Ball of the century and Lara’s 400

Posted by
< 1 minute read

How many times does something have to appear to qualify as a regular feature? If it’s twice, we have a regular feature at Cricinfo.

It is about two idiot commentators commentating like idiots. It is called Stu and Ash. The first instalment was about Shane Warne’s ball of the century. The second focuses on Lara’s 400 against England.

Why not join everyone else in assuming that being as we wrote the characters’ words, we share their opinions. If you need a recommendation, try the words of ColdMenace who felt moved to comment “yawn”.


Mike Gatting wasn't receiving the King Cricket email when he dropped that ludicrously easy chance against India in 1993.


Why risk it when it's so easy to sign up?


    1. Someone seems to think they’re real people and has taken issue with the opinions voiced by Ash.

      This despite the fact that the statistician in the piece doesn’t know that Australia is a country, not a person.

  1. Superb stuff.

    I love the reference to Proust in the context of commentary-box Battenberg cake.

    “A la recherche du stumps perdu” as we say in the Proustian-cricket-writing trade.

  2. To be fair to the cricinfo commenters, KC, there seems to be a good number of well-informed, balanced readers out there who also seem to think you are shit.

  3. Are you still almost as funny as Andrew Hughes or have you managed to pass that milestone now?

    1. Think we’ve dropped back, actually. It’s more that we aren’t fit to be mentioned in the same sentence as Andrew Hughes now.

  4. Frustrating how few people on the comments realised that the article isn’t even criticising Brian Lara and his 400no, it’s poking fun at the IPL and the commentary you get on it (with a little bit of TMS commentary thrown in). I thought it was funny. Perhaps you need to dumb down your humour (even more)? Perhaps just write an article about how Sachin Tendulkar is actually God. No humour. No no. Just the facts.

Comments are closed.