From Ashok Sridharan, India

Blasphemous as it may sound, I'll stick my neck out and say that the current Australian side is not a great side, it is merely a good side with a few great individuals. For all the talk of their complete dominance and being head and shoulders above their opponents, the simple fact is that their dominance has been on the wane, especially post Warne-McGrath.

There's no doubt that Australia's complete dominance in the late 90s and the early noughties would have never been possible but for them. The only time in recent years that the two were missing (Against India in 2003-04), the Australians had to fight tooth and nail to avoid being beaten by an Indian attack that was little stronger than a club attack (missing two key bowlers in Zaheer Khan and Harbhajan Singh by the way).

From Abdullah Khalid, United Kingdom

The recent admission by Marcus Trescothick that he used minty saliva on the ball to shine to aid it to swing more is another example of the two yardsticks used in cricket. When Wasim and Waqar in '92 demolished England with reverse swing they were labelled as cheats, but when England uses the same reverse swing it becomes an 'art' perfected by the English bowlers.

Similarly, during the 'Oval' fiasco, Darrel Hair was so quick in penalising the Pakistani team for ball tampering that he did not even give it a second thought, and on what evidence...his instincts ! However, here we have someone admitting that he did use something to aid swing, and I hear that it is legitimate. Micheal Kasprowicz went on saying that he wished they had applied more so the ball missed his glove. Huh! Let me be very honest, if this had been admitted by any Pakistani player, the whole series would have been scrapped or worse the scoreline reversed. The only reason this has not been possible is that it has never been proved that Pakistan did it. If it was so, then the current Pakistani fast bowlers would be winning matches as well, which they cannot, because perfecting the art of reverse swing is difficult and it was only the great Khan and the Ws who could do it perfectly.

Double standards have always been the norm for Australia and England. From the '87 incident involving Mike Gatting and Shakoor Rana to Ross Emerson/Darrel Hair and Muralitharan to the Oval fiasco, there have always been double standards applied by these nations. It is time we have one law for all rather than different laws for different countries. We already have seen the split in ICC, the CT and Zimbabwe issues are clear examples of this split. Round 1 (Zimbabwe) was won by the Asian bloc, Round 2 (CT) to the non-Asian bloc. What happens next. We might be hearing Lalit Modi soon saying the IPL Champions League will take place in Delhi, Mumbai, Karachi and Lahore. What will happen then?

From Aniruddha, Australia

The CT has been postponed till oct 2009. The PCB had done all it could to provide security and infrastructure for the event to take place but 4 major nations pulled out and thus the tournament has been postponed. Pakistanis have been saying that bomb blasts have become part of our life be it in Pakistan, Mumbai or London and hence Pakistan should not be isolated especially since they have done their best to provide Presidential security.

My point is, the Pakistani government has to do a lot more for the world to believe that the common Pakistani people are as much victims of terrorism as anywhere else in the world, rather than being looked upon as those who support and breed terrorists. Cricket players are normal human beings who have families of their own, so it is not fair to expect them to be irresponsible to their families and risk their own lives. Presidential security was not good enough to save Benazir Bhutto and with Musharraf gone (perhaps the only man fighting against terrorists in Pakistan), no amount of security cover would suffice.

My final point is the standard of Pakistan cricket as it stands today. What attraction does one have of playing there? By not playing against Pakistan, you are no longer missing playing against Wasim, Waqar, Inzi. Yes Yousuf and Younis are world class but just as the security cover, that's not good enough. A word for the cricketer who voiced concern over playing in Pakistan. Cricketers are not soldiers and live in a free world, no one can force them to play. If the soldiers had this freedom, I doubt if they would be fighting in Pakistan.

World cup 2011? Your guess is as good as mine.

From Vipul Gupta, India

The ICC deserves to be lauded for taking a step in the right direction with the Request Review system but still I feel that there is a lot of fine tuning that remains to be done.

The genesis for the Request Review system can be traced to the fractious India v Australia series in Australia at the end of 2007 when several umpiring errors went against only one side i.e. India. If it is observed closely than most of the howlers were concerned with thick edges that everyone except the umpire in question did not see or hear. Indians can justifiably feel aggrieved after the just concluded Indo v Lanka series that they were at the receiving end of some rough decisions. But this time the majority of the decisions concerned LBWs.

From T Ali, Pakistan

I don't know if this issue has been looked into before, but I feel that the advertising hoardings are, most of the times, far too close to the boundary. Now it may seem justified, that anything outside the boundary rope has no relevance to how far away it is. Common examples are the dug-outs in Twenty20 games, the white uniformed kids who run around to pick up a dispatched ball and return it to the closest fielder. But the most interfering thing are the advertising hoardings.

I have been observing for quite a while that boundaries are conceded because the fielder chasing the call indulges in second thoughts on whether to dive or not with the hoardings 2-3 feet away from the rope. Most of the times, the fielder in question decides against diving and thus avoiding a high risk of getting injured. This, of course, robs the fielder of any chances of saving a run or two, which might have been saved, had the hoardings been a little farther.

This is not the case in every ground in the world, but I'd like to mention Taunton as one ground where this problem exists. I, by chance, watched a Pro40 match on TV which was played at this ground, and several would-have-been-stopped boundaries were conceded. Finally, I'd want to say that It'd be a good idea if a distance of 5 meters would be allowed between the rope and the hoardings. Doing that, we'd play it fair with the fielders.

From Ibrahim, Saudi Arabia

Well here we go again. A reader summons up the guts to defend Pakistan's place in the CT, and in come mails telling her--a resident of Pakistan, mind you, who not only sees the situation everyday but lives it--not to take it personally and reminding her--a resident of Pakistan, mind you--that Pakistan is an unsafe country. What, I wonder, will it take to convince you people?

For the past seven years Pakistan has been taking this sort of treatment at the hands of other boards. First the West Indies' tour was shifted to Sharjah. Understandable, considering it was right in the wake of 9/11 and there was a bit of uncertainty as to safety. Then New Zealand pulled out of an unfinished tour--again understandable, considering the bomb blasts near their hotel. Then, of course, it was Australia's turn, as what were originally supposed to be Tests in Pakistan were shifted to Sharjah and Colombo. The next year Bangladesh toured, with no sign of hostility. South Africa, after an undue amount of thought, ventured to tour, with all of Pakistan holding its breath. Then New Zealand condescended to send a security-stuffed team largely devoid of its experienced old soldiers--again, no threat, apart from on the field when Mohammad Sami and Shoaib Akhtar were ripping out stumps, Imran Farhat and Yasir Hameed were registering 100-run stands like they'd gone out of fashion, and Abdul Razzaq was unleashing his lower-order blitzes. Then, after much debate, India pulled in.

