For the statistically challenged..

[Booney]

I was asked,(by a non cricket lover) what is the first score you get to in all Test match cricket,before no one has been dismissed on that number?

ie: Many palyers would have got out on 0 and 1 and 2 and 3 and 34,55,73,100,so on.....

So go to it stats men.My guess is it must be in the 200's.

[Stumps]

a good question. surely it couldnt be in the 100's, although i cant remember someone getting 167

[Hondo]

What an interesting question

You'd have to find a list of every individual score ever, I had a very quick look at StatsGuru but couldn't see it

[sasquatch]

a good question. surely it couldnt be in the 100's, although i cant remember someone getting 167

Good to start us off with a random number like that, but at Sydney in the 1999/2000 season, VVS Laxman was dismissed in the second innings for... 167. Caught Gilchrist, bowled Lee.
Next...?

[rogernumber10]

229 is the lowest score never made in Test cricket by a dismissed batsman (or a not out batsman for that matter).

The record was 228, until Herschelle Gibbs made that score in Pakistan in 2002-03.

(yes, that's a completely useless bit of information I have at my disposal).

[Dogwatcher]

Rog, where'd you find that?
Media guide?

[rogernumber10]

No. In my obsessiveness about Test cricket, I've got a list in one place of every test hundred, from 400 by lara down to 100, in order of highest score to lowest. I haven't updated it since the world cup, so there's a few from this english summer and obviously the first test to fill in (Phil Jaques, now the proud owner of the lowest, most recent test century in history with his exact 100 in Brissy). No one had scored that total, just by scanning down, albeit that Pietersen got close this year with 226 against the Windies and Sangakkarra 222* v the Bangladeshis

And, yes, rather sadly I also have a list of the 5-fors in exactly the same order, scanning down from Laker at the top with 10-53 all the way down to O Scott's 5-266 v England as the most expensive 5-for in test history.

Just some useless numbers I like looking at every now and then.

[Dogwatcher]

I love it Rog! That's great.

I have some ideas for cricket books I'd like to write along those sort of lines.
That's the great thing about cricket - so many obscurities.

[sasquatch]

Next question?
This is fun!

[rogernumber10]

I love it Rog! That's great.

I have some ideas for cricket books I'd like to write along those sort of lines.
That's the great thing about cricket - so many obscurities.

Well, I actually use the info as a sort of a personal ratings system for how I think blokes stack up against each, even when they've played through different eras.
As an example, when you pull the numbers apart, you find that Graeme Wood and Ted Dexter both made nine Test tons, but seven of Dexter's nine tons were past 130 and five of them were past 160, as against Wood having three of his tons just reach 100 and five of his tons at 112 or less.
Just a way of looking at which blokes really stand out, compared to what other batsmen or bowlers produce each time they get a milestone.
Bradman is still in a league of his own, no matter which way you cut them, but Lara, Steve Waugh and Javed Miandad have outstanding conversions of really high scores, as against all other Test century makers, while Barnes, Marshall and Hadlee are stand outs in the bowlers for regularly taking bags of wickets for low runs.
It always guarantees me an argument when I keep picking for McGrath over Lillee in the team I want bowling for me, on his results, even if Lillee was the bloke I'd rather watch.

And, agree, it's arguments like these that make it a game worth following.

[Dogwatcher]

I'd love to see a list of the leading wicket-takers each time the record was passed.

Might be my mission...

[rod_rooster]

Great stuff rog. Love all these quirky stats. Keep them coming

[Dogwatcher]

Graeme Wood - what a cricketer! Right up there with Dirk Welham.

[rod_rooster]

Graeme Wood - what a cricketer! Right up there with Dirk Welham.

LMAO

[Dogwatcher]

A couple of years ago I went through and made a list of players who'd only played one test for Australia and also a list of wicket-keepers.

If I can dig them up, I'll put them on here.

A mate and I were talking the other day and trying to figure out who was the last player selected in the Australian side to play as a batsman, but not score a century.

It seems a long time ago, but I could only think of Stuart Law who was an unbeaten half century at Perth against Sri Lanka when Ponting debuted.

[rogernumber10]

Well, the history of the best bowling in an innings would be:

3-51, A Shaw, v Aus 1876-77. (australia having batted first in the first test).
5-78, W Midwinter, v Eng 1876-77. (england's first innings of the first test).
5-38, A Shaw, v Aus 1876-77. (australia's second innings of the first test).
7-55, T Kendall, v Eng 1876-77. (England's second innings of the first test).
7-28 - W Bates, v Aus 1882-83.
8-35, G Lohmann, v Aus 1886-87.
8-11, J Briggs, v SAF 1888-89.
8-7, G Lohmann, v SAf 1895-96.
9-28, G Lohmann, v S Af 1895-96.
10-53, J Laker, v Aus 1956.

[Booney]

Bravo Rog,bravo

[Dogwatcher]

A mate and I were talking the other day and trying to figure out who was the last player selected in the Australian side to play as a batsman, but not score a century.

It seems a long time ago, but I could only think of Stuart Law who was an unbeaten half century at Perth against Sri Lanka when Ponting debuted.

So rather than wait for an answer, I've looked through the stats and have an answer.

If you include 'allrounders' you only have to go back as far as:

Shane Watson (three tests - top score 31)

However, he's apparently still a chance to have a crack at a hunjy.

You then go back to Shaun Young (one test, 1997, top score 4*).

As a stand alone batsman (which is where I was heading anyway) you go to Stuart Law (one test, 1995, 54)

But....if you go to blokes who were batsmen with extended runs in the team, next on the list is Michael Bevan (top score 91).

The other batsman selected for Australia in the 90s and to not score a hundred was Wayne Phillips, who had his one test at the WACA (top score 14).

[rogernumber10]

And, I guess to continue on a rain-man obsessive theme, the history of the highest score in test cricket is:

400* -- B Lara, v Eng 03-04.
380 – M Hayden, v Zim 03-04.
375 - B Lara, v Eng 93-94.
365* - G Sobers, v Pak 57-58.
364 - L Hutton, v Aus 38.
336* - W Hammond, v NZ 32-33.
334 - D Bradman, v Eng 30.
325 - A Sandham, v W Ind 29-30
287 - R Foster, v Aus 03-04.
211 - W Murdoch, v Eng 84.
165* - C Bannerman, v Eng 76-77 (first day of the first test).

Personally, I hope no Australian batsman on debut ever makes more than 165. Jackson, Phillips and Wessels all ran it close, but it's a great thing that one record from the very first day of Test cricket still stands, in highest score by an Australian on debut.

[smac]

Personally, I hope no Australian batsman on debut ever makes more than 165. Jackson, Phillips and Wessels all ran it close, but it's a great thing that one record from the very first day of Test cricket still stands, in highest score by an Australian on debut.

Stunning stats, Rog.

Wouldn't be any other sports that could boast such a thing as a first day record still standing either (other than most players on the field at one time, perhaps, for Australian Rules ).