> Dear netters:
> Even though I did not hear the cricket commentary. But for me it
> looked like an easy victory for indians in the 4th test. But by gods
> grace or dis-grace indians lost the test very narrowly. but let me say
> this thing to every body how could indians play only with ELEVEN
> and Australians with "THIR***" ( TWO key extra players!!!!) and
India also played with at least TWELVE players. Why don't you include
the substitutes in the player list of Indians, or is it that fielding
is not considered a part of the gaim (sp??? No flames please). No body
stops India from playing with THIR*** players as well. (How many
substitutes are allowed in one game?)
If, by above, you mean the two umpires in the side of Australia,
then say so. I have become sikh (sp??) and tired of the people
referring the umpires as players.
Regarding the neutral umpires, I think it is a rediculous idea. How
can you have a person without biasness? I think there should be one
umpire from each country. Or, the umpire should not know much about
cricket except for certain rules (e.g., getting out and wide etc.).
This way he or she will not know what will benefit his/her country.
Any other idea?