From Neville Menezes, New Zealand

The outcome over the staging of the Champions Trophy in Pakistan has consequences for 2011 Whatever the decision arrived at on whether or not to proceed with the Champions Trophy in Pakistan, a line in the sand has proverbially been drawn for what is to come for the ICC's truly show-case event in three years' time - the World Cup (also to be co-hosted by Pakistan).

The ICC know they have now been backed into a corner by the vexed issue of security and racial undertones that have resulted following the 'white' cricket nations' reluctance to tour an Asian cricket member. It is difficult to predict what political situation (or, for that matter the administrative state of the PCB) Pakistan will be in in three years' time but if the (recent) past is any guide, then the signs are not a good omen for 2011 when the subcontinent next hosts the 50-over aside event. It is interesting also to know what the reaction might have been had this event in 2008 been the World Cup (whether 50 or 20 overs a side).

The advent of the World Twenty20 has effectively consigned the Champions Trophy to the status of also-ran in the ICC trophy hierarchy. Its origins of ten years ago when first created as the Knock-Out have since been surpassed by the latest Twenty20 revolution taking hold. I dare say that player associations would have swallowed even the most harrowing of security reports to proceed to Pakistan had this been the World Cup at stake. The conundrum for the ICC is a clear lack of leadership at the present time. The prevarication on making a definitive statement re repercussions for no-shows and sticking by their decision to proceed with Pakistan is lamentable for the sport's world governing body.

For there to be no repeat of the 2008 shenanigans in 2011, the ICC must act now with authority. The clear way ahead is to stand by its decision to proceed with Pakistan as the venue for 2008 if the ICC remains convinced on the facts that the security situation can be addressed through more than adequate security measures. And if that means member boards/playing associations decide to boycott the event, the clear response must be sanction - most evidently a financial one. Money talks and, inevitably, players will walk.

From Sharath Chandra, New Zealand

We hear many reasons for why Test cricket is the best cricket there is. One of them is that the playing field is more even as bowlers get to bowl bouncers, set attacking fields, and generally can afford to attack batsmen and get them out rather than land it on a length and hope for a false shot. Another might be that batsmen have to face a wide variety of bowlers and conditions over a single innings, so it's a surer examination of his technique and adaptability. To be sure, the list doesn't stop there, but I have always thought one important reason is almost never mentioned.

What sets Test cricket apart from the limited overs versions of the game, in my opinion, is its ability to portray cricket as it is meant to be: a team sport. Yes, Test cricket forces adaptability on its practitioners; yes, it evens out the playing field; yes, it is the truest test of character; but most important of all, it makes sure the better team wins.

In fifty-over matches, it is not uncommon to see the weaker team winning, mostly due to a century, or a five wicket haul, or a quick fifty at the death, or whatever. In twenty-over cricket the effect is even more pronounced, and as we saw at the IPL and at the world Twenty20, individual players can literally turn matches with flashes of brilliance that last but twenty minutes or so. In test matches, though, it is not that easy. Because the game is played over five days, not only do brief periods of dominance carry far less significance, teams have a greater opportunity (and more time) to nullify the debilitating effects any occasional twinkling of genius might cause.

From Maha Hussain, Pakistan

So we are back to the beginning, with the debate about where the Champions Trophy will be held and the concerns of various players and teams. I thought it had already been decided the event would proceed in Pakistan, but here we go again. It may or may not make a difference to anyone, but I am writing as a sixteen-year-old, Pakistani cricket fan who feels she should voice her opinion since nobody else is doing anything to help Pakistan's chances.

This piece may be strongly worded and possibly offensive to some, but writing is my way of venting my feelings of anger and frustration, and I shall do so without hesitation. I want to ask all the players from all the countries who have problems with Pakistan: Do you seriously think terrorists are interested in bombing you up? You are not willing to tour Pakistan for the reason that you are afraid of your safety among terrorist attacks and political violence. Ironically, when seventeen blasts went off in the Indian cities of Bangalore and Ahmadabad, I never once heard of any reluctance of the part of the Australians or the English about touring the country later this year. So is this what cricket has come to?

From Kishore Sharma, United States of America

Here is the issue - the Olympics is about performing at the highest level in any particular sporting activity. In cricket this means test matches, though as a compromise 50 over games may suffice (after all we have a highly publicized 50 over World Cup). The problem is that the Olympic schedule may mean that only 20/20 games can be fitted in - even 50 over games may be deemed too long. In my view, an Olympic medal would have no meaning whatsoever if it is obtained on the basis of winning 20 over games. It would not represent anything remotely near the highest and most nuanced level of the sport. It would simply mean producing cricket at, and for, the lowest common denominator and, in my eyes, would be meaningless !

From Ashok Sridharan, India

A run-rate of 4 an over is so commonplace today that its hard to forget that 3 an over was considered an excellent scoring rate as late as ten years ago. I remember, 4 an over was considered impossible back then. While the improved scoring rate might give the impression that the game has become more exciting, I'd be inclined to think otherwise. The pitches today are far batsmen friendlier; whereas their predecessors got to bowl on helpful pitches every now and then, the current day bowlers very seldom, if ever, get anything vaguely resembling a helpful pitch.

Back in the 90s, Durban and Perth were lightning fast; I can scarcely remember when I last heard that adjective being used to describe a pitch. Pitches in England were supposed to be seamer friendly- a quality that's becoming increasingly rare. Is it any wonder that several batsmen whose techniques wouldn't have stood scrutiny a generation ago proudly flaunt 40 plus averages while bowlers of the quality of Brett Lee average in the high 20s?

If that wasn't bad enough, the bats have become a lot heavier. I never recollect seeing mishits go for sixes or minor defensive prods fly down to the fence back in the 90s, both of which have become ridiculously routine these days. Under the circumstances, its virtually impossible for the spinners to beat the batsmen in the flight. Anyone who would like to argue that spinners like Warne, Murali and Kumble have thrived in recent years, would also need to consider that all three of them started well before the new century and got to hone their skills in the days before heavy bats and short boundaries became the norm.

From Brendan Layton, Australia

Let's not get ahead of ourselves In lieu of England's loss to South Africa, and KP's declaration afterwards that if they play like they did in their consolation win they will beat Australia, I must warn England not to get too far ahead of themselves as they count down to the Ashes 2009 already. To be honest, I actually hadn't been thinking about that particular series until KP came out with his quote of the week. I found it amazing that England had just lost a series to South Africa, dropping them to fifth on the ICC test rankings, they had a tough series against India approaching, and the next thing on their mind is the Ashes.

