>>Here are all the instances when a bowler has taken 10 or more wickets in a
>>at less than 5 runs/wkt:
>>1.9 Briggs (Eng) 15/28 v Eng Cape Town 1889 Eng won
>>2.2 Ironmonger (Aus) 11/24 v RSA Melbourne 1932 Aus won
>>2.7 McGrath (Aus) 10/27 v WI Brisbane 2000 Aus won
>>2.8 Toshack (Aus) 11/31 v Ind Brisbane 1947 Aus won
>>3.0 Lohmann (Eng) 15/45 v Eng Port Elizabeth 1896 Eng won
>>4.2 Walsh (WI ) 13/55 v WI Wellington 1995 WI won
>>4.4 Barnes (Eng) 13/57 v RSA The Oval 1912 Eng won
>>4.4 Lock (Eng) 11/48 v WI The Oval 1957 Eng won
>>4.7 Laker (Eng) 19/90 v Aus Manchester 1956 Eng won
>>4.9 Woolley (Eng) 10/49 v Eng The Oval 1912 Eng won
>This doesn't look entirely right.
>It would be interesting to know, for instance, why England were playing
>a Test match against England, which England won, in 1912 at The Oval.
Along with that England V England match in 1889, which for some reason was
played in Cape Town. It was obviously successful, as it was followed by a
similar exercise in Port Elizabeth in 1896. But i'm told that wasn't as good a
match as that thriller in Wellington in 1995, where the might of the West
Indies took on the might of the West Indies. I'm told that in that game, Walsh
was c & b by himself, a first in tests.
Dockers for Premiers 2001.