On 27 Mar 2005 14:37:09 -0800, "Wrick" <pathikrit.bhowmick@gmail.com> felt that the following was of earth shattering importance:
I found this from an earlier post regarding the fastest centuries,>double-centuries in balls and minutes etc. But I don't get this: if you>see the fastest by time list for 200 runs), Don Bradman figures 4 times>in the list (including the fastest)but if you see the fastest by balls>list, he figures just once at the end (and that too for a 200 which>does not figure in the fastest by time list). What's going on? Did the>bowlers ball their overs fast then or did the Don always take singles>off the last ball of the over? But it still does not explain the huge>aberration in time spent vs ball faced.
Often in the earlier years on Test cricket the balls faced were not recorded.
You will note that the balls faced records are considerably more recent.
In article <1111963029.060305.163240@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Wrick <pathikrit.bhowmick@gmail.com> writes:>I found this from an earlier post regarding the fastest centuries,>double-centuries in balls and minutes etc. But I don't get this: if you>see the fastest by time list for 200 runs), Don Bradman figures 4 times>in the list (including the fastest)but if you see the fastest by balls>list, he figures just once at the end (and that too for a 200 which>does not figure in the fastest by time list). What's going on? Did the>bowlers ball their overs fast then
Yes. Then something like 20 overs per hour was the going rate, wherwas nowadays we are lucky if we get 15.
or did the Don always take singles>off the last ball of the over?
<snip>
This may well be a factor as well. Great batsmen have always tended to be hoggers of the strike. And of course it's in the interests of their sides that they should do so.
Also, as Colin points out, information on the number of balls faced by a batsman was often not recorded. Even where the original scoresheets survive, the "traditional" form of scoring does not allow the balls faced to be determined accurately after the event. -- John Hall
"I am not young enough to know everything." Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)
In article <1112031361.322336.300430@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Truffle McRuffle <felice.rando@gmail.com> writes:>I believe Bradman took threes at the end of the over to keep the>strike, not singles ...>
when did the overs per hour rate start decreasing? I remember in the>early 80's it had gotten to something ridiculous like 12 overs per hour>before they made it a mandatory 15.>
I think Len Hutton's side touring Australia in 1954-5 were supposed to be one of the first to slow down the over rate for tactical reasons. Though I suspect that their over rate would be regarded as quite respectable nowadays. -- John Hall "Never play cards with a man called Doc. Never eat at a place called Mom's. Never sleep with a woman whose troubles are worse than your own." Nelson Algren
"Tintin" <tintin@banglacricket.com> decided to say:
Hutton had already done a trial run at Leeds 1953 when Australia chased>175 in 145 minutes.>
A pretty pathetic instance of slowing down happened at Bombay in 1948/9>when India chased 361 against West Indies - which included 'keeper>Walcott's long walks to the boundary to fetch balls.>
Are there any older instances in test cricket ?
I haven't got "The Big Ship" with me, but I'm pretty sure Armstrong did it.
I thought the first real criticism of Hutton's slowing of the over rate from was from the 1953-4 tour of West Indies, when he took it down to what was then considered a funereal 15 overs an hour.
