Last Century before Lunch
Abhijit Sahay
Who was the last person to hit a century before lunch in
tests ? Majid Khan ?
I seem to remember that Gavaskar got his 29th (or was it 30th ?)
century against the West Indies at New Delhi before lunch but
it wasn't on the first day of the test.
When they talk of `century before lunch', are only first-day pre-lunch
sessions considered ?
-- Abhijit
Anthony Waller
>
>I remember the great Doug Walters scoring a century in the last session
>once, hitting a six off the last ball of the day from Willis to get his
>hundred. Do any of the Aussies remember the details ? This was against
>England in Australia in the 70s. Of course, Don Bradman scored 307 in a
>day against England, which is more than 100 per session !!
>
Ah, Dougie Walters, always a great entertainer, a member of Ian
Chappell's great side of the 70's. I remember watching that session on
TV - Walters was on 97 needing a 4 off the last ball to ensure the
100 in a session. The ball was pitched short and Walters hooked
it behind deep square leg....the crowd went wild. I think it was
1977-8 ?
Bradman's score consisted of 100+ in the 1st 2 sessions and then
85 between luch and tea. The ground was Headingly, Leeds - Bradman's
favourite hunting ground on tours of England. Now that we're onto
Bradman - do people agree that he is the greatest cricketer of all
time?
Anthony Waller <P85...@BARILVM.BITNET>
Bar-Ilan University
Israel.
Ali Minai
>
>
>Who was the last person to hit a century before lunch in
>tests ? Majid Khan ?
>
Yes. Pakistan vs. New Zealand. 1976-77.
Ciao,
Ali
Rajeev Menon
to a century on the first morning of the test, at least the way it is used.
I never liked this one too much, because it favours the openers. Also, what
is so great about the pre-lunch session on opening day ?
For the records, Majid Khan I beleive was the last to do it. Farooq Engineer
was 97 not out at lunch on opening day once ( I believe enroute to his
maiden hundred ), but close doesn't count, right ?
A century in a session is quite an achievement and has not been done too
often. To be considered so, the innings must have begun in the same session,
in which the century was completed. A "Century before lunch" is a special
case of this.
I remember the great Doug Walters scoring a century in the last session
once, hitting a six off the last ball of the day from Willis to get his
hundred. Do any of the Aussies remember the details ? This was against
England in Australia in the 70s. Of course, Don Bradman scored 307 in a
day against England, which is more than 100 per session !!
Rajeev Menon
Steve Parker
at lunch(~96) on the first day of the Delhi test. Though I am no Gavaskar fan
I remeber that as one of his finest attacking innings. The hook for 6 off
Marshall and a few sparkling straight drives off the same bowler come to mind. I think you are right in assuming that Majid was the last test centurion before
lunch.
Karthik
What's in a name?
>>once, hitting a six off the last ball of the day from Willis to get his
>>hundred. Do any of the Aussies remember the details ? This was against
>>England in Australia in the 70s. Of course, Don Bradman scored 307 in a
>>day against England, which is more than 100 per session !!
However, Bradman did not score 100+ runs in every session. He was 104
at lunch, 220 at tea and 307 not out at stumps.
>>Rajeev Menon
--Vivek
K. Sankara Rao
>
>However, Bradman did not score 100+ runs in every session. He was 104
>at lunch, 220 at tea and 307 not out at stumps.
>
As I recall the number of hours played per day in those days were not
six. The three sessions were not of equal duration. It was either 105,105 and
90 minutes long or 120,120 and 90 minutes long sessions during Bradman's days.
K. Sankara Rao ks...@power.eee.ndsu.nodak.edu
Department of Electrical Engineering
North Dakota State University, Fargo
David Chalmers
> Ah, Dougie Walters, always a great entertainer, a member of Ian
>Chappell's great side of the 70's. I remember watching that session on
>TV - Walters was on 97 needing a 4 off the last ball to ensure the
>100 in a session. The ball was pitched short and Walters hooked
>it behind deep square leg....the crowd went wild. I think it was
>1977-8 ?
1974-75 against England. A great innings, that one. I seem to
remember a six being involved at the end, but maybe not.
On the subject of 100 in a session, I recall that Gary Cosier almost got
100 before lunch in his great 168 against Pakistan in Melbourne, 1976-77.
He only needed a few runs off the last over, but as I recall either couldn't
get the or just couldn't force the runs. A great test all round, that one...
also included one of the all-time most atmospheric Lillee spells, as he was
knocking down wicket after wicket in the afternoon -- the "Lillee, Lillee..."
chant when he was on his hat-trick was incredible (though he didn't get the
hat-trick).
> Bradman's score consisted of 100+ in the 1st 2 sessions and then
>85 between luch and tea. The ground was Headingly, Leeds - Bradman's
>favourite hunting ground on tours of England. Now that we're onto
>Bradman - do people agree that he is the greatest cricketer of all
>time?
Surely there's not much argument about this. Bradman was simply a complete
freak, ahead of every other cricketer that's ever lived by a mile. The
averages are enough to tell the story. An average of 40 is pretty reasonable
for a Test batsman; an average of 50 is quite rare and indicates a top-class
batsman (I think Border's average is about 50). Almost no-one has averaged
over 60 -- Greg Chappell's average, for instance, was about 55. The
second-best average ever was about 63 (can't remember who by). And then you
have Bradman with an average of 99.94! Not much more needs to be said.
(Even in the Bodyline series, supposedly the one series where he "failed",
he averaged over 50.) I would have loved to be around to see Bradman play...
The only other cricketer who'd stand a chance of competing with Bradman for
the honour might be Gary Sobers. Over 8000 runs and over 230 wickets is
pretty decent. His batting alone would easily have got him into a World XI
of his period, and then add the fact that he was also a world-class bowler...
By a mile the best all-rounder of all time, no-one else is even close.
--
Dave Chalmers (da...@cogsci.indiana.edu)
Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University.
"It is not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable"
R. Bharat Rao
> Ah, Dougie Walters, always a great entertainer, a member of Ian
>Chappell's great side of the 70's. I remember watching that session on
>TV - Walters was on 97 needing a 4 off the last ball to ensure the
>100 in a session. The ball was pitched short and Walters hooked
Actually, Walters was 3n.o. when tea was taken. When he was on 97 with
one ball to go everyone was speculating whether he would hit a four to
get his 100; even the commentators were not aware that he needed 6 for
his hundered in a session. Walters, however, was aware and promptly
whacked the last ball for 6. In fact it was Walters who pointed out
that he had scored a century in a session.
The reverse happenned about 10 years ago - Botham had started the day
vs. India at (approx 7 n.o.). When the last over before lunch began he
was 104 n.o. (he certainly munched on the Indian bowling), and
promptly put down the shutters - actually Botham playing defense was
for my money more likely to get out. The BBC commentators noted that
he was unaware that he needed a mere 3(+-1) runs for his 100, and
wished they could tell him.
-Bharat
R.Bharat Rao, AI Group, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
E-Mail: bha...@gaea.cs.uiuc.edu
USMail: 2053 Beckman Institute, 405 N Matthews, Urbana, IL61801
name MONEY
>at lunch, 220 at tea and 307 not out at stumps.
Just a minor correction, Vivek! As I remember, he was 111* at lunch, 220*
at tea, and 309* at the stumps. Can anyone verify this?
- Sandeep.
name MONEY
>85 between luch and tea.
I think this was the inning in which he scored 334*, his highest score!
>Now that we're onto Bradman - do people agree that he is the greatest
>cricketer of all time?
>Anthony Waller <P85...@BARILVM.BITNET>
I don't know about greatest cricketer, Anthony, but I do agree that he is
*the* greatest batsman of all times, an excellent cover fielder, but can't
say anything about his bowling? Does anyone has any stats on his career
bowling performance?
Cheers,
Sandeep.
Greg Widdicombe
[ ... stuff deleted ... ]
>I remember the great Doug Walters scoring a century in the last session
>once, hitting a six off the last ball of the day from Willis to get his
>hundred. Do any of the Aussies remember the details ? This was against
>England in Australia in the 70s. Of course, Don Bradman scored 307 in a
>day against England, which is more than 100 per session !!
>
>Rajeev Menon
Ah ... one of my favourite anecdotes. The date: December 14th, 1974;
The place: WACA ground in Perth; The opponents: England.
During the afternoon, Walters and Ross Edwards had shared a
partnership of 170 runs in 140 minutes. IN the final two-hour
session, the two added 151 runs from 24 overs. The last over was
ready to be bowled, Walters was on 97 and on strike.
The England skipper Mike Denness gave the ball to Willis to bowl.
Each ball went by and Walters played it 'gently', as if starting his
innings instead of finishing a century. Willis started in for the
last ball of the over, dug it in slightly short of a length and it
rose chest high. Walters stepped back, pulled the ball over midwicket
for six runs giving him a century in the session.
As the batsmen ran for the pavilion, umpire Tom Brooks had to
'pursuade' a youth in a purple shirt to part with it (I think the
suggestion of police intervention made up his mind). When Walters
arrived in the dressing room the place was deserted. Expecting a
hero's welcome he wandered around wondering where everyone had got to.
Eventually one of the Aussie players appeared and Walters said "See, I
told you I could hit a ton in this session" (or something similar).
The other player then replied "Century? You idiot ... the ball was
caught on the boundary and you're out!". Walters then rushed outside
to check the scoreboard and found he was the victim of a great
practical joke! When he returned he got the welcome he deserved.
When he resumed his innings on Sunday, he received what were called
two of the best deliveries bowled by any Englishman that series. The
first curved in from outside the off stump and cut away, beating the
bat. The second moved still later, dipping in quickly and then
straightening off the pitch. 'Dougie' managed to just clip the ball,
which flew to Keith Fletcher at first slip to accept the catch. The
great innings was over.
[OK ... I admit it, I didn't just 'remember' all this stuff! It came
from "A Century of Ashes", parts of which were reproduced without
permission. So there!]
BTW, wasn't Bradman's 300+ in a day the same day that Australia scored
711 in the day?
--
Greg Widdicombe --- Up from Down Under _--_|\
/ \ <-- Brizzo
One of Kipling's "White flannelled fools". \_.--._/
v
David Chalmers
>BTW, wasn't Bradman's 300+ in a day the same day that Australia scored
>711 in the day?
No, the 700+ runs in a day was in a match against Essex, on the same tour I
think. (Not sure if it was 711, 726, 735 or something like that. That's the
record for most runs in a day in a first-class match. I don't know the record
for Tests, but it must be much lower. Could you imagine Bradman on this
incredible fast-scoring run-spree being outscored 4 for 3 at the other end?
Somebody with a Wisden handy could do very well on this newsgroup, I think :-).
Unfortunately I left mine back in Australia.
Someone asked about Bradman's bowling. I think he bowled extremely rarely,
and probably got no Test wickets. So he can't compete in the "all-rounder"
stakes (although he was a very fine fielder, and a great captain). I think
he's still a shoo-in for the "greatest player" award though, not just "greatest
batsman", in view of his unparalleled dominance. No bowler, for instance,
comes close to being so head-and-shoulders above the crowd. (It would be
analogous to the "rest" of the best bowlers in the world having 400 or so
wickets, and the #1 having 600 from the same number of matches.)
Anyone for an All-time All-country World XI?
Ishfaq Ahmad
>>
>>I remember the great Doug Walters scoring a century in the last session
>>once, hitting a six off the last ball of the day from Willis to get his
>>hundred. Do any of the Aussies remember the details ? This was against
---stuff deleted---
> Ah, Dougie Walters, always a great entertainer, a member of Ian
>Chappell's great side of the 70's. I remember watching that session on
Walters, I think, was a useful batsman but I can't accept that he was
a great batsman. The reason is he was not able to score many runs outside
Australia. In particular, his performance in England always remained
miserable. And it is said that a batsman who scores in England can score
everywhere.
>
> Bradman's score consisted of 100+ in the 1st 2 sessions and then
>85 between luch and tea. The ground was Headingly, Leeds - Bradman's
Bradman is undoubtedly the greatest ever batsman. I have not seen him
bat (I mean in Video - I am not that old) except for a very brief inninigs
in which he played some strokes off the back foot.
I have heard that he was not very stylish. Any comments?
I am one of his many fans though.
-Ishfaq Ahmad
R. Bharat Rao
>In article <F!9#{L|@ads.com> widd...@ADS.COM (Greg Widdicombe) writes:
>
>>BTW, wasn't Bradman's 300+ in a day the same day that Australia scored
>>711 in the day?
>
>No, the 700+ runs in a day was in a match against Essex, on the same tour I
>think. (Not sure if it was 711, 726, 735 or something like that. That's the
>record for most runs in a day in a first-class match. I don't know the record
>for Tests, but it must be much lower. Could you imagine Bradman on this
>incredible fast-scoring run-spree being outscored 4 for 3 at the other end?
Actually, that was when Bradman scored 432 n.o. - a record for most
runs scored in one day at the first class level (one that may be
broken this season in County cricket:-).
Incidentally, what makes Bradman's achievements even more unbelievable
(if they are not that already) is that he scored his runs on wickets,
which in general were not prepared and mantained as well as they are
today. Also, I don't think they used to cover wickets during the early
part of his career.
To add to the Bradman lore, the most amazing thing I heard about him
was that on the first day of a Test match Bradman was out for 70 odd,
and the sports headlines the next day read "Bradman Fails".
A book to be recommended - Bradman's "The Art of Cricket". I loved it,
does anyone have any opinions on that book?
>Dave Chalmers (da...@cogsci.indiana.edu)
Viswamitra T
>A book to be recommended - Bradman's "The Art of Cricket". I loved it,
>does anyone have any opinions on that book?
>-Bharat
I liked that book too.
The amazing part of Braddy's batting practice was that
it started with a ball, a wall & a "stick" instead of
a "bat".
- Vish
The Silent Dodo
>and probably got no Test wickets. So he can't compete in the "all-rounder"
>stakes (although he was a very fine fielder, and a great captain). I think
>he's still a shoo-in for the "greatest player" award though, not just "greatest
>batsman", in view of his unparalleled dominance. No bowler, for instance,
>comes close to being so head-and-shoulders above the crowd. (It would be
>analogous to the "rest" of the best bowlers in the world having 400 or so
>wickets, and the #1 having 600 from the same number of matches.)
>
How about Sir Gary Sobers for the greatest player of all time?
There is no doubt that Bradman was the greatest batsman of all
time. But as an overall player I consider him better than
Bradman. Can someone provide exact statistics of his runs,
wickets and catches? I used to remember these things. Been away
from home too long I guess :-)
-- Anant Patkar
(pat...@cn.ecn.purdue.edu)
Greg Widdicombe
>I liked that book too.
>The amazing part of Braddy's batting practice was that
>it started with a ball, a wall & a "stick" instead of
golfball! cricket stump!
>a "bat".
>
>- Vish
No wonder he had such a great eye!
Martyn Quigley, Education, Memorial University of Newfoundland
> In article <F!9#{L|@ads.com> widd...@ADS.COM (Greg Widdicombe) writes:
>
>>BTW, wasn't Bradman's 300+ in a day the same day that Australia scored
>>711 in the day?
>
> No, the 700+ runs in a day was in a match against Essex, on the same tour I
> think. (Not sure if it was 711, 726, 735 or something like that. That's the
> record for most runs in a day in a first-class match. I don't know the record
> for Tests, but it must be much lower.
It was 721 at Southend in 1948. The most test runs scored in a day
is, I believe, 588 made jointly by England and India in the 30's.
> [Bradman] can't compete in the "all-rounder"
> stakes (although he was a very fine fielder, and a great captain). I think
> he's still a shoo-in for the "greatest player" though, not just "greatest
> batsman", in view of his unparalleled dominance.
True enough, when your lifetime average is 95.14 and your test average
99.94 with nobody else in sight! Although I'm not much of a Botham
fan, he has the best all-rounder record. 5057 runs, 373 wickets and
109 catches. He is the only player to have scored a ton and taken 8
wickets in an innings (in a test) and shares the ton and 10 wickets in
a test match only with Imran Khan.
> Anyone for an All-time All-country World XI?
I nominate Bradman, Botham, Hadlee and Marsh.
Martyn
David Chalmers
>Although I'm not much of a Botham
>fan, he has the best all-rounder record. 5057 runs, 373 wickets and
>109 catches. He is the only player to have scored a ton and taken 8
>wickets in an innings (in a test) and shares the ton and 10 wickets in
>a test match only with Imran Khan.
I don't know, I think Gary Sobers has to get the nod as a better all-rounder.
A much, much better batsman than Botham, and in the same league as a bowler --
though Botham probably just has the edge there. But remember that Sobers was
also a very classy spin bowler in addition to his fast stuff. Sobers' figures
are 8032 runs and 235 wickets from many fewer tests than Botham -- I don't have
the exact statistics, does anyone?
Botham had the potential to be an all-time great but somehow never quite lived
up to it, despite his impressive figures. He was just a little too
inconsistent. Especially late in his career, when he should have been
consolidating his "greatness", instead his lazy streak seemed to some right
through. At his best, Botham was the best in the world, but he wasn't at his
best all that often. (Apologies to anyone offended by the past tense... I
think it's justified.)
>> Anyone for an All-time All-country World XI?
>
>I nominate Bradman, Botham, Hadlee and Marsh.
Somehow neither Botham or Hadlee strike me as automatic selections. True,
they're both very impressive all-rounders, but I think we want players who
can make the team on their batting or bowling alone. Remember, we're going
to be playing Mars! We need to be able to bowl them out...
Bradman is certainly a shoo-in. Marsh is probably arguable, but I don't see
any candiate who's obviously better.
Let's see: batsmen. Bradman is the only automatic. Also Sobers, who's right
up there with the best on his batting, and his bowling is easily enough to
tip him over the edge into the team, notwithstanding what I said earlier.
I think Viv Richards is the only recent batsmen to get a spot (even that is
certainly arguable). Jack Hobbs can open, along with ...? Victor Trumper?
A sixth batsman: Harvey? Compton? Hutton? Hanif Mohammed? Tough one.
Keeper: well, we settled on Marsh, though no doubt a base could be made for
others.
Bowlers: It's hard to go past Dennis Lillee. There are a lot of fast bowlers
with a big chance here... Lindwall? Trueman? Spofforth? Holding? Hall?
And all those older players who tend to blur together for me. We already have
Sobers giving extremely decent support. For a spinner, maybe Bill O'Reilly?
Clarrie Grimmett? Richie Benaud? Dear oh dear, only Australians seem to come
to mind, I wonder why. I've drawn a temporary blank on great English spinners,
maybe someone can help me out. From the West Indies, Ramadhin/Valentine/Gibbs
are all good but don't quite make it. Once again, I have to apologize for my
lack of in-depth familiarity with Indian/Pakistani players. Given the smaller
amount of history for India and Pakistan (and Sri Lanka!) in Test cricket, it's
hard to find a place for these players, though no doubt someone can will help
out.
OK, here's a first-draft All-time World XI. Let's see others' choices.
Hobbs
Trumper
Bradman
Richards
Sobers
Hutton
Marsh
Grimmett
Lillee
Bowler 2
Bowler 3.
Hmm, the tail looks kind of long. Maybe a case could be made for Botham,
Hadlee or Imran after all... I couldn't bring myself to commit on the two
remaining bowling spots. But I'll leave it at that for now.
R. Bharat Rao
>
>99.94 with nobody else in sight! Although I'm not much of a Botham
>fan, he has the best all-rounder record. 5057 runs, 373 wickets and
>109 catches.
IMHO, Botham while undoubtedly a great player does not compare even
remotely, to Gary Sobers. In my (& probably most peoples) opinion only
two players automatically walk in to an All-time All-country World XI
- Bradman (the greatest bat ever) & Sobers (the (2nd?) greatest
cricketer ever). Frankly if (non-English) fans were going to make an
1979-1987 World XI, Botham would miss out on a significant number of
World XI's - many picking Imran Khan & Hadlee instead (I'd take Botham
though), and some Kapil Dev as well over Botham.
>Martyn
R. Bharat Rao
OK here goes
Settling on a keeper first - Rod Marsh (my youth is showing), 6
batsman, 5 bowlers (Sobers being both). Of the bowlers, one spinner,
and 3 pacers. Again Lille (max # wickets) and Trueman seem automatic.
Its tough to leave out the West Indians - Holding, Marshall, Hall,
Tyson, Spofforth, Lindwall, Miller - I'm going with Davidson (his
fielding would help) tho' - need a lefty. Of the Batsman, only Viv of
the current lot seems to have a chance. Again so many greats jump to
mind, May, Hammond, Hutton, Sutcliffe, Harvey, McCabe, Harvey,
Richards, Border, Hunte, Hanif, Kanhai,....
1. Jack Hobbs (100 1st class centuries)
2. Sunil Gavaskar (many would pick Hutton, but I think the all time
runs leader & most centuries deserves to be there)
3. W.G. Grace (the Father of cricket definitely belongs , if atleast
for sheer aplomb)
4. Donald Bradman (no argument here)
5. George Headley (imagine dismissing Bradman, and seeing Headley &
Sobers to follow)
6. Garfield Sobers (no argument - sorry Martyn)
7. Rodney Marsh (my knowledge of ex-wickies is scarce, maybe Woodfield
instead)
8. Alan Davidson (I could see Holding/Marshall here too)
9. Dennis Lille (should make many Wrold XI's)
10 Fred Trueman (incredible strike rate - would also provide comic
relief on an ego-filled team. About the only person, I imagine
who could tell Grace to "stuff it, Bill".
11 Bishen Bedi (With the others bowling he will pick up quite a haul,
when the batsman relax).
12th man Colin Bland.
Ali Minai
>>> Anyone for an All-time All-country World XI?
.
.
>7. Rodney Marsh (my knowledge of ex-wickies is scarce, maybe Woodfield
> instead)
>
Surely you mean Oldfield --- the Aussie keeper of the 20's and 30's. But you
already had a disclaimer in there :-).
Ciao,
Ali
P.S. Maybe you mixed up Oldfield and Woodfull --- the Australian opener and
captain. One thing they had in common was getting seriously injured by Larwood
in the same Test in 1932-33.
Andrew Norris
>batsman, 5 bowlers (Sobers being both). Of the bowlers, one spinner,
>and 3 pacers. Again Lille (max # wickets) and Trueman seem automatic.
Ha! Richard Hadley, NZ, 400+ test wickets ----#1 in world.
Andrew
John Holley
>>> Anyone for an All-time All-country World XI?
>>
>>I nominate Bradman, Botham, Hadlee and Marsh.
>
>Somehow neither Botham or Hadlee strike me as automatic selections. True,
>they're both very impressive all-rounders, but I think we want players who
>can make the team on their batting or bowling alone. Remember, we're going
>to be playing Mars! We need to be able to bowl them out...
>
>with a big chance here... Lindwall? Trueman? Spofforth? Holding? Hall?
>And all those older players who tend to blur together for me. We already have
>Sobers giving extremely decent support. For a spinner, maybe Bill O'Reilly?
>Clarrie Grimmett? Richie Benaud? Dear oh dear, only Australians seem to come
>to mind, I wonder why. I've drawn a temporary blank on great English spinners,
>maybe someone can help me out. From the West Indies, Ramadhin/Valentine/Gibbs
>are all good but don't quite make it. Once again, I have to apologize for my
>lack of in-depth familiarity with Indian/Pakistani players. Given the smaller
>amount of history for India and Pakistan (and Sri Lanka!) in Test cricket, it's
>hard to find a place for these players, though no doubt someone can will help
>out.
>
>OK, here's a first-draft All-time World XI. Let's see others' choices.
>
>Hobbs
>Trumper
>Bradman
>Richards
>Sobers
>Hutton
>Marsh
>Grimmett
>Lillee
>Bowler 2
>Bowler 3.
>
Typical tunnel vision from an Australian. Saying that Hadlee couldn't
make a All-time World XI as a bowler means you would have to drop
Lillee as well !! After all if a guy who has the WORLD record for test
wickets (now above 400), the most 5 and (I think) 10 wicket bags in
test cricket, best figures of 9 for something (he caught the 10th
wicket) against Australia (funny that :-) ), a pretty respectable
test batting average (including centuries), one of a select few to
have completed the 100 wickets/1000 run double in County cricket etc
what chance does Lillee have ? :-).
No, seriously, for a pace attack Lillee and Hadlee would have to be
near the top of my list, especially as they were consistently among
the best bowlers of their time (Hadlee still is) despite the increased
levels of fixtures first class players must now meet.
But for spin I'm afraid there are Indian and Pakastani players who
make most Aussie and Brit bowlers quite ordinary.
John A. Holley | J.Ho...@massey.ac.nz : Internet
School of Information Sciences | J.Ho...@nz.ac.massey : Janet
Massey University | +64 63 505611 : Fax
Palmerston North | +64 63 69099 ext 8616 : Vox
New Zealand | Disclaimer : Sorry! My brain hurts!
David Chalmers
>Typical tunnel vision from an Australian. Saying that Hadlee couldn't
>make a All-time World XI as a bowler means you would have to drop
>Lillee as well !! After all if a guy who has the WORLD record for test
>wickets (now above 400), the most 5 and (I think) 10 wicket bags in
>test cricket, best figures of 9 for something (he caught the 10th
>wicket) against Australia (funny that :-) ), a pretty respectable
>test batting average (including centuries), one of a select few to
>have completed the 100 wickets/1000 run double in County cricket etc
>what chance does Lillee have ? :-).
Hmmm, I don't know... Hadlee may have more wickets than Lillee, but how
many more Tests did he play? I must confess to not knowing the exact
statistics. The other thing that biases the statistics in Hadlee's favour
is the fact that he played in a New Zealand team that was otherwise very weak
in the bowling department, meaning he was able to get an increased proportion
of wickets. Lillee, by contrast, was competing with major figures like Thomson
at the other end for much of his career.
As for the batting, I agree this is very useful, I just don't think that it
should make too much difference at World XI level. Hadlee's a useful batsman,
but probably not quite Test-class, let alone world-class. (The 100/1000 double
is a typical "bowling all-rounder" double, albeit an impressive one. A more
balanced double would be 100 wkt/2000 runs, or maybe 75/1500 to make it a bit
easier.)
I have to confess that his 9 wickets against Australia were impressive, though.
Hadlee is a cricketer who I have nothing but respect for; and as a person, he's
much easier to admire than Lillee. Would almost certainly make a World XI of
his day, but of all-time? I don't think so. (If he pulls something amazing
out of the bag this summer against England, I may just have to reconsider...)
>But for spin I'm afraid there are Indian and Pakastani players who
>make most Aussie and Brit bowlers quite ordinary.
Agreed, as a general rule. I just couldn't think of a single name that stood
out. Bedi? Chandrasakhar? Doshi? Qadir? Some older figure? In the end
I drew on the greater history of Aust/Eng (which certainly means that any
all-time XI will be biased in their favour), and went for Grimmett over
O'Reilly and Laker.
How come no-one else is coming forward with their World XI's?
Raj Sivakumar
>In article <309sis-a@@massey.ac.nz> J.Holley@@massey.ac.nz writes:
>
>Hmmm, I don't know... Hadlee may have more wickets than Lillee, but how
>many more Tests did he play? I must confess to not knowing the exact
>statistics. The other thing that biases the statistics in Hadlee's favour
>is the fact that he played in a New Zealand team that was otherwise very weak
>in the bowling department, meaning he was able to get an increased proportion
>of wickets.
I doubt if the lack of bowling depth favored Hadlee. I guess that knowing that
you will be facing the likes of Hadlee only once in every two overs mentally
prepares the batsman tremendously. In my opinion the great success that the
West Indian bowlers have enjoyed of late is more due to their collective
talent than due to the sum of the individual talents. Yes, I might be biased,
but I strongly feel that Kapil Dev has all the talents and skills to have gone
beyond 400 wickets much earlier, had it not been for the fact that he had to
bowl with Ghavri, Mohinder, Gaekwad and even Gavaskar on the other end.
>
>I have to confess that his 9 wickets against Australia were impressive, though.
>Hadlee is a cricketer who I have nothing but respect for; and as a person, he's
>much easier to admire than Lillee.
At least I don't admire him much as a person after the comment he made
regarding coming to India for the '89 world cup(Even my mother-in-law will
not come to India). My respect for him dwindled further when he traveled to
India in the last NZ tour just to make sure he reached the milestone of being
the highest wicket taker, probably his mother-in-law agreed to come with him
in his best interests, after all :..) This aside, I feel that a bowler or a
batsman should have contributed inall types of conditions to deserve a place
in the hall of fame. Yes, Gavaskar does deserve a place in this regard.
>Dave Chalmers (da...@cogsci.indiana.edu)
........Kumar
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raj A. Sivakumar Dept. of Ind. Engg. 121 Minnesota Ave.
siva...@sun.acsu.buffalo.edu 342, Bell Hall Buffalo NY 14214
V093...@UBVMSA.BITNET SUNY at Buffalo. (716)832-4510
(716)636-2357
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ishfaq Ahmad
>In article <45...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> da...@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:
>>In article <309sis-a@@massey.ac.nz> J.Holley@@massey.ac.nz writes:
>>
>I doubt if the lack of bowling depth favored Hadlee. I guess that knowing that
>you will be facing the likes of Hadlee only once in every two overs mentally
>prepares the batsman tremendously. In my opinion the great success that the
>West Indian bowlers have enjoyed of late is more due to their collective
>talent than due to the sum of the individual talents. Yes, I might be biased,
>but I strongly feel that Kapil Dev has all the talents and skills to have gone
>beyond 400 wickets much earlier, had it not been for the fact that he had to
>bowl with Ghavri, Mohinder, Gaekwad and even Gavaskar on the other end.
A very strange reason to prove Kapil's greatness. If we go by if's and but's
then Imran would have been the first bolwer in the history to cross 500
test wickets mark, had he not been out of cricket for two years during the
peak of his form beacuse of the leg injury. I think (without being
biased) Kapil is good bowler but by no means is he a world class bowler.
He is a good fighter and a type of cricketer who likes to be fully involved
in the game. He is a good alrounder. But as a bolwer alone, he does not
stand along great bowlers. He is lucky to have taken so many wickets.
I am not being biased against Kapil but just from the game's perspective,
let's examine his a bowling talants a little bit:
1. Pace : No, he does not fall into that category. He is a fast medium bowler
with an innocuous bouncer that hardly bothers any batsman.
2. Swing in the air : He has a good out swinger but that is not enough to
win him the title of a great bowler.
3. Cut off the ground: Not much.
4. Use of the old ball: Pretty bad.
5. Control over line-length: O.k.
6. Tactics and bowling sense: Good.
7. Performance on home grounds: Excellent over mediocre teams.
8. Performance away from home: Nothing really noticable.
9. Runs conceded per over: Very high
10. Strike rate per over: High in India; poor overseas.
11. Average runs per wicket: Not so great.
12. Action: Bad.
Moreover, he has not performed any historic feats with his bowling. He has
also received punishments from batsman, on numerous occasions which is very
unusual for a great bowler.
You don't seem to be an admirer of West Indies's bowlers but I think any
captain in the world would prefer Roberts or Holding or Marshall or Croft or
Garner over Kapil (as a bowler). Kapil might still be chosen because of his
alround abilities.
>>I have to confess that his 9 wickets against Australia were impressive, though.
>>Hadlee is a cricketer who I have nothing but respect for; and as a person, he's
>>much easier to admire than Lillee.
>
>At least I don't admire him much as a person after the comment he made
>regarding coming to India for the '89 world cup(Even my mother-in-law will
>not come to India). My respect for him dwindled further when he traveled to
>India in the last NZ tour just to make sure he reached the milestone of being
>the highest wicket taker, probably his mother-in-law agreed to come with him
That is really beside the point because it has nothing to do with cricketing
abilities. And every fast bowler has his own tantrums, you know.
>in his best interests, after all :..) This aside, I feel that a bowler or a
>batsman should have contributed inall types of conditions to deserve a place
>in the hall of fame. Yes, Gavaskar does deserve a place in this regard.
Here, I agree with you. I think Gavaskar deserves a place in the all time
World XI.
>
>>Dave Chalmers (da...@cogsci.indiana.edu)
>
>........Kumar
-Ishfaq Ahmad
David Chalmers
>A very strange reason to prove Kapil's greatness. If we go by if's and but's
>then Imran would have been the first bolwer in the history to cross 500
>test wickets mark, had he not been out of cricket for two years during the
>peak of his form beacuse of the leg injury. I think (without being
Hey, if we're going to go by ifs and buts... Dennis Lillee already held the
world record for a time (373 wickets); and he accomplished this despite being
out for a year or two in the early Seventies with a back injury, and also
missing three years due to World Series Cricket. If it wasn't for those
things, we'd be talking 500, maybe 600 wickets (though he might have got a
little more fatigued...).
Those WSC years really wreck the stats, especially for some of the great
Australians and West Indians of the time. The figures of Lillee, Chappell,
Marsh, Holding, Lloyd, Richards are already impressive enough. We'd probably
be talking world records bigtime if WSC was included.
>Here, I agree with you. I think Gavaskar deserves a place in the all time
>World XI.
Maybe national bias again, but I'm unconvinced of this. Certainly has
more runs and more centuries than anyone else, but how many more tests? A
large number, I think. Does anybody know his career average? He'd walk
into a World XI of his time, but I don't know about of all-time.
ddey
Well,judging purely by number of wickets,Gibbs should be the first choice.
But consider this.The Indian spin trio of Bedi-Prasanna-Chandrasekhar very
much dominates the history of spin in cricket.Between them they have about
700 wickets in tests.Bedi was a master of flight and pitch - he could drop the
ball anywhere he wanted (except in the ignominious Karachi test in'78-79,where
Imran made mincemeat of him, but that was after he had been playing for 12 (?)
years and had delivered more balls than any other bowler before him so I
guess we can consider that an aberration :-)) and so was Prasanna. They were
both horrible fielders.It's a pity that the Indian fielding, with occasional
exceptions, was never supportive enough to help them contain the batsmen even
further and the batting rarely gave them a total where they could dare tempt
the batsmen. As a result they ended up bowling to a defensive field most of
the time.Bedi and Prasanna have some of the best run-per-delivery records in
test history.
And now about Chandra.I was always a fan of his,and like all his other fans
I have also rolled my eyes heavenward in despair quite often.He was erratic,
to make an understatement.He could never contain the batsmen,unless they were
so afraid of him that they wouldn't even try to hit him,but on certain days
at certain times Chandra was deadlier than hell. One could never tell when he
would strike form,but if he did,he would win the match for India. He has done
that many times. He was pretty quick off the pitch,in fact somebody (Viv
Richards?) once said that Chandra's top-spinners were as fast off the pitch
as the fastest deliveries he had played. His googly was impossible to detect
(much more than Qadir's, I am told ),and with a little support from the
wicket, he was a match-winner.I don't remember his statistics -- something
like an average of 26 off ~65 tests and ~16 5wI as far as I recall.He was also
the worst test batsman in recorded history.If you want one spinner in the
team, my vote goes to Chandra. His was a character cricket folklore is made
of.
There were a few others,Venkat - who would surely make it into any team
that's playing now, but would be shadowed by any of the trio.And there is
of course Mankad,the great Vinoo, who holds the world record for an opening
partnership (413 with P.Roy at Madras against NZ (54-55?).He scored 231
and Roy scored 173.) and also 200+ wickets.Once at Lord's he bowled 80+
overs for 7(8?) wickets and then came back to open the innings for India
and scored 182 and was the last man out.But on bowling prowess alone,Bedi
has a slight edge over him.
Grimmett/O'Reilly/Laker?Nah.No-no.Nope.
>
>How come no-one else is coming forward with their World XI's?
>
Well,considering that it's such a pain to select one bowler,is it surprising
that few people would try to select a world XI? Who will they face,anyway?
Shouldn't we try to select two balanced world XI's?
>Dave Chalmers (da...@cogsci.indiana.edu)
--Amitabha
David Chalmers
>WSC affected Imran's statisics too. It affected almost all great
>players' figures except for Indian players and later some New Zealanders.
>Anyway, it is not me who was going by if's and but's.
Was Imran allowed to play for Pakistan during that period? As I recall,
some countries didn't declare WSC players ineligible. Australia and the
West Indies were the only two countries to have full teams in WSC, so it hit
them the hardest.
>>Maybe national bias again, but I'm unconvinced of this. Certainly has
>
>Jumping to conclusions!
>I am not an Indian.
No, no. I meant *my* national bias. I'm Australian and so have much greater
familiarity with Australian players than with Indians or Pakistanis, for
instance.
>I don't know the exact figues but I think his average is between 55 and 60
>runs in an innings.
OK, that's pretty impressive. Anyone with a Wisden on hand want to post stats
(runs, averages) for the leading batsmen of our time?
>So who do you think should be the opening pair in the all time World XI
>and why?
I think Jack Hobbs is one of them, without any doubt. For the other, I'm
tempted by Victor Trumper. Also, Len Hutton was an opener, wasn't he?
Gavaskar must surely have a shot at it. But I'll stick with Hobbs and
Trumper for now.
Incidentally, about the spinner, OK, I'm convinced. Bedi or Chandra gets in
over Grimmett, Laker and the rest. If only they were slightly better
batsmen/fielders...
(One memory I have of Chandra's batting is from the First Test, Aust vs. India
in 1977-78. India had one wicket left, and only needed 16 runs to win.
But there was no tension at all, it was a foregone conclusion that Australia
had won. Why? Chandra was batting. Not many batsmen you could say that
about. Of course, Australia won by 15.
Another *terrible* batsman for a time was Terry Alderman. For two seasons
in Sheffield Shield cricket in the seventies, he scored a total of about three
runs. Later, he improved some, and I think his Test figures are actually
quite reasonable.)
Ishfaq Ahmad
>
>>A very strange reason to prove Kapil's greatness. If we go by if's and but's
>>then Imran would have been the first bolwer in the history to cross 500
>>test wickets mark, had he not been out of cricket for two years during the
>>peak of his form beacuse of the leg injury. I think (without being
>
>Hey, if we're going to go by ifs and buts... Dennis Lillee already held the
>world record for a time (373 wickets); and he accomplished this despite being
>out for a year or two in the early Seventies with a back injury, and also
But how many matches did he miss?
>missing three years due to World Series Cricket. If it wasn't for those
>things, we'd be talking 500, maybe 600 wickets (though he might have got a
>little more fatigued...).
>
>Those WSC years really wreck the stats, especially for some of the great
>Australians and West Indians of the time. The figures of Lillee, Chappell,
WSC affected Imran's statisics too. It affected almost all great
players' figures except for Indian players and later some New Zealanders.
Anyway, it is not me who was going by if's and but's.
>
>>Here, I agree with you. I think Gavaskar deserves a place in the all time
>>World XI.
>
>Maybe national bias again, but I'm unconvinced of this. Certainly has
Jumping to conclusions!
I am not an Indian.
>more runs and more centuries than anyone else, but how many more tests? A
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Even that does not make him qaulify for a place in the all time team?
>large number, I think. Does anybody know his career average? He'd walk
I don't know the exact figues but I think his average is between 55 and 60
runs in an innings.
>into a World XI of his time, but I don't know about of all-time.
So who do you think should be the opening pair in the all time Wrold XI
and why?
-Ishfaq Ahmad
Raj Sivakumar
>
>Maybe national bias again, but I'm unconvinced of this. Certainly has
>more runs and more centuries than anyone else, but how many more tests? A
>large number, I think. Does anybody know his career average? He'd walk
>into a World XI of his time, but I don't know about of all-time.
>
>--
>Dave Chalmers (da...@cogsci.indiana.edu)
You have chosen a wrong statistic to eliminate Gavaskar from the list of
all time greats. Yes, he did take a lot more tests to score his centuries, but
this is true when compared with the Don alone. You should also remember that he
has been able to sustain an average of 51+ which ranks among the best, of coursebarring the Don.
.........Kumar
name MONEY
>world record for a time (373 wickets); and he accomplished this despite being
Dennis "The Menace" Lillee has 355 wickets from 70 test matches while Botham
has 373 wickets and is probably the second hightest wicket taker after Hadlee.
Can anyone post a descending order list of all the bowlers with more than 300
wickets?
Later,
Sandeep.