We haven't been able to take payment
You must update your payment details via My Account or by clicking update payment details to keep your subscription.
Act now to keep your subscription
We've tried to contact you several times as we haven't been able to take payment. You must update your payment details via My Account or by clicking update payment details to keep your subscription.
Your subscription is due to terminate
We've tried to contact you several times as we haven't been able to take payment. You must update your payment details via My Account, otherwise your subscription will terminate.

Letters of the week

Frank Collinge, Cambridge

The ICC ratings are supposed to take into account current form and the records of the previous two years — India finished runners-up in the World Cup and yet they are ranked eighth in a list of 11 countries playing one-day matches, ahead of just Zimbabwe, Kenya and Bangladesh. Between August 2002 and July this year, India played 27 matches against countries ranked higher than them and won more than 44% of them — in percentage terms, only Australia, South Africa and New Zealand did better. So how is it that England can possibly be ranked third?

Kailash Chand, Ashton-Under-Lyne, Lancashire

Advertisement

I find it somewhat surprising that, with the new football season just around the corner, English clubs should be playing so many friendlies against the likes of Rangers and Celtic. The rivalry between the nations is well-documented, and it seems pretty obvious to me that, friendly or not, tackles will be full-blooded — Wayne Rooney was lucky to escape serious injury against Rangers, but why put him, and others like him, at risk in the first place?

Andrew Black, Southport

Advertisement

Arguments over the involvement of agents in football transfers miss the point. It is incredible that footballers are still sold like slaves. If Robbie Williams is worth £80m to EMI, then he gets the lot; if David Beckham is worth £20m to Real Madrid, then he should get the money. There is no other human activity in which a professional’s worth is paid to somebody else. If footballers had any brains they would have stopped it years ago.

Martin Vanner, Glastonbury

Advertisement

I am delighted to note that you have finally woken up to the appeal of the World Superbikes championship (last week) which is, without a shadow of doubt, the most exciting form of motorsport I have ever seen. What makes it extra special is the way in which wildcards such as Shane Byrne are given the opportunity to compete against factory riders. And didn’t Byrne make the most of his chance at Brands Hatch?

Colin Lake, Bedford

I am not a cycling fan, but I have to admit to being impressed, and pleasantly surprised, by some of the sportsmanship displayed during the Tour de France. Considering what was at stake, it was incredible that Jan Ullrich should stop and wait for Lance Armstrong, second and first at the time, when the latter fell off his bike. Professional sport is dominated by a win-at-all-costs philosophy, and this was a refreshing change.

Advertisement

Sheila Hunt, Leeds

Martin Flett is quite correct in his assertion (letters, last week) that it was the game of golf, not Mark Roe, that was the real loser at The Open. A little discretion would not have gone amiss. It is overzealous interpretation of the rules that threatens to bring the game into disrepute.

Julian Corlett, Scunthorpe

Advertisement

I am astonished that the disqualification of Mark Roe from The Open continues to elicit so much sympathy. If you are a professional golfer (or an amateur, for that matter), the first thing you do is to swap cards with your partner/opponent. At the end of the round, you check the card and sign it — it’s as simple as that. If you get it wrong you are disqualified.

Brian McArthur, Dumfries