HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksrao@power.ee.ndsu.nodak.edu
Subject: Re: Comments: Ind vs RSA: ODI-3
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:59:09 GMT
Reply-To: ksrao@power.ee.ndsu.nodak.edu
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <Bz5xw2.1yK@rice.edu>, pvr@argo.rice.edu (PVR Narasimha Rao) writes:
>
>BATIING ORDER: Interestingly, Sachin was sent in at #3. Azhar went in
>at #4, Amre at #5, Shastri at #6. I have no problems with Sachin batting
>at #3 instead of #4. He can bat anywhere in the middle order (early or
    Did you get any scoresheet with batting order? From the mails that came
from SA yesterday while the game was on - it said Azza is the last man out and
Tendulkar is playing; the score is xxx  for 3 - it looks as if Sachin went in
after Azza. My recollection of Harsha Bogle's report was that Raman had a good
opening, third and fourth wkt partnerships. He mentioned Jadeja, Tendulkar and
Azz and I am not sure of the ordering of the last two. If I am not mistaken the
batting order was what you are suggesting - Amre at 1 down, Azza at 2 down and
Tendullkar at 3 down
K. Sankara Rao                          e-mail k.srao@power.eee.ndsu.nodak.edu

Department of Electrical Engineering
Fargo, ND 58105  USA

Phone:  (701)237-7217  (o)
        (701)235-9912  (h)
From: mcbean@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Junior Murray
Date: 17 Dec 92 01:49:24 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <9235108.24485@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, carniesl@mundoe.maths.mu.oz.au writes:
> In article <1992Dec7.162430.10651@vax.oxford.ac.uk> mcbean@vax.oxford.ac.uk
> writes:
>>I gather Junior Murray has kept for the first two ODI.  Can somebody from Aus.
>>tell me what they thought of his glove work.
>>
> 
> I'm not an expert on wicket-keeping but my impression has been 
> that all the keepers seen here this summer 
> healy(aus),rashid latif(pak)
> - what did mohin khan do wrong to get dropped anyway?
> williams and murray (wi)
> have been pretty ordinary. There have been qute a few dropped 
> catches (e.g. rashid last weekend - it wasn't that hard )
> and a lot of slips catches being taken 'inside'(on the keeper's side ) i.e. a 
> keeper like dujon would have snaffled them before they ever 
> got to slips.

That's a bit depressing, since Junior Murray impressed me greatly a few years
ago, standing up to Winston Davis (so astonishing I keep repeating it!).  Dujon
was special. BTW he used to keep goal in football, which possibly accounts for
his propensity to hurl himself around.
> 
> In murray's case this has been put down to nerves,but he didn't do his cause
> any good at all last night . WI had to make 11 runs off 
> the last 12 balls , murray was 5 n.o.and sensibly taking 1's and 2's
> when he suddenly tries to be the hero  and belt the ball out of the (big!)
> park. WI subsequently lost the match on the last ball
> a strange and ironic rerun of their equally unlikely victory 
> over pakistan in adelaide.

We seem to be perfecting the art ever since 1983.

McBean
From: govindra@maya.rutgers.edu (S Govindarajan)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: One day team strength
Date: 18 Dec 92 23:17:51 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

I was recently watching some one-day matches from 1983-85 and I
noticed a peculiar phenomenan. The successful teams lacked quality
bowlers (exception-Windies), but had very aggressive batsmen. Teams
like England (the most successful team today) or India (World cup
winners '83, WC '85) or Australia (World cup winners '87), had perhaps
one attacking bowler in their, while the rest of the bowlers just
bowled "on the spot". And when batting, the exact opposite took place.
TEams with aggressive batsmen often came out victorious compared to
the teams that played safe. India had somebody like Srikkanth as an
opener, who took the bowler apart in many of their successful matches.
Australia had Jones, Border, Boon etc. in the WC '87 who kept the
scoreboard ticking at all times.

The exact opposite happened in test cricket during the period.
Pakistan beat India in '82-83 thru' bowling. Australia who had Lillie,
Pascoe, Hogg, Alderman, were #2 in the early 80s.

I think the reason for this lies in the character of each version. In
a oneday match, each bowler cannot bowl mre than 10 overs, which is
aboutthe time he takes to adjust to the conditions. Also, even if he
is succussful, he cannot bowl for ever. I remember one particular
match (Ind. Vs. Pak.) at Sharjah, where Maninder wreacked havoc during
his last 5 overs. I think he had analysis of 4/23 from 10, all the 4
wickets coming at the end of his spell. India had a very low total to
defend and Pakistan won that match, but I remember thinking that had
Manider been allowed another 5 overs, India would have won the match
handily.

