April 2 was the final day of the Women’s Cricket World Cup. On this day, Australia beat reigning champions England by 71 runs to become the new world champions – this came as no real surprise to fans of the sport.
Under captain Meg Lanning, the team have truly become the side to beat. Since their loss in the semifinals in 2017, Australia have become the dominant team in the world and have won 40 of their last 42 ODIs – a staggering record by any measure.
Playing and watching cricket has been and will continue to be slow to catch on in the United States, despite its immense popularity across so much of the globe. And just like with most sports, women’s cricket receives even less attention.
Betting on cricket is no different. Many casual American bettors don’t even realize that most sportsbooks offer a wider range of sports – including many of the more unusual games. Betting on cricket is hardly unusual elsewhere, and is in fact one of the top betting sports in the United Kingdom.
Finding the best betting app can seem like a time consuming, confusing process. There are so many different online sportsbooks and so many of them seem legitimate – an online betting guide is a great way to cut through the mess of betting apps to find the perfect one for you.
Whether or not you have any interest in cricket from a betting perspective, this World Cup has once again put women’s cricket front and center, albeit for a short period of time. Australia’s win was impressive in its own right but we can also use it to get a better look into the world of women’s cricket.
So, just what can Australia’s World Cup win teach us about women’s cricket?
Teamwork is essential
As the saying goes, teamwork makes the dream work. The truth of that was obvious to anyone watching Australia play during the World Cup. The team is full of star talent, notably Lanning, Alyssa Healy and Ellyse Perry, yet their ability to work together still shines through.
Cricket is one of those unique games – it’s a true team sport that still manages to highlight single players and make them seem as if they are playing alone. So much of the narrative focuses on an individual batter who manages to hold their own for ball after ball, inning after inning.
In reality, that heroic batter – in the match between England and Australia, Healy certainly earned that title – is never truly alone. A supportive partnership is one of the most beautiful parts of the game, especially when a less experienced or talented player is holding their own to allow their counterpart to flourish.
As Megan Maurice has noted, the Australian team has found a new energy in their play that centers around working as a team and being accountable to one another. This new team energy has elevated the team above that of being simply a collection of talented players.
One of the most obvious signs of the eternal harmony of the team, Maurice points out, is how happy they seem and how kind they are to one another. Wickets are celebrated, mistakes are apologized for and quickly forgiven. This attitude should be noted and adopted by other teams, of both men and women.
There is an audience for women’s cricket
One of the reasons why women’s sports in general have been underfunded compared to men’s sports is that it was widely believed that there simply wasn’t that much of an audience for women’s sports. This has been shown to be false but the legacy remains.
Cricket fan forums give some indication of how the popularity of women’s cricket has grown over the last 20 years. Posts from the early 2000s about the Women’s World Cup display a higher amount of sexism and dismissal of the sport as unserious and not worth watching.
More recent posts about this year’s World Cup reflect a much better attitude towards women’s cricket. Discussions about players and matches are less condescending and have a far more positive view of the sport and its participants.
This societal move towards appreciating women’s sports will hopefully be noticed and embraced by the broadcasters. Airing women’s cricket internationally could create entire new audiences and encourage more young women to play.
Cricket is a beautiful game and while purists may complain that the focus on T20 and ODI cricket has weakened test cricket, events such as the Women’s World Cup show how valuable ODI cricket is. The quicker format allows new audiences to engage with the game more easily.
Women’s cricket is hopefully now at a point where we will begin to see it receiving more funding and more media attention. With so many talented players in the Australian team and other international teams, this could be the start of a bigger mainstream following around the world for the sport.
Cricket is the most loved sport in the country of India. People who watch the cricket matches in person, on television, and on the internet number in the millions. Thanks to high-speed internet and technology, fans can bet on cricket with Lottoland.
Before we give you a rundown on how this is done, let us share a little of cricket history to see the importance of this activity to the people of India.
