Lowest ODI strike rate (excluding ducks) by an opener?
Lawrence Logic
the lowest strike rate by an opener who got off the mark:
Ahmed Shehzad c Kamande b Odoyo 1 (18b 0x4 0x6) SR: 5.55
Can anyone think of a worse strike rate greater than zero for an opener (or
any position, I suppose)?
--
Lawrence
"If I was a towel, why would I be wearing this hat and this fake
moustache" - Steven McTowelie - 19 April 2006
Andrew Dunford
"Lawrence Logic" <lawrence-Omit...@amd-p.com> wrote in message
news:RJ49p.11093$gM3....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...
> I think the following from the current match must be a strong candidate
> for the lowest strike rate by an opener who got off the mark:
>
> Ahmed Shehzad c Kamande b Odoyo 1 (18b 0x4 0x6) SR: 5.55
>
> Can anyone think of a worse strike rate greater than zero for an opener
> (or any position, I suppose)?
There have been 38 innings of 1 that took longer than 18 balls, batting in
any position. Some of the better-known players in this list:
NS Sidhu 1 (19) Ind v WI at Brisbane 1991/92
SR Waugh 1 (19) Aus v SAf at Duban 1996/97
Inzamam-ul-Haq 1 (20) Pak v WI at Sharjah 2001/02
R Dravid 1 (21) Ind v Ban at Mumbai 1998
BC Lara 1 (22) WI v SL at Cape Town 2002/03
SR Tendulkar 1 (23) Ind v NZ at Gwalior 1999/00
R Dravid 1 (23) Ind v Aus at Centurion 2002/03
Imran Khan 1 (24) Pak v Aus at Melbourne 1989/90
The slowest 1 was scored by V Mehra (UAE) in 38 balls v England at Peshawar
in the 1995/96 World Cup.
The longest duck was 'scored' by Runako Morton (WI) in 31 balls v Australia
at Kuala Lumpur 2006.
Andrew
Lawrence Logic
"Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifax.net> wrote in message
news:8sk4s9...@mid.individual.net...
Thanks Andrew
It appears that Wavell Hinds has the worst for an opener, taking 28 balls to
score his one run and depart vs India at Jodhpur on 21 November 2002.
--
Lawrence
"Does your mum have big tits?" - Bill Clinton - 17 March 2010
Nirvanam
> I think the following from the current match must be a strong candidate for
> the lowest strike rate by an opener who got off the mark:
>
> Ahmed Shehzad c Kamande b Odoyo 1 (18b 0x4 0x6) SR: 5.55
>
> Can anyone think of a worse strike rate greater than zero for an opener (or
> any position, I suppose)?
>
IIRC, Aamir Sohail 1 of 24 in the 92 WC game against India
Aslam Siddiqui
p.com> wrote:
> I think the following from the current match must be a strong candidate for
> the lowest strike rate by an opener who got off the mark:
>
> Ahmed Shehzad c Kamande b Odoyo 1 (18b 0x4 0x6) SR: 5.55
>
facing at least 20 balls.
Bs
28 WW Hinds WI v Ind Jodhpur Nov 21, 2002
27 S Wettimuny SL v NZ Colombo(PSS) Nov 3, 1984
26 MA Taylor Aus v WI Sydney Jan 1, 1996
24 Aamir Sohail Pak v Ind Sharjah Oct 25, 1991
23 MJ Smith Sco v WI Leicester May 27, 1999
23 SR Tendulkar Ind v NZ Gwalior Nov 11, 1999
21 JG Wright NZ v Aus Sydney Jan 18, 1983
21 RT Latham NZ v Aus Adelaide Dec 12, 1993
20 KC Wessels Aus v WI Adelaide Jan 27, 1985
20 Tariq Iqbal Ken v Zim Patna Feb 27, 1996
20 MJ Horne NZ v Pak Derby May 28, 1999
20 G Kirsten SAf v Aus Johannesburg Apr 16, 2000
20 Mohammad Hafeez Pak v SAf Rawalpindi Oct 10, 2003
20 BRM Taylor Zim v NZ Harare Aug 31, 2005
Note: Smith, Tariq and Horne achieved this feat in World Cup.
aslam
GO PACERS!!!
tendulkar.com
Obvious follow-up questions
Max Balls when runs scored=2, 3, 4, ..., 10
Andrew B.
