Ask Bearders #171

Dear Bearders

Following Vettori's sloppy run out because his bat was not grounded I was interested to know what the rules are on this.

Often I have seen batsman lift their bat when they have run past the wicket but as they are still running they will not always have a foot on the ground.

At what point is the ball called dead? Would it be possible for a batsman to be run out 3 yards past the stumps for example.

Thanks

Sam

Re the first question, didn't Michael Vaughan and Ricky Ponting both get on the honours board at the Old Trafford Test in 2005 by both scoring hundreds? Or have I missed something?

Sam, there's nothing stopping someone 3 yards past the wicket taking another run if conditions permit. This runout for Misbah Ul Haq was even more unpleasant than Vettori's. https://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=atCvEuMmtes I don't understand why he was given out as he was taking evasive action, but as it's in the past, hardly relevant to ask the bearded wonder here.

Hemscott_Hammond - the very same innings, i.e. one sides batting figures vs the others bowling figures.

Dear Bearders

I just wondered what the most number of runs scored by an opening batsman and a number eleven batsman is to win a test match.

Thank You

Keep up the good work!

Dear Bearders,

Just something that has always confused me in the rules and I thought I would finally ask someone who might know.

When a batsman ducks and get hits on the helmet the ball can sometimes go for runs, four say, and is signalled as leg byes. But when a batsman kicks the ball away or offers no shot and it runs away for four off his pads it gets signalled as dead ball and no runs scored.

In both in instances no shot is offered so surely when runs are scored off the helmet should be signalled as a dead ball? Is there a distinction in the rules between the two instances?

Thanks

Adam

Dear Bill,

I have been trawling through some archive test match scorecards - such is my want - and I have noticed that in 2001 when Pakistan were touring England, they followed on at Lords despite only being 188 behind England on their first innings score.

I thought that the follow-on could only be enforced if the team batting second were more than 200 behind. Could you explain this, or put me straight.

By the by, a fellow Old Reigation I believe. Would be interested to hear of any cricketing feats whilst still at RGS.

Many thanks,

Dave

Adam, I think it's "evasive action" action. When hit on the head the player is trying to avoid it, and any runs can seen to be tough luck against the bowler for the poor ball etc... if the batsman were to try to head the ball explicitly, then that would be a different situation completely. Obstructing the field i guess.

WRT the ball being dead on kicking it, it must have been dead *before* it was kicked otherwise again this would be obstruction of some form.

Chris

Dave,

the match became a 4 day test due to the lack of play on the first day, so 150 was the follow on figure then.

Chris

To back up Chris(8), here's an article on Cricinfo about the rare law that applies (13.3) when the first day's play is completely lost: https://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/106446.html

question 5 - therealhanco86

simply because the Laws make it plain that a batsman taking evasive action need not play a shot for his team to be credited with leg byes

Law 26 (my CAPS)

2. Leg byes
... runs shall be scored only if the umpire is satisfied that the striker has
either
(i) attempted to play the ball with his bat
or
(ii) tried to AVOID BEING HIT by the ball.

If the umpire is satisfied that EITHER of these conditions has been met, and the ball makes no subsequent contact with the bat, runs completed by the batsmen or a boundary allowance shall be credited to the batting side

question 6 - Subbuteo123

the follow on was 150 as the first day had been completely lost to rain, making it a 4 day match

Hello Bill

I've been pondering this question for some time now, even researched a little on the internet but found no answers.

If a team includes a bowler who can bowl in more than one style (for example, Symonds for Australia), is that bowler permitted to use different bowling styles in the same over? Is there a law in cricket which dictates this, or would it be simply be considered unsporting behaviour to follow a gentle leg-break with a 90mph bouncer?

Thanks
SG Kenny
Nottingham, UK

question 11 - SG Bonnister

this was my answer in the last blog

no, a bowler can change the type of delivery whenever he wants (imagine a fast bowler who couldn't bowl his slow 'un, or a swing bowler who couldn't bowl a cutter!)

he doesn't even have to tell the umpire of a change in "style" he only has to inform the batter, via the umpire, of a change in delivery mode (over or round the wicket) or hand (left or right, not very common)

Law 24
"1. Mode of delivery
(a) The umpire shall ascertain whether the bowler intends to bowl right handed or left handed, over or round the wicket, and shall so inform the striker.
It is unfair if the bowler fails to notify the umpire of a change in his mode of delivery. In this case the umpire shall call and signal No ball...."

note MODE not speed

probably the most famous player who really mixed up fast bowling with spin was GS.Sobers, from the cricinfo biography

"He was remarkably versatile with the ball, bowling two styles of spin - left-arm orthodox and wrist spin, but was also a fine fast-medium opening bowler."

and probably the best all-rounder ever too!

can i add a gripe here too, maybe a FORUM would be better that these blogs as users could easily see what questions have already been asked/answered and it could be divided into, for example, TESTS, ODIs, 1st CLASS, LAWS, OTHERS and these sub-divided into bowling, batting, etc..

just a thought

11) I can't imagine there's anything at all against it, but that would surely be a generally bad idea as you'll have a set field already, and so you either put the keeper back 20 yards, remove the silly point etc and totally give the game away (as well has bowing 90mph from a 4 pace walk-up), or keep the same field and be probably even more at risk than the batsman himself. If you lessen the impact of the pace ball, eventually you've just got an arm ball or something like that anyway, which already happens.

i've been tearing my hair out wondering whether or not to undermine the great bearders on a pedantic point, and i'm afraid to say the evil me won through in the end.

did anyone else notice his first answer had gatting playing for australia? i hope i'm not missing anything, or i'm going to look more stupid than i already do.