Where it began
Cricket began in England somewhere around the 16th century. India was part of the English Empire until 1947, so Cricket was introduced to the Indian people through the English. The games became so popular that soon they were being played across the nation. The Oriental Cricket Club was formed in Bombay, which is now Mumbai, in 1848. When the Oriental Cricket Club was invited to play in Europe, it sparked the creation of more teams in India. Soon India was famous for its commitment to the game around the world.
In 1932, India was granted test match status, and they played against the England international team. While they carried its test match status, they played 37 matches, including 26 first-class fixtures. They eventually created competitions that embraced more players and more teams.
With online sports comes online sports betting. This is a natural progression. India has a huge cricket fan base, and millions of them place bets on cricket games. Current technology and high-speed computer systems make betting online easy and secure. Bets can occur before a game or as a live bet during a match. There are even life-like virtual games that allow people the opportunity to bet any time of the day or night. The selections of sporting events are extensive, and the odds are competitive.
You can access the online sites from your home or work computer. However, we are often on the go in today’s global society. Because getting to a computer is not always possible. It is best to use a quality site that offers a smartphone or android app.
Cricket Lottery
You can participate in the Cricket Lottery three times per week on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. The draw takes place weekly, on Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday at 02:20 am (IST). The price is INR 80 for a single, and a double price is INR 160. Winning a double means all six numbers match and, the Jackpot is doubled for you.
How to bet:
Select six numbers between 1 and 49. You can let the computer choose the numbers by clicking Quick Pick or Quick Pick 1.
Your screen is automatically set to select “Extra Innings.” You have the option to unclick the selection. The price for Extra Innings is INR 19.
If you win the Cricket Lottery single, the grand prize is INR 73 Crores or more. You can add extra Innings, which adds INR 1.8 crores to the award.
Here are the odds of the games:
Match 6 digits – Odds 1 in 13,983,816
Match 5 digits – Odds 1 in 55,491
Match 4 digits – Odds 1 in 1032
Match 3 digits – Odds 1 in 57
As you can see, the odds of winning a prize are better than in many other lotteries.
How to start
Set-up your account
Entering the site is free. We advise you to take time and get familiar with the site’s layout. You will find all the information on the site and interesting articles. Check out the selection of games waiting for you.
You simply click the link to set up your account. This process is fast and easy. You will enter your name, address, email, and other general information. Then you create a unique username and password. Only one person is allowed per account. If you are a couple, each of you will need your accounts per the site’s regulations. Your information must match your identification cards. Verification is needed if you become a jackpot winner.
Funding your account
Next, you will choose a method to fund your account. Most major credit cards, bank cards, and bank accounts are acceptable. All forms of payment are listed on the site. If you choose to fund your account directly from your bank account, expect it to take 24 to 48 hours for the funds to be available to you. This is subject to your bank’s rules. Once the funds are deposited, you can place your bets and use your account.
Control of your account is a wise choice and your responsibility. You can choose limits on how much you want to allow in your settings. It is always smart to set a betting budget not to bet more than you can afford.
Your winnings are deposited into the account you are setting up. That is why you must make sure the information is correct. Carefully review your information before clicking the proceed button.
Conclusion
If you love cricket and the thrill of betting, then online betting may be your best avenue of sport. This is an exciting time to be a fan of Cricket. People use their computers or phones to place bets and check the winning numbers globally. This is a low-cost way to have some fun and be part of the online cricket community.
When tucking a bat under his arm and trudging off the field after seeing his second innings come to a close during a defeat to Pakistan in March 2012, Eoin Morgan could not have imagined that he was walking away from Test cricket.
He had made only 41 across two knocks, in what was a 16th outing in the most historic form of the game, but few fingers of blame could be pointed in his direction as the bones began to be picked out of another disappointing setback suffered far from the comforting surrounds of home.
Some ten years on, though, and Morgan has not hit an international red ball in anger since. For over a decade now, the Irishman’s full focus has been locked on white-ball endeavours in limited-over formats.
He is currently counting down the days to another shot at T20 World Cup glory – having previously claimed that title back in 2010 – with England priced at 7/2 in betting on cricket markets to savour ultimate glory in Australia later this year. There is also the defence of a 50-over crown to start thinking about ahead of a trip to India in 2023.
Exactly 24 hours ago, England were crowned world champions, after the final to end all finals.
Morgan’s men will also be fancied to go well there, with impressive progress made by those who favour more colourful attire over the classic whites of a Test arena. With so many humbling shocks endured on World Cup stages in the past, considerable time and effort have been put into righting those wrongs.
Hoisting a prestigious trophy aloft at Lord’s on July 14, 2019, was the ultimate reward for all of that hard work. Morgan, as the man to get his hands on the silverware, had played an integral role in reversing fortunes so dramatically that a standing as the best side on the planet could be savoured.
Crossroads
He would not have known it at the time, but the first steps down that path to global glory were taken when heading for the dressing rooms in Dubai with his head hung down and shoulders slumped.
Morgan knew back then that questions were being asked of his presence, despite his obvious qualities seemingly being well suited to an England side that was looking for someone to provide quick and heavy run-scoring in their middle order.
More patience could have been shown, but fate was busy writing another script for a humble yet determined character. At a career crossroads in which his international career could have headed for the scrapheap before it had really got going, the right path was found.
Morgan had always looked more like a white-ball specialist than a red one, with his ball-striking ability marking him out as a man for occasions in which speed is of the essence, rather than those which stretch over five days.
I am extremely grateful to receive the honour of becoming a Freeman of the City of London! pic.twitter.com/2Kp0D6ZyOO
He has proved as much, becoming England’s most-capped player in ODI and T20 contests, while also being the nation’s all-time leading run-scorer in both of those disciplines.
To have gone from Test cast-off to record-setting and World Cup-winning captain is quite some achievement. He may not have seen such achievements coming ten years ago, but a decade of being all white has proved to be the making of Morgan.
Today, the majority of players prefer to bet from portable devices. Given the popularity of Mostbet, the betting site has a branded application – Mostbet Android (iOS). Sports forecasts, casino games, financial transactions, bonuses – everything you need is in the mobile client (although the company has also developed a downloadable program for PC). Today we will take a closer look at mobile solutions from MB.
Android Version
To begin with, let us note that this product is not available in the Google branded store, because it has a gambling theme. But you can download the software from the official website. You can first register on the site, and then download the program, or do everything in reverse order. Here are the download instructions:
Using your tablet or smartphone, go to the official Mostbet website;
The installation file will automatically download, you will need to open the security settings section on your device and allow the installation of apps obtained from third-party sources;
Finally, find Mostbet apk in your downloads folder and run the installation.
Once it’s finished, an icon will appear on your desktop to log in to the app.
Version for iOS
Like Mostbet Android, the ios client can be downloaded from the website:
Open the website via your mobile browser;
Click on the download button on the homepage;
When you get to the download page, select the file format you want;
If necessary, change your security settings. For example, you may need to change the location of your device.
Open the downloaded file and install it.
But for Apple devices there is an easier way to download software from the App Store. The procedure is standard.
Application Features
The Mostbet app provides all the necessary features for the user of the club:
Betting on all sports disciplines available in Mostbet;
Viewing news;
Changing settings;
Communication with support operators;
Financial transactions;
Live betting and so on.
To make a bet, all you need to do is:
Register and/or authorize in the client;
Replenish your account;
Choose a sport, tournament or championship;
Find the event and outcome you are interested in;
Specify the bet amount in the coupon and confirm your action by clicking “Make a bet”.
As for software updates, they are made automatically. In other words, you don’t have to make Mostbet download and follow the updates. Mostbet took care of the fact that users always have an up-to-date version of the software, providing a full range of features and comfort of interaction.
Registration and Welcome Bonus
In the app, just like on the website, you can go through a quick registration. You can use a profile on one of the popular social networks for the fastest possible authorization, or you can fill out a standard form with your name, email address and choose your currency and language.
Mostbet also offers a generous bonus to all newcomers who manage to top up their account no later than one hour after completing the registration. You can get up to 25,000 rupees on your bonus balance.
