and the bails are disturbed, the batsman is not necessarily
out - the bails have to have been properly removed.   I agree that
if the umpire were just casually watching the action he could be
watching both the crease, and the fielder (keeper in this case) at
the same time - but that's not what the umpire should be doing, he
should be concentrating intently on the bails being removed, and when
you're watching something that closely, other things in your field of
vision won't usually havethe same impact, you have to shift your
attention.  Try it sometime...

| Shepherd starts to sprint towards the square leg position.

I hope he didn't really go toward square leg, but I know what you mean.

| Much less time, more action to take into account. 

From your description this time I may, if I was able to see it,
decide that this one was not such a good decision - though I agree
Shepherd is pretty good, and from what I've seen when he's moving
away to the side to judge a run out, he keeps his attention focussed
where it should be, so I would probably agree with you on it - without
seeing it its impossible to say.

| The Leeds decision was horrible, the Oval decision a superb one. 

I disagree on the former, on the latter I have no opinion, but
I'm willing to accept what you say.

| Water under the bridge anyway. All's well and all that. 

That I agree with, enough on this.

kre
From: KSRAO@power.eee.ndsu.nodak.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: 3rd ODI England at Lunch
Date: 20 Aug 1992 07:15:11 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu






    SAlim Malik won the toss for Pakistan and sent England to bat. They are 172
for 2 after 32 overs at lunch.

Gooch   b Waqar  42  at 84
Stewert c Wasim b Waqar 34 at 95
Smith    53
Fairbrother  25
Extras   18

Total 172 for 2 ater 32 overs at lunch.

Gooch played himmself on off an inside edge which hit the off stump. Hewas
beaten by the pace of the ball. 

Srewert was out when a ball skied by him was caught by Wasim after a fumble.

Smith scored his fifty off 52 balls. He hit two sixes, one off Izazand one off
Sohail.

England had ther three successive fifties for 71 balls, 48 and 47.

Smith and Fairbrother had a 50 run partnership in 49 balls.

England scored 51 off 72 balls.

Rao
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: SL vs Aus
From: accfgrundy@otago.ac.nz
Date: 19 Aug 92 10:35:03 +1300
Organization: University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

Heard on the news this morning SL 265/3 at the end of day 2 (Aus 256).

Peter
From: azhar@duke.cs.duke.edu (D. Salman [Quintessential] Azhar)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Moin Khan to make way for Rashid Latif (was Re: It's all over!)
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:24:31 GMT
Organization: Duke University Computer Science Dept.; Durham, N.C.

In article <1992Aug12.212402.19253@walter.bellcore.com> shamim@.bellcore.com writes:
>As you well know, Azhar, there are a lot of things that go on in dressing rooms 
>that can not be reported. :-)
>	--SAN

	   I know, I know! I was hoping I could hear some "juicy" stories
leading to the tour's climax at Oval. [of course, no pun intended:-)].

On a related note about Rashid... I enjoyed the last night watching
the Oval test recording. I can safely say that Rashid's grace and
technique in his brief innings was the most encouraging sign. We all
knew the W's can run through batting line-ups [and we also knew that
top order Pakistani batsmen can score fifties :-)], but it was
delightful to see Rashid scoring his runs the way he did. 

	   Personally, it was a bittersweet feeling for me to realise
that Moin shall (probably) have to play second fiddle to Rashid in the
future because I love and respect Moin. I have been impressed by
Moin's determination in several match-winning and match-saving
innings. However, despite liking Moin more as a person, I must confess
that Rashid has Moin's determination with far superior batting skills.


dsqa

PS: I still consider them equal wiket-keepers, but would rather have
Rashid in my team based on his batting talents and determination.



-- 
"To have loved and lost is better than to have won.... For, the burden
of victory has to be shouldered throughout life, and all losses rest
easy in the insatiable abyss called grave." 
--- D. Salman [Quintessential] Azhar CS Dept Duke U  azhar@cs.duke.edu
From: rasf@st-andrews.ac.uk (Russell Anthony Stewart Fiedler)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Atherton?
Date: 14 Aug 92 09:27:20 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

In article <1992Aug13.155154.24495@cs.yale.edu> papadopoulos-dimitrios@CS.YALE.EDU (Dimitrios Papadopoulos) writes:
>>
(Talking about rankings of players. BTW they're now known as Coopers and
Lybrand ratings. Did Deloittes get taken over or just a change of sponser?
Any accountants out there?)

>
>These rankings have never made sense to me.I was recently seeing the 
>vedio of first match of India-England series of 1990.At that time 
>Atherton was ranked 6th in the world(ahead of Gooch(11th) and 
>Azhar(13th))and he had played just 8 test matches before that.
>

I think you're getting mixed up with Robin Smith here. Smith had a brilliant 
start to his career against Australia. There's no way that Atherton could have
played 8 Tests by this time. He made his debut against Australia, only playing
one Test (maybe two but I'm nearly certain it was one). He never toured the
West Indies in early 1990 and came back into the side for the NZ/India mini
series.
The reason Gooch was so low was because of his miserable series against 
Australia the year before. There's a certain weighting for past performances
and it takes several series for these effects to become negligible. The
ratings would be far too volatile  otherwise. 
I think that the batting ratings aren't too far off the mark in general but 
the calculation of the bowling ratings is much more difficult. Hell, how do
you include the number of wickets 'taken at the other end' by somebody like
Mushtaq who had nearly the entire England batting line up bamboozled?

Cheers,

Russ Fiedler
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: nalin@athena.mit.edu (Palitha Nalin Wikramanayake)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Non-national test (or OD) matches?
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:09:12 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Aug18.021740.21790@cs.su.oz.au>, tom@cs.su.oz.au (Thomas James Jones) writes:
|> 
|> 	The one-off game in NY, featuring Pakistan and a ROW team
|> 	made me think of the possiblity of these sort of games
|> 	on a more regular basis.  Playing for teams of the
|> 	criteria of place-of-birth (or residence, England), has a 
|> 	place, no doubt, but 'club' cricket on an international level
|> 	would be less-racially oriented, more concetrated on the players,
|> 	the teams, than the national affiliations.  
|> 		Players could have teams in some international competition,
|> 	and also play in ROW games v Nations, or traditional international
|> 	games.
|> 		Is the concept of Nationalism so important, relevant,
|> 	in this day and age, with air-travel, Internet, Economic communities
|> 	and the like.
|> 		Sports like basketball and soccer both survive (essentially)
|> 	on this type of diet - the world cup is a major event, but only 
|> 	quad-annually (?). 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 	tom
|> 
|> 	

	Its seems like an interesting idea. One could have then seen what Viv
	would have done against his own bowlers! However I think the spur of
	playing for a country and knowing that millions are hanging on every
	ball makes the present Test matches interesting in a way the "club"
	cricket will not. Even soccer and basketball have a fanatical set of
	fans for each team and the players are well aware of it. Else there
	would be no such thing as a home crowd advantage.

	Nalin
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: urajan@leland.Stanford.EDU (Uday Rajan)
Subject: Re: Run outs and umpires
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 16:27:30 GMT

In article <9222517.27920@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> kre@cs.mu.oz.au (Robert Elz) writes:
>You seem to be forgetting in this example that for an umpire, judging
>the direct throw cases is much, much, easier than the ones where a
>player takes the ball and removes the stumps.   In the direct throw
>case he can watch the bat, and listen for the ball breaking the stumps,
>and he'll have a pretty easy decision to make - even the slight delay
>in the sound reaching him (if he's at square leg) will act in the
>batsman's favour, so he doesn't have to worry about that.
>
>When one of the players is to take the ball and remove the stumps, the umpire
>has to watch that happen, he has to be sure the ball has been taken cleanly,
>and before the bails are removed, not as sometimes happens, the bails being
>removed an instant before the player catches the ball, or removed with the
>hands after dropping the ball near the stumps, and all kinds of other
>possibilities.   After he's seen that the wicket has been properly put down,
>he then has to shift his attention to the batsman and see if he's out of his
>ground - that takes time, and that time can make all the difference.  What's
>more, the umpire has to do it this way, he can't watch the bat, listen for
>the bails being removed, and then try to work out of they were removed
>properly, after they've been removed its too late to tell.
>

Surely the umpire doesn't know in most cases whether a direct throw will
hit the stumps or whether a fielder will have to collect it and then remove
the bails! The umpire will therefore have to watch the stumps in either case
- unless there is no fielder backing up close to the wicket in question, in
which case he can wait for the sound of the wickets being broken.


Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: s1172217@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au (Mark Smith)
Subject: Aus V SL stumps day 2
Organization: Monash University College Gippsland, Churchill 3842, Victoria, AUSTRALIA.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:23:05 GMT

All I know is Sri Lanka are 3/265 with Ranatunga hitting 29 from 3 Shane Warne
overs.

This gives SL a lead of 9 with 7 wickets in hand, is history in the making?

Mark.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: kumar@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (V.R.Kumar)
Subject: Re: SL vs Aus
Organization: CSIRO Division of Info Tech, Sydney, Australia
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 22:43:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.083437.13025@actrix.gen.nz> Sankaran.Venkatesh@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.141521.18236@walter.bellcore.com> shamim@.bellcore.com writes:
>> 
>> 
>> In the first test, Aus are in trouble having been bowled out for around 250 
>> on the first day. The main damage was done by Wickremasinghe (sp?) who 
>> took four vital wickets, those of Boon, Border, Jones and Taylor. 
>> 
>> Apparently Aussies have already started to complain about the 
>> umpiring: both Taylor and Dean Jones were "incredible" about their LBWs, 
>  ^^^^^^^^^
>> Dean Jones being given out not playing a shot. 
>> 
>And what about our Boon from  'Tassie.' Too bad there are no  Randall's (or
>any other 'ump' from Tassie).
> 
>
>> 	--SAN
>> 


"Umpires should not be blamed. They are at the right position to
 make a decision."

 -- Allan Border (India-Australia series, 1991-92)


Cheers,

Ramkumar

-- 
 V.R.Kumar (Ramkumar Venkatachalam)                                 
 CSIRO, Division of Information Technology                         
 P.O.Box:1599, Macquarie Centre, North Ryde, NSW 2113, AUSTRALIA