For the statistically challenged..

First Class Cricket Talk (International and State)

Re: For the statistically challenged..

Postby rogernumber10 » Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:51 am

Dogwatcher wrote: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.



Law was stiff too to only get that many. The Sri Lankans were never going to get him out and he got declared on when Ponting got fired on 96 by Khizer Hayat. Taylor was looking for the declaration that day, but Australia still won by an innings inside four days. That was also the innings when Michael Slater could have had a crack at a triple ton, but got out for a double century, and australia batted another two hundred odd runs after he went. Sri Lanka made about 250 and 300 while we made 4-600 odd batting once, and it was all over inside four days with nearly 1200 runs on the board.
Roger Woodcock -- 602 goals from a forward flank makes you a legend.
User avatar
rogernumber10
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1726
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:09 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: For the statistically challenged..

Postby Dogwatcher » Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:54 am

rogernumber10 wrote: 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.


I agree with you there. The romance of Bannerman's tonne can never be topped for mine.

I also hope that the highest score is never, ever again against the likes of Zimbabwe or Bangladesh (well not at least while they are at their current strengths).
You're my only friend, and you don't even like me.
Dogwatcher
Coach
 
 
Posts: 29318
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:29 am
Location: The Bronx
Has liked: 1425 times
Been liked: 1152 times
Grassroots Team: Elizabeth

Re: For the statistically challenged..

Postby rod_rooster » Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:06 am

rogernumber10 wrote: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.


I know i'm being picky but Mark Taylor should be on that list with his 334* against Pakistan.
rod_rooster
Coach
 
Posts: 6595
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:56 pm
Has liked: 9 times
Been liked: 24 times

Re: For the statistically challenged..

Postby Dogwatcher » Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:08 am

Rod, that's the order in which the highest test score has been held in the game's history. ;)
You're my only friend, and you don't even like me.
Dogwatcher
Coach
 
 
Posts: 29318
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:29 am
Location: The Bronx
Has liked: 1425 times
Been liked: 1152 times
Grassroots Team: Elizabeth

Re: For the statistically challenged..

Postby rod_rooster » Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:21 am

Dogwatcher wrote:Rod, that's the order in which the highest test score has been held in the game's history. ;)


:oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:
rod_rooster
Coach
 
Posts: 6595
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:56 pm
Has liked: 9 times
Been liked: 24 times

Re: For the statistically challenged..

Postby rogernumber10 » Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:30 am

Strange thing in everything you read in the history of cricket is that Bradman walked up to Hutton in '38 and congratulated him when he went past 334, saying well done he broke his world record etc etc. Hutton also quoted about how great it was to pass Bradman, albeit that he batted so much longer. Seems almost as if the players, the media at the time didn't count Hammond's runs v New Zealand (as a much lesser opponent), and ignored that score.
Roger Woodcock -- 602 goals from a forward flank makes you a legend.
User avatar
rogernumber10
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1726
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:09 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: For the statistically challenged..

Postby Dogwatcher » Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:39 am

Interesting point Rog.

Hammond only passed 334 by two, so was it just another example of Bradman being 'The Man'?
You're my only friend, and you don't even like me.
Dogwatcher
Coach
 
 
Posts: 29318
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:29 am
Location: The Bronx
Has liked: 1425 times
Been liked: 1152 times
Grassroots Team: Elizabeth

Re: For the statistically challenged..

Postby MAY-Z » Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:17 pm

rogernumber10 wrote:Strange thing in everything you read in the history of cricket is that Bradman walked up to Hutton in '38 and congratulated him when he went past 334, saying well done he broke his world record etc etc. Hutton also quoted about how great it was to pass Bradman, albeit that he batted so much longer. Seems almost as if the players, the media at the time didn't count Hammond's runs v New Zealand (as a much lesser opponent), and ignored that score.


yep that got me the only the other day when a group of us were having a discussion on the same topic i had also discarded hammonds score based on what i had read about everyone congratulating hutton for beating bradman.
MAY-Z
2008 Punting Comp Winner
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 1:07 pm
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 16 times

Re: For the statistically challenged..

Postby Dogwatcher » Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:24 pm

we really are cricket nerds aren't we????
You're my only friend, and you don't even like me.
Dogwatcher
Coach
 
 
Posts: 29318
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:29 am
Location: The Bronx
Has liked: 1425 times
Been liked: 1152 times
Grassroots Team: Elizabeth

Re: For the statistically challenged..

Postby rogernumber10 » Tue Nov 13, 2007 3:21 pm

many worse things you could be.
Roger Woodcock -- 602 goals from a forward flank makes you a legend.
User avatar
rogernumber10
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1726
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:09 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: For the statistically challenged..

Postby Dogwatcher » Tue Nov 13, 2007 3:22 pm

you're right, one that I can think of (going by the stats) is a cricketing suicide.
You're my only friend, and you don't even like me.
Dogwatcher
Coach
 
 
Posts: 29318
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:29 am
Location: The Bronx
Has liked: 1425 times
Been liked: 1152 times
Grassroots Team: Elizabeth

Previous

Board index   Other Sports  Cricket

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

Around the place

Competitions   SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums   Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |