by Amol Cricketwall » Mon, 09 Dec 2002 18:15:06
Baroda vs Maharashtra, OD games. Baroda batted first, 260/9 in 50 overs.
Among the Maharashtra bowling figures..
Bowling O M R W
Khirid 10 0 68 1 (2w)
Chavan 7.4 9 2 46 (4w, 2nb)
Siddiqui 10 0 41 3 (1w, 2nb)
Which sounds pretty damn impressive, really.
Sadiq [ who still hasnt figured out what they really were ] Yusuf
by John Hal » Mon, 09 Dec 2002 18:45:22
>Bowling O M R W
>Khirid 10 0 68 1 (2w)
>Chavan 7.4 9 2 46 (4w, 2nb)
>Siddiqui 10 0 41 3 (1w, 2nb)
>Which sounds pretty damn impressive, really.
Looks like they transposed the runs and wickets, though that still
leaves the mystery of the maidens figure.
--
John Hall "George the Third
Ought never to have occurred.
One can only wonder
At so grotesque a blunder." E.C.Bentley (1875-1956)
by Myk Camero » Mon, 09 Dec 2002 19:35:27
>>Bowling O M R W
>>Khirid 10 0 68 1 (2w)
>>Chavan 7.4 9 2 46 (4w, 2nb)
>>Siddiqui 10 0 41 3 (1w, 2nb)
>>Which sounds pretty damn impressive, really.
>So each legitimate delivery of Chavan's brought a wicket. :)
>Looks like they transposed the runs and wickets, though that still
>leaves the mystery of the maidens figure.
Myk
by Andrew Dunfor » Mon, 09 Dec 2002 20:06:19
> >Bowling O M R W
> >Khirid 10 0 68 1 (2w)
> >Chavan 7.4 9 2 46 (4w, 2nb)
> >Siddiqui 10 0 41 3 (1w, 2nb)
> >Which sounds pretty damn impressive, really.
> So each legitimate delivery of Chavan's brought a wicket. :)
> Looks like they transposed the runs and wickets, though that still
> leaves the mystery of the maidens figure.
Andrew
by Sailesh Krishnamurth » Mon, 09 Dec 2002 20:31:24
John> So each legitimate delivery of Chavan's brought a wicket. :)
John> Looks like they transposed the runs and wickets, though that still
John> leaves the mystery of the maidens figure.
Since people are in the mood for deciphering cricket scorecards, here
is an old puzzle I posted earlier on RSC.
Alun Thomas and Chris Waterworth solved it then, so if you haven't
seen it before, try and desist from looking it up on Google :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well .. this is something interesting I'm chewing on, and I felt that the
rest of the group would like it too.
(Hoping for a great start to the India-NZ series)
==========
For those who are jobless enough (and interested enough in cricket, I
suppose) here is a problem which was in Bradman's book on cricket.
Warning .. It is tough
Here is a scoreboard after which there are a few questions:
Atkins 6
Bodkins 8
Dawkins 6
Hawkins 6
Jenkins 5
Larkins 4
Meakins 7
Perkins 11
Simkins 6
Tomkins 0
Watkins 1
Extras 0
Total 60
Bowling:
O M R W
Pitchwell 12.1 2 14 8
Speedwell 6 0 15 1
Tosswell 7 5 31 1
Extra conditions:
Runs scored in 4's and Singles
No Catches, short runs (Batsmen cross only iff a single is scored)
Speedwell & Tosswell each bowled one spell
Scoreboard is in proper order
(i.e Pitchwell bowled the first ball to Atkins etc.)
Questions: Whose wickets did Speedwell and Tosswell get?
Who was not out?
At what scores did the wickets fall (with the order in which
the batsmen fell of course :)?
Disclaimer: I do not know if the solution is unique but there is a solution
--
Pip-pip
Sailesh
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~sailesh
by Amol Cricketwall » Tue, 10 Dec 2002 06:38:35
> >Bowling O M R W
> >Khirid 10 0 68 1 (2w)
> >Chavan 7.4 9 2 46 (4w, 2nb)
> >Siddiqui 10 0 41 3 (1w, 2nb)
> >Which sounds pretty damn impressive, really.
> So each legitimate delivery of Chavan's brought a wicket. :)
> Looks like they transposed the runs and wickets, though that still
> leaves the mystery of the maidens figure.
