email email@example.com with your comments on this site, or on cricket in general. The best letters will appear here.
It is a real treat sitting in Boulder, Colorado and watching the fortunes/misfortunes of Indian Cricket on cricinfo. Thanks a lot to cricinfo. But they should do something more. They should put more of Indian matches on the Jagger Network.
Hi, I used to send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org and get the latest Scorecard at my e-mail address. For the last few months,the scorecard has not been updated.
(The correct address is email@example.com. - Ed.)
To begin with , thanks for the many hours of fun,updated scores & info that all of you at cric-info have given us (me).If only we could now enjoy a bit of streaming video highlights capsules of each match you cover; (I know thats asking for the moon though).
I have to comment that whilst Azza is having amongst his best seasons since his spectacular debut, Sachin tendulkar has been "Awesome", he's blasted the Aussie Beans (baked & otherwise).Surely you could have had them share the march honours!
(We have made it clear from the outset that the Player of the Month award can only go to one player at a time and not be shared. Tendulkar of course also won Player of the Month in January of this year, when his performances against the backdrop of all the off-field drama were perhaps as courageous as anything he has done in any month of his career. - Ed.)
Mark Taylor should declare retirement from Test cricket. He has been successful Opening Batsman for last 10 years and successful captain since retirement of Allan Border. In spite of such a wonderful achievement if Manager of National Team and ACb gives such as awful treatment to him. He definately deserves much better treatment from ACB, Manager and Media. Before anymore disgrace he should retire. Late Vijay Merchant always used to say, You should retire when you are on top. Taylor won the last match at Banglore, this is best time for him to declare retirement.
I am disappointed with your choice of the Player of the Month - Azharrudin. Because it had to be Sachin for single handedly changing the course of the series between Australia and India. His two big centuries and a good score of 70 plus would justify his billing for the Player of the Month.His century in Bangalore where all Indian batsmen struggled was testimony to his dominance and neutralized Warne threat to such an extent to allow following batsmen to score at ease.I am not detracting anyway from the century from Azhar but scoring runs when 300 is already on the board is entirey different story from when the bowler's tail is up.
The way Sachin batted he opened the gates in the Chennai test and any captain would have declared.
I expected more cricketing wisdom from your panel.
(The judging panel for Player of the Month consists of one person. The googler's Player of the Month is not necessarily a "Best" player of the month award, nor has it ever been. - Ed.)
I have been trying to contact the ESPN network here in America, to enquire about the possibility of them carrying ESPN/ Star Sports as a premium channel.
I know there are thousands of fans like me out there who want to see the matches, and if we all combine our efforts, i don't see why they would refuse.
Would love to hear some kind of feedback, especially from a broadcast professional.
yo get a campaign going to bring test world league as has been suggested by myself here and others im sure googlers has a voice in the real game!
One of the running jokes on a 12th man tape I recently heard is Max Walker trying to gethis job back on the Channel 9 commentary team in Australia. Do you (or anybody) have any idea why he lost it in the first place. I don't need the politics, just a run down of events.
Ive been talking to many for years to bring wisdens format as an offical world league.
my proposal which i wish i could put forward to the icc would be like our county championship in the u.k where every test would have to play a series against all the 8 teams.This would result in a final standing approximately 4 to 5 years and the team with the most points will be given a world trophy. Then the new set of series starts to find the next champions what im tryin to say ie Australia are no 1 at the moment agreed so all im sayin is after each test playin side has played each other once at home and away then at present australia would be crowned,and would start the next league series as defending champs.
This would just involve using wisdens table but i would change one thing i would have three points for a win 1 for a drawn series.
Could you please keep track of the development of Cricket 98 by EA Sports and write perhaps an article about it
(Better still, if anyone wants to send in any news about its development in to us, we would be most willing to present it. - Ed.)
why does Zimbabwe get man of the match, should'nt someone from Aus get it, that completely sux!
(When match referee Peter Van Der Merwe announced the man of the match after the Australia-Zimbabwe game, he apparently stated that he as giving a "joint award" to "Alastair Campbell and the entire Zimbabwe team". It was later clarified that the award was to Campbell alone. - Ed.)
