|Photos||Video & Audio||Blogs||Statistics||Archive||Games||Mobile|
A board's share of the revenue should be proportional to its financial contribution to the game.
All boards contribute to the game equally, and their share of the ICC revenues should reflect that.
What Michael Clarke was heard saying on the stump microphone was not out of line. Cricket is in danger of becoming an over-policed game.
Players should not be allowed to abuse their opponents. A healthy environment is necessary on the field, to protect those who may be struggling with problems off it.
The game is unfairly biased in the batsman's favour, and it's time the bowlers got some help from the rule-makers
Ball-tampering has always been considered unfair, and it should remain that way
He is experienced, and well-suited to click in Australian conditions. India don't have too many alternatives in the seam-bowling department.
He has played over 60 ODIs, but keeps repeating mistakes in line and length. It's time for India to groom one of the younger fast bowlers coming through the ranks.
Yes. He knows best when it is time to go
No. He hasn't been in form for several series now
Yes. Such games will make Associate teams tougher, and a more competitive playing field is good for the game.
No. A better way for Associates to improve is to develop a competitive domestic first-class structure. Games against Full Members will be one-sided and overcrowd the calendar.
Two reviews for an entire innings is too few.
This will only encourage tactical use of DRS, which was never the point of the system.
Pakistan don't have many leadership options, and Hafeez is a potential successor to Misbah-ul-Haq. His effectiveness as an offspinner makes up for his inconsistency with the bat.
He averages under 34 with the bat, which isn't good enough for a top-order batsman, especially an opener. His bowling exploits should only be counted as a bonus.
Quality players like them shouldn't be discarded permanently on the basis of age or form. They deserve the opportunity to force their way back into the senior team.
India's next generation has shown promise in recent times. The selectors should have stayed the course and continued to invest in young talent.
That will allow for better planning, and won't put commerce before cricket.
The game and its compulsions change too fast.
England were the superior side in all departments. They managed to win by a convincing margin despite not being at their best.
Australia led on first innings in four of the five Tests. With better weather they could've prevailed at Old Trafford. With better luck, they could've won at Trent Bridge and Chester-le-Street.
Fixing cheats the good faith of the user. Criminalisation is a more decisive solution to fixing than boards banning players.
Nobody guarantees the spectator a fair match. They just guarantee a cricket match. The only ones defrauded here are punters, who are indulging in an activity deemed illegal in any case.
Players shouldn't have a say in this, since they will exploit the situation to suit themselves.
Only batsmen are at risk in poor light. If the batting team wants to stay on, play should continue.
Australia's lower middle order is distinctly under-weight following Michael Hussey's retirement. Warner could push the game along with his aggressive play, and is ideally placed to handle the second new ball.
He's made his name as an opener and is most likely to succeed at the top of the order. His game isn't best suited to hold the innings together at No. 6.
His strike-rate since 2011 is under 70, in an era when lots of batsmen strike in the 90s. The fact that Misbah hasn't been able to convert one of his many fifties into a hundred speaks for itself. Pakistan need better from the most experienced player in an inexperienced line-up.
Misbah's methods are justified by the unpredictability of the rest of the batting line-up, and the potency of Pakistan's bowling. He has the ability to switch gears when the situation demands it, and his slow scoring has rarely contributed to defeat.
Neutral umpires made sense when coverage wasn't great and the umpires could have got away with being biased. It now hurts England and Australia who have supplied most of the elite umpires and are left with too few to rotate during the 10 Ashes Tests this year
Umpiring is still a sensitive issue, and can potentially cause a big controversy at times. It's best to keep neutral men in charge, especially since DRS isn't being used universally yet.
A jazzy T20 league with international stars, in tricky Sri Lankan conditions - it could have made for interesting cricket.
No one's going to miss it. The cricket calender is already stuffed with more than its share of hit-and-giggle T20 jaunts.
It was a blatant nick and everyone in the ground, except Aleem Dar, knew he'd edged it. It wasn't very sportsman-like to stand his ground.
Walking is a personal choice, and has nothing to do with how blatantly 'out' it actually was. Australia had only themselves to blame since they were out of reviews.
Wash-outs aren't good for the game, and cricket should do everything within its power to ensure results - even if that requires an ODI to be continued on the second day.
Overhead conditions could change drastically over two days. The team batting first is likely to be at a considerable disadvantage if the game is carried over.
There are no neutral games in bilateral events, which means all games will be well-attended. Besides, they assume added context when they are part of a full tour that includes a Test series.
Watching two teams play each other repeatedly can get boring. Longer bilaterals stand the risk of becoming one-sided and aggravating very quickly, and in the worst case, could feature dead rubbers. On the other hand, tri-series will very rarely feature inconsequential games.
If you were to compare the current Australian Test team and its style of play...
Day 4 at Adelaide was a reversion to the grinding-out cricket that makes Test...