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.
>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"