The records for slowest innings by openers (with the slowest for a
Test-playing side if different) for each score from 2-10 (plus for 0)
are below:
0: 22 Athar Ali Khan Ban v Ind, Mumbai 1998
0: 21 G Fowler Eng v NZ, Sydney 1983
2: 32 PA Wallace WI v Ind, Melbourne 1992
3: 34 Shoaib Mohammed Pak v WI, Gujranwala 1986
3: 34 Shoaib Mohammed Pak v Eng, Cuttack 1989
4: 62 Rizwan-uz-Zaman Pak v WI, Sialkot 1986
5: 43 KL Tucker Ber v Can, Port-of-Spain 2006
5: 40 G Boycott Eng v WI, Leeds 1980
6: 50 BA Edgar NZ v SL, Colombo 1984
7: 61 KJ Arnott Zim v Pak, Hobart 1992
8: 54 B Warnapura SL v WI, Manchester 1975
8: 43 KC Wessels SA v WI, Port Elizabeth 1993
9: 57 Shoaib Mohammed Pak v Aus, Sydney 1990
10: 68 R Shastri Ind v Aus, Perth 1991
Gavaskar's 36* off 174 balls is the slowest innings of over 14 by an
opener.
John Hall
<3275147b-122c-435e...@v31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
Andrew B. <bul...@gmail.com> writes:
>The records for slowest innings by openers (with the slowest for a
>Test-playing side if different) for each score from 2-10 (plus for 0)
>are below:
>
> 0: 22 Athar Ali Khan Ban v Ind, Mumbai 1998
> 0: 21 G Fowler Eng v NZ, Sydney 1983
>
> 2: 32 PA Wallace WI v Ind, Melbourne 1992
>
> 3: 34 Shoaib Mohammed Pak v WI, Gujranwala 1986
> 3: 34 Shoaib Mohammed Pak v Eng, Cuttack 1989
>
> 4: 62 Rizwan-uz-Zaman Pak v WI, Sialkot 1986
>
> 5: 43 KL Tucker Ber v Can, Port-of-Spain 2006
> 5: 40 G Boycott Eng v WI, Leeds 1980
>
> 6: 50 BA Edgar NZ v SL, Colombo 1984
>
> 7: 61 KJ Arnott Zim v Pak, Hobart 1992
>
> 8: 54 B Warnapura SL v WI, Manchester 1975
> 8: 43 KC Wessels SA v WI, Port Elizabeth 1993
>
> 9: 57 Shoaib Mohammed Pak v Aus, Sydney 1990
>
>10: 68 R Shastri Ind v Aus, Perth 1991
Rizwan-uz-Zaman's effort seems to be in a class of its own.
--
John Hall
"The covers of this book are too far apart."
Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914)
prabhu
> In article
> <3275147b-122c-435e-afc6-435f85ec6...@v31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/f05076590dbfde22
Aslams earlier list
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/browse_frm/thread/677fd352f53d4431/
Andrew B.
>
> Aslams earlier listhttp://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/browse_frm/thread/67...
This wasn't, of course, restricted to openers.
Uday Rajan
> On Feb 23, 2:24 pm, John Hall <nospam_no...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > 3: 34 Shoaib Mohammed Pak v WI, Gujranwala 1986
>
>
The post in your link points to a genuine problem. In many of the odos
in that Pak-WI series in 1986, the number of balls do not add up in
the following sense. The total number of balls faced by the batsmen
should add up to the total number of balls bowled according to the
bowling analyses plus the number of no-balls bowled. Sometimes, the
number of no-balls bowled is less than the no-ball extras, but the
number of no-ball extras puts an upper bound on the number of no-
balls.
In the Rizwan-uz-Zaman innings, the scorecard says the batsmen faced
293 balls, yet the bowlers bowled only 45 overs (270 balls) and there
were only 2 no-ball runs, so at most 2 no-balls. The balls don't add
up for the WI innings either.
Mohan
Back then, if a batsman scored runs off a no-ball, then it did not
count towards the extras. So it is possible that they bowled 23 no-
balls, but only 2 of those were not scored off.
Mohan
prabhu
>
> - Show quoted text -
Noballs and wides in this scorecard but still doesnt make sense
http://www.cricbuzz.com/cricket-scorecard-archives/scorecard/pakistan-v-west-indies-14-nov-1986/7066
Although no scorecard is needed to reiterate that Rizwan uz zaman was
a pain in the butt :)
Uday Rajan
> On Feb 23, 4:17 pm, Mohan <dpuse...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 24, 4:40 am, Uday Rajan <udayra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
> > > In the Rizwan-uz-Zaman innings, the scorecard says the batsmen faced
> > > 293 balls, yet the bowlers bowled only 45 overs (270 balls) and there
> > > were only 2 no-ball runs, so at most 2 no-balls. The balls don't add
> > > up for the WI innings either.
>
> > Back then, if a batsman scored runs off a no-ball, then it did not
> count towards the extras. So it is possible that they bowled 23 no-
> > balls, but only 2 of those were not scored off.
>
Mohan has a good point, and I had forgotten that. But you are right,
in some cases the discrepancy seems a bit too large to be plausibly
rationalized by no-balls that were scored off. In the innings you
cite, the batsmen are recorded as having faced 307 balls, but the
bowlers bolwed 267 legitimate deliveries and only 1 no-ball is
recorded. There would have to be 39 no-balls that were scored off for
the card to make sense.
tendulkar.com
There were 2 nbs and 22 w in that innings. So, assuming Wides were
counted against the batsmen (I wouldn't be surprised if they did)
then 270+22+2= 294
I'm pretty sure I remember seeing that match and batsmen really used
to see off West Indies fast bowlers in many of the matches. 4 for 62
absolutely make sense (esp when there is 5 of 40 from Srikanth and I
remember Akram toying around with Chikka in that match)
prabhu
>
> > The post in your link points to a genuine problem. In many of the odos
> > in that Pak-WI series in 1986, the number of balls do not add up in
> > the following sense. The total number of balls faced by the batsmen
> > should add up to the total number of balls bowled according to the
> > bowling analyses plus the number of no-balls bowled. Sometimes, the
> > number of no-balls bowled is less than the no-ball extras, but the
> > number of no-ball extras puts an upper bound on the number of no-
> > balls.
I checked the now defunct khel.com site for the match's scorecard and
it did not have the balls/minutes column
for this series. The other scorecard sites have the same card as CI
and one of them has NB/Ws zero for all the 10 bowlers.
> I'm pretty sure I remember seeing that match and batsmen really used
> to see off West Indies fast bowlers in many of the matches. 4 for 62
> absolutely make sense (esp when there is 5 of 40 from Srikanth and I
> remember Akram toying around with Chikka in that match)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
That is correct. You might not have seen that Sialkot game unless you
were in Pakistan
but just 14 days later, didnt Pak meet WI in the Champions Trophy(that
Logie MOM 3ct/2ro game)
and score around 148 in ~50 overs? Maybe Mohan Menon might be able to
confirm Zaman's real stats
for that sialkot odo.
Uday Rajan
> On Feb 23, 6:40 pm, Uday Rajan <udayra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In the Rizwan-uz-Zaman innings, the scorecard says the batsmen faced
> > 293 balls, yet the bowlers bowled only 45 overs (270 balls) and there
> > were only 2 no-ball runs, so at most 2 no-balls. The balls don't add
> > up for the WI innings either.
>
> There were 2 nbs and 22 w in that innings. So, assuming Wides were
> counted against the batsmen (I wouldn't be surprised if they did)
> then 270+22+2= 294
Yes, I was wondering about the wides, but the same calculation doesn't
seem to add up for the WI innings (see prabhu's link earlier in the
thread). All a little mysterious, at least to me.