Sport Today

by **What`s in a nam** » Fri, 04 May 1990 01:49:57

Quote:

>scored 332/3 (Deans scored a century and O donnell fastest fifty in one day
>cricket -- in 18 balls). Details of Sri Lankan Innings not known.

Since noone objected to my first question, here's another.

This seems almost outrageous. I realize that I've not played the game or
followed much yet, but I would have guessed the fastest fifty to be at least
twice that! Is it relatively common to get fifties in under 40 balls? Or
am I missing something about how balls are counted? Are certain types of
bats (like those spent just clearing the wicket with no runs) not counted?
Scoring fifty in 18 balls seems almost inhuman! Unless it's a lot easier to
break the boundary than I would suspect.

--mike

--
Mic3hael Sullivan, | "Who's paying 20 grand a year to go here,
Society for the Incurably Pompous | and who's calling whom *stupid*??"
University of Rot and Fester | --to someone calling UR admins stupid.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

by **Robert Mandelba** » Fri, 04 May 1990 02:26:20

Quote:

>Scoring fifty in 18 balls seems almost inhuman! Unless it's a lot easier to
>break the boundary than I would suspect.
> --mike

Nope, it's not that easy to break the boundary. That's why 50 in 18
balls is a record! BTW, in answer to your other question, ALL balls
count.

-Robbie.

by **David Chalme** » Fri, 04 May 1990 03:02:04

Quote:

>This seems almost outrageous. I realize that I've not played the game or
>followed much yet, but I would have guessed the fastest fifty to be at least
>twice that! Is it relatively common to get fifties in under 40 balls? Or
>am I missing something about how balls are counted? Are certain types of
>bats (like those spent just clearing the wicket with no runs) not counted?
>Scoring fifty in 18 balls seems almost inhuman! Unless it's a lot easier to
>break the boundary than I would suspect.

This is extremely fast but just this side of inhuman. To give you an idea of
typical scoring rates... In a three, four or five day match, a typical scoring
rate might be two or three runs per over (remember, an over consists of six
balls). In one-day cricket, the pace is forced along, 4-5 runs an over is
typical over an innings (so typical totals are 200-250 after 50 overs). Near
the end of the innings, the pace is often more like 6-8 per over for the last
couple of overs. Any team or player that averages a run per ball is doing
very well.

OK, so that's typical, now moving on to extreme cases. The most well known
extreme case is when Gary Sobers scored a six of all six balls of an over,
giving 36 off 6 balls. This was in an English county match. (I think the feat
was repeated recently, I don't remember who by.) Next to that, a fifty off
18 balls looks almost tame... although O'Donnell's feat was right from the
start of his innings, no time to warm up first, and we're not just taking the
"best" over like in Sobers' case. I imagine that O'Donnell was scoring a four
off almost every ball, with perhaps the odd six and the odd miss.

"Breaking the boundary" (or scoring boundaries, or just hitting 4's and 6's)
doesn't happen nearly as often in Tests, because there's not so much incentive
to score fast, and it's better to take your time. Maybe one 4 every three
overs might be typical. This doesn;t necessarily mean that scoring a 4 or 6
is *hard*, though, just risky. Every time you go for it there's some risk
of being caught or bowled or... But if you're having a lucky day, almost every
ball can be a potential 4. Some lower-order batsman, like Botham or Marsh, and
now apparently O'Donnell, are renowned for taking a swing at everything,
scoring a few very quick runs and then getting out.

I don't know whether O'Donnell's fifty is the fastest ever, but I doubt it.
Probably just the fastest in the (relatively recent) one-dayers. I don't
know other stats... but I do know some stats about the fastest hundreds.
Speed used to be measured in minutes, and the record for fastest hundred was
something like 40 minutes. (In a first-class match, not a Test. A "century
before lunch", i.e. in 2 hours, is considered quite a feat in a Test.) These
days speed is measured in balls. The record for by far the fastest hundred is
held by my fellow South Australian, David Hookes, who got 100 off 34 balls
in a Sheffield Shield match a few years ago. And you thought 50 off 18 was
impressive... And it wasn't even in a one-day match (I can't remember, maybe
there was some real incentive to score fast then, or maybe he was just in form
and loving it). Hookes is also famous for taking 5 4's in a row off Tony
Greig, in his first-ever Test (the Centenary Test in 1977).

