HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: owaiss@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re:Pakistan 2nd Innings
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:07:29 GMT
Reply-To: owaiss@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu ()
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Originator: owaiss@foghorn.cc.utexas.edu

In article <1992Jul26.224107.28574@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> aam9n@helga6.acc.Virginia.EDU (Ali Ahmad Minai) writes:
>In article <712179368@lear.cs.duke.edu> azhar@duke.cs.duke.edu (D. Salman [Quintessential] Azhar) writes:
>
>I don't think it is racism, really, but it has become increasingly clear
>to the rest of the world that English umpires are every bit as ordinary as
>those of any other nationality. For every Shakoor Rana, there is a Roy
>Palmer. And while Dicky Bird has been the best of umpires in recent years,
>David Constant has surely been close to the worst. Pakistan did not lose
>this match because of umpiring, but I can see us abandoning the whole
>crusade for neutral umpires based on a few experiences like this. 


I vehemently believe that english umpires are just ordinary as umpires from
Pakistan and India. The irony is that the english umpires make bad decision
when matters the most. Take for instance the henious decision of givig
Imran out in the world cup in 1987 which cost Pakistan the match and the
world cup.

In my opinion the neutral umpires would not serve any good. I think one of
the ways to eliminate the problem of bad decision against the visiting 
sides can be eliminated is through a review of the decisions giving by the
umpires either at the end of the match or the test series. The managers of
both the sides and the captains should be consulted and asked to review.
Points should be given on the correct decision and deducted on bad decision.
Finally the accumulated sum of points added to the points gained by the
umpires for their performance in the series. This point system should
enable the officials to decide which umpires commit most mistakes and at
crucial juctures. If neutral umpires are opted this system would help in 
building up the true reputation of so called good umpires from England.


Owais
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: aamir@cs.sfu.ca (Aamir Husain)
Subject: Pak vs End T4
Keywords: 25 mins before tea
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 14:24:00 GMT


Pakistan are 24/1
rameez is 20 no
the man out was sohail (unsure of his score)

waqar 5/117
mmushtaq 3/60
aquib 1/48
akram 1/80

Aamir

update:
From: karnik@cs.umn.edu (Neeran M. Karnik)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: English Umpiring, hello Rajeev
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:00:57 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.

In <1992Jul31.163610.5039@julian.uwo.ca> raza@hobbes.ccs.uwo.ca (Mr. Raza Syed) writes:

>In article <1992Jul31.151634.23594@walter.bellcore.com> shamim@.bellcore.com writes:
>>will not). India has superb players of spin and I can not recall any other world 
>>class spinner being successful against them in the last two decades. 
>>
>>	--SAN


>Iqbal Qasim.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^

	Apart from that famous game at Bangalore, I don't recall Qasim being 
	too successful against the Indian batting. Fact is, he wasn't needed, 
	what with Imran and Sarfaraz and the half-shiny ball! If one-time
	performances are to be included, then even Greg Matthews might
	qualify ;-> Remember, he had a 10-wkt. haul in the tied test.

>S.R.Raza

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  Neeran  Karnik  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dept. of Computer Science,      | Email: karnik@cs.umn.edu,
University of Minnesota         |        karnik@atto.cs.umn.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: gregw@hspice.portal.com (Greg Widdicombe)
Subject: Re: Question on No Ball
Organization: Meta - Software
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:54:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.103407@is.morgan.com> 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
>stated that a bowler must decalare his bowling style to the umpire and must also
>declare any changes to it. As an afterthought, I checked in Wisden for the same
>ruling but could not find it anywhere - it merely said that a bowler must declare
>any *change* to his bowling style; no reference was made to the initial style and whether that had to be declared. What do you all think? Was I correct?
>
>Andrew Coad
>Morgan Stanley
>New York
>(212) 703-2379
>

Yup.

LAW 24   NO BALL

1  MODE OF DELIVERY

The Umpire shall indicate to the Striker whether the Bowler intends
to bowl over or around the wicket, overarm or underarm, right- or
left-handed.  Failure on the part of the Bowler to indicate in
advance a change in his mode of delivery is unfair and the Umpire
shall call and signal 'no ball'.