This has been a systematic problem of English cricket. Only one opponent seems to matter anymore, and that is Australia, despite the fact that South Africa, India and Sri Lanka are now considered superior cricket teams. While the Ashes rivalry is the founding block of Test cricket, the nations that now play have improved and contributed healthily to modern game. For England to ignore India, for example, who defeated them in their backyard last year, as a threat, they are sowing seeds for a further drop down the ladder.

From Duncan, United Kingdom

Some people got very excited with the opening of the Bejing Olympics, raising the prospect of Cricket (only just restored to the IOC) being part of a future Olympiad. with the advent of Twenty20 Cricket finally has a format that would slot into the games nicely. It would even seem to have the backing of IOC President Jacque Rogge. So wheres the problem?

Well it would seem there are quite a few. The first is the sheer amount of sports wanting to take part in the games, currently 28 in number, the backstage politicking to ensure that a particular sport takes part is immense and cricket isn't alone in wanting to part, Rugby Union (in its 7's format) and Golf will also be keen to have an Olympic future. If these sports come in who comes out, there simply isn't room for 40 or 50 sports. One of the benefits touted for cricket by its inclusion in the Olympics is that it will help to globalise the sport. But does Cricket actually want that? The ICC currently has around 100 members situated in every corner of the globe but only 10 seem to count and there are certainly times when it seems that that 10 would prefer the other 90 to go and play baseball.

In order for Cricket to make the Olympics it will have to bite the bullet and make serious development plans in both the associate nations and perhaps more importantly in the women's game, which the IOC would require as well. Cricket is to be included in the next Asian Games and is to return to the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow. I would like to believe that an Olympic Cricket event (men and woman)in 2020 is possible. If those games were in Delhi or Johannesberg even better, but the work both inside & outside the sport must start now.

From Ravikiran Dinakar, India

Richie Benaud. Michael Holding. Geoffrey Boycott. Tony Greig. Ian Chappell. David Gower. Ian Bishop. All of these cricketers have something in common. Apart from the fact that they gave many cricketers sleepless nights (but Geoffrey the great allowed them to sleep through the morning while batting), they all wield the microphone as best as anyone ever did. They know how and when to talk. More importantly, they know when not to talk. And that, I believe is the essence of commentary.

Asians are a different breed of commentators. Most of them, with a few notable exceptions, comment from the heart. The image of Zaheer Khan and Mohammad Kaif scampering through for a single in that far-too-famous-for-its-own-good Natwest Final 326 chase is etched in memory for most of us. And the sounds associated with that image are Ravi Shastri's vociferous and passionate "India have Won!!". Although what followed was an image every Indian would secretly cherish and openly admit to be highly undiplomatic and tactless.

From Chris Liston, United Kingdom

We've all got our views on past, current and future England captains. I disagree with Doug Perrins that Vaughan should have stayed as captain until after this test, as a "dead" match is a good opportunity to blood a new captain. The value of a good captain is enormous, as Vaughan showed throughout his reign, regardless of how many runs he's scoring.

I think that Mike Brearley was the best captain that I've seen before Vaughan and he wasn't a prolific run scorer, but an excellent tactician. But KP as captain just because he's about the only player that's guaranteed to be picked for the next test match? When has Kevin ever showed that he's got the responsibility and maturity to be captain? He (and umpire Dar) lost us the Edgbaston game because his ego demanded that he got his ton with a blow out of the ground, whereas a responsible player would have picked off ones and twos and waited for the loose ball. Brian Lara was a flamboyant batsman, but regarded his 100 as a stepping stone to the next one and the one after that. Another 30 minutes at the crease at Edgbaston would have won us the Test.

I'd have liked to have seen Strauss picked as captain, as it could hardly affect his form, but he knows where to place a field and how and when to change his bowlers. What on earth was a deep mid-wicket fielder there for yesterday? Cook may well be the next captain and probably (like Mike Atherton) has F.E.C. on his bag, but we need a man with a good head on his shoulders and that certainly isn't KP.

From Martin Keats, United Kingdom

Having watched England captains since Colin Cowdrey, I have to say that in KP I have seen something really different! I too was doubting the wisdom of KP for England captain. I was however very impressed with his "man management". The way he encouraged individual players and gave a little personal acknowledgment to players for "good effort" was certainly one thing that I have not seen in an England team.

Take for instance the after Tea session where the Sky commentary team were calling for Harmison and Anderson to be brought straight on to knock over 9, 10 and jack. After Monty finished his half over he gave the ball to Stuart Broad. 'Broady' had bowled well during the day but just lacks a little in confidence. With KP talking to him and encouraging and calming he took two wickets.

Having tried Harmison and Anderson to knock over the last man, only to be met with stubborn resistance and steady if not spectacular scoring from the last pair who seemed capable of leaving the ball and staying put against the pace, KP brought back Monty and talked him into the well flighted ball that completely foxed Ntini. Rock on KP!

From Ramesh Kumar, India

There is a certain dignity to a great cricketer, an icon in his field, relinquishing his chances to be the highest run scorer or wicket taker in history and deciding to quit even when this is distinctly possible if he carries on for a few more years. Sir Donald Bradman could have played one more test and scored a few runs that would have carried his test average over 100. The fact that he didn't and quit with his average just under 100, in my opinion, has added to his mystique and greatness.

Warne, Lara, Steve Waugh - to name a few - all quit when they could have continued and accumulated enough runs or wickets to cross milestones that could have possibly remained unbroken for a long long time. Indeed we find that the very great sportspersons fall short of perfection. The lack of perfection often only makes them more admirable as they become more human and less robotic.

From Ian, United Kingdom

I'm continually baffled as to why Test teams refuse to put 'third man' in place. During the two Test series this summer in England, it's been impossible to count the number of boundaries that have been scored from edges, controlled or otherwise, through the slip/gully area. I don't know if it's considered unduly defensive but surely the merits of limiting the batsman's scoring must be a priority. Additionally, there can be very few other fielding positions where the number of runs saved have been greater than the number that have been conceded through not employing a third man. I suspect, although I don't have the means to clarify, that teams could justifiably have fielded without a mid-on throughout the summer and with a third man in place have conceded far fewer runs. I'm not sure whether Statsguru can aggregate scoring in this way but it would be interesting to see. Obviously, there's a large amount of speculation involved but still. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?

From Alisalman Husain, Pakistan

Captaincy must have seemed very easy to Kevin Pietersen as his first day in charge of the England team coincided with the return of a rejuvenated Stephen Harmison and perfect conditions for swing that were superbly exploited by James Anderson. By the end, England could reflect on probably their best day of the npower series.

