HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cdcs@st-andrews.ac.uk (Colin D. C. Steele)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: County Championship 1992 July 20 (Monday)
Date: 21 Jul 92 01:08:33 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

County Championship 1992 July 20 (Monday)
Day 2 of 3

At Southend
Sussex (4) 429-9 dec (DM Smith 213, P Moores 109, JH Childs 4-101)
and 104 (PM Such 6-17)
Essex (22) 303-1 dec (GA Gooch 102, JP Stephenson 123*, PJ Prichard 68*)
and 231-2 (GA Gooch 108*, ME Waugh 85)
ESSEX won by 8 WICKETS

At Cheltenham
Yorkshire (8) 339-7 (MD Moxon 171*, SA Kellett 50)
and 30-2
Gloucestershire (6) 257 (Vaughan 80, PJ Hartley 4w)
NO PLAY MONDAY
MATCH DRAWN

At Porstmouth
Hampshire (8) 338-9 dec (RA Smith 79, MD Marshall 70, SL Watkin 6-97)
and 167-9 dec (RA Smith 56)
Glamorgan (5) 208 (MP Maynard 73, KJ Shine 4-36)
and 284-7 (DL Hemp 84*, SP James 73, SD Udal 4-89)
MATCH DRAWN
[ I might have the Glamorgan 2nd innings total wrong - I'll check ]

At Leicestershire
Somerset (7) 327 (CJ Tavare 69, RP Snell 81, DJ Millns 5-64)
and 108-6
Leicestershire (6) 270 (PA Nixon 68, WKM Benjamin 53)
MATCH DRAWN

At Uxbridge
Middlesex (6) 202 (JD Carr 64, PJ Newport 4w)
and 321 (MA Roseberry 118, MW Gatting 66, KR Brown 50)
Worcestershire (7) 346 (GA Hick 168)
and 118-8 (TS Curtis 60, PCR Tufnell 4-24)
MATCH DRAWN

At Northampton
Northamptonshire (8) 355-8 dec (A Fordham 122, NA Felton 66, DJ Capel 59,
                                A Barnett 5-82)
and 223-2 dec (A Fordham 81, RJ Bailey 76*)
Lancashire (6) 298 (WK Hegg 76)
and 23-2
MATCH DRAWN

At Nottingham
Nottinghamshire (8) 431-6 dec (RT Robinson 164*, CC Lewis 103)
Durham (2) 147 (MP Briers 53, CL Cairns 4-41)
and 265-3 (W Larkins 57, DM Jones 154*)

At Guildford
Warwickshire (6) 372-6 dec (DP Ostler 192, RG Twose 55, TL Penney 70*)
and 198-9 dec (JE Benjamin 4-81)
Surrey (6) 341-6 dec (GP Thorpe 86, AJ Stewart 67, MA Lynch 63, AD Brown 56)
and 131-7 (MA Feltham 50, AA Donald 6-49)



TABLE

                    Pld.  Won.  Btg.  Blg.  TOT.
1   Essex            13    7     41    35   188
2   Hampshire        13    4     40    35   137
3   Northamptonshire 13    4     37    30   131
4   Warwickshire     12    4     26    39   129
5   Leicestershire   13    4     24    34   122
    Nottinghamshire  11    4     29    29   122
7   Derbyshire       12    4     23    32   119
8   Kent             12    4     31    23   118
9   Somerset         12    3     37    32   117

10  Worcestershire   13    3     32    36   116
11  Surrey           13    3     34    30   112
12  Sussex           12    3     32    30   110
13  Middlesex        12    2     38    34   104
14  Lancashire       14    1     44    39    99
15  Yorkshire        12    2     32    30    94
16  Durham           12    2     29    31    92
17  Gloucestershire  13    2     24    34    90
18  Glamorgan        10    1     21    24    61


CDC
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: ahmad@seas.gwu.edu (Aftab Ahmad)
Subject: Field Hockey
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:45:38 GMT



	The news for field_hockey barely reaches here.
	We don't have a news group for it too.
	I will appreciate if someone keeps posting Pakistan's
	situation in field hockey for the duration of Olypmics.

	Sorry to those offended by this post :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) .
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: aksimha@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Arun Simha)
Subject: Re: Pakistani Players Use Filthy Language!?
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:17:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.213153.2012@leland.Stanford.EDU> arkay@leland.Stanford.EDU (Abdur Khan) writes:
>In article <92205.035855U28765@uicvm.uic.edu> <U28765@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>>Salam to Everyone:
>>
>>I have been "led" to the impression that Pakistani players use filthy
>>Punjabi words on the field and do so in large, liberal quantities. I
>>am curious as to how true that is ........
>
>to pakistain's these words are just to add emphasis, like bhen ... what a 
>great shot.