In the definitions section following Law 24, it states:

"The method of giving guard to the Striker is set out under the
definitions of Law 3.  Bowler's end Umpire will inquire from the
Bowler as to the style of bowling and from which side of the 
wicket the delivery is to be made.  A Bowler must not be allowed
to bowl until he has notified his mode of delivery; should a
delivery be made without such notification, the Umpire shall call
and signal 'no ball'."

-- Greg [Sorry to interject some facts into this newsgroup] Widdicombe

-- 
     Greg Widdicombe     |  Meta-Software, Inc.  |    _--_|\
  * Up from Down Under * | 1300 White Oaks Road, |   /     *\
                         |  Campbell, CA 95008   |   \_.--._/
 gregw@hspice.portal.com |     (408)369-5451     |         v
From: jawad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jawad Ali)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: T4 D1
Date: 23 Jul 1992 16:50:17 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


Zamir Iqbal just sent this to me from New York(?)


          At close of play on first day of fourth Test match, Pakistan had
          survived a rain interrupted day by scoring 165 for 8. They were
          71 for 5, and 122 for 7 at one point. Salim Malik has played the
          key role to hold the innings together. He is playing at 57.

          Miandad won the toss and elected to play ( I do not know why?).

          Aamir Sohail 23
          Rameez       17
          Asif          7
          *Maindad      6
          Inzmam        5
          Malik n.o.   57
          Wasim Akram  12
          Moin Khan     3
          Waqar         6
          Mushtaq n.o.  3

          165 for 8.
From: cdcs@st-andrews.ac.uk (Colin D. C. Steele)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: England XI v Rest of World 1992 July 29
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:43:37 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

In article <1992Jul29.234219.2903@st-andrews.ac.uk> cdcs@st-andrews.ac.uk (Colin D. C. Steele) writes:
>
>Heritage Homes Festival Match at Jesmond
>
>England XI v Rest of World
>55 overs per side
>
>REST OF WORLD
>
>  C/M Pringle
   C Pringle
>  AN Other
   IR Bishop
From: jawad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jawad Ali)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: bad news
Date: 23 Jul 1992 06:59:05 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


Folks, my radio has completely gone kaput :-( 
I am hoping someone else will pickup the 'commentary'.
Anyone out there in England with some time on their hands?

bye fo now

j n a
Xref: sparky rec.sport.cricket:13479 soc.culture.pakistan:12602
From: fsyed@ds5000.DAC.Northeastern.edu (faiz syed)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket,soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Test
Keywords: Test
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:30:59 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Distribution: usa
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston MA. USA 02115


Please ignore


jeevay pakistan
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: sagrawal@cco.caltech.edu (Sanjay Kumar Agrawal)
Subject: Pak were 66 for 3
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 15:52:41 GMT

before bad light stopped play.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: shamim@.bellcore.com (Shamim Naqvi)
Subject: Pak/Eng 4th test
Reply-To: shamim@.bellcore.com
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Morristown, NJ
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 13:27:31 GMT


England are playing 4 seamers and Pakistan retains the side from Old Trafford. 
Miandad chose to bat after winning the toss and Pakistan are 36 for 1, Sohail 
being caught at first slip off Mallender for 23. Rameez batting on 9 and Asif 
on zero. Sixty five minutes of play possible this morning. Currently, rain has stopped play. 
Re-start possibilities look gloomy.  (From BBC sports roundup at 12:45 GMT.)

	--SAN

Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: papadopoulos-dimitrios@CS.YALE.EDU (Dimitrios Papadopoulos)
Subject: Re: Eng v Pak Day 2 (Close of play)
Keywords: Score
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:46:51 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.181215.28889@infodev.cam.ac.uk> js138@cus.cam.ac.uk (John Sloan) writes:
>Salim Malik			Not out		82
>Waqar Younis		c Hick	b Mallander	 8
>Mushtaq Ahmed			b Lewis		11
>Aqib Javed		c Hick	b Munton	 0
>
>Total					       197 all out
>
>GA Gooch			Not out		93
>MA Atherton			b Akram		76
>RA Smith			Not out		22
>
>Total					       216 (?) for 3
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Should that not be 216/1-or is the scorecard not complete??