Hi Bill,

Can you please tell me the fielding restrictions that have been in play in Limited Overs Internationals, since the first recognised LOI in 1971. I beleive that initially no restrictions were in place. Can you please confirm this and advise as to when fielding restrictions were first in use.

In the recent second test, New Zealand had a first innings lead of 179 over England but lost the test. What is the highest first innings lead where the team ahead has gone on to lose the test?

And following on from that, how many test teams following on have gone on to win the test?

question 16 - David

(just the follow-on part)

only 3 teams have won after following on (the winning team first)

Eng vs Aus 1894
Eng vs Aus 1981
Ind vs Aus 2001

in all there have been 274 follow-ons, 207 wins, 64 draws and the 3 above

in the last of these Aus led, after first innings, by 274 runs

Q. Is it still possible for a batsman to be run out 'backing up', by the bowler stopping in mid delivery stride? If you have answered this before, can you please refer me to your answer? Thank you.

Re 3: and the Misbah ul Haq run out, the reason why he was given out was that the exemption relating to taking evasive action only applies if the batsman has already made his ground, and leaves it to take evasive action. Clearly Misbah never had anything grounded before he leapt into the air and the wicket was broken while he was airborne.

It was Inzamam ul Haq who was actually incorrectly given out in the series against England a couple of years ago when he had indeed made his ground and was taking evasive action when the wicket was broken with him then out of his ground. The umpires on that occasion seem to have just got it wrong.

Bill

The reverse sweep seems to be very popular nowadays but some players - I'm thinking particularly of Paul Nixon - don't so much reverse sweep as change their stance ie from left- to right-handed in his case and then play the shot normally.

Do umpires take account of this when awarding lbws? If the ball in bowled and pitches outside the leg stump but the batsman has effectively made it into his off stump surely it should be possible for him to be given out lbw if it hits his pads in line?

Matthew
Yorkshire

18) Tony... see this https://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Yt8zBpjlWq0 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_out to be Mankaded

question 18 - Tony Elwood

this question as asked and answered in

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tms/2008/03/ask_bearders_166.shtml

post 137

and in fact Bearders himself then answered it again in

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tms/2008/05/ask_bearders_170.shtml

see the Bearded Wonders answers
(the Law he quotes from is Law 42 Point 15 Bowler attempting to run out non-striker before delivery-The bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to attempt to run out the non-striker. The ball shall not count in the over.")

question 20 - Sir Ian Blog

this too has already been asked and answered see post 88 in

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tms/2008/03/ask_bearders_165.shtml

the law here is Law 36 Point 3.
"Off side of wicket-
The off side of the striker's wicket shall be determined by the striker's stance at the moment the ball comes into play for that delivery."

Fundamentally this is apparently permitted as the alternative of stealing a run is even more unsporting. But this constantly happens, the non-stiker is out of his crease maybe 50% of the time, so why is it so rare to run out the non-striker like this??

question 23 - acid kewpie

well i imagine, as a bowler myself, that paying attention to where the non-striker is during your delivery stride is the last thing on your mind!

unless he is a long way down the track, and so in your eyeline, i expect most bowlers (certainly me) don't even see where he is, and so constantly breaking the wkt and taking up time when you're not sure where the non-striker might be is usually a no-no (the exception would be when your team mates, who should be watching the striker too!, tell you the non-striker is backing up too far)

Hi Bill,

In the wake of the 2nd England - New Zealand test, I was wondering where England's 179 behind ranks on the all time list of first innings deficits by a team that has gone on to win, and what larger deficits have been successfully overturned?

Paul (Oxford)

#2 - the question was specifically about the honours boards at Lord's, rather than any instance of both captains making a century or taking 5 wickets.

Re: 1.

If a batsman running between the wickets makes his ground (by touching it at some point after the crease) and continues running past the stumps; and then, whilst he's in mid-stride with both feet (and bat) off the ground, the ball strikes the wicket then he should NOT be given out. The crucial points here are: (a) he has already made his ground; and (b) he is not attempting another run.

Re 14.

I can only assume that Bill must be using 'A' to refer to, "Angleterre". Shame on you, Spoony Dave, for suggesting that the heroic Bearded Wonder has made an actual error. It seems clear to me that he's just making an effort to make his column more accessible to our European allies!

#26 - Calcutta and Edgbaston track their notable scores on the Lord's board?

#27 - but is that not the same as a once grounded bat bouncing, which is definitely out?

Dear Bill,
I was interested to hear on TMS you immediately inform the presenters on demand that Jamie How was dropped on 42 (I believe). Was this an act of memory, a separate note or is it officially included within the scoring notes?
Cheers
Peter- Wells next the sea, Norfolk

Dear Bill,

Just watching the Windies v Aussies at the moment, and after an early bowling change I noticed Jerome Taylor is described as Fast, which I wouldn't grumble with.

I ask this; How is a bowler catagorised into Fast,fast/medium,medium/fast,medium etc.

Does an official statistic make this up, such as average bowling speed, or is it just dicussed in the pub by the programme producers and decided over a pint of bitter?These descriptions have been around a while, so who and how is it decided?

Many thanks,
Tom.

What is the highest Test score (individual and team) without a boundary being scored? Also, what are the lowest individual and team scores consisting of only boundaries, assuming the latter has ever happened?

astonvilla555,

I can help you slighly, as I know that Geoffry Boycott is the only man to score a test century without hitting a boundary.

question 32/33 - AstonVilla555/Bilsim

the highest individual test score without a boundary is by G Boycott but it wasn't a century, it was 79 vs Aus in 1978 (he did score a 4 but it was all ran)

In all 1st class cricket only 2 completed innings of 100 or more have been scored without boundaries. Alan Hill made 103 for Orange Free State against Griqualand West at Bloemfontein in 1976-77 and Paul Hibbert made exactly 100 without a four for Victoria against the touring Indians at Melbourne in 1977-78 (in 1926 Bill Woodfull reached his century against Surrey at The Oval without hitting a four, but did hit one afterwards before he was out for 118)

the lowest individual innings would be 4, by a few batsmen (just one example would be L Gibbs for WI vs Eng 1966)

Before that last Test there was some criticism of the England team – they were successful individuals (with all the top six averaging 40ish or more) but they were still under achieving as a team. Even now after the win at Old Trafford there is some wittering about Paul Collingwood.

Personally I think selection consistency is what the team has always needed.Two of our most successful years were when only one player made his debut 2005 (Pietersen) and 1977 (Botham) and you can't complain about them being given a chance.

Can you tell me:

1. The English season with most test debutants (I guess you can ignore 1877 and the years following the wars)

2. The season when the most different players played, and

3. The season when there were the most one test wonders (usually a good indicator of failure)

From the top of my head I expect the shambles of 1988 and 1989 will be high on the list and that the 2000s have been relatively calm by comparison.

Matthew
Yorkshire

PS: A harder question to answer might be when the most changes were made with players coming in and out of the team. Again I would go for 1988.

question 35 - Sir Ian Blog

for the debut part this page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_Cap_Numbers

has a complete list of england debutants, by year, all you need to do is count them!

as a help i can tell you that 1988 had 10 debuts (equalled by 2003 and beaten by 1986, 11) and 1989 only 5, the most i found (with a very quick scan) was 1921 with 19

i'd also like to point out that in 1977, Bothams debut year, 4 others, including Derek Randall, also made their debuts and in 2005 Plunkett and Udal also made debuts

Hey Bearders

Who statistically is the best cricketer of all time?

What I mean is that who has scored the most runs, taken the most wickets, caught the most catches and (perhaps) run out the most people in all of cricketing history?

Wally

I have heard of an instance in a club game where a fast bowler bowled a conventional bouncer which cleared the batsman and the wicket keeper and the boudary without bouncing again. The umpire awarded 4 wides(5). Is this correct or should he have awarded 6 wides(7)?

Mark Holmes
Carnforth CC
Northern Premier League

Re 35 and 36

Thanks very much for that it has helped me work a few things out.

The reason for the discrepancy re Botham was that I was looking at seasons rather than calendar years ie Randall made his debut on tour in 1976/77. The reason for this was that in the old days some players were either unable or unwilling to tour so there were obviously a lot of changes for touring parties. An English summer is when the selectors really used to demonstrate their incompetence and ability to panic which is what I was trying to quantify somehow.

Having had a look at it 1988 was indeed the worst year in the modern era with 9 debutants. All the summers with more are from the nineteenth century when tests were not played every year (so there were obviously more changes) and the years following the wars - eg 1921.

The next two worst are 1950 (8 new starters in only 4 tests) and 1993 (7 in 7) – both years of heavy defeats - so there is some correlation.

But it’s not as simple as that. In 1989 there were only 5 debutants. But when you look closer it is depressingly similar to 1988. So although England used 4 fewer new players they chopped and changed just as much – 4 different opening partnerships (same as 1988) and many team changes between tests (23 in 1988 and 22 in 1989) and different players used (28 in 1988 and 29 in 1989). In 2005 we used 12 and won the ashes.

In 1988 we also managed to use 4 different captains and 3 different wicketkeepers.

Re: 38 I believe a six can only accrue off the bat. If a fielder throws the ball over the rope without it touching the ground, its still only 4 overthrows, and I believe the same thing would apply in the instance you refer to

Brian

As Bill has mentioned at least once before (although I suspect more often), a six must come off the bat. The ball crossing the boundary by any means other than directly off the bat without bouncing will be a four at most.

Anyway, having perused the latest county news tonight, I noticed that in the Leicestershire / Glamorgan match, their number 11 (David Harrison) not only top-scored in the innings, but also made a remarkable proportion of the runs (64 / 185, which is almost 35%). I was wondering on how many occassions (if any) in Test matches a number 11 has been the highest scorer, and whether this is the greatest percentage of an innings scored by a number 11 - plus any other interest batting feats by a number 11 of which you are aware!?!