The extra pace of Harmison changed the course of the fourth Test match at the Brit Oval, sparking a South Africa collapse from 103 for one to 194 all out with wickets in successive balls after lunch. England then reduced the deficit to 145 for the loss of only Andrew Strauss before close. Even the most mundane captain can be made to look like Mike Brearley if he has top-class bowlers at his disposal and Pietersen, who will never be described as mundane, can take credit for his personal wish not only to have Harmison back in the side, but also to entrust him with the new ball.

A lot of the things that Kevin did went right for him, Harmison said "I thought he did fantastically well and I think a lot of us helped him. He is up for it and enjoying the challenge. He always has ideas and he is always behind us." Pietersen is already guaranteed a happier introduction to captaincy than Vaughan, his predecessor, whose first Test in charge against South Africa in 2003 resulted in an innings defeat at Lord's. On the first day, England were dismissed for 173 and Smith finished on 80 not out on the way to a second double-hundred of the series.

From Michael Sheppard, Australia

Since the retirements of Shane Warne, Stuart MacGill and Brad Hogg, the search for the next Australian spinner has continued with little success. Cricket Australia are aware of the issue; indeed, they have recently appointed Shane Warne in a consultative role to discuss the art of spin bowling with the captains of the Australian States and to mentor young spin bowlers. It is far too early to pass any judgment on what this role will actually achieve, but it is clear that Cricket Australia are attempting to be productive.

This is evident in the fact that Daniel Cullen, Cullen Bailey, Daniel Doran, Beau Casson, Cameron white, Steven Smith, Stephen O'Keefe, Jon Holland and Aaron Heal have been invited to the Commonwealth Bank Centre of Excellence, which is run by Cricket Australia and the Australian institute of Sport, in the hope that one or more of the invitees would go back to their states with the armoury capable of allowing them to succeed. The Australian selectors briefly considered Daniel Cullen and Cullen Bailey sufficiently promising to confer upon them Cricket Australia contracts and, in more recent times, they have given Beau Casson and Cameron White contracts. The unavoidable truth for most of the above players is that after attending the Centre of Excellence (which they were selected to attend on their promise or on their merits as spin bowlers), they have all regressed.

From Ram Srinivasan, United States of America

With cricket being played throughout the calendar year, weather interruptions are inevitable. In addition, matches are routinely disrupted because of crowd trouble. Since its introduction in 1997, the Duckworth-Lewis (DL) method has been successfully used in more than 200 one-day matches to deal with interruptions. The DL method has almost always set targets that align with our intuition and qualitative understanding of the game and this has been its greatest strength.

In an accompanying technical paper, published in the Journal of the Operations Research Society, Dr. Duckworth and Dr. Lewis provide an excellent mathematical development of their rain rule. They identify two resources that a batting team has at its disposal - (1) number of overs available, and (2) wickets in hand to play out these overs. At the heart of the method is a function that determines the number of runs that a batting team will score in a given number of overs given the number of wickets at its disposal. They determine the form of the function using data from completed matches. Once the form of the function is decided, using it to adjust targets is standard and different rain rules primarily differ in the form of the function.

From Brendan Layton, Australia

Since their impressive and strong showing against Australia during the 07-08 summer, India have faltered in consecutive test series and have generally looked frail. The question on everyone's lips is why?

The selection table is my bet, though others may disagree. But it seems that India are in a period that Australia is currently in themselves, a time of transition in which the golden age must pave way for a new generation to have a influence on the game. India have been blessed during the 90's and the Noughties with some of the finest batsmen in history; the defiant wall Rahul Dravid; sanguine Sourav Ganguly; aggressive Virender Sehwag; the steely resolved Australian killer VVS Laxman; and of course the greatest batsman since Bradman, Sachin Tendulkar.

In the bowling stocks they have been supported by two solid spinners in Anil Kumble and Harbajan Singh, and have unearthed several impressive young pacemen who will take the burden up from Zaheer Khan. India's problem has been their reliance on what is known as the 'fab four', numbers 3 to 6 in their batting order, the youngest of which, Laxman, is approaching 34. While I concede it is difficult to replace players of that calibre in any line-up, India need to look to consider several factors.

From Dave Richardson, Australia

Where is the ICC up to with their deliberations on possible new formats for the tired 50 over game? I wonder whether the following is worth some thought.

As we all know the key is getting the fielding restrictions right with enough incentive for both bat and ball but most importantly the viewing public. Without tinkering too much and not to complicate or confuse I would advocate an incremental increase in fielders allowed outside the 30 yard zone on the following basis: Overs 1-5= 1 Fielder, Overs 6-15= 2 Fielders, Overs 16-30= 3 Fielders, Overs 31-45= 4 Fielders, Overs 45-50+ 5 Fielders.

The above formula would provide some increased incentive to score through the middle phase of the innings and is based on a simple 1-5 increase shared equitably across the overs with the balance of 2 five over spells at the commencement of the innings with the least fielders and the last five with the most outside the zone.

To add further excitement and edge I would also include the incentive of a captain being able to forfeit placing an extra fielder outside the zone for an increase of 1 run per over as long as the restriction remains, or alternatively minus 1 run per over if there is an increase by 1 fielder over the stipulated number per phase.

This probably needs more work but conceptually could add some further excitement for all involved, no doubt there could be some variations on this in particular increasing the number of runs either added or subtracted. This is very much off the top of my head but I thought might be worth some further debate.

From Kevin Sawers, Australia

Cricket statistics are fantastic. I know that they are not always the most accurate indicator of the worth of someone to a team but then again, Don Bradman's number of 99.94 tells plenty of the story don't they?

One statistical area that has been neglected is the area of fielding. Not completely ignored of course. Accurate records are kept about catches and stumpings. For wicket keepers there are also amounts of byes recorded too but as far as I can tell that is pretty much it. How good would it be if there were statistics of say how many catches a player had dropped? In addition it would be an interesting statistic if it could somehow be recorded how much runs a person cost a team after a drop. What good is it after all if someone averages 50 plus but drops catches so regularly that they cost a team more then they average each game? Wouldn't it be terrific to have statistics available that showed how many runs a fielder had saved per innings too?

Someone like Andrew Symonds, Michael Clarke and Ricky Ponting would be players who I think would rack up some pretty significant numbers in terms of runs saved per innings. Obviously the problem with this is that the amount saved per innings would have a degree of subjectivity. All the same, it would be intriguing to know who were the players who saved the most runs per innings. Symonds might average 40 with the bat in ODI but if he averaged 5 runs an innings saved per game, that would boost his value to a team even more!