   Actually, I think every player with the exception of Chris Tavare, has
   used filthy language. Of course, the most guilty ones are the fast bowlers.
   It is probably extremely frustrating for them to see catches being floored.
   In fact, Gavaskar mentioned this to Imran in an interview (1983), and 
   added that he (Imran) had cut down his swearing considerably.
   Anyway as Sunny put it to M.J.Akbar in a "Focus" interview on TV, "
   One thing I learnt on the tour of Pakistan was that, we use the same swear
   words!" 
   

>
>sahibzada rafay khan[]
>

Arun
From: yelton@uful07.phys.ufl.edu (John M. Yelton)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Overseas Players
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:02:11 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <1992Jul17.123002.24623@maths.nott.ac.uk> anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) writes:
>In article <01GMF33B16NK000M2Q@FULLERTON.EDU> XSNAIK@FULLERTON.EDU
>(Sanjay Naik) writes:
>>							    That's why I
>>included the Smith bros., Hick, etc. who are English qualified now but were
>>definitely registered as overseas by their respective counties before they
>>became 'English qualified'.
>
>	How definitely?  The Smiths certainly didn't wait 4, 7 or 10 years
>to qualify, and their county already has [other] overseas players!  Admit-
>tedly, the whole area is a minefield of shifting regulations, made worse
>by the transitional arrangements by which no existing registration can ever
>be cancelled.
Robin Smith, Hick and Chris Smith all had to 
wait. There are so many categories it gets confusing. In
general if you have played test cricket for another country you are
required to wait 10 years. No body in recent times have then played test
cricket for England, but several (e.g. Younis Ahmed) qualified. Hick played
LOI for non-test playing Zimbabwe, and the 10 years was lowered to 7 
because it was not test cricket that he played. It seems 4 years is the 
rule if you have not played representatvie cricket elsewhere. 
>
>>				       Greenidge could have played for England
>>but as soon as he chose to play for the Windies, he became an overseas player
>>and lost his English qualification.
>
>	But not his county qualification, surely?  Compare Hick, who could
>have played for Zimbabwe in the previous WC, but would then have had to
>re-qualify for England, but would have had no problems with his county.
>[He may now wish he'd taken that route!]
Rubbish! Under present regulations Greenidge has to be an overseas player
because he played for the WI. He could then only play for a County if they
choose him as their one overseas player. The same goes for Hick if he had
chosen to play for Zimbabwe again,  he could then only play for Worcestershire
if they choose him as their overseas player (as they did before he got
his England qualificiation) - that would have put Moody out on the streets.
In Greenidge's youth the rules were much more
lax, otherwise he might have had difficulty keeping his job (Hamps would
have had to choose between him, Barry Richards and Andy Roberts).
There have been efforts to make the rules more logical e.g. being 
qualified to play for England and to be qualified as a home-based cricketer
for County Championship is the same thing. However there are still problems
of a legal nature. The EC nationals such as Mortensen are exempt from
restrictions, and UK passport holders such as Kallicharran can kick up a
stink if they are effectively not allowed to play.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: tom@cs.su.oz.au (Thomas James Jones)
Subject: Re: Double Internationals
Reply-To: matty@cs.su.oz.au
Organization: Basser Department of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 08:58:01 GMT

	An English cricketer earlier this century I think
	Charles Burgess Fry or something, held the world
	record for long-jump amongst many other amazing
	achievements. Somebody else might have more info.
	I think it is more difficult in 1992, when any
	one sport becomes enough of a career to prevent
	athletes from success in multiple fields.


	tom
From: jawad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jawad Ali)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: T4 D2 Start of play
Date: 24 Jul 1992 05:45:30 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


Greetings cricket fans.  Its 3:41 in the morning in Chico, California.
It took me 41 minutes to fiddling with the radio to finally be able to 
hear (and I use that word lightly :-)) some cricket.  

From what I can make out Malik and Mustaq are still there.  Malik at
about 75, Pakistan about 190/8.  More to come.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pakistan Affairs Desk presents the sights and sounds of Headingley
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Address System:

"Would the owner of the green 
helicopter, lisence plate number
'UB LBW2' please remove it from
the dirveway.  It is blocking 
traffic"
From: sewell@tsingtao.bnr.ca (Henry Sewell)
Subject: Re: Neutral Umpires ---> Pick your own !
Organization: Bell Northern Research Montreal, Canada.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 15:28:58 GMT

I'm not keen on the adjective 'neutral' for umpires.
It presupposes a bias, for which there is no clear
and consistent evidence.
I would rather see a focus on 'better' umpires.
The performance of umpires can be monitored by
reviewing recordings of marginal decisions after the game.
This way umpires can be rated, and those who show
any bias or inconsistency under stress can be weeded
from the roster.
Similarly, it would be interesting to monitor the
'propensity to appeal' of teams, by looking at the
ratio of sensible appeals (out or marginal) to
psychological appeals (like gully screaming for an LBW)
which are intended to rattle the batsman and pressure
the umpire.
In the limit, we could even fine teams for unnecessary
appeals (or better, give prizes to teams that appeal
more reasonably).

Since I moved to North America, I have seen many baseball
games. There are similarities between the umpiring 
functions for the two games. For example, calling a strike
and assessing an LBW appeal both require a mental, 
three-dimensional model of a fast-moving, swinging ball.
Another example is running to base and a run-out appeal.
The call in baseball seems far more difficult because
of the physical contact between the runner and fielder
as the ball comes in.
Yet in baseball, the umpires always seem to give instant
and confident decisions. Rarely do the players argue
(though they don't always look happy!). Similarly, the
action replays generally vindicate the umpires.
If baseball umpiring is indeed superior, I wonder why?
Are there penalties for bad umpiring?
Are there rigorous training procedures and examinations
for qualification?
Are they rewarded for high standards?
It sounds like heresy, but maybe cricket could
learn from our merkin friends.

Henry Sewell       My opinions, not my employer's.
 

Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: kre@cs.mu.oz.au (Robert Elz)
Subject: Re: R.S.C.Scores be used more frequently
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 23:20:11 GMT

In <1992Jul24.015247.11410@cs.su.oz.au> tom@cs.su.oz.au (Thomas James Jones) writes:

| 	The fact is that there are two groups, based on a fairly natural
| 	and even distinction (scores vrs discussion),

But that's not what r.s.c.s was created for .. if it was to be used for
posting frequent score updates it will have totally violated its charter
and should be removed.

Its purpose was, and is, infrequent (eg; daily for tests, end of match for
others) reports of matches, so people who just want accurate scores from
time to time have somewhere to look, and also so they can be archived.

Which is also why its a moderated group.

kre
From: karnik@cs.umn.edu (Neeran M. Karnik)
Subject: Re: A couple of Questions
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:11:48 GMT

In <1992Jul24.012824.13168@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> s1172217@giaec.cc.monash.edu.au (Mark Smith) writes:

>Just a quick couple of questions to you guys around the world.

>Firstly can anyone tell me how points are scored in the Ranji Trophy domestic
>comp or Quad-e-Azam(spelling?) domestic comp in India or Pakistan.  ie. points
>for win outright/first innings, bonus points and how to qualify for those
>points?

>Mark.

	The Ranji Trophy points scoring system is so complicated that no-one
will be able to give you the exact details, unless he/she (to be safe!) has a
copy of the rules. The parts of it that I can remember ar as follows...

	A win fetches 16 points, an innings victory probably has some bonus
	points in addition. A loss - no points. The team with the lead in the 
	first innings also gets some points for that. Apart from these, there
	are batting and bowling points.

	Batting points :
		In first innings:
		Score 300+ in 90 overs - maximum i.e. 4 points
		and three other slabs, for 3/2/1 points.
		In second innings:
		Score 200+ (??) in 45 overs - 3 points
		and two other slabs for 2/1 points.

	Bowling points :
		Again, a similar set of slabs, no. of points depends on the
		number of wickets captured in 90/45 overs, etc..


	I seem to recall that a team can get a maximum of 32 points in a game.
Anyone with a better memory ? Or even better, the exact rules ?

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  Neeran  Karnik  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dept. of Computer Science,      | Email: karnik@cs.umn.edu,
University of Minnesota         |        karnik@atto.cs.umn.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: shamim@.bellcore.com (Shamim Naqvi,MRE-2E342,829-4813,,21272)
Subject: Re: England 2nd Innings
Reply-To: shamim@.bellcore.com
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Morristown, NJ
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 22:42:35 GMT