@Sam:
(#1) If a batsman has grounded his bat or his foot (or any other part of his body) behind the line, he cannot be run out unless he is attempting another run. Thus your scenario cannot happen.

@acid-kewpie:
(#3) Misbah ul-Haq was out because he had not grounded anything.

(#29/#27) Not out. He has already made his ground and is not attempting another run. (I once shared your misunderstanding and gave someone out in that scenario -- I was shown to have made a bad decision.)

Hi Bill
Has Simon Jones retired from international cricket? I wondered why the Selectors haven't considered him?
Thanks
Anne (Glasgow)

Re 38 - I can just about believe that a fast bowler could bounce one over the batsman's head, the wicket-keeper AND the boundary. A chap by the name of Ken McLoud, who opened the bowling for Jamaca at the other end from Michael Holding, played for Wycombe House on a bouncy wicket at Stanmore. The first ball of the day did this, but bounced some 20 yards inside the boundary.

Re 40 - It is difficult to imagine a fielder throwing the ball over the wicket keeper's head and the boundary on the other side without bouncing. If it ever has happened then I am sure that a certain amount of 'rage' must have been involved.

question 42 - Scary Jim

the highest score by a number 11 in tests is 75, Z khan for India vs Bang in 2004. He wasn't the highest scorer in the innings though

so, the highest score by a number 11 that was also the highest in the innings was 62 by AEE Volger of SA vs Eng in 1906. This was only a fraction of the 333 all out though (19%) as there were lots of 20s and another 50

but of the 12 batsman who scored more than 50 at number 11 F. Spofforth has the biggest % of team total, and highest scored, for Aus vs Eng in 1885 when he got 50 exactly out of 163 making 31%

it is possible that a number 11 both high scored and beat 31% scoring lower than 50 but my records don't go below 50, sorry (also the team total would have to be a low one, less than 150ish)

Bill,

I have a question on the laws for you, if a batsman plays the ball into the ground the ball bounces up, the batsman uses his bat again to deflect the ball away from the stumps and the ball is caught before it hits the ground for a second time is he out?

Thanks

Will (Ascot)

Re: 47

In this instance the correct decision is Not Out. Law 32 states that you can be out caught if you have legally hit the ball twice, but only if the ball has not touched the ground after the first hit.

Re: 43, 29 and 27.

The correct decision is Out. Law 38 states that a batsman can be run out if he is out of his ground at any time while the ball is in play. It does not say you have to be attempting a run. If a batsman is within his ground, but does not have any part of him (or his bat held in his hand) in contact with the ground, then by definition he is "out of his ground" and therefore liable to be run out.

The only exception to this is if the batsman has been within his ground and then subsequently left it to avoid injury.

45 I can't recall the players involved, but I believe there was an instance of a fielder injured while (successfully) stopping the ball just inside the rope. Not realising the extent of the injury, no other fielders went to recover the ball from next to the injured fielder and the batsmen carried on running, I think in the end running 4 or 5. In order to prevent them totting up even more runs the injured fielder picked up the ball and tossed it over the rope near him in the hope of restricting the runs to just 4 for the resulting boundary, but instead conceded 4 overthrows in addition to the runs already run

Bill
On 14 August 1958, in arguably one of the most astonishing days in first-class cricket history, on the second day of the match between Derbyshire and Hampshire at Burton-on-Trent, no fewer than 39 wickets fell. Derbyshire, resuming at 8-1 in its first innings was dismissed for 74, skittling Hants for 23. The hosts reached 107 second time round, while Hants managed only 55.
Is this the record number of wickets in a single day in a first-class match? Of the games over in a single day of which I am aware it seems that a maximum of 30 wickets fell.
It is possible that 40 wickets could fall in a single day of a match lasting two days, should none fall on a presumably truncated first day.
Am I right in thinking that this impending 50th anniversary is the record?
Bob Letham, Bridgend, Wales

In their first innings of the recent match against Sussex Durham had two centurians and a double-century partnership but only reached 301 all out. Is this a record low score in these circustances?

Dear Bill,

I once saw a team mate (an experienced Club and Minor Counties player) pad up to a ball outside leg-stump. The ball looped up gently and, unable to resist the temptation, he hit the ball over square leg to the boundary.

The umpire signalled four runs; but this didn't seem right to me. Surely, if this was allowed, batsmen would be doing it all the time - it being a far easier way to score runs than the traditional method.

Yet, on the other hand, is it so different from a batsman being too late on an in-swinging half-volley to make contact; but then having the ball bounce off his pad staight into the path of his bat which strikes it to the boundary?