I notice the trend continuing even today with the most successful
(note:SUCCESSFUL) team , England, not having any top-class bowlers in 
their team. And somebody like Gooch plays an important part in many of
their victories.

Is there a basis for selection of teams for each version of the game?
Given a choice between quality bowlers and quality batsmen, who would
be chosen for the one day team and who would play in tests?
Personally, I would go for the batsman (Tendulkar, if I had a choice :)



Govind
email :govindra@cs.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: mamohamm@vela.acs.oakland.edu (SKEPTICAL)
Subject: PAKISTAN ARE...
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:18:09 GMT


		still the World Champs.

		Surprise -:)	
	
	So they had a bad day. Now don't jump on the backs on them.
	(and mine)

Regards
-- 
____________________________________________________________________
Men Want To Be Girl's First Love,
			         Women Want To Be Men's Last Romance
					    <somebody else's saying>
From: m0a1530@zeus.tamu.edu (ABBAS, MUSTAFA)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Pakistans performance
Date: 18 Dec 1992 13:48 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

hi,
After yesterdays defeat of pak by the Wi, one cannot but 'admire' the
remarkable 'consistent' performance of thr pak team so far in this WSC.
As I see it, pak performance has consistently gone down with each match.

They won the first match convincingly
they just managed a tie in the next
they lost a match which they should have won
they lost the next quite convincingly against aus
they were thrashed, humiliated, and busted by WI in the next

At least, one +ve thing for the pak fans is that they can rest assured
pak's performance cannot go down further (or can it?). 

This also reminds me of the statement made by Imran that pakistan team 
has a lot of talented players but who lack prefessionalism. One day
they might be unbeatable and the very next day might play like a bunch
of club players.
Also, this settles the debate, atleast for some time, about whether
pakistan is the best(or one of the) in ODs.

		Mustafa (a disgusted and dejected pak fan) Abbas
From: 5912ramasubr@vms.csd.mu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Score Update
Date: 15 Dec 92 15:07:17 GMT
Reply-To: 5912ramasubr@vms.csd.mu.edu
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.csd.mu.edu

Hi there
Got this from finger
India 140 for 3 in 41 overs.
Azza and Tendu batting.
Pretty slow rate. Manoj batterd well for 36
From: KSRAO@power.ee.ndsu.nodak.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: SL beats NZ in the third ODI
Date: 13 Dec 1992 10:03:43 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

NZ v SL D/N game on Sunday in Colombo (in progress)

SL beat NZ in the last game of the tour. NZ were all out for 221 in 48.4 overs.
Harris remaine not out (he was 61 not out when NZ were 211 for 9 and Brian
Waddle called it a day)

NZ are 186  for 5 at the end of 40 overs.  Need 77 in 9
Hatland c Wikramsingha b Gurusingha  14
Parore                 b Gurusingha 13
Jones   c Jayasoorya   b Kalpage     32
Rutherford     c  and  b Kalpage     30
Jusin Bourne     out
Harris        not out                 43 
Nash   not  out                       8



    SL score 262 for 5 (only 49 overs were bowled)

Brian Waddle's flight is at 10 to 12 :-)

Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: kopti@seas.gwu.edu (Juzer T. Kopti)
Subject: Re: Saturday's ODIs
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:42:58 GMT
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: TELECAST OF WSC FINALS
From: sl1cg@europa.ee.usu.edu (Amish Gambhir)
Date: 13 Dec 92 14:44:57 MDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Utah State University

Keywords: 

Hi!
Could anyone out there let me know if it is possible to get the finals of WSC 
on ppv?
Thanks 
Amish
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: gds@ikura.cs.uct.ac.za (Riel Smit)
Subject: Re: Kapil Dev's damned follies
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 14:44:00 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

jcsheth writes
>  And r.s.c. is a natural vent for pent-up
> national feelings the two dudes above and Mr. Smit might have - but do not 
> dehumanize the opposition. 

Hey, what do I have to do with all this?  "national feelings"??  dehumanize  
opposition??  Forget it.
;-)
--
Riel Smit                                                 gds@cs.uct.ac.za
Computer Science                             gds%cs.uct.ac.za@rain.psg.com
University of Cape Town      "..and he walked his days under African skies"
From: xraylen@psipsy.uct.ac.za (Leonard Barbour)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Saturday's ODIs
Date: 14 Dec 92 05:37:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: psipsy.xraylen.17
Organization: University of Cape Town


>        Can someone PLEASE post the scorecard for the III
>OD between SA and India.