--Pushkar
>
>
>
>Didn't catch the number of extras or the bowling figures, I'm afraid.
>Smith is living on borrowed time.  One LBW which was very close (I
>thought it looked out) another which he got a faint inside edge to and
>a ball at catchable height went between 1st slip and Wicketkeeper with
>neither of them moving.  (1st slip was standing quite wide).  Lots of
>balls beating the bat today, but all the luck falling Englands way.
From: js138@cus.cam.ac.uk (John Sloan)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Eng v Pak Day 2 (Close of play)
Keywords: Score
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:12:15 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

Salim Malik			Not out		82
Waqar Younis		c Hick	b Mallander	 8
Mushtaq Ahmed			b Lewis		11
Aqib Javed		c Hick	b Munton	 0

Total					       197 all out

GA Gooch			Not out		93
MA Atherton			b Akram		76
RA Smith			Not out		22

Total					       216 (?) for 3



Didn't catch the number of extras or the bowling figures, I'm afraid.
Smith is living on borrowed time.  One LBW which was very close (I
thought it looked out) another which he got a faint inside edge to and
a ball at catchable height went between 1st slip and Wicketkeeper with
neither of them moving.  (1st slip was standing quite wide).  Lots of
balls beating the bat today, but all the luck falling Englands way.
From: srd@ukc.ac.uk (S.R.Davies)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: English umpiring
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:34:38 GMT
Reply-To: srd@ukc.ac.uk (S.R.Davies)
Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.

In article <01GMWX1HCHGIAKVCE7@ccmail.sunysb.edu> ABEGLEY@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Anthony M. Begley) writes:
>
>the wicket was prepared for a result (it always is at headingly) and England
>picked the perfect bowlers to achieve it. Some would argue that adapting
>your pitch to suit your bowlers is cheating but what do you expect when England

     I think you have put the cart before the horse here. The Headingley
 wicket is never "prepared for a result" .... it is consistently prepared
 the same way for all matches. Why it sometimes turns into a seamers
 paradise is a big mystery to everyone. They have tried digging up the
 pitch and changing the foundation material in response to the criticism
 that has sometimes been received in the past. If the weather had been
 sunny during the Test, the same pitch would probably have resulted in a
 high scoring draw. 

     Also, bear in mind that England had lost 6 out of the previous 10
 Tests played at Headingley, so its not really a wicket that suits just
 them. Basically, the bounce was very low, which ought really to have
 suited Waqar and Wasim to some extent in view of the amount of bowled
 and lbw wickets they take. Mallender is nowhere near as good a bowler
 as the 2 W's, but he bowled the right way for the conditions. Waqar tried
 to bowl too fast (before he ran through England's middle/tail, but by then
 it was too late). When Wasim slowed up his pace a bit he had England in
 all sorts of trouble, but was unlucky not to find the edges more often.

     Anyway, if you think England "arrange" for the Headingley pitch to
 suit their bowling, why don't they do it at all their Test grounds?
 This is a bit like saying India doctor all their pitches to suit their
 spinners. To a large extent it is the other way around. India and Pakistan
 produce better spin bowlers than everyone else because their pitches
 and climate encourage it. The prevailing conditions in England (remember
 the importance of the weather) favour medium pace swing and seam bowlers,
 which is why we have so many of them. Alderman was a much better bowler
 in England than he ever was in Australia.

     Anyway, I think Headingly is a good pitch because it produces 
 interesting matches ... better than a bore draw where 4 days yield one
 huge innings each, followed by a pointless 5th day. The Headingley Test
 showed who the really class batsman are ... Gooch and Malik. Difficult
 batting conditions just made their innings' even better. It wasn't just
 a seamer's wicket either, Akram and Mushtaq bowled superbly (and Waqar
 for that 30 minute spell).

     Regards, Steve.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: ahmad@seas.gwu.edu (Aftab Ahmad)
Subject: Re: Field Hockey
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:20:07 GMT

In article <867@hobby.ukc.ac.uk> srd@ukc.ac.uk (S.R.Davies) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.154538.3866@seas.gwu.edu> ahmad@seas.gwu.edu (Aftab Ahmad) writes:
>>
	[ ...stuff deletd...]
>
>     My only objection is to the name Field Hockey. The game is called
> Hockey. I presume that Field Hockey is another Americanism that the
> rest of the world is supposed to meekly accept. We should counter this
> by inventing our own stupid names for American sports, such as Indoor
> Netball and Field Wrestling and see how they like it.
>
>
	As long as the Americans are concerned you cannot blame
	them. After all they have a reason to be high. The blame
	goes to us - the rest of the world.
	Though hockey should imply field hockey (as against ice-
	hockey), that's not the only name adopted by 'us'; I 
	would prefer to call football football instead of soccer.

