He had a beautiful action.
With him being just four-years older than I, we were contemporaries and he played all of his professional cricket while I was still living in the U.K. I saw a fair amount of him — live, mainly at Lord’s. I would have to assume that I must have seen him in one of the Hampshire grounds or Somerset (which I visited a fair amount) but I can’t remember.
I do remember, vividly, the time he came out to bat without a bat. That, however, was on TV.
Nice guy. Beautiful action. Great cricketer.
I had seen him ‘recently’ on ‘Sky Sports‘ doing post-game analysis. Always very sage.
Shame. 70-years old. They say ‘after a long illness’ but I haven’t found out (as yet) as to what it was.
He was a decent bloke. A TRUE, genuine Brit.
I will miss him.
Yes, of course, as the top image attests, there have been younger cricketers — some of them that went onto become rather famous, and Mushtaq Mohammed was the granddaddy of them all. I had forgotten that Sachin Tendulkar made his Test debut as a 16-year old. Wow.
I can kind of recall what I was like at 16.
Of course, all these folks are exceptional, prodigies with prodigious talent. But, learning that he was 16 when he came out to bat, and was facing Mitchell Starc (29), in all of fury and glory, was quite mind-blowing and humbling. Cricket is NOT what it used to be — even a decade ago, let alone 1959 when Mushtaq Mohammed came on the scene. It is much, much, much more cut-throat, competitive and, yes, even vicious — though, alas (as far as I am concerned), everyone hides and cowers under helmets.
He is a big kid and is speedy. Not sure how good he is and whether he truly deserved the call-up.
That he ‘got’ — or more to the point, thought he got — his first wicket with a NO BALL was the supreme irony. Then he had a horrendous misfield on the boundary.
Well, all eyes will be on him. I wish him well. He deserves that. But, not sure whether Pakistan has done the right thing or done him a favor.
Since I can watch Indian cricket (via the garbage ‘Hotstar’) I have seen Mayank Agarwal score 583 Test runs in 5-innings over the last 2 months — 4 against South Africa and one against Bangladesh. That is a lot of runs and included 2 double centuries, 215 against South Africa & 243 against Bangladesh. True that these were not against the stellar of sides — South Africa right now playing like girls and Bangladesh isn’t exactly known for its firepower.
His Test stats are impressive: 8 innings, 6 of which were over 50.
Yes, in time bowlers, carefully studying the videos, will work out his weaknesses. But, for now he is dynamite to watch.
Some of hitting, once he was past 150 was amazing — breathtaking. I was in awe.
He is exciting to watch.
Just wanted to share this with you since many of you may not get a chance to see the India v Bangladesh series.
I Totally & Utterly DESPISE Indian ‘Hotstar’ — It’s Coverage Of Cricket Test Matches Is Beyond Atrocious.
I have said it before,
I will say it again.
Bloody Hotstar has NO IDEA
about covering cricket.
BIGGEST four complaints.
- Has headlines telling you what happened, i.e., the bloody score. So, there is no excitement. You know what has happened BEFORE watching anything. So, bloody Indian, so bloody stupid.
- Only has a 14-minute highlight package. YOU cannot condense 6 hours of Test cricket into 14-minutes. It is just like the premature ejaculations that Indian men are renowned for!
- The bloody 14-minute highlights are only in Hindi.
- Bloody, ignorant Hindi commentators have NO bloody idea what ‘clean bowled‘ means. I guess it just sounds cool to them. So, you can hear them yelling and having their premature ejaculations shouting ‘clean bowled‘ when it was played on. Played on is NOT ‘clean bowled’. Stupid idiots.
Rabada & Philander hardly bowled a single venomous bouncer between them in their combined 46-overs. It was pathetic. Rohit Sharma can be susceptible to good bouncers early on. He is a compulsive hooker and puller. So, what did these two clowns do, they just kept on giving him good-length balls.
You are allowed one bouncer per over and it is worth the no-ball to stick another in.
What has happened to cricket? Bloody helmets.
But, how many bouncers did we see. NOT MANY.
Yes, I came of edge, with the West Indies 1976 — 1980s. Bouncers were the stock in trade.
South Africa would have done so much better if they peppered the Indian batsman with at least one bouncer an over.
I am very fond of the South Africans. But, they are driving me to distraction.
They have to reexamine their game and attitude towards it.
Yes, he took the catch for the dismissal of the first Indian wicket. I thought my eyes were deceiving me. Thought he had to be a substitute and even that surprised me. I can’t remember seeing any fat West Indian cricketers. Then he came onto bowl — spin, of course. This guy can’t run.
Yes, he was involved in three wickets — two catches and one as a bowler.
But, this to I is not right. He won’t be able to run! That is not fair on others.
Yes, though his batting was entertaining I always found Afghanistan’s Mohammad Shahzad incongruous. He did not look like a cricketer and that kind of came to be in the last 18-months. He basically couldn’t play cricket.
Yes, I am old enough to remember and to have even seen Colin Milburn. But, that was a different era and Colin was fairly fit.
This guy, however, in my opinion, is the last straw for the still struggling West Indies cricket team. He looks a joke. I am SORRY.
Official Trailer on YouTube.
OK, I will admit upfront that I am not your typical audience for this movie — which is about how the classic ‘Oxford English Dictionary‘ came to be created.. For a start, one of the settings in this movie is my old school, Mill Hill (in London). Moreover, I have read THE book (by Simon Winchester on which the movie is based), know additional bits about the history of the Dictionary and furthermore adore ‘THE OXFORD’ and what it stands for. So, I was not going to be an easy customer to please — though I desperately wanted the movie to WOW I. Alas, it did NOT.
For a start, it misrepresented the history involving Mill Hill and the scene they show involving Mill Hill does NOT show anything close to what Mill Hill looks like! And that was how the movie started. So, I was not impressed. It would NOT have been difficult to have shot the scene at Mill Hill since the buildings, from the time, are still there. Plus, they show Dr. Murray’s son playing field hockey. Yes, we played hockey at Mill Hill but the school is more of a rugby and cricket school. So, that was part irritating. Then the movie gets the dates and facts WRONG! The Murrays did not move to Oxford as soon as he became Editor. The first five-years of the Dictionary were at Mill Hill. So, the movie misrepresents that.
Yes, it is NOT an easy story to tell and the ‘Madman’ (viz. Dr. William Chester Minor (who cuts off his penis)) was not as central as the movie makes him out to be. Yes, he contributed, much — but so did thousands of others. It is the typical conflict between a good book and a movie that tries to tells its story. In this case, as it happens so often, the movie falls short.
My recommendation: skip the movie, read the book!