Dave Weston

question 52 - Dave Weston

sorry to tell you this but the umpire was wrong, the batsman should have been given OUT, for hitting the ball twice!

the laws quite clearly state a double hit is when the batsmans deliberately scores runs with his bat when the ball has hit him (body or bat) before

Law 34 Hit Ball Twice (my CAPS)

1. Out Hit the ball twice
(a) The striker is out Hit the ball twice if, while the ball is in play, it strikes any PART OF HIS PERSON or is struck by his bat and, before the ball has been touched by a fielder, he WILFULLY STRIKES IT AGAIN with his bat or person, other than a hand not holding the bat, except for the sole purpose of guarding his wicket

the difference between this and your other example would be WILFULLY

question 51 - Mike Chester

301 all out is not the record, i don't know what is but i know of at least two cases with a lower score, and these involved a double century partnership for the first wicket (remember this when Eng batting collapses are mentioned)

in 1947 the game between sussex and glamorgan Dyson and Davies put on 236 for the first wkt, before a dramatic collapse to 290 all out (Dyson 118 Davies 106)

these two sides played another match in 1893 where sussex this time were bowled out for 294 in their 2nd innings, bean 120, wilson 105, putting on 217 for the 1st wkt

(these are the records for high 1st wkt partnership and low team scores, but i'm afraid i don't know for other wkts)

Re: 53.

Thanks Ian. It hadn't occurred to me to look at the hit-the-ball-twice law since he only used his bat once! There was also no question that it was wilfully done and not in defence of his stumps. Clearly a mistake by both player and umpire!

re 52 53 55

So if this chap blocked the ball with his bat or pad, the ball went in the air then he fisted it into a gap in the field with "a hand not holding the bat" he could run a single (or perhaps guide it to third man for 4?

56 - no, in the situation you describe, he could be given out for handling the ball.

I seem to remember that in the distant past the Warwickshire spinner, Eric Hollies, once took all 10 wickets in a county match unassisted. Is my memory playing tricks?

Re 58 - Your memory is accurate. In 1946, Eric Hollies took 10-49 against Nottinghamshire at Edgbaston. 7 of the wickets were bowled, and 3 LBW.

Full scorecard of the match is at https://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1940S/1946/ENG_LOCAL/CC/WARWICKS_NOTTS_CC_24-25JUL1946.html

re 57

Thanks Tom

But in this case I don't understand the effect of the clause "other than a hand not holding the bat" see 52

When an established batsman is batting with a tail-ender, often they will refuse a run so that the established batsman retains the strike. is there anything in the rules to stop one of the batsman (going to the 'danger end') from deliberately running a short run, so that they can get back in time, end up at the original ends, and still get the single?

Who average more in test cricket - left-or right-handers? Do left-handed batsmen have a statistical disadvantage, for example, (against slow bowlers or on last day) because of the rough outside the off-stump? Is there any statistical advantage of left-hand/right-hand partnerships, with bat or ball?

Re: 61 - PEMOHT

Law18.5 covers this scenario.

The umpire should warn the batsmen it is unfair play and disallow all runs scored. The batsmen are then returned to their original ends. So there is no advantage at all to the batting side and if there is a repeat instance the fielding side are awarded 5 penalty runs.

So definitely no point in trying the plan you describe.

Re: 60 - Sir Ian Blog

I think what is meant by this is to establish whether the batsman is out "Handled the Ball" or "Hit the Ball Twice". Either way the batsman is out, so you could say it doesn't matter, but the laws do differentiate between the two offfences.

To try and clarify the point, if the batsman wilfully touches the ball with a hand not holding the bat he could be given out Handled the Ball.

If he touches the ball with a hand holding the bat, then that is considered to be part of the bat and therefore cannot be given out Handled the Ball.

Re 42:

HIGHEST SCORE IN TEST INNINGS SCORED BY NO. 11

FR Spofforth, A-E Melbourne, 1884-85: 50, next highest 34
TR McKibbin, A-E, The Oval, 1896: 16, next highest 7
AEE Vogler, SA-E, Cape Town, 1905-06: 62*, next highest 60
MJG Amerasinghe, SL-NZ, Kandy, 1983-84: 34, next highest 33
Asif Masood, P-WI, Lahore, 1974-75: 30*, next highest 29
Talha Jubair, B-I, Chittagong, 2004-05: 31, next highest 22
SJ Harmison, E-SA, Cape Town, 2004-05: 42, next highest 41

HIGHEST PERCENTAGE IN TEST INNINGS BY NO. 11

36.36% TR McKibbin, A-E, The Oval, 1896: 16 out of 44
30.67 FR Spofforth, A-E, Melbourne, 1884-85: 50 out of 163
25.00 Talha Jubair, B-I, Chittagong, 2004-05: 31 out of 124
22.47 BS Bedi, I-NZ, Hyderabad, 1969-70: 20 out of 89
21.83 KW Hough, NZ-E, Christchurch, 1958-59: 31* out of 142
21.65 GF Labrooy, SL-E, Lord's, 1988: 42 out of 194
21.62 AJ Fothergill, E-SA, Port Elizabeth, 1888-89: 32* out of 148
20.62 Wasim Bari, P-WI, Bridgetown, 1976-77: 60* out of 291
20.38 M Muralitharan, SL-A, Kandy, 2003-04: 43 out of 211
20.22 AN Connolly, A-SA, Johannesburg, 1969-70: 36 out of 178

Hello,

if during the bowlers run up the bails at the batsmans end are blown of by the wind, and the resulting ball bowls the batsman, is he out?

Hi Bill,

I love the column. I was just wandering what is the most wickets to fall on the first day of a test match. And on any day? And what is the shortest time in which a team has one a test match?

Thanks,

Josh, London

Hi there

I'm not sure that I rate Ian Bell that highly. And I'm not sure that I recall him ever delivering a match-winning innings.

Can you wander back through the records and let us know when England have won a test match where Ian Bell has top scored (in an England innings) and out-scored the next highest (England) batsman by at least, say, 25 runs in that innings?

Additionally, has he ever out-scored the next highest (England) batsman by at least 25 runs in both innings of a match?

Hany

question 68 - h4nym1

well before the answer i should say that i don't think batsmen ever win matches, you need to bowl the opposition out twice to win, its a bowlers job to win, the batsman is there to stop you losing, however...

in his 69 innings for England he has only top scored 10 times

of these only 2 have been in a winning cause, and only once by more than your (fairly random) 25

in the 3rd test vs WI in 2007 he scored 97 in the 1st innings (next best was 60), however he didn't top score in the second

the only test where he top scored and england won and it was in the winning innings wasn't by 25 runs

against Bang in 2nd test 2005 in the only eng innings he scored 162 (next best 151)

the only match where he top scored in both innings Eng actually lost, vs SL in 2007. Bell scored 83 (next best 45) and 74 (63)

so the short answer to your question is, NO he hasn't, ever

Dear Bill,

It has been suggested (above, and by many a member of their union) that it is bowlers that win matches.

Do you know of any statistics relating to the prefered discipline of the recipient of Man-of-the-match awards in Test Cricket?

My guess is that in drawn games the award is almost certain to go to a batsman; but what would the break-down be for matches that ended in a victory?

Dave Weston, Walton-on-Thames

ITullett - Point 66

I'm an (Club level) umpire, In this context, I would call a dead ball as soon as the bails came off - ie ideally before the bowler had entered his delivery stride.

I would then consider heavy bails or dispensing with the bails altogether in the event that we don' t have heavy bails to hand.

question 70 - Dave Weston

well this isn't exactly an answer that question but....

this is a list of all 17 players to have won 10 or more MoM awards in test cricket

Kallis (19 MoM)
Murali (18)
W Akram (17)
Warne (17)
Ponting (14)
S Waugh (14)
CEL Ambrose (14)
Lara (12)
Botham (12)
Tendulkar (11)
Border (11)
de Silva (11)
I Khan (11)
McGrath (11)
SM Pollock (10)
MD Marshall (10)
Kumble (10)

which by my count is

8 bowlers
6 batsmen
3 allrounders

notice no 'keepers

(i think this shows the importance of bowlers!)

Hi Bill,

I'm always amused at lower order batsmen ammassing more runs than several of their team higher up the order (such as Broad is doing in the current test) - and it prompted me to wonder, what is the lowest position in the batting order for a player who scores more than everyone above him put together?

Also, I remember from my childhood an innings where Devon Malcolm skittled the south africans, but Cullinan (I think) still managed a century - was this the highest ever proportion of the team total scored by one player? If not, who holds that record?

Thanks!

question 73 - Cesar Villa Pando

just the second part

the highest % of a completed innings is famously by Bannerman in the very first test, when he scored 67.34% of Aus runs in their 1st innings (165 out of 245), this was also the first 100 in test history, and he faced the very first ball in tests, and he was the first player to retire hurt

the only other player to score more than 65% was Slater against Eng in 1999 when he scored 66.84%

Cullanan managed 94 out of 175 against Eng in 1994, which is 53.7%, not even in the top 20 (malcolm famously took 9 wkts)

Dear Bill,

Whilst playing a local league game at the weekend. Our oppositions' Ozzy batsman crashed a well struck drive to the on boundary. It was Four all the way so he stood and admired his work watching the ball hit the fence after crosing the rope before relaxing, letting his bat drop from above his head and promptly demolishing his own stumps. Being unsure on the the rule (and one of the few people who realised what had just occured) I appealled. Neither umpire really gave a descision and the Ozzy lad duly went on to win the game... So the questions are:

Was the ball dead as it had passed the boundary? Or should the lad have been given out?

Thanks in advance,

Mike

Dear Bearders,

Jimmy Anderson has just posted his best Test batting and bowling feats on the same day. Are there any better instances of this, or are all other instances of someone on their debut?

Bearders,

Stuart Broad and Ryan Sidebottom batted together in the first innings today. When, if ever, apart from these two, did two players whose fathers' played for England also bat together?

John

question 75 - Mike

the ball was dead as soon as it crossed the boundary line

Law 23
1. Ball is dead
(a) The ball becomes dead when
...
(ii) a boundary is scored.
...

Law 35

1. Out Hit wicket
(a) The striker is out Hit wicket if, ... while the ball is IN PLAY, his wicket is put down either by the striker's bat or by his person

the key words being IN PLAY, and the boundary causes the ball to be dead, therefore NOT OUT

question 77 - Jonedsta

well another example would be Butcher and Stewart

the sons last batted together vs SA in 2003, although the fathers never batted (or even played) together for Eng

question 77 - Jonedsta

some more info on this

the ONLY fathers and sons who BOTH played together (although they never batted together) for Eng were Stewart and Jones

fathers Stewart and Jones played in the same match in India 1964, but Stewart didn't bat as he was "absent hurt"

sons Stewart and Jones played in two matches together, the last being 2002 vs Aus, but this time Jones was "absent hurt" and so didn't bat

as far as i can see of the 9 fathers and sons in English test cricket these were the only ones to play together (fathers and sons)

today saw Jimmy Anderson get his test best batting and bowling figures, both on the same day.
My question is, has this ever been done before (other than in a players' first few test matches)

Thanks, Jonny from Lancashire

Slightly different question re achieving best batting and bowling figures in the same test. James Anderson has done it in his 25th test. What's the latest anyone's done it in their career.

Phil Britton, Wiltshire

While Broad was batting well in the first innings of the 3rd test I was wondering when the last time an England number 8 scored a test century when a night watchman hadn't been employed. For that matter the same goes for an England 9, 10 or 11 (although they are more likely to be high scores than 100s).

Andy
Edinburgh

question 83 - Andy Clark

well no batsman of any nationality has scored 100 batting 11 in a test, Englands highest was J Snow 59 no against Wi in 1966 (in fact he's the only Eng no.11 above 50)

at number 10 WW Read is the only Englishman to score 100+ scoring 117 vs Aus in 1884

there are 2 English players above 100 at number 9, JT Murray, 112 vs WI in 1966 and G Allen 122 vs NZ in 1931

Murray scored his 100 in the same match and innings as Snow, in fact with Higgs putting on 63 at number 10 England went from 166 for 7 to 527 all out, thats a remarkable 361 for the last 3 wkts!

finding a non-nightwatchman influenced innings at number 8 is proving hard, i can tell you 2 english batsmen have scored more than 120 at number 8, H Wood (134no) and MC Cowdrey (128no), but Wood played his only 4 matches for england as a batsman, never bowling, and Cowdrey was a usual number 5 or 6 bat, very occasionally bowling, so both were only at number 8 because of circumstance, so i'm still looking

The England team for the third test at Lords against New Zealand in 1978 was:

Gooch, Boycott, Radley, Gower, Brearley, Botham, Taylor, Edmonds, Emburey, Hendrick, Willis

It therefore included 7 England captains. Has there ever been a team including more?

Matthew
Yorkshire

question 83 - andy clark

(cont)

well i think i've found 4 genuine number 8s who scored 100+, all against the WI

1950-T Evans 104 as keeper

1960-J Parks 101no as keeper (and another at no.7)

1969-R Illingworth 113 (and another at no.7)

1980-P Willey 100no (and another at no.7)

Dear Bill,

Today Gloucestershire were all out for 475 without a century being scored. Is this the highest innings total in the County Championship without a century? Is it the highest against Northamptonshire? What are the highest non-century totals for and against each county in the County Championship?

Best regards,

Guy Cudmore.
Bourne, Lincolnshire.

hello bill,

after watching getting somebody stumped off a wide in a village game the other day, it got me thinking!

If a team batting needed 1 run to win, and the fielding team needed 1 wicket to win, and a batsmen was stumped off a wide, what would the end result be? Does the Wicket over-rule the wide, or does the wide go down first? Has this happened before in first class cricket?

Best Wishes
Shaun Pritchard, Nottinghamshire

hey bearders

has there ever been a match where one batsman has been bowled but all three of his stumps have been uprooted or is that just almost impossible to do?

wally

question 88 - Shaun PP 02

this is a question which is asked and answered in almost every blog (the last time was question 70 answer 72 in blog 170)

the answer being, the batting team wins as the wide counts first, the run is given, the game is therefore over and nothing that happens afterwards counts, including the stumping

this is a combination of point 6 law 21

6. Winning hit or extras
(a) As soon as a result is reached,..., the match is at an end. Nothing that happens thereafter...shall be regarded as part of it.

and point 5 law 25

5. Penalty for a Wide
A penalty of one run shall be awarded instantly on the call of Wide ball...

the important word INSTANTLY

all the laws can be found here

https://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/

(my constant complaint now, almost as frequent as questions about wides winning games, please can we have a FORUM so people know what questions have already been asked/answered? and refer to them easily, please!)

Re 90:

Presumably therefore if the bails are whipped off before the umpire calls the wide, the result is different than if the call comes before the wicked is broken?

question 91 - harry 8611

no

the call of wide is taken as being when the ball passes the batsman at the wicket, not when the umpire actually shouts and signals wide, and the wide is taken as when it leaves the bowler for all scoring purposes

from part 3 of law 25 (my CAPS)

3. Call and signal of Wide ball
(a) If the umpire adjudges a delivery to be a Wide he shall call and signal Wide ball AS SOON AS the ball passes the striker's wicket. It shall, however, BE CONSIDERED to have been a Wide fromTHE INSTANT OF DELIVERY, even though it cannot be called Wide until it passes the striker's wicket.

Dear Bill

Do you have any statistics on what is the most frequently asked question on this blog? Is it:

(a) what is the highest innings without hitting a boundary?
(b) stumped off a wide with one run to win?
(c) sixes other than off the bat?
(d) most runs off a single ball?

... or something else?

Thanks, Nick

Question 62 - PEMOHT

In tests, right-handers average 28.77 and left-handers average 34.04.

Quite a difference, but I don't really know why.

I've done some analysis on the top scoring batsmen - those who have scored over 4000 runs. 69 right handers who averaged 45.51 and 30 left handers who averaged 45.51. Very very similar.

But my guess is that left handers make up a much bigger percentage of the leading batsmen than they do overall.

Nick

Re: Left and Right Handers.

There are three reasons that come immediately to mind why left-handers tend to do better than the right-handed.

1. Left handed cricketers will have had more experience against right-handed cricketers than vice-versa; and this represents an advantage for the left-handed.

2. There are some technical advantages to left-handers. For example, many balls that will hit the stumps will have pitched outside of the left-handed batsmans leg stump. Of course, there are technical disadvantages too; but surely they are outweighed by the advantages?

3. In the study of the brain it has been determined there is a tendancy for the left-handed to have better spacial awareness than the right-handed; and will therefore be better at picking the line and length of a ball as it leaves the bowlers hand.

Dave Weston (Right-handed Batsman)

re #94 #95

There is an article on left-handedness in sport on Wikipedia which states:

“…It is also well-known that Sachin Tendulkar and Darren Gough both write left-handed."

Since they both bowl right-handed can this be correct?”

I think (notwithstanding the rough issue) that there is an advantage to batting left-handed. In addition a number of them bat the wrong way round whereas less right handers do this as there is no advantage. 99.9% of people surely bowl with their good hand. So the ratio between batters (high batting average) and bowlers (lower average) is skewed.

I believe approx 11% of people are left handed. Is this the ratio of left-handed batters and bowlers?

Matthew
Yorkshire

Re 73 (cesarvillapando)

The lowest batting positions from which a batsman has outscored all his fellow batsmen are Nos 7 (7 times) and 9 (once). It has not been done by Nos 8, 10 or 11. The highest proportions of a side's innings from Nos 7 to 10 batsmen are:

No 10

42.99% SB Doull, NZ-E, Birmingham, 1999: 46/117
33.82 WW Read, E-A, The Oval, 1884: 117/346
33.33 RS Cunis, NZ-E, Christchurch, 1965-66: 16*/48-8
32.08 J Briggs, E-A, Lord's, 1888: 17/53
30.46 GAR Lock, E-WI, Leeds, 1963: 53/174
30.43 S Madan Lal, I-WI, Kanpur, 1983-84: 63*/207
30.08 BC Strang, Z-E, Lord's, 2000: 37*/123

No 9

57.25% Asif Iqbal, P-E, The Oval, 1967: 146/255 (all others 106)
46.02 CA Absolom, E-A, Melbourne, 1878-79: 52/113
44.25 IDS Smith, NZ-I, Auckland, 1989-90: 173/391
39.83 SK Warne, A-E, Birmingham, 1997: 47/118
38.18 JC Laker, E-A, Nottingham, 1948: 63/165
37.78 GA Lohmann, E-A, Sydney, 1886-87: 17/45
37.57 BS Sandhu, I-P, Hyderabad, 1982-83: 71/189

No 8

50.82% L Hutton, E-A, Brisbane, 1950-51: 62*/122 (all others 63)
49.38 CL Cairns, NZ-E, The Oval, 1999: 80/162
47.85 P Willey, E-WI, The Oval, 1980: 100*/209
46.47 Wasim Akram, P-Z, Sheikhupura, 1996-97: 257*/553
46.25 WJ O'Reilly, A-E, Sydney, 1936-37: 37*/80
46.12 Kamran Akmal, P-I, Karachi, 2005-06: 113/245

No 7

60.00% Kapil Dev, I-SA, Port Elizabeth, 1992-93: 129/215 (all others 78)
55.19 Moin Khan, P-SL, Sialkot, 1995-96: 117*/212 (all others 61)
50.97 Azhar Mahmood, P-SA, Durban, 1997-98: 132/259 (all others 127)
48.98 RD Jacobs, WI-A, Perth, 2000-01: 96*/196 (all others 90)
48.48 RC Russell, E-A, Manchester, 1989: 128*/264 (all others 123)
48.46 DPB Morkel, SA-E, Manchester, 1929: 63/130
47.87 DG Bradman, A-E, Melbourne, 1936-37: 270/564
47.31 A Symonds, A-WI, Kingston, 2008: 79/167 (all others 75)
47.19 Mohammad Wasim, P-NZ, Lahore, 1996-97: 109*/231 (all others 104)

Hello Bill,

I apologise if this has already been covered; England are currently fielding four front line bowlers who are all left handed batsmen, has this been done before in a test match?

#96

The proportion of all test players who are/were left-handed batsmen is 18%. I don't have reliable figures for bowlers, but my guess is it's a bit lower than this.

Left handers represent 30% of all batsmen who have scored 4000 test runs and 25% of those who have scored 1000 runs.

Of course, as Matthew says, some players who are otherwise right handed will bat left handed. This suggests that there is indeed a considerable advantage to batting left handed, if you can do it.

Nick

I know a chap who writes left handed; played table tennis left-handed (to international standard) and plays tennis left handed. He bats and bowls right handed, but throws left handed (and admits that he, "throws like a girl", when he tries to do it right-handed).

A very good club cricketer I know, who also played Minor Counties cricket for Suffolk, is right handed in everything he does, but bats left handed, "Because it's easier that way". I suspect he, like others that do the same, do so for the technical advantage it brings; but also because their left eye is their most dominant.