Incidentally, if anyone has more details of the Aust-Sri Lanka match, it
would be interesting to hear them.

--

Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University.
"It is not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable"

by **Dipankar Gho** » Fri, 04 May 1990 02:57:14

**>scored 332/3 (Deans scored a century and O donnell fastest fifty in one day
**>cricket -- in 18 balls). Details of Sri Lankan Innings not known.
**
**Since noone objected to my first question, here's another.
**
**This seems almost outrageous. I realize that I've not played the game or
**followed much yet, but I would have guessed the fastest fifty to be at least
**twice that! Is it relatively common to get fifties in under 40 balls? Or
**am I missing something about how balls are counted? Are certain types of
**bats (like those spent just clearing the wicket with no runs) not counted?
**Scoring fifty in 18 balls seems almost inhuman! Unless it's a lot easier to
**break the boundary than I would suspect.
**
** --mike

I don't see why you should think it tough to get a fifty in under 40
balls. Clearing the boundary without touching the ground can get you 6 runs
and 4 if you touch the ground. Twenty runs in an over are pretty common,
especially in a one-dayer where the primary objective is runs and not
safeguarding your wicket. Clearing the boundary is not as tough as you think:
as long as a fielder is not in the way, and the ball is well-stroked, it
should always reach the boundary on a medium-sized ground. Also, no-balls by
the bowler help since they aren't counted, overthrows, etc. Incidentally, all
balls that the batsman faces are counted even if he doesn't "clear the wicket"
(I'm not sure what you meant there).

The world record for runs in an over (in first-class cricket) is held by
Sir Gary Sobers who hit 36(!) who hit 6 sixes (I believe it was for his
county side against Glamorgan). In recent memory, I remember Ravi Shastri
hitting 5 sixes in an over in an Indian first-class match.

Dipankar Ghosh

by **das himad** » Fri, 04 May 1990 04:30:27

Quote:

> The world record for runs in an over (in first-class cricket) is held by
> Sir Gary Sobers who hit 36(!) who hit 6 sixes (I believe it was for his
> county side against Glamorgan). In recent memory, I remember Ravi Shastri
> hitting 5 sixes in an over in an Indian first-class match.

> Dipankar Ghosh

As Dave Chalmers has already pointed out Sobers's record has been repeated.
If memory serves me right Ravi Shastri did so in an Indian first class
match where he hit 6 sixes in an over and not 5.
Anybody more sure of his or her memory who would like to confirm or
refute that?
* Himadri Das * *

* UUCP : uunet!***ia!hd7q * *

by **Yeshwant K Muthusa** » Fri, 04 May 1990 04:22:09

Quote:

> ......
> The world record for runs in an over (in first-class cricket) is held by
> Sir Gary Sobers who hit 36(!) who hit 6 sixes (I believe it was for his
> county side against Glamorgan). In recent memory, I remember Ravi Shastri
> hitting 5 sixes in an over in an Indian first-class match.

^^^^^^^

Ravi Shastri also hit 6 sixes in an over, equalling Sobers' record.
The unfortunate bowler was Tilak(?) playing for Baroda.
Cannot recall other details.
However, I do recall seeing pictures of Shastri hitting each of his 6
sixes in a sports magazine.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeshwant K Muthusamy | Internet: |"There are three kinds of

Oregon Graduate Institute | UUCP: | and statistics."
Beaverton, OR 97006 | ...!ogicse!yeshwant | - Winston Churchill
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by **NAGARATNAM RABINDRA** » Fri, 04 May 1990 04:40:42

Quote:

> county side against Glamorgan). In recent memory, I remember Ravi Shastri
> hitting 5 sixes in an over in an Indian first-class match.

> Dipankar Ghosh

Ravi Shastri did hit 6 sixes in an over, during his innings of over 200
against Rajastan(?). The poor bowler to suffer was Tilak Raj. In fact
during the innings Shastri equalled the record for the fastest 200
held by Clive Lloyd made during the West Indies tour of England in 1976.

Rabindran

by **Ali Min** » Fri, 04 May 1990 04:17:49

Quote:

>OK, so that's typical, now moving on to extreme cases. The most well known
>extreme case is when Gary Sobers scored a six of all six balls of an over,
>giving 36 off 6 balls. This was in an English county match. (I think the feat
>was repeated recently, I don't remember who by.)

It was Ravi Shastri!!!!!

Quote:

>.............Some lower order batsman, like Botham or Marsh, and
>now apparently O'Donnell, are renowned for taking a swing at everything,
>scoring a few very quick runs and then getting out.

This is hardly a fair characterization for two batsmen who scored so considerably
at the highest level. While Australians might wish to forget it, most people
remember that some of Ian Botham's "very quick" innings lasted far too long
for the bowling side! His centuries against Australia in 1981 are an example.
And a highest Test score of 208 and 14 Test centuries is more than most
specialist batsmen ever attain. As for Rod Marsh, he could certainly hit
the ball, but was much more than a pure slogger. A current player who is making
the transition from slogger to genius is Wasim Akram. His innings of 86 in the
recent B&H series in Australia was described by Henry Blofeld as the
best one-day innings he had ever seen --- and he has seen many. Even allowing
for the hyperbole of the comment, there was enough to justify superlatives. And his
match-saving 134 in the 2nd Test was as much an indication of maturity as of
ability.

Quote:

>I don't know whether O'Donnell's fifty is the fastest ever, but I doubt it.
>Probably just the fastest in the (relatively recent) one-dayers. I don't
>know other stats... but I do know some stats about the fastest hundreds.
>Speed used to be measured in minutes, and the record for fastest hundred was
>something like 40 minutes. (In a first-class match, not a Test. A "century
>before lunch", i.e. in 2 hours, is considered quite a feat in a Test.)

The record for fastest first-class hundred was held for many decades by Percy
Fender (35 minutes), until Chris Old broke it a few years ago. I think his time
was 29 minutes, but I might be off. Robin Hobbs also scored a century in 37
minutes in a county match ten or so years ago. And I believe Frank Woolley once
scored 47 in about 8 minutes. The fastest Test hundred is still J. Gregory's
(70 minutes). In terms of balls, I believe Roy Fredericks of WI holds the
record (in the 75 series against Aus.) --- 79 balls.

Bradman once scored a hundred in 3 overs (!!) in Australian Grade Cricket, but
the overs were 8 balls each, and there were some no-balls.

Ciao,
Ali

by **Shamim Naq** » Fri, 04 May 1990 04:29:58

The world record for runs in an over (in first-class
cricket) is held by
Sir Gary Sobers who hit 36(!) who hit 6 sixes (I believe it was
for his county side against Glamorgan). In recent memory, I
remember Ravi Shastri hitting 5 sixes in an over in an Indian
first-class match.

Yes, indeed, Sobers hit 6 sixes of Nash of Glamorgan. A few years
later Majid Jehangir Khan of Pakistan also hit the same bowler for 6
sixes in one over. I think Nash retired after that!

I believe Shastri also got 6 sixes in an over in Bombay(?) in a first
class game. More recently (1987), in a non-official match (for
charity) between India and Pakistan in England, Manzoor Elahi of Pak
got 6 sixes.

--shamim
--
--shamim

by **Shamim Naq** » Fri, 04 May 1990 04:45:57

A followup on sixes:

Who has the most sixes by a batsman in one innings?