It seems that the editor has been mislead by the Aussie media to believe that Australia was the world No1 test team before the Indian tour. Oh poor guy ! You never set this type of survey questions if you know how most of the international readers of your magazine are laughing at you. I am not surprised if you believe the following stuff.
(Check the various rating systems over the past months for the rankings of Test teams, and keep you eye out for a series of structured surveys in a few weeks. - Ed.)
I have studied the great game for a long time and have an interesting theory to put to you.
No test cricket team can CONSTANTLY be victorious without a genuine quick bowler .
The test that have just been played make perfect examples :the Sri Lankans could not put the final nail in the South African coffin as they did not have a fast bowler to snatch those early vital wickets ,where as South Africa had Allan Donald ,who in one spell of bowling turned the test around.India and Australia is another fine example ,with out Glen McGrath the look like a toothless crocodile that could not hurt anyone .
On SA television the Sri Lankan coach was even quoted as saying their test team would never be that successful withouut a genuine quickie.
Zimbabwe my test team never have a hope of ever winning a test series until the have a quick bowler that can strike hard and deep into the oppositions batting line up .
Can we have Cooper and Lybrand's rankings for the players and the countries on this site? If C&L is a problem, than any other credible ranking will do. Hats off to your efforts for maintaining such a brilliant site. Keep it up!
(Please check out CricInfo's Ratings section. - Ed.)
It never ceases to amaze me as to how many different facets can Sachin put on his canvas of cricketing talent. Yes I am talking about his 5 for 32 in 10 overs (the last 2 being maiden wickets) performance before which defeat looked a realistic possibility in the 1st ODI between India and Australia.
That Sachin got the ball to turn so precociously would have gladdened a purist spinner. The wickets of Moody, Lehman, Bevan were obtained with beauties. The 3 balls he bowled to Shane Warne must surely have set Warne thinking if he is not seeing competition to himself from unexpected quarters.
This guy is so good that people talk of his bad run last year when he scored over 1000 runs in both forms of cricket. I think people can stop comparing him to Lara for I feel he is streets ahead of Lara in his batting abilities and his ability to be a useful (even match winning) bowler, often at the death.
The other batsmen who are also gifted bowlers are Aravinda, Jayasuriya, Hooper and Mark Waugh but none of them can hold a candle to Sachin (notwithstanding the stupendous form the Sri Lankans have been in). May be its time we set all comparisons to Sachin to rest and sit back and savour the exhilirating performances of this supreme artiste.
There is one question which would crease every one's mind and that is about Sachin's ability to play a long innings. I think the key to it lies in his approach to the game. In my opinion Sachin always to looks to dominate the bowlers and that cannot be achieved without the batsman having to assume some risk. May be he just goes overboard there...
Maybe Sachin must do some soul searching to erase this blot on an otherwise excellent career.
For those who have not had the privelege of watching the Great Sir Don Bradman, we are fortunate to watch this man whom the Don himself has acknowledged as the closest anyone has come to resemble his (Don’s) dominance of this game.
Go on Sachin, the world walks with you in your exploits.
I offer my thanks and good wishes to CricInfo.the work that they have done to maintain such an extensive site on cricket is praiseworthy.I thank them for creating the Archive site as cricket fans like me, who did not have the chance to know about tests and ODIs in the 70s and 80s can get to know more about them.your features on past & present players is also good. Good work,Keep it up.
Why don't you carry out a survey to find out who is the most unpopular test cricketer in the world? The better question would be the most popular cricketer but the result would be highly biased in favour of highly populated countries like India. I doubt whether our Aussie editor will ever survey my first question because he is the person who can make the best guess about the champion.
Your present survey would have been fair if it had the question whether Australia has been No.1 in test cricket in the past few decades. Your present question does not make any sense because it is based on a wrong assumption about Aussies' rank in test cricket.
It could have been corrected if you redefined the world so that the Indian subcontinent is in the planet.
What a joke it is that Zimbabwae are ranked above New Zealand in the latest Wisden rankings. Wisden are a well respected traditional cricket authority, but I can no longer take any of their rankings seriously.
Zimbabwae with all due respect, have won one solitary test in their history. New Zealand has beaten Zimbabwae 2-0 in the latest series, as well as beating Sri Lanka 2-0 last year and drawing with Pakistan in Pakistan 1-1. Any asute cricket watcher knows that New Zealand is the better team. When are the rankings going to reflect this!
