Cricket Questions and Answers
Which squad is on top at the year 2000 within cricket?
Answers:
Who else? Australia
AUSTRALIA
year 2000 it was Australia.
Australia
its without a doubt australia but what a shock
it has lost days gone by four matches
one of the one australia
Australia
Shri-lanka
that time solitary one team is full of form,
that squad is world champion troop is Australiya.
australia
australia
is or was ??
AUSTRALIA
i give attention to it was Australia but very soon they got punishment from the team England &N.zealand.
Is Sunil Gavasker better or Sachin Tendulker?
Question:Who is better for India & leave self accounts. Who has done better when India have won.
Answers:
Sachin by far... :-)
Sunil Gavaskar was better ! But I'm not relating thatr Sachin is bad as he have a lot of likelihood to show that he is 100 times better then that of Gavaskar.
It's Sachin
First attain spellings right.
It is Gavaskar not Gavasker, Tendulkar not Tendulker
Obviously Sachin is the best.
umm, what r u talking in the order of?
sachin is better than gavaskar because he played more and better than gavaskar. he started playing cricket when he is only 17 years infirm. he made 90 runs in his first contest.
sachin tendulkar
Sunil Gavasker is much better than tendulkar, bcoz he made his runs againt the fastest bowlers of that time when the cricket was not undemanding...the bouncers..all that chilling conditions...the safety guards be not there...so Gavasker is much better, his fitnes stratum was also much better up till he played..and he speak bye to cricket when he was on top.
Sachin is pious bcoz time is chenging and now bowlers hold more swing,tech,str, and so on.now pitch is also on an upward curve.
guess it should be sachin considering the fact that now a batsnab is scrutinized far more next to advances surrounded by technology,which gavaskar escaped and as a result it was a bit easier for him to meet head-on the bowlers on the field as they dished out more or smaller amount the same delivery at him without really concentrating on his incapacity
both in their own style and times.
Gavaskar be MASTER in his days, Sachin is the MASTER of today! No comparison coz both enjoy given remarkable performances, or else why would we be comparing them?
Sachin Tendulker
gud ask bro
but simple answer
4 me , i admire gavaskar's technique n temparament
but i worship tendulkar
he is d best cricketer ever after donald bradman
he is aggressive , DANGEROUS N STYLISH
sunil gavaskar is technique and temperament in the flesh.
We also have to consider that he didnt frontage the likes of zimbabwe and bangladesh and lanka be real minnows afterwards.
Tendulkar has lost it man.
Sachin Tendulkar have been defenitely better than Sunil Gavaskar
gavaskar be better
Sachin has done better dan Gavaskar, and lead india to many more victory
sunil gavaskar is only the best player surrounded by Indian team.but sachin is most needed player in the Indian squad,he has score most runs in that his centuries are not help for win the match.
No road !!!!
sunil gavaskar but i think brian lara is the best!
Sunil Gavasker
Sunil Manohar Gavaskar be better than Tandulkar. Atleast he could draw matches by bat himself. Tandulkar neither wins match nor can stay on crease for long enough to draw match.
Just tell Sachin to play cricket short Helmet, elbow guard, chest guard and other protecting acesorries.
Yes, Gavaskar has face the fastest boelers like Marshal. holding, Roberts, Garner, Thomson, Lily, Hedlee and several without those protecting gears.
Now a days. near the help of Coach, Physio, Computer analys and a angelic number of support teams it becames easier to play cricket.
However, Sachin is a great player and one of the best player of modern cricket. But Sunil Gavaskar is "BISHMA PITAMAHA"(father figure) of Indian cricket
Sachin, as he have crossed some of the records of Gavaskar and also may be surrounded by future he may break more library.
!! If India's luck will become good luck !!
Calling adjectives cricket fan why be 'the bodyline series' so call? adjectives I know be Don Bradman played surrounded by it
Answers:
It was the cross given by the Australian press to the technique used by three of the English bowlers in the 1932-33 cricket series. The English cricketers' residence was 'fast leg theory'.
The practice be to aim the ball at the body of the batter, within the hope of it being deflect off the batter's leg side, towards a circle of close fielders on that side.
The 'bodyline' bowlers be Harold Larwood, Bill Voce and Bill Bowes.
You're absolutely right going on for Don Bradman. He actually played fairly well against the bodyline ball, having adapted his stance by moving away from the leg-side and bat into the unfielded off-side field.
As a result of impossible feelings which escalated during the meeting, the MCC changed the Laws of Cricket to give umpire new powers and responsibilities to stop bowlers aiming at a batsman *if they be doing so with the intent of injuring them*.
Because of the intimidating devices used to bowl batsmen out. Bowlers would bowl at the body of the batsmen hence "body line".
basically because the english bowlers simply bowled bouncers into the bodies of the ozzie batsmen and made no atempts to hit the stumps. Its why you can only bowl (i think) 2 bouncers surrounded by an over now
It be named after the English policy of `aiming` the globe at the body rather than the wicket. This have never been done until that time and was deem to be dangerous and should own been expelled. Today it is part and parcel of the hobby, and body deliveries are adjectives.
Because the bowlers deliberatly aimed at the batsman
The England captain Douglas Jardine ordered Harold Larwood to bowl on 'a smudge to the body' to try and thwart Bradmans run making. The balls be short pitched and a mainly leg-side paddock was used. Jardine call it 'leg theory' and thought it was a generous tactic.
The English bowlers and Harold Larwood in extraordinary, bowled at the body of the Australian batsmen. He was FAST and accurate. He broke a few ribs and almost destroyed the loyalty of the Colonials. It be considered cheating in some garrison. Think of Joel Garner and the Windy bowlers in the 70's beside their unplayable bouncers and you have an opinion. Also the Australian pacemen of the 70's adopted similar really quick and accurate bowling tactics. The directive was changed to stop bodyline and the regulation was changed to stop 6 bouncers per over. History repeats,Bodyline, also certain as fast leg proposal, was a cricketing tactic devised by the English cricket squad for their 1932–33 Ashes tour of Australia, specifically to combat the extraordinary batting skill of Australia's Don Bradman. A Bodyline bowler on purpose aimed the cricket ball at the body of the at odds batsman, in the hope of creating legside deflections that could be caught by one of several fielders contained by the quadrant of the field astern square leg.
Although several batsmen were hit during the series, as would be expected, not a soul was hit while a leg-theory pen was set, but still it lead to ill reaction between the two national teams, near the controversy eventually spilling into the diplomatic arena. Over the next two decades, several of the Laws of Cricket be changed to prevent this tactic being repeated. It should be noted, however, that short pitched ball aimed at the batsmen are not and have never be illegal and are surrounded by widespread use today as a tactic.
beside the english going on tour down under after loosing the previous series to australia 2-1.. don bradman be the best batsman who ever lived so the english captain douglas jardin come up with the leg supposition, later specified as bodyline. this was where on earth a prodomanently leg side field would be set and the bowler would bowl short pitched ball on middle and leg stump hoping for a batsman in defending himself, remember no bodypads or helmets surrounded by those days, to tickle a ball to leg slip, leg gully, etc. the outcome of this be that the ball be speared into the batsmans ribs... bradman overcame this tactic by just moving his guard towards leg thus giving himself room to play the globe thro the off-side...
interestingly the australian batsmen who were injured during this series be injured when a leg theory pen was not set...
it worked as england regain the ashes 4-1
an interesting quote is this one which is a cable sent from the australian cricket board to the mcc
"Bodyline bowling assumed such proportions as to menace best interests of game, making protection of body by batsmen the fundamental consideration. Causing intensely bitter feeling between players as ably as injury. In our opinion is unsportsmanlike. Unless stopped at once potential to upset friendly relations existing between Australia and England"
Another cricketing hoo-ha is the underarm bowling fiasco in a one-day hobby in 1982 between foreign zealand and australia in which near new zealand need 6 off the second ball to tie the meeting greg chappell bowled the final ball underarm to offer the new zealander no.10 no kismet of hitting a six.. this sparked off a diplomatic period of war of words between the 2 nations and to this sunshine still infuriates the kiwi supporter
just found a great quote the underarm bowling incident from the later new zealand prime minister
It be described as "the most disgusting incident I can recall surrounded by the history of cricket" by the then Prime Minister of New Zealand, Rob Muldoon, who also observed that "It be an act of cowardice and I consider it appropriate that the Australian squad were wearing yellow"
I REMEMBER WATCHIN A FILM WHEN IWAS YOUNGER IT WAS CALLED BODYLINE BECAUSE THE BOWLERS WERE AIMIN FOR THE BODY NO VERY SPORTING BUT I THINK THATS THE CORRECT ANSWER
Isn't it because they basically bowled the ball at the Aussie batsmen a bit than the stumps?? Think thats why.
The english basically gotted peed bad with bradman as he kept making centuries. So they constantly bowled bouncers at the australian side next to lots of fielders around the bat. There was lots of controversy because the australians thought it be against the spirit.
England couldn't get Bradman out. So England come up with bodyline Jarrie Larawood be the bowler.
It ended his cricketing job after
And by the next serise bodyline be banned
cos they attacked the batsmen next to short deliveries aimed at the body so the aussies couldnt play nearby normal strokes
Who get the man of clash within 1987 cricket world cup?
Answers:
D.C. Boon of Australia was the Man of the Match within the RelianceWorld cup1987
Please check the following link for the evaluation card of the final;
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/archive/world...
I believe it was Greg Mathews
David Boon.
greg chappel
i dream up it is kapil dev
Which match ??????
Man - of - the - Match OR Man - of - the - Series?????
Greg Mathews
Grag Mathiew
is man of the clash in 1987 wc
DAVID BOON FOR AUS. THEY WON THE WC IN 1987
Resolved Questions