Sorry, don't have this to hand right now, but I'm sure it will follow soon.

>        Also, can some good samaritan from SA please post
>score updates on the IV OD? There really is no news here
>about the India - SA OD series.

4th OD:

India 161/9    -     SA wins by 5 wickets!
I'm sure a scorecard will follow soon too.

Incidentally - Kapil injured his ankle and may not be playing tomorrow.
Pringle is back, though.

Regards,
Len
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Martin Crowe given out
From: garks@otago.ac.nz
Date: 14 Dec 92 10:49:25 +1300
Organization: University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

> |> >Hope this trend doesn't catch on.  
> |> 
> |> Which particular trend is this? The two reports I've heard have made it clear
> |> that it was obvious to everyone involved that the ball hit the ground first.
> |> The despicable action here is that Gurasinga appealed for a catch, even
> |> though he must have known it was a bump ball. Martin Crowe knew a whopper of
> 
> I doubt that are many test players who would not appeal and keep thier mouth shut
> when there is a possibility of dismissing a opposing batsmen. I am not
> condoning what gurusingha did but it is now of a part of the game
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Doesnt make it any more acceptable, does it?

 If every batsmen refused to go each time the he is not happy with the decision then might as well get rid of the
> 
> I am glad that Martin Crowe was allowed to bat on, but I do not think what he did
> was correct.

A little contradictory arn't you.  Perhaps you should have added that you don't
condone what Crowe did but that it is now part of the game
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Amal de Silva

Congratulations to Sri Lanka for their fine team and their masterly
performances.  An excellent cricketing nation.

Alistair
From: KSRAO@power.ee.ndsu.nodak.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: WI after 40 overs
Date: 11 Dec 1992 21:31:16 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

WI are  6 fo 163. Rich 71, Bishop 12 extras 26
Richardson hit 13 off aWaqar over.
Hooper c Rashid off Akram for 24 at 133 in 37 th over.

The game isstarting at 10:00 pm EST. They lost 86 minutes and the game is now a
42 over match

WI are 5 for 123. Rich 50, Hooper 22, extras 21 at the end of 35 overs

After  34 overs, WI are 5 for 118, Richardson is  49 and Hooper 18 and rain is
coming and the players are off the field.


WI are 5 for 103 after 30 overs. Rich 45, Hooper 7, extras 21

WI are  5 for 87 after 25, Ric 36, Hooper 1, extras  20

Arthurton was caught by Inzamam when he tried to guide through second slip for
3 at 81



At the end of 20 overs: WI are 4 for 67; Rcd 22 and Arthurton  1

Lara was bound around his legs by Javid, the ball flattening the leg stump.
Lara scored 15, he was out at 56.

Logie was next to go, hitting the ball at Rameez's throat off Sohail's
spinners, (mid wicket), a bad shot

At the end of 15 overs; WI are 2 for 46; Ricson 12, Lara12
Richardson hits a six off Aaquib in the 15 th over
At the end of 10 overs WI are   29 for 2
Lara  on  8, Richie 0, extras 10

Haynes  b Wasim  6
Simmons c Sohail b Wasim  5


Haynes was bowled through the gate - a beautiful delivery from Akram which
flattened the middle stump in the 7th over.

In the 9th over, he got Wasim caught by Sohail off a ball moving away in the
second slip.

WI batting first: 10 for no loss; Haynes 4 Lara 1

They are after 5 overs   

3 wides in a row in Wasim's 3rd over (5th of the game)
From: v079rbu4@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Sanjay Kohli)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: I am confused
Date: 15 Dec 92 22:14:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <9212152159.AA12481@deepthought.cs.utexas.edu>, B536HIND@UTARLVM1.UTA.EDU (C. S. Sudarshana Bhat) writes...
>The posts on the net say that India scored 207 for 4 and Azhar made 80-odd,
>and Shastri 21 off 18 balls.  Then, there is the info in Dr. Rao's .plan
>which says that India made 160-odd all out, with Azhar making 49 and Shastri
>17 off 32 balls.  Which one is correct?  Or are they both correct, and for
>different matches (then I am *more* confused!!).

I think some how Mr. Rao's plan directory got screwed up because this 
morning it was showing stat. of todays game than later it started showing 
last games(4th screwed) figure. They are different matches. 





Cheers
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: murali@emily.polymer.uakron.edu (Murali Cotah)
Subject: Recall Gavaskar
Organization: Institute of Polymer Science, University of Akron
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 03:22:37 GMT

>The only way to solve India's batting problems is to recall Sunil Gavaskar.
Even at 43 he can take apart this SA bowling and score at least 2 hundreds in
the remaining matches.
>
there my man - that is an excellent suggestion -- however improbable, it still is good.
I am not sure why there seems to be such a "disastrous batting performance" - but a lot of it point
towards 1. Lack of application, 2. Dedication 3. Technique (?) [ i am really not qualified to comment on it] - all those things which SG was famous for. It is time batsmen have learnt to about  " what building of an innings is all about ".
cotah 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: anant@evax11.eng.fsu.edu
Subject: score card request
Organization: Famu/Fsu College of Engineering
Date: 11 Dec 92 21:21:51 EST
From: KSRAO@power.ee.ndsu.nodak.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: SL v NZ ODI - 3 SL innings
Date: 13 Dec 1992 06:34:24 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

NZ v SL D/N game on Sunday in Colombo (in progress)

SL innings finished just a few minutes ago (at 7:00am EST). Only 49 overs were
bowled in the time allotted. SL scored 262 for 6.
Hatarasingha  5
Gurusingha  76
Mahanama  110
D'Dylva  20
Ranatunga  16
Jayasoorya  26
Kalpage  3
Extras   9

The commentary should come on 9510 kHz from 8:00 am EST. Right now some other
program is coming on that frequency.

Pak v Aus  (Sunday game)

Pakistan  195for 5 in 47 overs and Australia 196 for 2 in 45.1 overs
(This is mentioned here just to have a complete roundup. The results are in
r.s.c)

Ind v SA  (postponed ODI - 4)
Should have started just a few minutes ago.
From: sss50@ccc.amdahl.com (Sarbjeet S Sokhi)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Allan Border
Date: 16 Dec 92 06:15:41 GMT
Reply-To: sss50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com ()
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

Why did Allan Border not play in the game against the WI on Dec 15
at Melbourne? Was he injured or has he fallen out of favour with 
the selectors?
Sokhi
From: ratan@ring8.rutgers.edu (Santosh Ratan)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Saturday's ODIs
Date: 13 Dec 92 14:17:42 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1gdcnlINNlqs@nyquist.usc.edu>, shivanan@nyquist.usc.edu (Mr. Shivanan Bhajekar) writes:
: In article <9212121533.AA06961@deepthought.cs.utexas.edu> KSRAO@power.ee.ndsu.nodak.edu writes:
: 
: 	Stuff deleted!
: 
: >Incidentally in the SA/Ind game which India won, Shastry scored 27 off 16
: >balls!!!
: 
: 	Yay! GO Shastri GO! We are all behind you.
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^
                                       After you.
-- 

***********************************************************************
                       Santosh Ratan  
                   ratan@jove.rutgers.edu
      Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
         Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
                      Piscataway, NJ       
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: haque@.mcc.com (Kashif Haque)
Subject: Testing
Originator: haque@sundown.mcc.com
Organization: MCC, Austin, Texas
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:39:15 GMT

This is test, please ignore it.
Many Thanks
From: mhiri01@mik.uky.edu (Manjunath Hiriyannaiah)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: SA / IND 5th ODI
Date: 15 Dec 1992 10:21:04 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

 
India finished its quota of 50 overs by scoring 207 runs for 4 wickets.
       Azhar 86 Not out
       Shasti 21 Notout
    
                GOOD LUCK INDIA
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Azhar, #3, etc (was Re: Indian Team for the n
From: WEABEP@DEVAX1 (Peter ABELA)
Date: 17 Dec 92 09:42:31 +1000
 <1992Dec13.015646.16673@news.acns.nwu.edu> <Bz8HG6.IFr@uceng.uc.edu>
Distribution: world
Organization: BHP Information Technology
Nntp-Posting-User: weabep
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11

In <Bz8HG6.IFr@uceng.uc.edu> bnataraj@uceng.uc.edu writes:

> causing this mess. I feel Azhar's inconsistency stems from insecurity. The 
> way he has been playing of late only points to this. He is far far too good
> a batsman to perform as he currently is, and i feel his being a stroke-player
> has little to do with it. I believe he is as good as, if not better than 
> Sachin (BTW, why is no one talking of Sachin's inconsistency ?) now, or ever.