Liked you little APRIL 1st GAG!
"...also reveal that this velocity is reached quicket in a less dense gas such as methane."
I'm no physics genius but beans (bean burritos, baked beans) cause excessive gas (methane). (yuck!) No wonder warnie need baked beans to be more effective!! Dunno if you meant that but it's funny methinks!
Is there a survey on how many fell prey to Prof. April Fool err.. Loof Lipra... stats??
The Wis in Wisdens is sure not an abbreviation for wise.
What does NZ have to do to get above bottom in Wisdens list.
We could hardly be called World beaters at the moment, though occasionally we topple the mighty. However to rank Zimbabwe above us is galling. They were beaten in both tesrs and one day series during our summer. The last two one day matches in Australia were won. What do they want,to change their minds?
I write with reference to the article 'Much ado about nothing', posted on the CricInfo web site on 4 February 1998 by Anwar Ali Khan. It has taken me some time to discover the article, but I feel it warrants comment even now, especially as the piece is still accessible on the CricInfo site, so I would like to say the following.
1. There is a quote at the top of the article, supposedly from the English press. 'The wicket [at Sabina Park, for the first abandoned test between the West Indies and England] was a farce. It was a pre-planned attempt to dishonour the noble (English) game'. As it appears in quotation marks it seems that those words came directly from (I guess) an English newspaper. Can the author tell us where those words appeared?
2. The author asks whether Laker (in taking 19-90), Trueman (in bowling against India) and Snow bowled on 'dangerous' wickets. I would suggest that the answer to that is 'no'. If there is 'danger' involved, would that not refer to the possibility of batsmen losing their wickets, not their faces and fingers?
3. As I imply above, there is a big difference between a wicket offering help to the bowlers (in dismissing batsmen) and one which offers clear physical danger to the batsmen. Is it seriously suggested that the Sabina Park pitch fell into the first category, not the second?
4. David Steele and Peter Willey are mentioned as England batsmen showing guts in facing out the West Indian bowlers of the 70s. The author neglects to mention: they played on reliable pitches.
5. I am fed up with the assumption that moaning is the preserve of the English. The suggestion about English hypocrisy is itself hypocritical. Does the author believe that no other visiting team playing on that pitch would have been concerned? Would Pakistan supporters have been happy if Saeed Anwar was in the firing line, or Indian supporters if Sachin Tendulkar was batting? From my recollection of the test, the (neutral) umpires were expressing concern (in referring to the third umpire) about the pitch before any English players made interventions.
I realise and agree that a debate should have contributions from all sides, but this article appears both blindly nationalistic and somewhat ignorant of cricket, which I am sure the author is not. If he was, would he be contributing to CricInfo?
So called "Negative Legside Bowling" in Test matches is in my opinion one of many tactics that make cricket such as wonderfully complex game. The results of such bowling can vary enormously depending on whom is bowling. For instance, Tufnell adopted this approach many times in the recent Windies Tests but took very few wickets and did not unduly trouble batsman. He may not have gone for many runs per over but his runs per wicket was pathetic.
Whereas Shane Warne regularly adopts the same tactic with good results wickets-wise.
Why the difference?
Quite simply Warne turns the ball a lot more than Tufnell. Tufnell would be better advised when bowling to right handers to bowl the other side therefore pushing the ball towards middle and leg and using what turn he gets to get the batsman to play across the ball. Warne is different because of the turn and bounce he gets. Sure the batsman don't have to play the ball because he is pitching outside the leg stump but they can't kick it all day, they have to try and score. It exposes many weaknesses from batsman who can't sweep properly or use their feet.Nothing wrong with this.
It requires great skill to bowl consistently on a certain line with wrist spin. If you know anything about bowling you will agree with this. Restricting batsman by bowling a line to a set field is one of the great skills possible within cricket. If you don't see this then you do not know cricket.
Cricket is not just about hitting off stump half volleys for four, a bowlers job is to make life as difficult as possible for batsman and vice versa. That's why its such a great game!
|Interactive||the googler's Gazette||Polls|
|Ultra Cricket||CI Classifieds||Forums|
|Email to firstname.lastname@example.org|