In article 5369@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca,  brit@wagner.Physics.McGill.CA (Dave Britton) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.163200.20826@walter.bellcore.com>  
>shamim@.bellcore.com (Shamim Naqvi,MRE-2E342,829-4813,,21272) writes:
>> Had Pakistan
>> bowled first, as they did here in 1987, things would have been a lot
>> different. The lesson is very clear.  The weather in England makes a
>> mockery of any plans about the last innings.  One has to play according
>> to the day.  Cloudy conditions at Headingley means you put the others
>> in.  As it was the second day was mostly bright and clear, the ball did
>> not do as much and Gooch and Atherton made the difference.
>> 
>
>It strikes me as curious that the series is tied yet Pakistan has got
>to this point due to superb skill and  England with "bland" bowling 
>(etc etc heard on this newsgroup) have obviously just fluked it. 
>
>Gooch has consistently played fantastic cricket and to
>pull off a century on a bowlers wicket against the renowned attack of
>Pakistan, was an impressive feat which I would classify a little
>more generously than "the ball did not do as much and Gooch and Atherton
>made the difference". 
>
>Dave.

Dave, 
You are reading something in my posting that was not my intention. I
did not see the game.  I have seen no replays. All I have are a few
phone conversations including one in which I was told that the ball did
not do as much on the second day. My statement "the ball did not do as
much and Gooch and Atherton made the difference" should be read without
the "and"; sorry if it caused confusion. For all I know they may
have batted superbly. RSC readers will bear witness that I have consistently rated 
England's batting, even before the WC, as being very very good. In fact I 
had picked them to win the WC. 

As for England's attack, it is bland. Not only do people on RSC say
that but the Times, Guardian and the "good" (non-tabloid) media say it
too. One must realize the difference between being useful and being
good. Whilst England continues to have one of the best batting sides in
the world its bowling side is weak. Pakistan on the other hand has a
very good bowling attack and a very brittle batting lineup. So we have
a strong attack vs a strong batting side and a weak bowling attack vs a
weak batting lineup. Hence the tied series.  Let's see if England take
the same attack to India this winter. I daresay India will make 500
runs more often than not.

	--SAN
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Double Internationals
From: cctr123@csc.canterbury.ac.nz (Alan Murray, CSC Operations, Uni of Canty)
Date: 24 Jul 92 14:55:15 +1200
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

In article <1992Jul22.165835.27340@unislc.uucp>, ramana@unislc.uucp (Ramana Ramachandran) writes:
> The other day I heard that kapil is playing for east bengal in soccer 
> which made me think how many cricketers have represented their country
> in another sport?
> 
> 	One named gopalan (?) represented India in both hockey and cricket.
> 	Iam not sure of the name but the "gopal" part of it is definite!
> 
> 	Also I remember charlesworth of Australia (I suppose hockey fans
> 	would know him better) playing for western australia and thus does not
> 	qualify as a double international.

Mark Burgess and Victor Pollard both played soccer for New Zealand. Brian
(oh bother how do you spell his name) McCechnie played for the All Blacks but
he only played one-day internationals for New Zealand - not test matches. 

Alan
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: praim@connext.ucs.sfu.ca 
Subject: Re: Imran Khan Charity Match
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:00:35 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.130100.836@lgc.com> suresh@lgc.com (Raghavan Suresh)  
writes:
>          The limited over Imran Khan Charity match for his Cancer hospital  
between India and Pakistan was abruptly terminated due to rioting by the Crowd. 
> The match was played yesterday under floodlights at Crystal Palace in  
England.
> Imran's plea over the Public address system to the crowd was of no avail and
> the game had to be stopped.
> 
> Coming to the game itself, Indian's were well placed when the game got over.
> 
> India scored 220/4 in its alloted(?) overs. Kapil played a superb innings of
> 133 (7 sixers and 12 fours).
> 
> Pak in reply were 152/4 with only 8 overs remaining. Kapil got the first 3  
wickets for 27 runs. Rameez made 61 and Javed was 55 n.o. (hopefully Chetan  
Sharma
> was not playing for India!).
> 
> 
> 
so any idea what caused this?
From: jawad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jawad Ali)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: T4 D3 40 min after lunch
Date: 25 Jul 1992 08:22:06 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


England 305/8.  They were 270/1 at one point and 296(?)/2.
Normally I would give up with this sort of reception.  But
folks, wake up because there be a game goin' down somewhere :-0

Mushtaq and Waqar are bowling.  Waqar just had a double wicket
maiden.  Exciting stuff.

j n a
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: shankar@sgi.com (Shankar Unni)
Subject: Re: absurd ranji rule
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:30:08 GMT

In article <Brz1F1.7tv@acsu.buffalo.edu> sivap-m@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU (Muhunthan Sivapragasam) writes:
>
>Bombay entered the final with first innings lead of one run or so.
>Bombay batted first and then dismissed Delhi for one or two runs less
>than their total. In the over ( or may be a few overs ) before the last
>Delhi wicket fell there was a runout chance which the bowler Rajput missed.
>The interesting thing is that if he had taken that runout Bombay would
>have lost the first innings lead because at that point they were
>trailing in overrate and would have given some penalty runs.
>Actually what the news papers wrote was Rajput knew that and purposefully
>avoided running the batsman !.
>

No, that would *not* have happened. The scoring-rate rule is applied
in the Ranji Trophy only if both sides do not complete their first
innings.  If Rajput had run out the last Delhi batsman when he had the
chance, Bombay would have walked into the finals on the first-innings
lead, regardless of the scoring rate.

Personally, I think the scoring-rate rule and the first-innings rule
both stink. But they are necessitated by the even crazier knock-out
4-day tournament. The whole concept of a knock-out multi-day
tournament is silly.

Multi-day tournaments should always be fought on a round-robin basis.
Only limited-overs matches can be played on a knock-out basis.
--
Shankar Unni				E-Mail:	shankar@sgi.com
Silicon Graphics Inc.			Phone:	+1-415-390-2072
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: narayan@carina.unm.edu (C.R.Narayanan)
Subject: Re: Question on No Ball
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 21:28:14 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Jul29.172540@axion.bt.co.uk> dgrove@axion.bt.co.uk (David Grove) writes:
>In article 20132 andyc@is.morgan.com (Andrew Coad) writes:
>>I recently called "No Ball" on the first delivery of the game because the >bowler
>>had not declared his bowling style to me. In the back of our scorebook it >clearly
>Technically it'd appear that you were perfectly correct. However, it strikes me
>as being within the spirit of the game for the umpire to initially *ask* the 

Dave, about 10 years back, I played in a team that used to score only 17-20
runs per inning! :-)! So this kind of no-ball was very important, and I
remember as an umpire from the batting side, trying to avoid eye contact or
physical proximity with the new bowler in the hope that he'd forget 
declaring his bowling style to me. And I'd gleefully signal a "NO"!

>
>Furthermore, it's necessary for the umpire to know the action to enable him to
>indicate visibly to the bowler with a raised arm that play may not commence
>whilst the batsman is taking guard, inspecting the field, etc.

Most of the time, everybody knew everybody else on the other team, so this
was not a problem! The teams were from within the same neighborhood. Of
course, what you say is 100% correct, and is in the spirit of the game, I'm
just rambling along down memory lane!

>Dave Grove. 
CRN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
C.R.Narayanan			!  Internet:     narayan@carina.unm.edu		
Dept. of Chemical Engineering	!	 Ph:     (505) 277-7752 (o)
Univ. of New Mexico		!		 (505) 246-8219 (r)
Albuquerque, NM 87131		!	FAX:     (505) 277-0813
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl.M.Jones@cm.cf.ac.uk (Carl Jones)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Neutral Umpires ---> Pick your own !
Date: 29 Jul 92 07:11:54 GMT
Organization: University of Wales College of Cardiff
X-Mailer: Cardiff Computing Maths PP Mail Open News Gateway

In article <1992Jul28.152522.13876@julian.uwo.ca> raza@surya.ccs.uwo.ca (Mr. Raza Syed) writes:
|In article <9207280902.AA21367@vassal.cm.cf.ac.uk> Carl.M.Jones@cm.cf.ac.uk (Carl Jones) writes:
|>There has been a call for neutral umpires on the net recently.  In my
|>opinion, if this becomes a requirement, the following scenario is possible.
|>
|>	Pakistan playing (say) Australia.  Roy Palmer (neutral) umpiring.
|>	Aqib Javed bowls a sequence of short balls at Australian no.11, and
|>	is warned.
|>
|>	REST DELETED
|
|In world cup there were some bad/wrong decision by the umpires at different
|times and different matches, but there was no hue or cry raised by the
|teams/players......
|Another example in 1987 world cup semi final two bad decisions by umpire
|non other then shepard and dickybird cost pakistan the match against Australia
|(not to take credit from Australia), but no untoward incident took place in
|that matche also...
|
|

Yes, but did David Sheppard or Dickie Bird have a previous (criminal)
record as Roy Palmer now has ?

Carl
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: aamir@cs.sfu.ca (Aamir Husain)
Subject: Pak vs Eng T4
Keywords: England square series 1-1
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 17:59:39 GMT

England won the 4th test match by 6wkts

gower was 31 no
ramprakash 12 no

the final test is on aug 6th at the oval and promises to
be an exciting game. england's first win against pak in 10 yrs

Aamir