BBC Blog Network

User Profile

davidcw

Listed below are comments made by davidcw between Tuesday, 30th December 2008 and Saturday, 17th January 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Ask Bearders #185 11:13pm on 17 Jan 2009 Re 93 (PortoIan)

There are two different MCC v Surrey matches here.

In the 1839 one MCC did score 15, the No 11 did get 5 and the 9th wicket did go down at 6,7,8,9 or 10 (impossible to say which.)

But in was in a later 1872 match when the last wicket doubled the score - from 9-8 to 16 all out. So there is at least one, possibly at least two matches where the ninth wicket fell still in single figures. It could have been worse in 1872 - MCC lost SEVEN wickets before scoring and put on only two for the 8th. Needless to say, they lost both encounters!
Ask Bearders #185 7:20pm on 13 Jan 2009 Re 48 (Nick)

On reflection I am inclined to agree that the number of instances probably is quite limited, and think the incidence is probably somewhat less than your estimate.

In saying that I am assuming that tests are a fair reflection of all first-class matches as far as the distribution of the number of catches is concerned, and that the binomial statistical distribution can be used without modification. I am not qualified to have an opinion on how fair that assumption is.

In tests the average number of catchers in completed innings is approximately 4.07 therefore the binomial distribution (if it can be used with a probability of 0.407 over 10 trials) suggests that the full ten will occur, on average, once in approximately 8,000 completed innings (as compared to your estimate of 2,000). So, I have to agree that is hardly "several times." The real figure could be quite low indeed.
Ask Bearders #185 3:22pm on 13 Jan 2009 Re 43 (cosmicayeaye)

It has probably happened quite a number of times. I cannot recall the details but I believe it once happened in a County Championship match with Devon Malcolm being the lone non-catcher. Could be wrong, of course!

The test record is 'only' nine achieved twice at Bridgetown:
E-WI, 1997-98 (non-catchers: CB Lambert, IR Bishop)
WI-NZ, 2002 (non-catchers: MH Richardson, SE Bond)
Ask Bearders #184 09:56am on 11 Jan 2009 Re 97 (cosmicayeaye)

I considered using standard deviations but as I wanted to describe the method I thought it would be easier to avoid anything using squares or square roots. Other approaches which occurred to me were to go by the lowest highest score (lowest that is as a percentage of all runs off the bat) and by comparing the range (highest minus lowest) to the average score. Anyway, you pays your money and takes your choice as they say!

Re 102 (timrutherford)

Must say I did not think of Steve Bucknor and that was at international level for both sports too. It did occur to me that given the popularity of hockey in India and Pakistan that one of their first-class umpires might have referreed at international level too.
Ask Bearders #184 02:40am on 06 Jan 2009 Recently Martin Bodenham, already a football referee at the highest level, was added to the ECB's Full List of cricket umpires. Is he unique in being qualified to officiate at the highest level in two different sports including cricket?
Ask Bearders #184 02:15am on 06 Jan 2009 Re 90 (Nick6591)

Yes, you're absolutely right. To fill out the data -

The fewest matches taken by a bowler to amass 150 wickets is 24 and that was indeed achieved by SF Barnes. Next on the list are Waqar Younis (27), CV Grimmett (28) and IT Botham, DW Steyn and HJ Tayfield (29).

The best average on taking 150 wickets is 17.83 by SF Barnes, approx 18.42 by Waqar Younis, and IT Botham approx 19.35.

Only Waqar Younis and DW Steyn have needed less than 1000 overs (or 6-ball equivalents) - Waqar about 900-902 overs, and Steyn 941.4. (Barnes is about 150 overs behind.)
Ask Bearders #184 1:55pm on 05 Jan 2009 Re 88 (Ozslippy)

The simple answer is that each time there is a change in batsmen then a new partnership begins. It does not matter whether the change comes about because one of the batsmen is dismissed or because one of them is unable to continue. The partnership is treated as unfinished and earns an asterisk in the same way that a not out individual innings would. When the next batsman comes in a second partnership begins for the wicket still standing.

If the retiring batsman is able to resume later in the innings he starts another partnership with the other batsman who is then in. It is possible for more than one batsman to retire and return. In fact at Sydney in 1975-76 three of the West Indians retired and resumed later in the same innings, so there were a total of 13 partnerships for 10 wickets. Bill's scorecard for that innings (if he did one) would surely have looked rather cluttered!

Given the fact that in tests there have been 171 cases of batsmen retiring and resuming there must be many cases of the same two batsmen finding themselves together again after wickets have fallen in the meantime. It is therefore possible for the same pair to have two partnerships in the same innings but for different wickets. Who says cricket is an easy game?
Ask Bearders #184 02:24am on 31 Dec 2008 Re 31 (steepyp)

I hadn’t heard of a generally accepted method for determining the evenness of spread of batsmen’s scores so. for better of worse, I came up with this which makes sense to me even if may not to anyone else!

1. Add up all the batsmen’s scores including 0 for those who did not bat, and divide by 11 to find the average batting score.
2. For each batsman calculate the difference between his score and the average score.
3. Add up all these differences and divide by 11 to find the average difference.
4. Divide the average difference by the average score.
The lower the result, the more even the scoring spread.

For what it's worth, here is the top ten produced by this method with scores in descending order:

SA-A, 1st inns, Cape Town, 2005-06 --- 31,24,19,18,18,17,17,16,10,8,6
SA-NZ, 1st, Wellington, 1963-64 --- 44,40,31,30,30,27,24,24,22,7,2
A-E, 1st, Perth, 2002-03 --- 71,68,53,42,41,38,35,30,27,19,8
B-P, 1st, Multan, 2001-02 --- 19,18,14,13,13,12,12,10,8,4,0
I-E. 1st. Delhi, 1984-85 --- 60,42,30,28,28,27,25,25,24,2,1
J-NZ, 1st, Kanpur, 1976-77 --- 70,68,66,64,50,50,43,37,27,13,10
NZ-A, 1st, Wellington, 1989-90 --- 36,28,23,19,18,18,16,12,12,9,1
WI-A, 2nd, Brisbane, 1930-31 --- 28,17,16,15,13,12,11,10,7,7,1
P-E, 1st, Nottingham, 1954 --- 28,19,18,16,14,13,11,10,7,6,4
A-E, 2nd, Melbourne, 1882-83 --- 34,19,17,15,14,14,13,10,6,6,4
Ask Bearders #184 01:30am on 31 Dec 2008 Re 31 (steepyp)

In tests the last five wickets (or rather those from 6th onwards) have outstcored the first five wickets in a single side’s innings 1353 times and equalled it 20 times. Doubtless it must also have happened over both innings quite a few times but that is another story, another day! In terms of percentages, here are the top ten:

India v England, The Oval, 1952,
From 6-5 and 6-6 to 98. Tail (last 5 wkts) scored 93.87% of total
1st innings in reply to 326-6d. No further play. Drawn.

Pakistan v Sri Lanka, Sialkot, 1995-96
From 13-5 to 212. Tail: 92.92%
Last innings. Lost. Moin Khan at No 7 made 117* (>50% of total)

Bangladesh v Zimbabwe, Harare, 2003-04
From 14-5 and 14-6 to 169. Tail: 91.71%
Last innings. Lost. Khaled Mashud 61 at 8 outscored top 6

England v West Indies, Port of Spain, 1934-35
From 23-5 to 258. Tail: 91.08%
1st innings reply. Lost. J Iddon 73 at 7 outscored top 6

Zimbabwe v India, Bulawayo, 2005-06
From 16-5 to 185. Tail: 90.27%
2nd innings reply. Lost by inns.

Australia v England, Melbourne, 1897-98
From 32-5 to 323. Tail: 90.09%
First day. Lost.

Australia v England, Manchester, 1888
From 7-5 and 7-6 to 70-9 and 70 all out. Tail: 90.00%
2nd innings reply. Lost by inns. Top 4 made ducks. 7th wkt 48

Pakistan v England, The Oval, 1967
From 26-5 to 255. Tail: 89.80%
2nd innings reply. Lost. Asif Iqbal 146 at 9 (> 50% of total)

Australia v West Indies, Kingston, 2008
From 18-5 to 167. Tail: 89.22%
2nd innings reply. Won. A Symonds 79 at 7 outscored top 6

West Indies v Australia, Perth, 2000-01
From 22-5 to 196. Tail: 88.77%
First day. Lost by inns. RD Jacobs 96* at 7 outscored top 6
Ask Bearders #184 11:02pm on 30 Dec 2008 Re 63 (buzz1989)

There are seven instances in all where one side has won and lost consecutive tests by an innings margin to the same other team, three times in the one series and four times involving different series -

E-A - Oval, 1938, E, I+579r - Brisbane, 1946-47, A, I+332r
I-P - Delhi, 1952-53, I, I+70r - Lucknow, 1952-53, P, I+43r
A-E - Sydney, 1965-66, E, I+93r - Adelaide, 1965-66, A, I+9r
E-WI, Leeds, 1966, WI, I+55r - The Oval, 1966, E, I+34r
A-E - Melbourne, 1974-75, E, I+4r - Birmingham, 1975, A, I+85r
I-A - Mumbai, 1979-80, I, I+100r - Sydney, 1980-81, A, I+4r
NZ-P - Hamilton, 2000-01, NZ, I+185r - Lahore, 2001-02, P, I+324r

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

davidcw