|Photos||Video & Audio||Blogs||Statistics||Archive||Shop||Mobile|
It brings out the intensity of the game. Sport without the emotion is robotic and will detract from its value, and also offer a poorer viewing experience.
These players are supposed to be role models, and this is supposed to be the gentleman's game.
At the World Cup, experience counts for a lot. These guys have delivered when it matters
Even in their absence, India has been doing well in ODIs in recent years
It is fairer than the lottery of a Super Over, and more satisfactory than falling back on net run-rates .
It will be anti-climactic to have two world champions for four years, at the end of a tournament which is held to identify a world champion.
His calming influence at the top is crucial to Pakistan's cause. He's capable of turning around his form in time for the tournament. Besides, there are no viable replacements.
His batting approach is unsuited to the requirements of the modern game, and he's an even bigger liability when he is out of form. Now is the time to groom a new leader.
He was treated shabbily, and deserved the chance to narrate his side of the story.
He is perhaps as guilty as his perceived adversaries. This public mud-slinging was uncalled for.
It's T20 cricket, and features the best T20 clubs around the world. What's not to like?
It is virtually an extended IPL, with an uneven playing field designed to favour the Indian sides.
He had the experience of finishing off similar chases in the past. It would have been unfair to expect a scratchy Ambati Rayudu to do the big-hitting, in what was his T20I debut.
Declining three singles in seven balls when you have a specialist batsman at the other end was definitely not the right approach. It undermined Rayudu's credentials and cost India the game.
After four winless away Test tours, they managed to win a Test at Lord's. And after failing to win a single ODI outside the subcontinent in a year, they took the ODI series convincingly.
Regardless of the Lord's Test and the ODI performance, their showing in the last three Tests was miserable. It was, arguably, a step back after the promise shown in South Africa and New Zealand.
No captain should stay in charge after enduring as many away defeats as he has in the last few years.
He is the only viable captaincy option for India at the moment. A captain is only as good as his team, so it's unfair to judge him by the results.
It is a prestigious event, and could provide valuable exposure to the second rung of players in the country even if the biggest stars are busy at the Champions League. In fact, why not reschedule the CLT20 so that it doesn't clash with the Games?
It's not worth India's while to send their players to a play matches that aren't recognised by the ICC, when they can instead get a valuable rest ahead of the gruelling 2014-15 season that includes a full tour of Australia, followed by the World Cup.
He's been in disastrous form with the bat. If you don't drop a batsman after he's scored three successive ducks, you are never going to drop him.
It can only do Stokes good that the selectors are backing him through the toughest of times. He's sure to bounce back eventually. Beside his bowling form has been quite good.
He showed he can bat under pressure, and his bowling will get more incisive in bowler-friendly conditions.
His selection affects the team balance. Rohit Sharma or R Ashwin would be better choices.
Despite recent reversals, he remains England's best leadership option in these difficult times.
His leadership is tired and unimaginative, and is taking a huge toll on his batting.
It's the only way to take the sport to a global audience.
It will only add more clutter to an already packed cricket calendar.
It's not in keeping with the spirit of cricket, unless a batsman is clearly looking to get an unfair headstart on purpose.
It's within the laws. It's not rocket science for a batsman to be aware that he can't leave his crease before the ball is delivered.
It's not against the rules and it is a risky move because a wicket is being sacrificed. Sport should reward high risk with high reward.
It is an unnatural tactic and one that demeans the retiring batsman and the game.
He could win you the game in the 19th over, or provide sufficient cushion for a weaker bowler to defend in the 20th.
The 20th over is going to be a high-pressure over, irrespective of what happens in the 19th, and the bowler most capable of handling that pressure should be held back for it.
They deserved nothing short of match bans.
The monetary fines matched the magnitude of the infraction committed.
Yes, bowlers must be allowed to innovate in a batsman-friendly format
No, it's unfair and goes against the spirit of the game
A wicket at the right time could have a huge impact in the result of a T20 game, more so than in the other formats. Cricket should do it's best to protect T20 from howlers.
DRS will only slow down the tempo of T20 cricket. In any case, the value of a wicket in T20 is much lesser than it is in the longer formats.
The Sharjah Test highlighted the increased number of big hits in Test cricket
Day four was spent watching India's fightback and some grind-over-glamour act...