Baroda got 260/9 batting first. The scorecard claims Khirid got 1
wicket, Siddiqui 3 wickets, and Trigune 3 wickets. And 2 batsmen
were run out. Thus, according to the actual card, Chavan had
*no* wickets.
Which is why, it doesnt look like it is a simple transposition
error - the 2 dont look like they are wickets at all. The 7.4
surely can only be overs. The 9 - have no idea what that can
be (not wides or no-balls, since those are already listed). And the
46 might be runs I suppose - but given past history in this instance,
one wonders :-) One could just add all the runs and overs of the
others to decipher the truth - but then that would be cheating,
wouldnt it? :-)
My own theory - the runouts (of which no details are given) were
effected by Chavan. And so someone credited them as 2 wickets for
him. And then, of course, they made a transposition error. And
the final runout was the 9th man out - which is where the 9 came
from. (But the 7.4 was probably an error too, because a cursory
look shows that nobody else bowled a partial over, and the opposition
batted 50 overs for 260/9 - now *that* one is a mystery ;-)
Sadiq [ Baroda should have won anyway, we need a favour ] Yusuf
by Nikhil R Devanu » Tue, 10 Dec 2002 07:38:28
>> >Bowling O M R W
>> >Chavan 7.4 9 2 46 (4w, 2nb)
>> >Which sounds pretty damn impressive, really.
> Actually, I should have posted the link - always forget to do that.
> Here it is:
> http://www-usa.cricket.org/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/2002-03/IND_LOCAL...
> Which is why, it doesnt look like it is a simple transposition
> error - the 2 dont look like they are wickets at all. The 7.4
> surely can only be overs. The 9 - have no idea what that can
> be (not wides or no-balls, since those are already listed). And the
> 46 might be runs I suppose - but given past history in this instance,
> one wonders :-) One could just add all the runs and overs of the
> others to decipher the truth - but then that would be cheating,
> wouldnt it? :-)
> My own theory - the runouts (of which no details are given) were
> effected by Chavan. And so someone credited them as 2 wickets for
> him. And then, of course, they made a transposition error. And
> the final runout was the 9th man out - which is where the 9 came
> from. (But the 7.4 was probably an error too, because a cursory
> look shows that nobody else bowled a partial over, and the opposition
> batted 50 overs for 260/9 - now *that* one is a mystery ;-)
i have no idea where the 7.4 came from.
by Moby » Tue, 10 Dec 2002 09:23:20
> >> >Bowling O M R W
> >> >Chavan 7.4 9 2 46 (4w, 2nb)
> >> >Which sounds pretty damn impressive, really.
> > Actually, I should have posted the link - always forget to do that.
> > Here it is:
> > Which is why, it doesnt look like it is a simple transposition
> > error - the 2 dont look like they are wickets at all. The 7.4
> > surely can only be overs. The 9 - have no idea what that can
> > be (not wides or no-balls, since those are already listed). And the
> > 46 might be runs I suppose - but given past history in this instance,
> > one wonders :-) One could just add all the runs and overs of the
> > others to decipher the truth - but then that would be cheating,
> > wouldnt it? :-)
> > My own theory - the runouts (of which no details are given) were
> > effected by Chavan. And so someone credited them as 2 wickets for
> > him. And then, of course, they made a transposition error. And
> > the final runout was the 9th man out - which is where the 9 came
> > from. (But the 7.4 was probably an error too, because a cursory
> > look shows that nobody else bowled a partial over, and the opposition
> > batted 50 overs for 260/9 - now *that* one is a mystery ;-)
> i think it is 9 overs 2 maidens 46 runs.
> they have been shifted by a column.
> i have no idea where the 7.4 came from.
Moby
1. JJC Lawson 6.5-4-3-6 *best figures ever?
2. The first time we've ever seen the best of the best all together
3. Sidebottom - Worst bowling figures ever!
4. Define : Best figures in a limite over game....
5. Best bowling figures after first 5 Tests
6. Warne, Mushtaq, best figures ???
7. Diff bowlers with best match & inns figures in a Test
8. Best bowling figures repeated
11. Best bowling figures for Warwickshire
13. 155.3 kmph - Second fastest ball ever recorded !!
14. Best ever teams