From Jojy John Alphonso, India

My heartfelt sympathies for Kent, the county team snubbed by Lalit Modi and his cronies for the Twenty20 Challenger tournament to be held later this year. The ECB is probably the only cricketing board that had the courage to stand up to the might and arm-twisting techniques of the BCCI only to be let down by the South African and Australian boards. So what if some English counties took some ICL players on board? The only reason these ICL players were given a chance was because they were good. I wish a truce is called out before its too late. The BCCI can ban the ICL players from playing in their backyard but should NOT interfere in the affairs of boards elsewhere. Another ten years from now, the BCCI and Lalit Modi will have a lot of answering to do about how they killed the carrers of talented players that include names like Stuart Binny, Rayudu and their likes. The voices of Kapil Dev & company will not die down soon either.

From Kunal Talgeri, India

While watching the highlights of a World Cup 1992 ODI between India and Australia, it was a delight to hear commentator Bill Lawry describe Indian all-rounder Manoj Prabhakar as a 'street-fighter.' The former Australian captain had grasped the essence of a cricketer who wasn't the most celebrated, but one who made a difference that season. Back then, the Channel Nine commentators had had four months to see a foreign team play five Test matches, over 10 WSC games, before the season culminated with the World Cup. The familiarity bred fair commentary. How cricket has changed since!

From Vipul Gupta, India

Tailenders' batting - A delight to watch. I am sure batsmen like Lara, Sachin, Mark Waugh, Aravinda De Silva, would top most peoples list of batsmen who they enjoy watching bat. And one can understand why. They are a purists delight. The artistry , the range of shots, the panache, the ease with which they were executed were a thrill for the connoisseur. But believe me even watching some of the tailenders around the world bat over the years has been equally thrilling. With them even misses evoked gasps of wonder followed by delight.

Take the most recent case of Harmison's innings of 49 at the Oval against SA. In a low scoring game he was able to stitch a crucial partnership with Anderson which in the ultimate analysis would prove to be a telling factor. Forget about the technique whether the left elbow or the head were in ideal position or not. Even the mis-hits were cheered lustily by the crowd present in the ground and I am sure by viewers all over the world watching it on the TV. And the fact that each run was worth its weight in gold made it all the more enjoyable.

My all time favourite was Walsh followed closely by Muralitharan. I still cannot forget the epic match at Barbados in 1999 between Australia and WI when Lara scored a sublime 153 in the 4th innings. The Windies needed 64 runs to win when Ambrose walked in to bat with 2 wickets in hand. They added 60 when he departed. In came Walsh with 4 deliveries still remaining in the over. It would remain a mystery forever that how the ball managed to miss the stumps, the edge, the pads etc. But it was theatre at its best and somehow he managed to survive that over which gave Lara the opportunity to score the winning runs in the next.

Cricket would be so much poorer without the batting of these so called 'lesser batsmen'.

From Alan Rhys-Thompson, United Kingdom

I am interested in the way umpires seeme to apply different standards of "being certain" (the sole criterion for giving a batsman out as I understand it) as between lbws and 'bat-pad' claims. For the former, they appear to me to be if anything over-scrupulous (especially hard on spinners, as has been noted!), not that I have any problem with any last sliver of doubt going the batsman's way. But that's just the point.

It seems to me to be far harder to be "certain" when it comes to 'bat-pad' decisions, but they seem almost to be given on guesswork. Paul Collingwood's dismissal at Headingley was a classic case. How COULD the umpire be certain in that case, as the bat was a fair way from the ball? I bet he just THOUGHT it hit the bat! I have used the word "seems" a lot, because I don't want to appear dogmatic about this, and just wonder if other viewers share this opinion.

Of course, as England batsmen seem incapable of playing any spinner with a sliver of talent (and God help them when they meet up with this new star, Mendis!) so are frequently out prodding forward, leaving themselves open to the umpire's whim. Am I being unfair to the men in white?

From Stephen Vagg, Australia

The Single Biggest Problem with English Cricket - the 'Allrounder Obssession' The recent selection of England's cricket team has drawn attention once again to the blight that has damaged English cricket for the past twenty years - the obssession with finding an allrounder.

Ever since the glory days of Ian Botham the English selectors have persisted with all rounders, in the foolish belief this somehow gives the team an extra player - ignoring the fact that this usually means you have one (sometimes two) less. Cricket is all about the basics, and the basics of team selection is that you pick batsmen who can bat, bowlers who can bowl, and keepers who can keep. You should only pick an allrounder if (a) they are good enough at one of those jobs to justify their place in the team (eg Kapil Dev, Imran, Gilchrist) or (b) back them up with another all rounder.

During the last Ashes, England's obssession with having an all rounder saw them pick a not very good keeper (Jones) over a world class one (Read) for his batting, an average spin bowler (Giles) over a world class one (Panesar) for the same reason, and played an out of form batsman (Flintoff) at six instead of a proper batsman - to enable them to play a fifth bowler. It came a cropper and it should have.

From Alfred Moore, Ireland

Sometimes it takes an outsider to show you what ought to be obvious. My wife is American, and since falling in love with Matthew Hoggard in 2005 she has become an extremely knowledgable observer of the game. You might say this is like a cat who plays tennis: It doesn't do it very well, but you're amazed it can play at all. In this case, however, her clarity of vision puts many an Englishman to shame.

She made a very sharp point about England's wicket-keeping conundrum. First, though, a few background facts. The way the English media tells it, the rest of the world have a different class of batsman-wicketkeeper. Newsflash: They don't.

From Tim Smith, United Kingdom

As a South African, living in the UK, I do experience friendly banter from time to time from friends and colleagues a like, and that is fine, I mean, just remember the words Springbok, France and 2007. But there is one thing I can not stand, and that is the level of abuse I get with regards to Kevin Pietersen. After a while now, his very existence annoys me. I should be proud to have an England captain coming out of my School and Hometown, let alone country. But his arrogance and ability to forget his roots completely angers me.

Yes fine, he was treated unfairly, by an unfair system, and I shared his reasons for leaving South Africa. But his complete neglect to mention how South Africa made him what he is today (obviously not completely, Clive Rice and Hampshire helped a fair bit) is truly angering. How can he be England captain? He is no more than a mercenary, plying his trade in England because he happened to be able to make it here. If he had had a New Zealand passport would he be their captain? This opportunism should not be congratulated in such a way. I can think of many home-grown players, brimming with talent, AND have supported England and been English ALL there lives, for example, Bell or Cook. This is a disgrace.

From Ward Parry, United Kingdom

Regardless of how our fragile, underperforming batsmen fare, I think what has been so perfectly illustrated in the opening day's play of the fourth Test match is the importance of bowlers who can bowl at pace. Duncan Fletcher was all too aware of it and it is why he spent so long building a team that would fulfil that need. Don't get me wrong, I like Sidebottom. The team requires a workman, Hoggard did it, now it's Sidey's turn, and he has the added effect of being a lefty - and fundamentally he's good.

The problem is when you have an opening pair of similar bowlers, who don't bowl consistently express deliveries, on flat tracks you will inevitably struggle. We have seen, with the exception of the first innings South Africa played, how a mediocre batting side can flourish against fairly timid bowling. It's all about time, time to see the ball, time to play the ball, and time to make runs. There exists an intensity to pace bowling, one which disrupts this comfort zone that batsmen can afford to play in.

From Santanu Chakraborty, United States

Seeing Dr.Kamath's "Memories of 1983", I could not resist myself to share my own memories with you all. Cricket entered my life nearly 30 years ago when I was almost 10. But till that historic day (25th June, 1983) and even in the next four years, there had not been any occasion of my watching international cricket (even through television).

Cricket used to reach me through the articles of Shankari Prasad Basu, Shantipriya Bandopadhyay, Mati Nandy, Mukul Dutta, Ajay Basu or through the voices of commentators like JP Narayanan, Sushil Doshi, Murli Manohar Manzoor, Suresh Saraiya or the voices of news readers like Krishna Kumar Bhargava, Ramanuj Pratap Singh etc. The use of words in those articles or news or the same in those running commentaries along with the added excitement gave me the charm of cricket in those days. Those descriptions, those uses of words and those pulps of emotions were mainly responsible for building up my feel for national and international cricketers at that time.

From David Allen, United Kingdom

How is it that selectors can never seem to get it right when at least one glaring inconsistency turns up in each match? Collingwood out, then in, Pattinson, where did that come from? Four bowlers, then five, then four again, Anderson, who seems to be a fixture but has a mediocre average of over 35 with an unselected-but-fit-again Simon Jones with an average of 28. It seems that selectors have no better idea of who to pick (often worse) than Joe public but why is that the case when they have every opportunity to see up-and-coming English talent of which there is plenty?

My view is that it is a mixture of fear and considerably more ignorance about what makes a great cricketer than they would like to let on. We should be putting out our best team but a fixture in the England side like Collingwood, for example who isn't the next best batsman in the country, is preferred in the hope that he might get a score and because of an over-rated 'team' concept. Batsmen do not bat as a team but as an individual in a team environment and that is a psychological fact that is clearly misunderstood.

From Doug Perrins, United Kingdom

I write regarding the state of English cricket and what, in my opinion, should be done before Australia arrive next summer. Firstly, the announcement of Michael Vaughan stepping down from the captaincy was premature by one match. He should have seen the series through at The Oval before blooding the next captain. Alastair Cook (former Under-21 captain!) should be the next Test captain and he would have learnt a great deal having Michael Vaughan on the field next to him giving instructions at The Oval, he won't even be there let alone advise.

Have a look at how Michael Clarke is being prepared by Ricky Ponting in the Australian set up, always listening and being included in the decision making with the other senior players. Kevin Pietersen is not a captain, a talent but not a captain. His decisions in certain situations in this series have let England down badly, not to mention his captain. There has been suggestions that he should be either dropped or made captain, both of these are wrong, keep him at four and teach him how to play "team cricket".

From Matt Fennell, Australia

As a young Australian Cricketer i was coached with the ideology that the poms were to be beaten at all costs and no quarter to be given. However, I can not help but admire the talent, determination and courage of one Paul Collingwood under immense pressure after being omitted from the previous Test match. Having witnessed his well-compiled 200 against my beloved Australians in Adelaide in the 2006-07 Ashes, I could not help but feel compelled to emulate his courageous style of batting.

While not always the most attractive or pure of strokeplay, he maintains a gutsy determination through any style of opposition attack from and refuses to give in. As I am studying at university away from home I am unable to watch as much international test cricket as I wish but I do check online scorecards regularly. I must admit, though he is an exceptional player and I am sure it was filled with much more dashing strokeplay, I had not noticed the fact that Pietersen had scored 94 runs until a day after I initially checked the score. Instead I was drawn to the fact that Paul Collingwood, a cricketer recognised as a fighter by most, if not all, cricketing nations, had scored a spectacular hundred while under the pump (not to mention at a strike rate of 70).

So I simply write this primarily as a hats off to Paul Collingwood and I hope you can transfer your dogged determination into your team-mates for the upcoming 2009 Ashes series in England, because as much as I really would love Australia to win, I really would love to see another epic and well fought out contest as I witnessed in 2005. Even if it is without Harmison, Jones and Hoggard.

From Sameer, India

I feel rules of cricket needs to be simplified. But they seem to be going in other direction. LBW is a very complex decision. Who is going to decide whether more than half of the ball was pitched outside leg stump? Then whether bat was just hidden behind the pads or genuinely batsman was trying the shot but missed it. All this is subjective. If the ball is going to hit the stumps and if it has not hit the bat at all then you should be given out. Obviously umpire would be the judge. The same eight countries are playing cricket for some years now. Complexity of rules might be another reason for the disinterest of the viewers worldwide.

From Alok, India

Dhoni's gotten the Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna. Let me come out and say that it is totally undeserved. Why? 1. Only one cricketer so far has gotten it. Sachin Tendulkar. Enough said. 2. Rahul Dravid was not given one, despite being nominated. Twice. It is with the second reason that this post deals with.

No doubt Dhoni is a good cricketer, one who will serve Indian cricket for many years to come. He has recently lead India to a Twenty20 World Cup win and a win in the CB series, a record that is unlikely to be broken ever since this was the inaugural Twenty20 World Cup and the last ever CB series. Yet, Dhoni is but a freshman in world cricket. His Test credentials are yet to be firmly established (he is yet to play the definitive Test innings), and he has just seen his young team lose two one-day series despite being the dominant team in both.

From Michael Fernando, United States of America

What's WCL? At the highest level of Cricket, there's no structure. Sure, there is a pseudo Test Championship and there's an ODI ranking, there's player rankings, etc. But, how can these rankings be real when teams don't play each other on a regular basis?

A real championship table needs a structured schedule with every team playing everyone else, at least, twice (home and away) during a pre-determined (1, 2, 3, 4 -year?) championship cycle. What we have now is England and Australia playing a five-Test series, but others playing one-off, two, three or four Test-match series. And, sometimes five tests. How can this be fair to everyone?

Let's face it, cricket is an elitist game and the current structure is elitist! "You are not good enough to play with the big boys so we will just throw you some crumbs to keep you quiet." Who pays for cricket? Ticket sales at the grounds account for a little bit in, say, England and Australia, but when you see Test matches being attended mostly by security and ground staff, you know that the real money is coming from TV contracts.

