Comments on: India change their batting faces to no great effect

By: King Cricket

King Cricket — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:04:14 +0000

That section could be construed as a comment on Moores’ ability to get on with the players.

By: Ceci

Ceci — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:58:49 +0000

More pro than anti Moores – but it was the inference that were Moores not coach – then Vaughan would still be captain and that would be a Good Thing which I disagree with.

By: King Cricket

King Cricket — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:14:27 +0000

For those who don’t read The Spin, Lawrence is gently suggesting that maybe Peter Moores is ‘not all that’ this week.

Are you pro-Moores Ceci?

By: Ceci

Ceci — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:51:33 +0000

Blast and dammit Simon I have just had to read it again and SHOUT. Not a good day.

Always agree with the Sainted Lawrence Booth of the Spin too – but today he is WRONG !

By: SimonC

SimonC — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:31:41 +0000

It's true, cricinfo's site was designed by cross-eyed gibbons. However, any visual crimes they may have committed are more than compensated for by the utter brilliance that is statsguru. I'm guessing the rage-inspiring article was this one. I'm only half way through it because I have to give my eyes a break after every paragraph.

By: Ed

Ed — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:24:18 +0000

Ceci, please don’t make me look at the cricinfo site. It’s horrid.

I have become increasingly suspicious that the cricinfo web designers are recruited from a mill pond just outside Oldham.

However, if there’s rage to be had then please post a link to the article. I like a bit of rage, me!

By: Mahinda

Mahinda — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 01:49:36 +0000

READ ALL ABOUT IT!

KING CRICKET IN “POINTY ANGLE” REVELATIONS!

“Nice and pointy” says Ceci, Nottingham.

By: Ceci

Ceci — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:11:51 +0000

Your angles would be nice and pointy and acute – unlike the obtuse angle taken by a writer over at Cricinfo – on good cricket writing – that has had me snorting in rage….