	I haven't seen that much of Azza (as we call him in Aust.) over the
	years, but he is my favourite Indian batsman, partly because he is so
	elegant. I did see a real lot of him last summer, so I can offer some
	comments.

	Last year in Australia, he had a shocking start to the test series.
	He didn't get into his stride until the test at Adelaide, when he
	smashed 108. In the early tests (and early one-dayers) he seemed to
	be going for his shots too early, in particular flicking off his pads.
	He got out LBW a lot.

	At the end of the test series and in the World Cup he was still playing
	across the line early in the innings, but he had got used to the
	different pace and bounce of the Australian wickets. I haven't really
	seen how he's been getting out in South Africa, but based on what I saw
	last year, because of the wristy nature of his game, he just takes a
	while to adjust to new conditions. By the end of the summer he was
	playing magnificently, even though it took more than a month for him to
	get going. I'm sure he'll return to his best shortly, and smash the
	South African bowlers all around the park ....

	The Speaker.

PS: I got a few scores wrong yesterday. Waugh got 5/24, Lara got 71, Ambrose
got 3/25 off 10, and Cummins was the last man out.

========================================================================
Peter Abela.                                                           =
My opinions in no way reflect those of BHP IT.                         =
========================================================================
From: vaghela@laxatv.reo.dec.com (Umesh Vaghela)
Subject: India's final scorecard from SA
Keywords: no cookies, not now, never ever
Reply-To: vaghela@laxatv.reo.dec.com (Umesh Vaghela)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:37:18 GMT


outh Africa vs India, 5th D/N, Springbok Park, Bloemfontein, 15/12/92
              South Africa                               India
Hudson                                Jadeja     c McMilla b Donald   9 ( 25)
Wessels                               Raman      c McMilla b Matthe  16 ( 46)
Kirsten                               Prabhakar  run out Callaghan   36 ( 57)
Rhodes                                Azhar    * not out             86 (106)
Callaghan                             Tendulkar  b DVilliers         32 ( 52)
Cronje                                Shastri  - not out             21 ( 18)
McMillan                              Kapil
Richardsn                             Amre
Matthews                              Yadav
Donald                                Kumble
DVilliers                             Srinath
Extras  (W: 0 N: 0 B: 0 LB: 0)  0     Extras  (W: 1 N: 2 B: 0 LB: 4)  7
Total   (Ov:  0.0 RR: 0.00)     0 / 0 Total   (Ov: 50.0 RR: 4.14)   207 / 4
             O  M  R  Wi Wd Nb                        O  M  R  Wi Wd Nb
Callaghan    4  0  22  1  0  0
Cronje       6  0  20  0  0  0
McMillan  * 10  0  59  0  0  0
Matthews    10  1  37  1  0  1
Donald      10  2  36  1  1  1
DVilliers   10  1  29  1  0  0
                               That's the innings


--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                            Umesh Vaghela                                |
|                Digital Equipment Corporation - Reading, Berks, UK       |
|                                                                         |
| 	Userid : vaghela@marvin.enet.dec.com				  |
|          	 vaghela@laxatv.reo.dec.com                               |
|          	 vaghela@wikkit.enet.dec.com                              |
|									  |
|All views & opinions expressed here are entirely my own and NOT digital's|
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: World Champions???
From: david@datamark.co.nz (David Rowland)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:43:01 GMT
Organization: Datamark International Ltd.

In article <92352.165939U17868@uicvm.uic.edu> <U17868@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>The reason why Pakistan's performance is bad in ODI's is that they played the O
>DI's mostly in Australia and England. The conditions in AUstralia and England a
>re very different from Pakistan or India or Sharjah. The reason why the perform

What a lot of rubish.  All we have been hearing recently is how
"great" Pakistan is after they won the world cup.  This was played in
both Australia and New Zealand where Australia crashed out badly even
when playing at home.

Lets face it, Pakistan had a bad day at the wicket yesterday.  (one of
the worst I seen for a little while).  One reason for this is they may
have reached their peak for the world cup and are now suffering from
too many games.

Lets wait until after the New Zealand tour before you start to blame
the cricket pitches for bad play OK.

-- Dave
From: KSRAO@power.ee.ndsu.nodak.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: WSC Pak after 10 0vers
Date: 11 Dec 1992 23:02:54 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

WI dropped three catches by Lara (Raja) LOgie and Adams (Sohail)
At the end of 10 overs Pak are none for 49; Aamir 31, Raja 12

SEt to score 178 to win 42 overs
Pakistan are none for 21 after 5 overs
Rameez 8, Aamir 9
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket