interesting dates & numbers in cricket

Scrappy wrote:

Take out LBWs Shane Watson becomes a great batting allrounder !

Should there be a category for all rounders with bad backs who only ever got out LBW?

Alec Stewart [England]
On his 31st birthday against the West Indies scored 118 in the first dig
He also made 143 in the 2nd dig
Perhaps the only cricketer to make 2 tons in a test that had a birthday in it ?

Alec Stewart
8/4/63 born
8463 career test runs
Thats quite amazing the exactness of those numbers

Scrappy wrote:Alec Stewart [England]
On his 31st birthday against the West Indies scored 118 in the first dig
He also made 143 in the 2nd dig
Perhaps the only cricketer to make 2 tons in a test that had a birthday in it ?

Alec Stewart
8/4/63 born
8463 career test runs
Thats quite amazing the exactness of those numbers

You might want to send that to Andrew Gaze next year when ''Bounce'' returns to the air on fox footy....he'll love it

SIX HITTERS
Sixes hit in Test cricket
McCullum is on the cusp of being the outright leader[or might be by now]


100 MCCULLUM
100 GILchrist
98 GAYLE
97 KALLIS
91 SEHWAG
88 LARA
87 CHRIS CAIRNS
84 VIV RICHARDS
82 FLINTOFF
82 HAYDEN
6 BRADMAN
0 BAYMAN

GilCHRIST hit his 100th zac in 96 tests
McCullum hit his 100th zac  in 98 tests
Sir Donald Bradman in 6996 runs only hit 6 zacs in his career

There would be other BIG hitters , who didnt play enough innings , or bat long enough , to be on the list above the Don

Opening batsmen
One of Englands very best Herbert Sutcliffe
One of Australias very best , at present, David Warner
Here are thier test batting stats with similar runs scored

WARNER
4305 RUNS
50.64 AVE
15 TONS


SUTCLIFFE
4555 RUNS
60.73 AVE
16 TONS

Sutcliffe has a very good Test average
Warner is sensational considering he scores at 76.07 runs per 100 balls faced

MCG TESTS SUTCLIFFE
176 + 125
143
58+135
52 + 33
722 RUNS
103.14 AVE

MCG TESTS WARNER
37 + 5
62
9 +25
0 +40
23
201 RUNS
25.12 AVE

Its remarkable how Sutcliffe in away games can dominate at the MCG
Whilst Warner in home games has struggled
Perhaps too much Xmas tucker and drinks for Warner b4 Boxing Day games ?
Or just one of those vagaries of cricket ?
Sutcliffes innings were scattered, and none on commencing on 26/12

Sutcliffe is the only batsman to ever score 4 tons in as many tests at the MCG
4 matches and 4 tons in total

Against much better bowlers on less batting-friendly pitches, too.

Sutcliffe's opening partner played OK, too.

QUICKEST AUSTRALIAN BATSMEN TO 1000 TEST RUNS

13 DON BRADMAN
14 NEIL HARVEY
17 SID BARNES
18 HERBIE COLLINS
18 DOUGGGGGIE WALTERS
18 MARK TAYLOR

Those were all achieved in the 20th century , 1000 in 18 or less digs

27/12/2015
Add one more , this time in the 21st century
18 ADAM VOGES
Quite an achievement for a batsman who debuted as a 35 year old

Good luck to Voges, but there are a lot of cheap runs around this year.

ADAM VOGES
130*
37
269*
106*

Thats Adam Voges v West Indies
An average of 542 in 2015 Test matches

ADAM VOGES
19 innings
1267 runs
6 not outs
269* best
5 tons
97.46 average

DON BRADMAN
80 innings
10 not outs
6996 runs
334 best
29 tons
99.94 average

Time for a new song of " Our Adam Voges."

The Adam needs to make 133 in his next innings to average 100 in Test cricket in 20 innings
That probably makes him the only Test cricketer to achieve that , unless The Don did

If my maths is correct, Bradman's average before his last innings was 101.4.

Lee
Correct

Before The Dons last dig , and with some recurring numbers
69 innings
6996 runs
101.39 average
101.4 rounded

Bradmans average of 99.94 is the PO Box number of the ABC in each state, I think.

Without the decimal point, of coutse.

Scrappy wrote:Lee
Correct

Before The Dons last dig , and with some recurring numbers
69 innings
6996 runs
101.39 average
101.4 rounded

Before The Don's second last dig
69 innings
6823 runs
98.88 average
I guess what I am saying is that Bradman's average was not always above 100. 98.88 would still have been a handy average.

I read once that in Viv Richards' last test innings he had to score 20 or his test average would have slipped below 50. Luckily he made 60. Given that he is one of Wisden's 5 cricketers of the century I find his average remarkably low if you can call an average of 50 low.

Bradman had a shocking last series with the bat against England
He only scored 508 runs at the dismal average of 72.57
138
0
38
89
7
30 not out
33
173 not out
0

The 173 not out helped
If my maths is corrrect his average was 98.88 before that innings of 173 not out

Bradmans last innings against England in Australia was 63
So The Don has this sequence against England
63
138
0
38
89
In those 5 innings he was dismissed Caught on each occasion
The remarkable thing is he was out to the same bowler Alec Bedser

Bedser
236 wickets @ 24.89
Considering how often he bowled at Bradman that ends up being good bowling average

It was a long time ago
As stupid as this sounds ,realatively speaking ,  was Bradman Bedsers bunny ?
Or was it that Bradman was at the end of his career ?
Age does weary, otherwise a lot of us would still  be playing cricket

VIV RICHARDS

Hopefully the maths is correct
In his last test made 2 in the first dig
That left him on 50.17 average
He scored 60 in his second dig to 'boost' his average to 50.23
Had he scored a duck, he would have averaged 49.88
So he did need to score enough runs to get to a 50 + average

Vivs last series was against the West Indies in 1991
his scores were
73 +3
63
80
22 + 73 not out
2 + 60

Viv averaged more this series than his career
His average was 53.71 for the series , which got him over line for a 50+ average

There was a period when Viv seemed all dominant in the middle of his career.
When the Windies were at their peak, whilst Marshall, Holding, Garner, Walsh and Ambrose et al were belting us with the ball, Viv was belting us with the bat.

They weren't has dominant in the mid to late 70s. I wonder if Viv's output was less in that period?

Otherwise he would probably have had an average in the mid-late 50s.

West Indian Test Cricketers Andy Ganteaume and Sir Frank Worrell debuted in the same match against England in 1948

Worrell made 97 + 28 not out
Ganteaume made 112 and did not bat

At the time they both had a higher Test averages than The Don and The Adam
No BIG deal , there are batters in the embryonic stages of their careers that had averaged over 100 +

Sir Frank Worrell ended up with an average 49.48 and a trophy named after him
Andy Ganteuame never played after his debut , and is left with a test average of 112 !

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:There was a period when Viv seemed all dominant in the middle of his career.
When the Windies were at their peak, whilst Marshall, Holding, Garner, Walsh and Ambrose et al were belting us with the ball, Viv was belting us with the bat.

They weren't has dominant in the mid to late 70s. I wonder if Viv's output was less in that period?

Otherwise he would probably have had an average in the mid-late 50s.

Without looking at Viv's record their seemed to be three distinct periods in Viv's career.

There was his early career where he was full of promise but continually seemed to be dismissed in the 40s. When he came to Australia in 1975-75 he seemed to be always doing this until the second innings of the Adelaide test which was the penultimate test of the series. He may have made a century or at least a very good score then and followed it up with a similar good score in the final test.

He then became a magnificent player for probably the next 12 years or so, and that is the part of his career that certainly got him into the 5 cricketers of the century.

Then like so many "eye" players his eye started to go and his career fell away at the end of his career. I have no facts to back my opinion but it seems to me "eye" players fall away at the end of their careers a lot more than players who have excellent techniques.

A great example of an "eye" player falling away dramatically was Rod Marsh, at least as far as batting was concerned. Prior to World Series Cricket he was averaging about 32 or more, after World Series Cricket he averaged about 18. I don't think it had much to do with the calibre of bowling he was facing. He seemed to fail a lot more against all countries, not just the West Indies with their magnificent attack.

I agree with your theory, rig.

Question - was Gilchrist an 'eye' player. Warner?

Warner perhaps started as one, but then improved his technique.

Gilchrist perhaps in a category of his own.

Scrappy wrote:Bradman had a shocking last series with the bat against England
He only scored 508 runs at the dismal average of 72.57
138
0
38
89
7
30 not out
33
173 not out
0

The 173 not out helped
If my maths is corrrect his average was 98.88 before that innings of 173 not out

Bradmans last innings against England in Australia was 63
So The Don has this sequence against England
63
138
0
38
89
In those 5 innings he was dismissed Caught on each occasion
The remarkable thing is he was out to the same bowler Alec Bedser

Bedser
236 wickets @ 24.89
Considering how often he bowled at Bradman that ends up being good bowling average

It was a long time ago
As stupid as this sounds ,realatively speaking ,  was Bradman Bedsers bunny ?
Or was it that Bradman was at the end of his career ?
Age does weary, otherwise a lot of us would still  be playing cricket

Bradman did think that Bedser was the greatest medium pace bowler he ever faced, even better than Maurice Tate.

Interestingly the first three dismissals of Bradman in tests in England, Bradman was out the same way, caught at a close in leg gully by Hutton off of Bedser inswingers. This was certainly a plan, but the incredible part of the plan that it was devised by the player Bradman considered the greatest bowler of them all, Bill O'Reilly. Even though they had a huge respect for each other there was no love lost between Bradman and O'Reilly and O'Reilly had no qualms in planning with the enemy Bradman's downfall.

Scrappy asks was Bradman Bedser's bunny. The player actually known as Bedser's bunny was Arthur Morris, Bradman's batting partner for his last innings. Morris at one stage after about 15 tests was averaging about 75 but owing to Bedser's perceived mastery over him averaged "only" about 48 for his career.

In 1971 there was a "computer" test played between the best English and Australian sides since the Second World War. Bradman chose the Australian team and had Morris and Bob Simpson as the two openers.

Lee wrote:I agree with your theory, rig.

Question - was Gilchrist an 'eye' player.  Warner?

Warner perhaps started as one, but then improved his technique.

Gilchrist perhaps in a category of his own.

I think Gilchrist would be regarded as an eye player.
Warner maybe. But he and Smith are travelling along a similar track in their test batting results so far.
Smith has such an interesting technique as he moves around the crease like a jack rabbit.
Hard to say what he is.

What about Lara? I would have thought he was in a similar mould to Viv.

Lee wrote:I agree with your theory, rig.

Question - was Gilchrist an 'eye' player.  Warner?

Warner perhaps started as one, but then improved his technique.

Gilchrist perhaps in a category of his own.

You are probably right on both counts. Gilchrist remains about the cleanest hitter of the ball I have ever seen.

I associate "eye" players with a lack of foot movement. Hence a lot of them have magnificent first class records, but don't really reproduce that form at test level.

I always think of Graham Hick and David Hookes as two players who fit that bill.

There have been the eye players like Viv and more recently Sehwag who have certainly performed magnificently at test level so you cannot automatically write a player off because of any perceived lack of technique.

Steve STARmith
Be interesting too see how Steve Smith ends up when he gets to about Adam Voges age
Plays some stunning shots but
He plays across the line
He plays awkward shots
He hoiks and slashes a fair bit
He moves across his stumps with his feet  and can  also exposes his stumps
He looks awful at times

But he is a super dooper performer
Im amazed how many runs and the average he has in his career thus far
After seeing him early in his test career, I had thought he would not make the grade
He has though

Impressive numbers at present
73 innings
3661 runs
58.11 average
13 tons

Hopefully he keeps that average for a few more years

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:

Lee wrote:I agree with your theory, rig.

Question - was Gilchrist an 'eye' player.  Warner?

Warner perhaps started as one, but then improved his technique.

Gilchrist perhaps in a category of his own.

I think Gilchrist would be regarded as an eye player.
Warner maybe. But he and Smith are travelling along a similar track in their test batting results so far.
Smith has such an interesting technique as he moves around the crease like a jack rabbit.
Hard to say what he is.

What about Lara? I would have thought he was in a similar mould  to Viv.

I think Lara's technique was excellent, so perhaps not a genuine eye player, but a master at both?