From Chris Liebrand, United Kingdom

During the last cricket World Cup, South Africa played the Netherlands and during this match Hershelle Gibbs hit 6 sixes in 6 balls! Not good for the Dutch Bowler but terrific for SA. I was not able to watch this on TV but did use the cricinfo website to monitor proceedings and have always enjoyed the commentary on this website. It is often written with humour, sarcasm and a great knowledge of the game. Sriram Veera was the commentator for this match and his description of the ball by ball carnage for this amazing over in world cricket is something to be enjoyed:

March 16, 2007 Herschelle Gibbs's six sixes off Dan van Bunge's fourth over was a record for international matches. The ball-by-ball commentary captured all the excitement and action as it happened in this ball-by-ball description:

Herschelle Gibbs was in a murderous mood at Warner Park. This is his third six, smashed over long on. 29.1 van Bunge to Gibbs, SIX, Violence! Gibbs charged down the track and hoicked it over long on. 29.2 van Bunge to Gibbs, SIX, Murder! Floated on the leg and middle stump line and Gibbs sends it soaring over long-off. 29.3 van Bunge to Gibbs, SIX, Carnage! Flatter one this time but it makes no difference to Gibbs. He just stands there and delivers. This one also has been sucked over long off 29.4 van Bunge to Gibbs, SIX, Wah Wah! Low full toss and guess where this went Yep. A slap slog and it went over deep midwicket! He is going to go for 6 sixes in this over! 29.5 van Bunge to Gibbs, SIX, Short in length, on the off stump line and Gibbs rocks back and swat-pulls it over wide long off. Simply amazing. What a batsman. This is pure violence! 29.6 van Bunge to Gibbs, SIX, He has done it! One-day record. No one has hit six sixes in a row. GIbbs stands alone in that zone. And the minnow bashing continues!

From Dr. Ajay R. Kamath, India

I was seventeen in the Summer of 83, the year we won the world cup. For all the greatness of our Test performances, it is the World Cup that defines us....it was 1983 that made the world sit up and take notice of our cricket. Until then, it had all been individual performances- a Hazare here, a Gavaskar there, an occasional Vishy cameo and a cheerful thrashing overall.

In 1983, we played as a team for the fist time. We had all rounders who bowled seam up. Everyone contributed. All of this was a rarity for us. It is impossible to describe the excitement of that evening. I live in Mangalore and I was a student then. There was no television, so the dulcet tones of Brian Johnston, Christopher Martin Jenkins and Don Mosey kept me company into the night.

At first, it was all about "giving a fight" to the West Indies. To lose honourably was the highest ambition, for who could dream of beating the two times champions in a final. It was only at the fall of Clive Lloyd's wicket that I began to hope and my father promptly went off to bed, a signal that things were hotting up, for he is, to this day, unable to take the tension of watching or listening to an Indian win, which never comes without several dozen palpitations.

There were firecrackers outside my house when Holding was leg before. And yet, things on the field were, by today's impossibly crass standards, very dignified. There are only two television events that make me weep- Amitabh dying in a film ('Sholay' brings on a veritable flood) and an Indian cricket win. Assuredly, the emotions are different in the latter scenario.

From R. Thirucumaran, Sri Lanka

I know, it may be too early to come to conclusions, but, from what I've seen of it, there are some very inherent flaws in the referral system.

I'm sure most of you are aware of the fact that the 3rd umpire, as far as hawk - eye is concerned', only has access to the pictures which show the path of the ball till the moment of impact with the bat. Frankly, I'm at a loss to understand why this is so. The ICC honchos say that hawk-eye doesn't take into consideration the effects of wind and swing on the path of the ball, but I feel that the umpire would have enough brains to look at the ball and see whether it would've hit the stumps.

Secondly, a quite funny regulation that I came to know of only during the course of the test match stated that the 3rd umpire conveys what he has found from TV replays and all that to the field umpire, who then makes the decision. How stupid is that! Obviously, the on - field umpire has no access to TVs, so let the 3rd umpire make the decision instead of wasting time conveying it to the on - field, dude!

Thirdly, I can't understand why the 3rd ump isn't allowed access to other stuff like 'snicko', 'hotspot'. The decision on the appeal by Dilshan regarding his dimissal in the first Test really showed why we need the snicko. He had appeared to edge the ball to the keeper. However, he had also hit the bat with his ground (which was proven by the puff of dust emerging), which made it difficult for the umpire to really conclude whether the sound was from bat hitting ground or ball, and therefore gave the decision in favour of the batsman!

Well, it's too early to make the verdict, but the basic rules of the 'referrals' are quite flawed, and the ICC need to have a hard look at them if they want this to be a success!

From Prem Mohanty, Thailand

Cricket must really have been tough for batsmen when the trend was for uncovered pitches and zero protective equipment. Add to that no limit on the number of bouncers allowed in an over. Over the years it has evolved to be more of a batsman's game but in retrospect, its not changed a lot atleast when it comes to Test Cricket.

The pitch for the second test of the India v Sri Lanka series at Galle has different characteristics at both ends. Now I do understand that Galle had been ravaged by the Tsunami and the ground was rebuilt from scratch. But a pitch like this on the first day and the way the batsmen tackled the variable bounce reminds me of the days when uncovered pitches was the norm.

Here in Bangkok we play using taped tennis balls and we play on a surface which resembles a hard court and clay court put together.The games were quite predictable where bowlers had to suffer a lot. One day someone suggested that we add two extra layers of tape representing the seam. Now who's heard of that. We decided to try it out and voila! The batsmen started having a torrid time. Seam movement, swing,plays n misses, all seemed so surreal. Now our weekend games have become much more interesting with bowlers being more in command.

From Chaminda, Australia

A story about the kids cricket team I played for at school... I played for the 4th division team in taranaki, nz, one of our matches turned out to be with the best girls school from the girl's division.We were quite relaxed about it all, no pressure, girls after all..., until the girls produced a decent score and destroyed us with great fielding..7 wickets down and 100 odd runs to get our captain (age 15 years) was pondering about our options when one of his friends from the school's 2nd eleven team happened to be walking along the ground. We discreetly sent him as our 10th batsman. All was well until he started hitting sixes all around the park ... which unfortunately was too good for our team standard. After a few sixes one of the girls pointed out the batsman didn't field for our team! despite our protests the umpires forced us to forfeit the match! Best match I've played in! Hope you guys have a laugh over this one, cheers dudes

From Srinivasan Venkataraman, India

This happened when our university team was involved in a pre-season practice match against a team that plays several notches higher in the local league.