Advantages of Mobile Software
Mostbet app is not inferior to the desktop client in terms of its features. On the contrary, there are even more advantages:
You do not need to be tied to a PC or laptop – betting will literally always be in your pocket;
The installer weighs less than 21 MB for Android and less than 35 MB for iOS;
Application is undemanding to the power of your device;
Software is perfectly adapted for small screens and one-handed play.
As a desktop client, this mobile application is absolutely free, has Indian and Bengali language versions, as well as the rupee and bdt in the list of available currencies. But do not forget that, like any mobile software, this application consumes the battery of your device, so if you use it frequently and/or for a long time, it is recommended to have a paver bank or a charger at hand.
The ICC player ratings were developed in 1986-87, actually at the suggestion of Ted Dexter, who was fascinated by the world golf rankings and which story is entertainingly told by Rob Eastaway on his website . Rob is a rare thing, a cool mathematician, who has written a number of books, including the very popular “What’s a Googly?”, famously gifted to President George by John Major at Camp David. Rob also has a podcast, Puzzling Maths, having been a maths teacher for much of his adult life.
One of the most interesting parts of Rob’s website is the link to his interview with Jonathan Agnew on TMS. As mentioned above, Eastaway was approached by Ted Dexter in 1986 after the former had written in The Cricketer about a computer simulation of a cricket match developed by his friend, Gordon Vince. Dexter was keen to develop a player rating system, and this would be first published as the Deloitte Ratings of Test Cricketers in June of that year.
I’ve used the ICC player ratings extensively when putting together articles for Cricketweb (most significantly this one) and also as the basis of certain assessment categories used in the books Masterly Batting and Supreme Bowling, with Patrick Ferriday. One thing I noted was that, in general, modern players were rated higher than Golden Age players, and had always assumed that was because the modern era players were better.
However, it also seemed that some of the ratings of the older era players when compared with their peers were possibly not what I would have expected. I decided to contact Rob Eastaway and we had a series of emails where I discovered a number of features related to the scaling of the algorithm used to calculate the ratings that aren’t apparent from the ICC’s FAQ. I am grateful to Rob for his time and input.
In summary, the player’s calculated rating is discounted on a sliding scale from 40% to 70% of his calculated peak for the first ten innings, then 70% to 100% up to the 40th innings. So the maximum rate possible after ten innings would be 700 (based on a theoretical maximum of 1000) and after 25 innings the maximum possible would be 850. From 40 innings upwards, the maximum possible would be 1000, which puts Bradman’s all-time peak of 961 into perspective.
How many more times?
I understand, and accept, that if modern players were apportioned their full rating from scratch then the ratings would be unlikely to represent the general consensus ranking of the best players of all time, as it might be seen to over-estimate the value of those players that start out very hot for a short time.
However, this may be considered as unfair to the early era players, when far fewer Tests were played. The numbers of Tests played increased by more than 400% between 1920 and 1980, so it would seem some kind of consideration should be given to those early era players. For example, Joe Root played 29 Test innings in 2021 alone; WG Grace played his 29th innings in his 16th year of Test cricket, and Ranji played 24 innings total over his Test career.
So I set about recalculating the ratings of a number of players from around the Golden Age based on the information that Rob had shared with me. I applied an upscaling of each players’ progressive rating, this being based on the ratings graphs available online for each player, up to the 40th innings as noted earlier, thus allowing each player to keep 100% of their calculated rating from the first innings. Note that I’m not recalculating the peak value of the player, and in any case I don’t have access to the nuts and bolts of the algorithm, rather I’m simply removing the discounting applied within the first 40 innings.
Upon completion, I decided to try an experiment, so I asked my colleague and noted cricket historian, Martin Chandler, to rank nine players that played before WW1 or didn’t play many Tests, as shown below:
WG Grace
AG Steel
Andrew Stoddart
Tom Hayward
KS Ranjitsinhji
Warren Bardsley
Phil Mead
Ernest Tyldesley
Eddie Paynter
I then compared Martin’s ranking of these nine batsmen to that of the ICC; The rankings of the nine are shown below (actually eight, as I forgot to include Steel in Martin’s list):
PLAYER
MC
ICC
UNSCALED
Grace
1
7
2
Ranji
2
5
1
Paynter
3
2
3
Bardsley
4
1
5
Mead
5
4
6
Tyldesley
6
8
7
Hayward
7
3
8
Stoddart
8
6
4
I found almost no correlation (0.048), between Martin’s ranking and the ICC. I then compared the peak rating of the players based on their unscaled ratings, and found this ranking had a strong correlation (+0.738) with Martin’s selection – this (admittedly small) sample supported my feeling that it’s possible that early era players are somewhat short-changed by the scaling back of players who played less than 40 innings.
What is and what should never be?
Please understand that I’m not trying to say that Martin’s rating should be held in higher regard than the ICC’s rating system (though Martin may do), however he is as well-read about cricket as anyone I know, and I was trying to gauge how well the scaled ICC ratings reflect our perception of where the players of yesteryear rank in the pantheon of cricket all-time greats.
For example, Ranji’s highest unscaled peak rating is 996 (current ICC peak is 689), as compared to Bradman’s all-time best 961 (though Bradman will also likely enjoy a higher rate once unscaled), and Grace (679) rates alongside Hobbs’ official rating with 948 (though again Hobbs’ unscaled rate may be higher than before). I plan to look at the unscaled ratings of post-Golden Age players’ in the next feature.
Below are the highest unscaled ratings achieved by a selection of early era players, alongside their peak ICC ratings; the selection focuses on those whose unscaled rating is significantly different from their current ICC peak rating. Note that, as a guide, I’ve also indicated more recent players whose peak ICC rating is around the same as the early era players’ unscaled and ICC peak ratings:
PLAYER
Unscaled
Comparison
Scaled
Comparison
WG Grace
948
Steve Smith
679
Bevan Congdon
AG Steel
927
Graeme Pollock
678
Bevan Congdon
Arthur Shrewsbury
868
Vijay Hazare
733
Hansie Cronje
Arthur Stoddart
892
Rahul Dravid
681
Bevan Congdon
Bobby Abel
903
Shiv Chanderpaul
633
Peter Parfitt
Stanley Jackson
943
Jack Hobbs
749
JF Reid
Joe Darling
907
Hashim Amla
753
Kepler Wessels
Frank Iredale
945
Len Hutton
699
Chris Cairns
Tom Hayward
829
Frank Worrell
705
Wasim Raja
Jimmy Sinclair
857
Jonathan Trott
651
Cyril Walters
KS Ranjitsinhji
996
Don Bradman
689
Sherwin Campbell
JT Tyldesley
896
Steve Waugh
726
Shane Watson
Plum Warner
972
Don Bradman
533
Bernard Julien
Tip Foster
1044
Don Bradman
609
MJK Smith
George Gunn
970
Don Bradman
604
Jacob Oram
Vernon Ransford
834
Dilip Vengsarkar
681
Bevan Congdon
Warren Bardsley
900
Michael Clarke
769
Andrew Strauss
Nobody’s fault but mine
The rating of “Tip” Foster merits some discussion, as the ratings algorithm is supposed to cap at 1000, however this may be either because the 1000 cap is not applied after only one innings or because the system isn’t expecting a player’s first ever Test innings to be a world record high score (Foster made 287 on debut against Australia at the SCG in December, 1903). A third option is that I got the maths wrong, and now is probably a good time to add the comment that any errors are mine and are not related to the work done by Mr Eastaway and the good folks that produce the ICC Ratings. By the way, I wasn’t intending to single out Bevan Congdon in the table above, but for some reason a number of high-profile Golden Age players have ICC ratings that correspond to the New Zealander all-rounder’s bating rating.
Looking through the comparisons above, it is somewhat shocking to see someone like Stanley Jackson elevated from a rating comparable to New Zealander John Reid, as against an unscaled rating comparable to the legendary Jack Hobbs. Or Frank Iredale, who may not have been a Len Hutton with the bat but was possibly not a Chris Cairns either. But the most significant difference is surely that of “Plum” Warner, currently rated alongside Jacob Oram but whose unscaled rating of 972 is higher than Bradman’s, albeit after only two innings, though it was still as high as 946 after four innings.
What is particularly noteworthy is that some peaks were reached very early (Grace after his first match) and others after a significant amount of innings (Joe Darling 21 and Arthur Shrewsbury 24), which is the kind of disparity that the scaling is intended to address, so in the tables that follow I’ve shown how the rankings for pre-WW1 players change after varying numbers of minimum innings:
5 INNINGS
10 INNINGS
20 INNINGS
30 INNINGS
996 Ranji (Eng)
927 AG Steel (Eng)
923 Faulkner (SA)
923 Faulkner (SA)
953 Foster (Eng)
923 Faulkner (SA)
894 Hill (Aus)
894 Hill (Aus)
945 Iredale (Aus)
908 Iredale (Aus)
868 Shrewsbury (Eng)
846 Trumper (Aus)
927 AG Steel (Eng)
907 Ranji (Eng)
867 Darling (Aus)
753 Darling (Aus)
923 Faulkner (SA)
907 Darling (Aus)
846 Trumper (Aus)
749 Jackson (Eng)
907 Darling (Aus)
904 Abel (Eng)
829 Hayward (Eng)
733 Shrewsbury (Eng)
904 Abel (Eng)
894 Hill (Aus)
825 Tyldesley (Eng)
726 Tyldesley (Eng)
903 Stoddart (Eng)
892 Stoddart (Eng)
823 Jackson (Eng)
720 Maclaren (Eng)
894 C Hill (Aus)
868 Shrewsbury (Eng)
772 Grace (Eng)
705 Hayward (Eng)
868 Shrewsbury (Eng)
855 Grace (Eng)
720 Maclaren (Eng)
699 Iredale (Aus)
There are players here, e.g. Faulkner, Hill and Trumper, that were not discussed earlier, because their highest rating is not significantly impacted by removing the scaling factor, i.e. their ratings were already very high. Note that I left Hobbs out of this exercise as more than half of his Tests were played post-WW1. It is interesting to see how the rankings are changed by the varying cut-off points beyond which scaling is applied. Looking at how these ratings and rankings vary depending on the chosen threshold, there’s certainly a suggestion that England batsmen of the time peaked early and didn’t maintain the highest standard, though, once again, this is a small sample size.
Ramble on
Also, how good was Faulkner? Possibly the greatest all-rounder to play the game until Sobers came along, Faulkner was ranked number one for batting and number four for bowling during his Test career, and in this feature I concluded that he was the most all-round all-rounder in history. The ICC player ratings website doesn’t make it easy to check other all-rounders as there’s no best-ever rating, as there is for batsmen and bowlers, however there may be a bit of a quirk due to the war, as a search on the date-specific bowler ratings for the end of 1914 shows Faulkner at number one, which could be a combination of the gradual reduction of a player’s rating over time when he plays no matches, coupled with the fact that higher rated bowlers such as Sydney Barnes had dropped off the ratings altogether due to prolonged Test inactivity. Despite Faulkner being listed at number one, his best-ever ranking is still listed as number four.
Thank You
In conclusion, I believe the scaling is necessary for modern day cricketers that play in so many more Tests, however it’s possible that this same scaling is not really fair to the players of pre-World War One. I wonder how Ted Dexter would have felt to see his Sussex antecedent Ranji, elevated from being comparable to Sherwin Campbell to being rated alongside the best ever?
My original concern was that the scaling applied to ICC batting ratings was a little unfair to early era players, though I presume the same discounting is applied to bowlers, so a future piece may look at that too – and, in homage to Faulkner, maybe I should look at all-rounders too.
It is possible that the scaled ratings are a more accurate reflection than is the public’s perception of the true worth of earlier era players. This possibility notwithstanding, I thought it would be interesting nonetheless to apply the same process to all Test batsmen, so next time I’ll review post-WW1 players and re-evaluate them as if there was no scaling applied, when I’ll also look at who has the highest peak ever if different innings thresholds are applied – you might be surprised.