It may be Reid, captain of NZ, who got 17 once. He used to be billed
as a specialist "six hitter". Any Kiwis out there who can provide more
info on Reid?

Majid Khan got 13 against Glamorgan (including the 6 sixes in one
over). He made a very fast 170 odd in this county match. The
background of this innings is interesting: Majid had gone with the Pak
side to Eng as a star (number 4) batsman. In his first 4 county
matches he got 4 hundreds but failed miserably in two tests. He then
proceeded to take out his frustration on Glamorgan from the first
ball.

Incidentally, Majid got into the Pak test side as a medium-fast
bowler! He played in Karachi against Aus and got a couple of wickets.
But the Aussies accused him of having a suspect action. Later on, he
got back in the side as a batsman. His initial record in tests as a
batsman was dismal and the rumor was that he had no match temperament.
I believe it was Kardar (Pak's first test captain) who suggested that
Majid start to open the innings. He did so in Melbourne (?) and got
150 odd against Max Walker, etc. and never looked back. Went on to
become one of the best openers around.

In the same series against Australia, with Ian Chappel going strong
and Aus piling on the runs, Majid was brought on to bowl off breaks.
(There is a folklore theorem in cricket that Aussies are weak against
off spin.) This was the first time that anybody could remember seeing
Majid bowl off breaks. He got Chappel, and four other batsmen. From
then on, he was often used as an economical and tight off spinner.
--
--shamim

by **Tim Stephe** » Fri, 04 May 1990 05:43:33

Quote:

> I don't know whether O'Donnell's fifty is the fastest ever, but I doubt it.
> Probably just the fastest in the (relatively recent) one-dayers. I don't
> know other stats... but I do know some stats about the fastest hundreds.
> Speed used to be measured in minutes, and the record for fastest hundred was
> something like 40 minutes. (In a first-class match, not a Test. A "century
> before lunch", i.e. in 2 hours, is considered quite a feat in a Test.) These
> days speed is measured in balls. The record for by far the fastest hundred is
> held by my fellow South Australian, David Hookes, who got 100 off 34 balls
> in a Sheffield Shield match a few years ago. And you thought 50 off 18 was
> [unnecessary reminder that Grieg bowled himself too much]

I am not sure that Hookes' 100 is so very much faster than other
innings, although it may be in comparison to innings of comparable
value/game situation. I can think of two examples from the English
game, one by repute the other from contemporary accounts. In the
first a Surrey batsamn called Fender in the 20/30's scored a ton in
34 minutes, the number of balls eludes me. The second is less
impressive: Chris Old scored a 100 off 35-40 balls in a county match
in the late 70's, however the attack he faced was less than intimidating,
and was serving up donkey-drops to protest the way the game was going.
The opposing captain thought Yorkshire should have declared to give
the game a chance of ending in a result (NB the discussion on draws in
cricket), and instructed his bowlers to serve up easy pickings to Old,
a reknowned "slogger", in the attempt to embarass a declaration out
of Yorkshire.

As for fastst fifties I vaguely remember the record as being 8 (eight)
minutes by some Leicestershire batsman of the 60's. Don't remember the
number of balls, but I think the situation was akin to the one Old
scored his runs in, where he was "fed" junk.

tim stephens
unc-ch

by **David Chalme** » Fri, 04 May 1990 06:58:17

Quote:

Ali Minai writes:
> ... David Chalmers writes:

>>.............Some lower order batsman, like Botham or Marsh, and
>>now apparently O'Donnell, are renowned for taking a swing at everything,
>>scoring a few very quick runs and then getting out.

>... hardly a fair characterization for two batsmen who scored so considerably
>at the highest level. While Australians might wish to forget it, most people
>remember that some of Ian Botham's "very quick" innings lasted far too long
>for the bowling side! His centuries against Australia in 1981 are an example.
>And a highest Test score of 208 and 14 Test centuries is more than most
>specialist batsmen ever attain. As for Rod Marsh, he could certainly hit
>the ball, but was much more than a pure slogger.

I certainly don't mean to imply that Botham (especially) and Marsh weren't
talented batsmen. Marsh got around three test centuries, and a few fifties.
And Botham for part of his career could have got into the England side on
batting alone. Nevertheless, both of them had a tendency to look extremely
dangerous, but then get out disappointingly. For both of them, it increased
later in their career. Laziness, or lack of discipline maybe. Their
reputations as big hitters caused them to go for it, but most of the time
they didn't come through. If you look at Botham's post-1981 batting stats,
I think you'll find that they're surprisingly weak. Whenever Australia
played England, I would get terrified when Botham walked to the crease, but
so often this was soon followed by a sigh of relief as he was out for being
overambitious. For Marsh, the expectations weren't quite as high, but it
was still disappointing to see him continually out for 10 or 15 after waving
his bat ferociously. With a little discipline, both of them had the potential
to achieve much more. Of course, both of them were secure to do what they
like, with their respective incredible bowling and wicket-keeping records.

Quote:

>The record for fastest first-class hundred was held for many decades by Percy
>Fender (35 minutes),until Chris Old broke it a few years ago. I think his time
>was 29 minutes, but I might be off. Robin Hobbs also scored a century in 37
>minutes in a county match ten or so years ago.And I believe Frank Woolley once
>scored 47 in about 8 minutes. The fastest Test hundred is still J. Gregory's
>(70 minutes). In terms of balls, I believe Roy Fredericks of WI holds the
>record (in the 75 series against Aus.) --- 79 balls.

I think Hobbs' century took 44 minutes. The others sound about right to me.
Minute measurements aren't so meaningful these days, though, with the huge
variation in over rates, and the general slowing down of play. Hookes'
34-ball century took 40-something minutes, I think, but was a few balls
quicker than Old's.

--

Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University.
"It is not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable"

by **Ali Min** » Fri, 04 May 1990 06:47:44

Quote:

>A followup on sixes:

>Who has the most sixes by a batsman in one innings?

>It may be Reid, captain of NZ, who got 17 once. He used to be billed
>as a specialist "six hitter". Any Kiwis out there who can provide more
>info on Reid?

>Majid Khan got 13 against Glamorgan (including the 6 sixes in one
>over). He made a very fast 170 odd in this county match. The
>background of this innings is interesting: Majid had gone with the Pak
>side to Eng as a star (number 4) batsman. In his first 4 county
>matches he got 4 hundreds but failed miserably in two tests. He then
>proceeded to take out his frustration on Glamorgan from the first
>ball.

Reid did hit 17 sixes in an innings, but I seem to remember that Gordon
Greenidge broke that record a couple of years ago. In Tests,
John Edrich hit 10 sixes (and 52 fours!) in his 310 not out against NZ in
1965.

In his innings against Glamorgan in 1967, Majid hit 5, NOT 6, sixes off
one over from Alan Jones (not Malcolm Nash). His mauling by Sobers
notwithstanding, Nash stayed around and became one of the most successful
bowlers in county cricket. In 1976(?), he was hit for 5 sixes and a 4 in
one over by Frank Hayes.

Ciao,
Ali

Sport Today

Awfully fast fifty! (was Re: Australasia cup)

Awfully fast fifty! (was Re: Australasia cup)

Awfully fast fifty! (was Re: Australasia cup)

Awfully fast fifty! (was Re: Australasia cup)

Awfully fast fifty! (was Re: Australasia cup)

Awfully fast fifty! (was Re: Australasia cup)

Awfully fast fifty! (was Re: Australasia cup)

Awfully fast fifty! (was Re: Australasia cup)

Awfully fast fifty! (was Re: Australasia cup)

Awfully fast fifty! (was Re: Australasia cup)

Awfully fast fifty! (was Re: Australasia cup)

Awfully fast fifty! (was Re: Australasia cup)

Awfully fast fifty! (was Re: Australasia cup)

Awfully fast fifty! (was Re: Australasia cup)