Tag: King Cricket

< 1 minute read We’re going to the Lakes. But it’s okay, we’ve got stuff written and ready to go. You might well ask why we didn’t use some of that stuff yesterday. Well, er, it was already scheduled for next week and we, er… dunno. Shut up. This opens up the delightful possibility

< 1 minute read How’s that for a recommendation? That’s a Cricinfo comment about the fifth and final part of our short story set in the not-so-distant future. If you can’t remember what’s happened already, here’s a full set of links. Part one Part two Part three Part four Part five

< 1 minute read The fourth instalment of our episodic short story has been published over at Cricinfo and there’s still little sign of administrative fiction becoming a popular new literary genre. Part one Part two Part three Part four The final part should appear later in the week.

< 1 minute read We did consider upping our game with regards to post titles, but then we thought: ‘Why risk it?’ Cricinfo have published two more episodes of our increasingly bleak cricket administration short story. Happy New Year. Here are some links. Part one Part two Part three

< 1 minute read We’ve written an episodic short story about taking rational decisions based on empirical evidence. You’d think that every cricket writer would be jumping on that crowd-pleasing bandwagon, but weirdly they’re not. Short stories about sports administration are in worryingly short supply during this year’s festive period. It’s inexplicable. Part one

< 1 minute read Gordon Greenidge is always worth writing about and his 214 not out in the fourth innings at Lord’s in 1984 deserves better treatment than we’ve given it over at Cricinfo. Stu and Ash are going to take a break for a while now and we’re going to do something a

< 1 minute read Dear Sirs, We the undersigned wish to register our not inconsiderable lack of a suitable absence of displeasure with the current state of article writing on your website. In particular, certain facts that are facts go repeatedly unmentioned in some articles, certainly nowhere near enough as they shouldn’t be, viz:

< 1 minute read We wrote about Sachin Tendulkar at Cricinfo and, as Bert suggested, we criticised his technique. So far, most people seem to have correctly identified the joke. We feel we’re being sucked in. Next time we’ll write a really innocuous piece about Ian Austin and thousands of people will send us

< 1 minute read Should we take it badly if someone says, “This is the ONLY article that I dont read on Page 2” about our work? Hard to say, isn’t it? If they haven’t read it, they can’t really evaluate the quality. Or maybe they’re saying that they take in the article in