	I am glad squash means squash here and not racktball-though
	many third world countries are opening racket-ball courts
	in their schools (to comply??) 
> Regards, Steve.
From: malde@tunisia.crd.ge.com (Jayen Malde)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Field Hockey News
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:09:29 GMT
Reply-To: malde@tunisia.crd.ge.com (Jayen Malde)
Distribution: usa
Organization: General Electric Corp. R&D, Schenectady, NY

In article <1992Jul28.151116.26837@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> kumar@apollo.cs.jhu.edu (Kumar Ramaiyer) writes:
>
> 
>  India got thrashed against germany in hockey in their first match
>  in olympics.  They have to meet england,australia,argentina,
>  egypt in the other remaining matches. It is a tough group.
>
>-Kumar

Does anyone know the final score? Please post on the net (or mail it to me).
Sorry for mixing hockey news on this cricket newsgroup.....
From: sobitha@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sobitha W Samaranayake)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: T4 D3 PAK 2-In
Date: 25 Jul 92 15:41:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: noose.1992Jul25.154140.10239
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network


Pakisthan 66/3 
Raja 47 n.o
From: cdcs@st-andrews.ac.uk (Colin D. C. Steele)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: County Championship 1992 July 20 (Monday) - Correction
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:46:48 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

>County Championship 1992 July 20 (Monday)
>Day 2 of 3
Should be Day 3 of 3
>
>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 ]
Should be 284-6
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: nalin@athena.mit.edu (Palitha Nalin Wikramanayake)
Subject: Re: LBW rules: Expert Opinion needed
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 12:27:26 GMT

In article <7877@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au>, dlow@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au.ua.oz (David J Low) writes:
|> From article <1992Jul21.173240.23418@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, by aksimha@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Arun Simha):
|> > 
|> >    Hi,
|> >       There seems to be quite a lot of confusion regarding the LBW rule.
|> >       (Yeah, What's new?). Most cricketers interpret the rule differently,
|> >        especially when it comes to an LBW appeal off a leg break. Now, as
|> >        I have always understood it, a batsman cannot be given out off a 
|> >        leg-break, right? However, one often comes across umpires who feel
|> >        that such appeals such be sustained if the batsmen are way on their
|> >        backfoot, covering the wickets. Could a kind soul post the *EXACT*
|> >        wording of the LBW rule (law?) from the Cricket Rule book, please?
|> >        ..and let us debate over it :-) :-)
|> 
|>      A succinct summary (or "umpire's guide to the LBW :-) ) was posted a
|>      few months ago - I've found it very useful for adjudicating:
|> 
|>      1) did the ball pitch outside leg stump?  If YES then NOTOUT, else 2)
|> 
|>      2) did the ball pitch outside off stump?  If YES then (i), else 3)
|> 	   (i) did the batsman play a shot?  If YES then NOTOUT else 3)
|> 
|>      3) would the ball have hit the stumps?  If YES then OUT else NOTOUT.
|> 
|> 	  This is arranged in the most useful way for thinking about the
|> 	  decision!  So, there is no reason why you can't get out to a
|> 	  legbreak (like I did in last season's semi final :-{ ) as long as
|> 	  the ball pitches in line and would have hit the stumps if your
|> 	  (my!) bloody pad hadn't got in the way.  For the record, I _was_
|> 	  trying to use the bat :-), I was just too far back, and the ball
|> 	  would have taken the top of off stump.
|> 
|> 		  David (with thanks to the original poster of this system!)


	Now I am totally confused. This system does not agree with the idea
	I had.

	What about balls pitching outside the off stump, moving in and hitting
	the batsman in the line of the wickets, that would have hit the wicket?
	I always thought that was out but the system says it isn't if the batsman
	was playing a shot?

	Will someone please post the whole rule again? This should definitely
	be part of a FAQ - maybe all the rules?