This was a limited overs match, our team was chasing a huge score and we were already 7 down with a little less than half the total score to cross the hurdle. All possibilities of our opponents' victory resting solely in the hands of the weather gods. The positives on our, rather my side were: (i) I was batting in the middle (ii) Many overs left to play (atleast by tailender standards) (iii) Ball had lost the shine and was coming nicely on to the bat.

Being brought up in the Gavaskar/Dravid mould I decided to take the bowling by defending stubbornly, inspite of several taunts from the meagre spectators and atleast three fielders surrounding the bat. The opponents who had much superior bowlers were unable to get me or the other batsman out and add to this the torrid heat and their superior ego compounding the misery.

This was just one of the conversations that happened between me and the wicketkeeper in a passage of play: First ball, stoutly defended and no chance for the fielders
WK: Well bowled, Mr.Bowler
(I turned to the WK and smiled) me: Yeah, well bowled, I agree

Next ball, again defended ...
WK: Well played, Mr Batsman!
(I turned and smiled again) me: Good, you agree too!

Next ball, defended again ...
WK: (comes in front of me) Why don't you play one of the tail-enderish innings-flash, miss, connect, ....get out, instead of just defending?
me: Dude, I am playing for tea and then we have a team meeting during the break to discuss the strategy. Is follow-on on your scheme of things? Anyways I am in a sense helping your good bowlers become greater bowlers if they can get me out! (entire cordon of close-in fielders burst into peals of laughter)

From Ramji Rajamani, India

At the first Test in Colombo, something unusual happened. I am not referring to an Indian loss - there is nothing unusual about it! Virendra Sehwag padded up to an innocuous delivery from Murali. Mahela Jayawardene asked for a referral and third umpire gave him out. No on-field umpire could have given him out - to a naked eye, the ball was missing leg stump. But the replays showed otherwise! Wow, I like it.

Because the referrals will bring spin bowling back to the fore. Marginal decisions, such as bat-pad decisions, and leg-befores could be increasingly decided by referrals. Referrals will more often than not mean wickets. Because thanks to the referrals, no batsman will thrust his pad to block innocuous deliveries. Far too long, batsmen have got away. Now, they will only be forced to play with their bats instead of their pads.

Because batsmen will need to have good footwork to play spinners. This will make spinners think of ways to prise out batsmen with flight and pace variations. It will be a good contest. Because pacers will also come to the party and be aided with close (otherwise drifting-down-the-leg side or touch too high) decisions. Because batsmen will need all of technique, application, and luck (40-40-20) to survive, it will good to watch.

Far too long, batsmen have used heavy bats to make the game lopsided. You needed some balance to spice up the game. Gosh, you may end with very few draws! Because Test cricket needs that little bit to stay in limelight in these T20 times! Referrals could just be one of the tonics. There are some obvious ones, some other time! I know the batsmen are complaining. Bowlers are not.......that's refreshing!

From Varun Dhyani, United Kingdom

I am a technical man and view the entire game on technical ground. Not that the game does not interest me. There has been lot of discussion on sustaining and expanding cricket's popularity. Particularly in context with Test Cricket which is really threatened due to lack of public interest. I have a suggestion here to keep the people's interest glued to the game.

Cricket revolves, technically, around ball, bat and pitch. If 'variable' component is introduced in pitch or bat or ball, game would become interesting. Say for example, use of new, 30 overs and 60 overs ball on certain conditions and rules. Imagine a match where the opening batsman has got right to tell umpire to start with 30 over ball.

Or when bowler takes a wicket he given the opportunity to decide what age of ball to be used. And if both the batsman score 50 runs between them without loosing wicket, they given chance to say which ball they want further.

Another way is letting both sides allow play as much innings they want in a 5 day Test Cricket Period. At the end of 5th day, the average per innings would decide who won the match.

There are many ways where some twist and turns could be brought in ball (different weight), innings(more innings) and number of players(more players allowed). It would bring lot of interest in the game to the crowd who are already watching cricket and also among those who never watched and have conventional image of the Test Cricket

From Ravi Kumar Putcha, Trivandrum, India

The end of an era beckons. What has undoubtedly been the golden era of batsmanship in Indian cricket - and, to a lesser extent, test batting in its generation - seems to be heading towards retirement. While one can only hope that the old firm of Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman and Ganguly will continue to be around for some more time, and will continue to provide the same joy that they have done in different situations, in virtually all test-playing nations and against a wide variety of bowling attacks, it looks as if that old English usage - the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak(ening) - appears to hold true for these four great batsmen.

If they were to retire at the end of the current test series, they would have amassed close to 35000 test runs between them, 90+ test centuries, close to 450 test catches - and loads of memories.

Whether it was Tendulkar's defining innings - when he came returned to England from India, in the middle of devastating personal setback following the death of his father, or Dravid's lead role at the Adelaide test win in 2003, Laxman's astonishing 281 at Kolkata, and Ganguly's less acknowledged but equally vital 144 at Brisbane in 2003, these four giants of Indian batting have given it their all, and more for the cause of Indian cricket.

Just as equally likely to call it a day will be the man who made the transition from a bespectacled, much ridiculed slow bowler to the person who now sits at #3 in the all time wicket standings in world cricket. Anil Kumble will probably continue to baffle commentators and fans alike, as they struggle to decide if he is a leg spinner, a googly bowler or a slow medium bowler. What none of them will dispute, though, is that like his four contemporaries, Kumble has done much to raise the bar for wannabe Anil Kumbles who will follow.

One can only hope that when they do decide to call it a day, Indian cricket and its followers will have the grace to thank them for their deeds, which have played no small role in India going as high as #2 in the ICC test standings. And one can just as fervently hope that their example has done enough to inspire a whole new breed of young cricketers who can step into their boots and deliver just as well.

Dear Readers,

We have always known that if we looked after the interests of the readers, the rest will look after itself. Our real strength remains the size of our audience, which, gratifyingly, has continued to grow. It is the clearest sign of your endorsement of what we produce for you.

Since Cricinfo is about you, your voice is important. We have a robust feedback mechanism which features some lively discussions on major issues affecting cricket. But we recognise the limitation of the system that allows you only to respond and not initiate. We are seeking to redress that inadequacy somewhat by creating a space that is wholly yours: you set the agenda and you lead the discussion.

'Inbox' will feature submissions from you with us playing gatekeeper as we do with the rest of the site. We will set no rules apart from ensuring a certain quality that you have come to associate with Cricinfo. You may write on the aspects of the game that you hold dear; about matters that rile you; about players, teams and trends; you may share your memories and views, and you may so do so in 100 words or 500. The only tip we will give you is to repeat a line from our style sheet: Brevity is not just the soul of wit, it is the heart of all writing.

Welcome.

Sambit Bal is Editor, Cricinfo