Good news everybody…

Posted by
< 1 minute read

We’re being insulted on Cricinfo again. Qasim has branded our latest piece “a staggeringly unfunny article”.

You’ve got to love an article that’s so lacking in humour that not only are readers unmoved by it, they are actually blown away by the unfunniness.

We meant to ask that this piece be published anonymously, but forgot. We’re glad we didn’t now.

Update: We wanted our name left off because it was supposed to be written by a character, not by us. Those aren’t our opinions. It really isn’t clear, is it?


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. I meant to comment anonymously but was lazy (to sign out of facebook).

    I am glad, I didn’t now.

  2. Well they do say that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit King Cricket even if it clearly demonstrates a higher form of intelligence than some of the people who post comments on Cricinfo.

    For what it’s worth the aforementioned article made us laught out loud in the office, which is not to be recommended!

  3. I quit the article somewhere in the middle of the 2nd paragraph. But I never would have guessed that its roots were to the guys on this blog had you not mentioned it

    May be I will give it another try. On second thoughts may be the guy with the “staggeringly unfunny” comment has a point

  4. *Booo Booooo*

    That’s me booing you – not off stage KC (as Abhishek Banerjee suggests), but like at a pantomime baddy who you secretly want to succeed in their fiendish plot, often because they are the best actor in it, get accompanied by flashes/smoke machine whenever they appear and have all the best lines.

    Is that too snivellingly grovelling oh King?

  5. I would just ask Laurence Elderbrook to have a chat with the Qasims and Abhisheks.

  6. Has Elderbrook ever had an actual “chat” with anyone before? Or does it mostly consist of calling for more gin until his conversational partner is sufficiently confused?

  7. Some of us did not know you had a character (or rather the character was you) until you had mentioned it.

Comments are closed.