	Nalin






|> 
|> --
|>    ___          ~~            | David J. Low, Atmospheric Group, Dept. Physics
|>   /  /-----^-/~~~             | Adelaide University, South Australia 
|>  /  /-------/~  "I'll be back"| 
|> <__/  '            --- Arnie  | E-Mail : dlow@physics.adelaide.edu.au
From: wakankar@egr.msu.edu (PUT YOUR NAME HERE)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Double Internationals
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:47:52 GMT
Reply-To: wakankar@egr.msu.edu (PUT YOUR NAME HERE)
Organization: Michigan State University
Originator: wakankar@frith.egr.msu.edu

In article <84096@netnews.upenn.edu> kumbhani@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (dhaneesh kumbhani) writes:
>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?
>>
>>Please add more...
>
>(please correct me if I am wrong but ... )
>Viv Richards : Soccer, Cricket.

Didn't Dennis Compton play soccer and Cricket? I remember reading somewhere that he ran somebody out by kicking the ball on the stumps. Possibly Vijay Merchant.

Parag
From: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: LBW rules: Expert Opinion needed
Date: 23 Jul 92 13:54:28 GMT
Reply-To: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker)
Organization: Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.

In article <BrsuLL.BDH@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> bharat@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>dlow@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au.ua.oz (David J Low) writes:
[...]
>>		     So, there is no reason why you can't get out to a
>>	  legbreak [...]
>True, but it would have to be turning quite slowly, [...].

	I've just been doing some calculations.  Assuming that my arithmetic
is correct, a ball delivered over the wicket from the full width of the
bowling crease and pitching at a reasonable length* on the leg stump is
travelling at about 4 degrees to the straight line between wickets.  From
there, any angle between about -1 and +7 degrees to that line would be OK
to hit the wicket.  So anything between 3 and 11 degrees of turn would
suffice for "bowled", and between 4 and 11 degrees for "lbw".  [For a
comparison, the wicket subtends an angle of a bit less than 1 degree from
a cricket-pitch away.]

	That sounds like quite a lot of turn to me, but I have no good
idea of what the measured turn or swing of real bowlers actually is.
Anyone *know*?

----
* "Reasonable length" taken, more-or-less randomly, to be 8 ft in front of
the wicket.  A ball pitched further up could turn more but would be less
likely to deceive the batsman.

-- 
Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
anw@maths.nott.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: H.Edwards@massey.ac.nz (H. Edwards)
Subject: Re: Double Internationals
Organization: Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
X-Reader: NETNEWS/PC Version 2c
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 02:51:10 GMT

Keith Thomson played both cricket and hockey for NZ back in the late 60's to
early seventies.  Also, I think that Roger McHarg (NZ test cricket umpire)
played at least once for the NZ hockey side (he was a goalie).

-- 


Howard Edwards				Ph: (64)(6)3569099 ext 8331
Dept of Statistics			Fax: (64)(6)3505611
Massey University			email: H.Edwards@massey.ac.nz
Palmerston North
NEW ZEALAND
From: js138@cus.cam.ac.uk (John Sloan)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Eng vs Pak day 4 (Close of play)
Keywords: Score
Date: 26 Jul 92 18:44:04 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England


Pakistan 1st innings 197
         2nd innings 221

England  1st innings 320
         2nd innings  99-4

England won by 6 wickets.

All over before I got to see any today.  Oh well.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: aksimha@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Arun Simha)
Subject: Re: WHAT ABOUT CRICKET!!!!!!!!
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:25:35 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.222833.27159@newserve.cc.binghamton.edu> vu0208@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (!) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.150204.4711@gw.wmich.edu> x90mumtaz@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>>hi,
>>   Can't anybody in Pakistan, India, Australia, New Zealand, ENGLAND and
>>even USA , Canada mail the full details of the first day of 4th test. 
>>
>>Atif [who is anxiously waiting for a reply] Mumtaz
>
>
>Folks in Pakistan/India have no access to RSC to post the scores.

  Wrong. Dr Ramani and Mr Shankar Unni used to post on this newsgroup
  from India. I guess, they are busy, with the Soccer in Bengal, what with
   Kapil Dev et al. 

 Arun Simha

Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket