Q781

What was unusual about this match? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I seemed to remember Ted Lester as being the Yorkshire scorer in that era. Looking up his Wiki article, I see that I was right. He had retired as a player some years before, but had to be called on because of an injury crisis. JH ( talk page) 18:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Excellent. It was because Yorkshire had arrived at Lord's with only 11 players and then lost John Hampshire, who was taken ill on the morning of the match, so Ted Lester had to stand in some eight years after he had retired. Over to you, John. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply

The points haven't been updated. :( I could've added them myself but I'm sure I'd make a mess of it while sorting. Ovshake ( talk) 02:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Points have been updated but could someone please check them? Thanks. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Q782

What rather unhappy distinction is shared by HK Foster, J Daniell and RH Spooner? JH ( talk page) 19:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Selected the team that lost the 1920-21 Ashes 0-5 ? Tintin 04:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC) reply

You're very close to the answer. JH ( talk page) 17:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Did they all deny the captaincy of England in the 1920-21 Ashes (I know Spooner did, but I doubt whether Foster or Daniell were offered)? Ovshake ( talk) 17:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Thought I should mention that they were all top performers in other sports, Spooner and Daniell representing England in rugby while Foster being a national rackets champion. Can't see why they'd be unhappy with this distinction, though. Ovshake ( talk) 17:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC) reply

If they were also the selectors in 1921 (can't tell, don't have the relevant Wisden with me) then they would have selected an eight-times-in-a-row losing combination. Maybe they never selected a winning England team! Johnlp ( talk) 18:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't know by whom the 1920-1 touring party was selected. As it would tour under the name of MCC, it may have been selected by the MCC Cricket Committee, which would probably have been chaired by Lord Harris.. Anyway, forget 1920-1. JH ( talk page) 18:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Okay, they selected the squad for the Bodyline series, including the appointment of Jardine as captain? Ovshake ( talk) 20:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Also, Spooner's only test hundred is at Lord's, but sigh... the others don't qualify there... Ovshake ( talk) 20:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Were they the England selectors on the outbreak of World War One? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 04:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply

No. If no-one objects, I'm going to award the prize to Tintin, who was 90% correct. Since then the answers have been getting further away rather than closer. The three whom I named were the selectors for the 1921 series against Australia, wherein England lost their sixth, seventh and eighth Tests in a row, before salvaging draws in the last two Tests when Australia had perhaps taken their foot off the gas. The selectors choose as many as 30 players in the course of the series, including some pretty odd selections. It was arguably the most shambolic home series for England until the summer of four captains against West Indies in 1988, even though in purely results terms 1948 was worse. To be fair to the selectors, they weren't helped by Hobbs missing the first two matches with a thigh strain and then going down with appendicitus during the third, so that his only contribution to the series was fielding for the first day of the third Test. JH ( talk page) 08:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Rule 3, JH? Ovshake ( talk) 13:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, 24 hours having elapsed since my giving the "award" to Tintin, it looks as though Rule 3 applies, so I'll post Q783.

Q783

(Posted by JH in accordance with Rule 3.)

Which cricketer, on which tour, made a series of very brief after-dinner speeches, one of which was the following? "Gentlemen: I beg to thank you for the honour you have done me. I never tasted better oysters than I have today, and I hope I shall get as good wherever I go." JH ( talk page) 18:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

W G Grace, on the MCC tour of Canada in 1872? 86.130.120.230 ( talk) ( http://www.sabruk.org/examiner/10/cricket.html)

Correct. To be pedantic, the tour covered the US as well as Canada. R.A. Fitzgerald, who captained the side, wrote a book about the tour entitled Wickets in the West, and it's from that that we learn about WG's limitations as a speech-maker. All his speeches were variations on a theme, with the oysters making an appearance in his final speech, at New York. JH ( talk page) 19:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Q784

OK, what's the link... Habibul Bashar, Nicky Boje, Shivnarine Chanderpaul, Sunil Gavaskar, Darren Gough, Ridley Jacobs, Brian Lara, Muttiah Muralitharan, Shaun Pollock, Arjuna Ranatunga and Alec Stewart? 86.130.120.230 ( talk)

All been involved in controversial incidents with Australian umpire Ross Emerson? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Not what I was thinking of, but if you can provide cites for them all, it may be a case of "not wrong". The list is complete. 86.130.120.230 ( talk) 09:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

No, I only know that the two Sri Lankans got involved with Emerson. I notice there are eleven of them so are they all members of the same World XI? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Is the list in sequence? Ovshake ( talk) 14:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

It looks to mike as though it's in alphabetical order. -- KingStrato ( talk) 14:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

They are members of a specific World XI, and not perhaps in the regular sequence you'd expect (though they are in alphabetical order). Would it help if I put them in a more natural order? 86.130.120.230 ( talk) 15:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Lashings? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Can't be Lashings, since he has mentioned that the list is complete, and it doesn't contain Sachin Tendulkar. Can you please use the "natural" order, please? Ovshake ( talk) 17:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

The more "natural" order is Gavaskar, Stewart, Bashar, Lara, Chanderpaul, Ranatunga, Jacobs, Pollock, Boje, Gough and Muralitharan 86.130.120.230 ( talk) 17:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

No Pakistan or NZ players. Is that significant? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Or Australian players. I wonder if it could have been a RoW side v Australia. Of course, it may just be that players from certain countries were unavailable because of other commitments. JH ( talk page) 18:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Would I be right in saying that this team never took the field together? Which means that it is some kind of special selection for a purpose other than actually playing (clutches handful of straw ever more tightly)? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Good point. Whilst most of the players are pretty much contemporaries, Gavaskar is from zn earlier genertation and seens unlikely to have played with the others. JH ( talk page) 09:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

The side never took the field together, it could be argued that Australians are not represented for a reason, but for the same reason there is no obvious reason why Pakistanis and New Zealanders are not there. The list in question is a sort of sub-set of a list previously posted as a question, I'll try and find and post the number when I find it again. 86.166.71.68 ( talk) 09:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

OK, the question previous is Q745 86.166.71.68 ( talk) 10:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Third most runs by batting position? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Getting warmer 86.166.71.68 ( talk) 15:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm sure Bashar doesn't qualify for your answer. :) Maybe it's got something to do with scores AGAINST Australia. Ovshake ( talk) 14:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Nothing especially to do with runs against Australia, runs against England, India, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, the West Indies, Sri Lanka and to a much lesser extent Zimbabwe, Bangladesh are just as useful, assuming other conditions are met. 86.166.71.68 ( talk) 15:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Okay, so what have we got till now? It has something to do with runs, so it's a batting record. It's not opposition-specific. It's possibly the most number of runs scored by people at various criterion satisfying a certain condition, the sequence being Gavaskar, Stewart, Bashar, Lara, Chanderpaul, Ranatunga, Jacobs, Pollock, Boje, Gough and Muralitharan - am I correct upto this? Ovshake ( talk) 17:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, to do with the most number of runs; not opposition specific, and that's possibly as far as I understand you to be right. The "natural" order is important, but the overall leader is Lara, and Chanderpaul is second. Of the others listed, only Stewart and Bashar also would make an overall first XI if the "natural" order were disregarded. 86.166.71.68 ( talk) 18:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Trying to figure out why peformances against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh are less important. Gavaskar never played tests against them. Is it only that these men have played very few tests against these two teams? Or is there some other condition? Ovshake ( talk) 17:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

More the fact that it's some other condition, but "very few tests" counts for something as well. 86.166.71.68 ( talk) 18:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Still thinking about it but I've a question for you: would you like to join WP and the cricket project? I'm sure you have a lot to contribute and it is fun. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, a reason Zimbabwe and Bangladesh matches might be less important is that those countries don't win as often as others. So is this runs by batting position scored in Test matches lost? Johnlp ( talk) 22:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

You'd think Andy Flower would be on the list then. -- Roisterer ( talk) 22:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Ahh Johnlp's answer seems to be right.I did a quick check on statsguru and it seems to verify.Andy Flower is just behind Chanderpaul,so thats the reason he is not there on the list Sumant81 ( talk) 22:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, and Bashar fits as well, it possibly reflects how crucial Dravid has been to India's victories. Ovshake ( talk) 00:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Bravo, we have a winner. Well done Johnlp. Yes, I was surprised about Andy Flower not being there too. I was also surprised to see Bashar there as well, whether there's a dearth of decent first drop batsmen in Bangladesh I'm not fully up with. The first Australian on the list was I think McGrath in the 3rd or 4th XI at number 11. I'll consider looking into WP once I've found my password - I'm sure I entered an e-mail address when I joined wiki as a "full member", but this was a while back and the software says no e-mail address on record :( Just for future reference - too hard? 86.166.71.68 ( talk) 07:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Not too hard at all, but I would say that, wouldn't I? Johnlp ( talk) 07:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Q785

"We carry on as we are and ----- ------- -- ---- ---------- --------. This, I submit, would be the biggest travesty in the long and distinguished history of the game." Against what, indicated by the blanks, is the cricket writer Gordon Ross fulminating in this article? (We don't need the precise words indicated by the number of dashes, just the gist of what he's on about.) Johnlp ( talk) 07:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Objecting to World Series Cricket by insisting that first-class and List A cricket must carry on as normal regardless of which players decide to leave? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

No, but you're in the right era. Johnlp ( talk) 09:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Trying to figure out what some of the words might be, how about "never concede to this ----------nonsense"? I wondered about aluminium for the other word but it doesn't quite fit. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

No, it's about a particular development of the time of pretty much universal application. You have, though, got one of the words correct: the smallest one! (Though grammatically speaking it's used as a different part of speech in the true quote.) Johnlp ( talk) 10:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Can't work it out word for word but I'd guess something against the 1975 World Cup. "we're subjected to this shortterm display" or similar. The-Pope ( talk) 10:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

No. The actual words in the sentence are a consequence of something else that was happening in cricket at the time and which is the real subject of Ross's rant. Johnlp ( talk) 10:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

The Robin Jackman / Guyana controversy coincided with WSC. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Don't get too caught up on precise timings: this is in the same era, but is more of a trend than a specific event. Johnlp ( talk) 10:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Rebel tours of South Africa? Was he objecting to them or to players being banned for going on them, perhaps? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Still no. I hadn't realised there were quite so many issues around in cricket at this time! Johnlp ( talk) 10:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Batsmen's use of helmets against fast bowlers?. Moondyne 12:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, well done. The actual words were "... allow batsmen to wear protective headgear". Ross went on to to say that this "travesty" was one option; another, which he discounted, was for there to be a voluntary code against short-pitched bowling; the third option, which he favoured, was to legislate. All from the editor's notes at the start of the Playfair Cricket Annual 1976. Over to you. Johnlp ( talk) 12:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

That was a complete stab in the dark. I have no question prepared, so if anyone wants to set Q786, please do so. Moondyne 13:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Q786

All right. I've got one that I've just thought of. What name links an old red balloon, the Belmonts, and a player who got two-thirds of his own back against Breakwell? Johnlp ( talk) 13:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Laurie Nash? Will dig up the info on the other bits in a second or three. -- KingStrato ( talk) 14:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Laurie Nash died on this day in 1986. An odd coincidence for his name to crop up here today... Moondyne 15:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

A good start. :) Johnlp ( talk) 14:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I figured it was a date thing, but other than Laurie Nash I'm stuck and the lawn needs to be mowed. -- KingStrato ( talk) 15:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

The Belmonts recorded on the Laurie Records label. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

That's sort of the right direction, but not quite. The answer will be three cricketers from three different countries. It's a name thing rather than a date thing: the date isn't a coincidence because I got Laurie Nash from the excellent anniversaries listings, and then thought on from there. Laurie Records, though, is a coincidence... Johnlp ( talk) 15:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Dion and the Belmonts points to Dion Nash. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Okay, so now it's one apiece between the two of you. The third and deciding name is... Johnlp ( talk) 15:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Guessing but did Malcolm Nash hit 24 in an over off Dennis Breakwell? 24 being two thirds of the 36 Gary Sobers hit off him. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

It's over to you, BlackJack, with sympathies to the mower. Malcolm Nash hit Dennis Breakwell for four consecutive sixes, which is two-thirds what Sobers managed off him. So the full answer is three Nashes: Laurie, Dion and Malcolm. Well done. Johnlp ( talk) 15:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Q787

Their careers were a century apart but what have only Ernie Jones and Glenn McGrath done in Test cricket? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Did McGrath ever bowl a ball through an opponent's beard? :) JH ( talk page) 19:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I suppose it's likely that McGrath has got one very close to Yousuf's chin but, no, I'm afraid that's not the answer. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

If you'd added Dennis Lillee I'd have said they bowled first for their sides in matches when their sides lost a test after enforcing a follow-on. :( Ovshake ( talk) 03:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually you are on the right track in one sense. Nothing to do with Dennis Lillee, though, or with match results. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

So it has got to do with opening bowling? Can't obtain a clue from Ernie's career... Ovshake ( talk) 06:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

It is to do with opening the bowling. You need the circumstances. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

A stab in the dark:opened the bowling in most consecutive Ashes' tests? Abeer.ag ( talk) 07:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Opened the bowling in a new century? (1901 in Jones' case, and either 2000 or 2001 in McGrath's?) 86.166.71.68 ( talk) 08:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

You've got it. Jonah opened the bowling in the 20th century at Sydney and McGrath opened the 21st century at the same venue. Over to you. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Good question. :) Ovshake ( talk) 13:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Q788

Mark Taylor, Alec Stewart, Wally Hammond, Peter May, Bob Barber, Frank Mann, Keith Miller, Arthur Wood, Brett Lee, Joey Palmer, Gladstone Small.

If these are my 2nd XI, who are my 1st XI? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Are these in sequence? Ovshake ( talk) 15:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC) reply

They're only presented in a supposed batting order here as there is no particular sequence. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 16:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Sonce they are all Test cricketers, I assume that the answer relates to Test cricket. Since they are all English or Australian, I imagine that it relates to Anglo-Australian Tests. I've looked carefully at Arhur Wood's statistics. Since he only played in one Ashes Test that seemed the easiest place to start. However light has still failed to dawn. (And I've now realised that Mann never played in an Ashes Test, so that theory bites the dust.) JH ( talk page) 21:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm clueless as well. A hint, perhaps. Ovshake ( talk) 05:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply

They are all Test cricketers who have, shall we say, a nominal connection with another group of cricketers. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I wondered if they could be the second wioth that surname to play Test cricket, but that won't work in the case of Palmer, who was the first with that name to do so. JH ( talk page) 09:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply

None of the first XI played Test cricket. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply

They surely can't be the second ones with that name or surname to play first class cricket, since there must've been a plethora of Keiths and Millers. Maybe middle names...? But Mark Taylor's middle name is Anthony, which is the same as Allan Donald's, who has played test cricket... Ovshake ( talk) 12:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply

And then, Brett Lee doesn't have a middle name. Ovshake ( talk) 12:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I'll admit I cheated a bit with Brett Lee who should have been called Lee Brett! BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Ah, I think I've got it. I vaguely recalled an 18th century player called Brett, and then I also thought of Noah Mann, and knew that I was on the right track. The first XI is: Thomas Taylor, Peter Stewart, John Hammond, Richard May, William Barber, Noah Mann, Joseph Miller, John Wood, Thomas Brett, William Palmer, John Small or Jack Small. They were all 18th century cricketers - see Category:English cricketers of the 18th century, where I checked that I was correct. They may also all have played for the Hambledon Club, though I haven't checked all of them for that. JH ( talk page) 19:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply

How does that work then? Alec Stewart is certainly not the second player with the surname Stewart to play first class cricket. His dad for one. So why would he be in the second XI? -- KingStrato ( talk) 19:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply

For the "second XI", I imagine that the best known players with those surnames were chosen. It doesn't affect the names of the "first XI", finding which was the object of the exercise. They are only the "second XI" in the sense that they are not the "first" XI. JH ( talk page) 19:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply

JH is right. The link is that they are all Test players with notable namesakes who played in the Hambledon Era. Small, Brett, Taylor, Stewart, Barber and Mann all played for Hambledon; Miller, Wood, Palmer, Hammond and May were regular opponents of Hambledon. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Q789

What links the following players? Lee Irvine, Majid Khan, Mike Procter, Barry Richards, Asif Iqbal, Farokh Engineer, Hylton Ackerman, Garry Sobers, Greg Chappell, Rohan Kanhai, Vanburn Holder.

First "overseas" players playing in the County Championship? WillE ( talk) 21:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I wonder if there's more to it than that as there are eleven of them? Who were the first overseas players at Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Middlesex, Surrey and Sussex because these are missing from the list (Yorkshire of course didn't have one till Sachin started playing!). BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply

No, on second thoughts, I think you're right. It looks like Derbyshire didn't sign anyone in 1968 while the others already had Inman, Latchman, Younis and Greenidge on special registration. So these eleven were the ones to be signed in 1968 after the limitation was raised. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, I think that WillE is close enough to award it to him. As you say, they were the players to be signed in 1968 when counties for the first time were allowed in Championship fixtures to have one overseas player without his having had to undergo a two year (or was it one year?) period of residential qualification. Lance Gibbs and Glenn Turner had had the frustration of having just qualified the old-fashioned way, so that Warwickshire had both Gibbs and Kanhai and Worcestershire both Turner and Holder. Inman and Younis (and Alley and Jayasinghe and others) had qualified the old way several years before, and I think that Latchman and Greenidge had come to the UK as children. That first year, Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Middlesex, Surrey, Sussex and - of course - Yorkshire chose not to make use of the new freedom, though I think all but Yorkshire did in 1969. Somerset had an impressive record for spotting young talent, having signed Greg Chappell aged twenty, and a few years later signing the then equally unknown Viv Richards.

Will post a question tonight... WillE ( talk) 11:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Q790

What did Les Ames repeat several times during after-dinner speeches post retirement to suggest he had a bad head for numbers? WillE ( talk) 19:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Was it to do with his own career statistics? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 03:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply

No. The sun and fatigue come into it, as does a very (in)famous series. WillE ( talk) 12:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply

The series must surely be Bodyline, but beyond that I'm stumped. JH ( talk page) 18:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply

OK, a further clue. Ames said the heat caused problems generally, but a specific foible of the game caused more problems, especially for the bowlers. Trouble was, he was wrong... WillE ( talk) 21:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Well I'm currently rewriting his article in one of my sandboxes at the moment, but I haven't got the foggiest idea. Can't even think of a guess... AMBerry ( t| c) 22:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Only arbit guessing, Did he say something related to the byes and that being included as part of the sundries ? Sumant81 ( talk) 22:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I'll have a stab at counting balls in an over, perhaps he argued whether it was the end of the over or there was particular lengths to be bowled for each ball or something? Bodyline was unusual in Australia for being a normal six an over, so it's probably a very long shot. -- Travis Basevi ( talk) 23:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply

A long shot but it looks to me like a good one. I'll bet he complained about bowlers having to bowl eight-ball overs in that heat when in fact they were bowling six-ball overs. If that's right, then Travis should get the baton. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Kerching! Onwards and upwards. WillE ( talk) 07:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Is that to me then (cheers BlackJack)? Is there an exact quote for Ames then - sounds a bit amusing. -- Travis Basevi ( talk) 12:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Yep, yours Travis. Exact quote? Will have to look for it in my books. You know, those things that we all used to read before computers and Wikipedia? ;o) WillE ( talk) 18:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Oooops. Did that in a rush. Jack's is the right answer. Sorry Travis. WillE ( talk) 19:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply

It's a shame that ALL cricket books don't exist online. :-D Ovshake ( talk) 21:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply

No, I think Travis should get this because I didn't know they had six-ball overs in 1932-33 until he said. And the number of balls is more pertinent to the question than the heat. Over to Travis. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I'll nab it just because I have (hopefully) a decent question lined up. -- Travis Basevi ( talk) 08:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Q791

I need both of the (slightly subjective) missing names.

Bishen Bedi, ____, Richard Hadlee, Intikhab Alam, Mohammad Rafique, Muralitharan, Mike Procter, Wilfred Rhodes, ____, Courtney Walsh. -- Travis Basevi ( talk) 08:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply

They're the top first-class wicket-takers for every country. We need to find them for Australia and Zimbabwe. Ovshake ( talk) 15:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply

The Australian is Clarrie Grimmett. Ovshake ( talk) 15:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply

My guess for the Zimbabwean shall be Kevin Curran. Ovshake ( talk) 15:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Would Albert Trott count for Australia ? He had played for Aus and Eng as well Sumant81 ( talk) 15:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply

and I would go with Heath Streak ,the criterion I am assuming have taken most first class wickets having played one test match for that country Sumant81 ( talk) 15:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply

The top first-class wicket-takers is correct, but none of the names mentioned so far is. Grimmett is actually second for Aust, as is Curran for Zimbabwe. -- Travis Basevi ( talk) 21:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I suspect that if any Zimbabwean has more first-class wickets than Curran, this might be a trick question. Ovshake ( talk) 21:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply

The closest it comes to a trick is that he never played for "Zimbabwe". He was just a faithful county player who played year-round in the County Championship and The Currie Cup. As far as I can tell, he left Zimbabwe once they stopped playing in the latter. -- Travis Basevi ( talk) 22:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Without bothering to look up, Paddy Clift ? Tintin 00:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply

That's him. Impressive stuff to know of him off the top of your head too. But the prize will now go to the person who can name the Aussie. And just to justify my "subjective" disclaimer, Albert Trott is classified as English. -- Travis Basevi ( talk) 00:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply

After looking up, this time :-) Frank Tarrant has 1512. Tintin 01:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply

And that's the other one. Tarrant and Clift are the odd ones out in the list as neither played Test cricket. I guess England would have gladly picked both of them, but their off-season commitments disqualified them? Interestingly, both of them ended their first-class careers in a third country and both settled in that country in retirement. -- Travis Basevi ( talk) 01:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Q792

When India became independent in 1947, ICC invoked a certain Rule 5 and India's membership was reduced to a provisional status. It was likely that India would have lost the Test status but for a decision by the Indian government a few years later. The same Rule 5 came up for discussion regarding another country after a few years. It was decided the Test matches to be played by that team later that year would be treated as unofficial. But somebody conveniently forgot to mark them as such, and probably because the ICC was dominated by the England-Australia axis, the team continued to play Tests.

What was the main provision of the Rule 5 ? Tintin 02:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Hmmm, it is slightly messier than I thought initially, so shall add a hint straightaway. The rule may not have been in force in the early 1970s, or Pakistan would have found itself in the same trouble. Tintin 02:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I'll take a pot shot for Test nations having to be part of the Commonwealth? I could imagine India stalling about joining for a while as they were so anti-Empire, and the "another country" was South Africa who were chucked out in the early 60s. -- Travis Basevi ( talk) 03:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply

AAh beaten by edit conflict..anyways my answer was roughly the same ..The ICC which was the imperial cricket conference earlier had a rule for only commonwealth nations .India however became a republic in 1950 and under commonwealth rules would cease to be a member,but then there was a rule amendment in commonwealth of nations and India were a member.South Africa were expelled from commonwealth in 1960 and hence not part of ICC.But then ICC got renamed to International cricket council in 1965 and hence no issues with pakistan .. Sumant81 ( talk) 03:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Right, but Travis got there first. The "unofficial" series was SA v NZ in 1961-62. Tintin 04:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Q793

What happened in Test cricket for the first time in the Australia v India 1967/68 4th Test and never occurred in another match until 2002, but has occurred at least once every year since then? -- Travis Basevi ( talk) 15:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply

A wild guess:spinners got all the wickets in the last 2 innings? Abeer.ag ( talk) 18:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply

That's an amazing spot, and puts my answer to shame, but it's unfortunately incorrect. It actually does appear to be the only match in Test history where all 20 wickets fell in the 3rd and 4th innings and the pace bowlers went wicketless. Luckily I added the 2002 clause in the question. -- Travis Basevi ( talk) 18:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Top four batsmen all crossed 10, where no innings was more than 325? Ovshake ( talk) 03:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply

It might be an interesting observation that in all four innings the sixth bowler took three or more wickets; in three innings he was the best bowler; and the sixth bowler took 15 out of 40 wickets. Ovshake ( talk) 03:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply

12 different bowlers taking a wicket?Or 7 players from from a team taking a wicket? Abeer.ag ( talk) 07:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply

No one's got it yet. Clue: the event actually happened twice in the match, the first time very near to the start of the game. -- Travis Basevi ( talk) 11:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Both opening bowlers of the match had two Us in their name ( Umesh Kulkarni and Rusi Surti)? Ovshake ( talk) 12:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh, two left handed bowlers to two left handed batsmen. Once SL had Zoysa/Ruchira/Sujeewa etc opening with Vaas, and Hinds/Gayle, Hayden/Langer etc teamed, that became more regular. Tintin 12:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Opening batsmen/bowlers, ie. Tintin 12:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply

And back to Tintin it goes. Australian combinations of Hayden/Langer/Jaques/Rogers (with Katich and Hussey to spare - the last time Australia had a right handed opener was Slater in mid-2001) against Indian combinations of Khan/Nehra/Singh/Pathan have been especially in vogue of late. -- Travis Basevi ( talk) 13:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Q794

Trevor Bailey's last Test match was at Melbourne 1958/59 where Ray Lindwall dismissed him for a pair. What was ironic about Bailey's career being thus terminated by Lindwall ? Tintin 01:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply

In 1955, Bailey had "allowed" Lindwall to dismiss him in the closing stages of a drawn Test so that Lindwall could claim his 100th Ashes wicket. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Well done. It was widely believed in 1954/55 that the corresponding MCG Test would be Lindwall's final Test match against England. Bailey deliberately let himself be bowled by Lindwall so that he could complete 100 wickets in Ashes Tests. Lindwall did not retire, his career outlasted Bailey's and he paid him back in that fashion in 1958/9. Tintin 07:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply

By coincidence, I read about it over the weekend in a new book called Cricket Oddities and I remembered it as soon as I saw the question. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Q795

Complete the sequence and give the full names of all four: Billy, ______, ____, Ernest. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Is it Tyldesley related? WillE ( talk) 16:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Is the Billy one of Midwinter and Ibadulla? Ovshake ( talk) 16:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply

You're on the right track with relationship but it isn't any of the Tyldesley, Midwinter or Ibadulla families. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply

But are Tyldesley, Midwinter or Ibadulla among the four? Ovshake ( talk) 18:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply

No, sorry, different family altogether. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I did a search on "Ernest" on Cricinfo, to see if the names of the players thrown up would spark any ideas. When one of then was Ernest Beldam the, knowing your interests, an idea immediately suggested itself. I suggest that the link is the surname of Beldlam. Chronologically we could have George Beldham (probably born 1758, date of death unknown, the elder brother of Billy); Billy Beldam (1766-1862); George Beldam (1868-1937); Cyril Beldam (1869-1940, brother of George); Ernest Beldam (1879-1958, cousin of George and Cyril). So I've offered one extra name! :) JH ( talk page) 19:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply

You deserve that to be correct but I'm afraid it isn't. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately there was no Ernest Grace or Ernest Gunn, so far as I can see. So those two famous families don't work. Nor do the Walkers or the Fosters. I don't think that the Lyttletons work either. I did wonder if they could all be one person: Ernest William Swanton may have been known as Billy or Ernest to some, but was more commonly known as Jim. I can't come up with a fourth name for him, though. JH ( talk page) 20:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Ah, you had it and let it go. Where you say there wasn't, remember that relations can have different surnames. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, so far further research on those families on CrickeArchive has been unsuccessful, even extending it from the Lytteltons to the Fords and from the Graces to the Gilberts. Further searching will have to wait till tomorrow - assuming that no-one else gets it first. JH ( talk page) 21:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Can we at least assume that it's a family tie, and no sequence that people like Midwinter and Ibadulla are very likely to trigger off? Ovshake ( talk) 21:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply

The middle two are brothers. They have one relationship to Billy and another relationship to Ernest. Ernest and Billy have different surnames. All four played first-class cricket. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Then we are in Gunn territory, with Billy, his nephews George and John (Richmond) Gunn, and their brother-in-law Ernest Stapleton, who played once for Derbyshire against an MCC side that included Arthur Conan Doyle. Johnlp ( talk) 07:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Spot on. Over to you, John. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Q796

"I wasn’t a terribly good batsman but I fancied myself as a fielder." Who? Johnlp ( talk) 08:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

That sounds vaguely familiar. Would I be right in guessing that it's some celebrity who is primarily known for something other than cricket? Alternatuve guess: Phil Tufnell. JH ( talk page) 09:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

No and no. Primarily known as a batsman, in fact, despite his own opinion. Johnlp ( talk) 09:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Jessop ? Tintin 09:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Jonty Rhodes? Jonesy ( talk) 09:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

No and no. Timewise, somewhere between the two. Johnlp ( talk) 10:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Very helpful clue ! Tintin 10:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks. ;-) Johnlp ( talk) 10:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Could this be the Blandest question yet set? *snigger* WillE ( talk) 11:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Sadly not him either. All right: time for a real clue. This chap once got into an interesting conversation (ie, a row) with the director-general of the BBC about the sexual proclivities and political orientation of Corporation staff. Johnlp ( talk) 12:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I was prompted to say Arthur Fielder, but you mention that he's primarily known as a batsman. :( Ovshake ( talk) 14:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Colin Milburn? :D Ovshake ( talk) 14:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Did the player work for the BBC at any time after he finished playing: e.g., on TMS? If so, could it be Tony Lewis? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Now we're getting somewhere... but not quite to the end of the trail yet. I rather like the idea of someone saying "I rather fancied myself as A. Fielder", but sadly Arthur Fielder didn't (at least not in print, he didn't). Milburn isn't right either, and nor is Lewis, but TMS may be a way forward. Johnlp ( talk) 15:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Henry Blofeld? Ovshake ( talk) 17:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, Tom Graveney and Ray Illingworth both worked for BBC on its TV coverage and they were both outspoken. Illy was an all-rounder, of course, so I'll guess Elegant Tom. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Neither of these. This chap was an occasional contributor to TMS in its early years, usually as a close-of-play summariser rather than a commentator. You might, reasonably, ask why his contributions should be occasional, but for me to answer that might just give too much away. Perhaps I can say that he appeared about two seasons out of eight... Johnlp ( talk) 18:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

H'mmm! I know Norman Yardley was an early summariser and he was a batsman, but was he the type to get involved in rows? I'll try him, anyway. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Clearly from overseas, then. Jack Fingleton would seem consistent with all, the clues to date. JH ( talk page) 19:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Fingo Bingo. Well done and over to you, Mr JH. Johnlp ( talk) 19:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Q797

This right-hand bat and slow left-arm bowler had an outstanding Test record, averaging nearly 60 with the bat and under 17 with the ball. Who is it? JH ( talk page) 19:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Enid Bakewell - AMBerry ( t| c) 20:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, well done! You didn't fall into the trap of assuming that I was referring to a male player, which was what I was relying on. JH ( talk page) 20:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Q798

Which unfortunate related bowling record(s) are held by the following: Anil Kumble, Arthur Mailey, Saqlain Mushtaq (twice!), Kapil Dev, Bishan Singh Bedi, Tommy Scott, Brett Lee, Fazal Mahmood, Chuck Fleetwood-Smith, Khan Mohammad? - AMBerry ( t| c) 21:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

They all conceded 200 or more runs in a single Test innings? Johnlp ( talk) 21:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Along the right lines... (although Kumble and Mailey never conceded 200 in an innings) - AMBerry ( t| c) 21:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Can't find why Anil Kumble qualifies but Rajesh Chauhan does not, given that they both conceded 200+ in the same innings. Is the list exhaustive? Ovshake ( talk) 22:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Kumble actually had conceded 200+ in this match. Ovshake ( talk) 22:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Fair enough, my mistake, the record that Kumble holds doesn't involve 200 runs conceded though. The list is exhaustive, Chauhan's bowling in the match mentioned actually puts him second behind Fleetwood-Smith for that particular record. - AMBerry ( t| c) 22:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I'd not heard of Tommy Scott until now so I looked him up and I see that in this match he had 5/266 and 4/108, which is 9/374 in the match. Andy Sandham scored 325 out of 849 in the first innings.

Are we talking percentages here? Did these guys concede more than 30% of the innings total above a certain figure? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Change that to conceded 100 runs twice in the same Test. Unconnected with this I've just been looking at details of the 1926 series and I spotted Mailey's figures in the final Test of 6/138 and 3/128. Fleetwood-Smith "achieved" it in this match. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply

they all missed out dismissing all 11 batsman in test? Bharath ( talk) 06:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply

By jove, I think I've cracked it. Most runs conceded in an innings for different numbers of wickets taken. Kumble 10/74, Mailey 9/121, Saqlain 8/164, Kapil 7/220, Bedi 226/6, Scott 266/5, Lee 201/4, Saqlain 237/3, Fazal 247/2, F-S 298/1, Khan 259/0. -- Travis Basevi ( talk) 09:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply

By jove, Travis has cracked it. Absolutely spot on. - AMBerry ( t| c) 10:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Q799

In the last week, Graeme Smith moved into fourth place for a record jointly held by Wally Hammond and Geoff Boycott. Gordon Greenidge is in third place. What's the stat? -- Travis Basevi ( talk) 11:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Hammond and Boycott have 22x100s, and never finished on the losing side in those matches. So that's a reasonable guess. Tintin 12:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply

You're correct, so that's more than a reasonable guess. -- Travis Basevi ( talk) 13:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Q800

I came across an Indian writer (Rajan Bala probably, but can't remember) who claims that Reuben Paul did something in the Tamil Nadu v Goa 1995/6 match which only three others have ever done in first class cricket. Considering the importance of the record, I suspect that it is not recognized either because Bala is wrong, or as they were not able to verify it later as they probably used a conventional (& not the linear/Frindall) scorebook. As of now, Paul's name figures in the record books as an 'inferior' version of the same record.

What record am I blabbering about ? (Paul made his fc debut in this match but that has nothing to do with this) Tintin 14:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I was going to say the fastest century on debut, but you said it had nothing to do with his debut. Then I was thinking six sixes in an over, but only two others managed that in FC. So then I thought five consecutive sixes in an over - so far as I can tell three others have done this - Sobers, Shastri, and Khalid Mahmood - -- Roberry ( talk) 14:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Quite close. But five consecutive sixes is more common. Arthur Wellard, for instance, did 5 in a row twice. Something that can found out from a linear scorebook but not a conventional scorebook may be a useful hint (it may also mislead because many scorers do it differently). Tintin 14:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply

One more go - Cricinfo says he scored his 2nd fifty in 14 balls - is the record for going from 50 to 100? I would then assume 3 people have done this in 13 (or fewer) balls -- Roberry ( talk) 14:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply

No. Off the track now. Tintin 15:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Not an answer but an interesting aside about this guy is that he made three first-class centuries and scored exactly 100 each time. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Wisden states he hit five sixes off the over, which I assume is the "inferior version", so maybe it's six sixes in consecutive balls (but split over separate overs)? I would have thought that would still be easy to tell from a conventional scorebook, but I'm racking my brains for an alternative possibility, and there are three others who've done that in Sobers, Shastri and Procter, so throwing it out there. -- Travis Basevi ( talk) 16:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply

That will do. Well done. He hit five consecutive sixes off Rajesh Naik, and another one of the next (or previous) ball that he faced. Scorers (atleast over here) often mark only scoring shots against the batsmen and skip the dot balls, and it can get very difficult to compute the total of number of balls faced, to decide the bowler against whom a particular run was scored or to check whether there should be any dots between the fifth and sixth six. This is why the Test scorecards from the subcontinent till around 1990 do not have the details of the balls faced by batsmen, that could have happened in this match too. Tintin 16:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Curious, the same Wisden mini-summary says he hit his ton off a small number of balls (60 from a memory earlier today), so is there an alternative way they'd record the total balls for a batsman without recording the dots for each batsman? -- Travis Basevi ( talk) 23:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply

If Wisden mentions the exact number of balls, it could only be that the writer is wrong. Not sure how he managed to get it in print though. The article appeared in the now defunct CricketWorld magazine in 1997 or late 1996. I should have a copy somewhere here. Tintin 01:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply