Sport Today

by **asidd..** » Wed, 03 Mar 1999 04:00:00

There have been some confusing reports about Allott's feat. It was stated
that he beat Geoffery Evans' record. However, Evans was scoreless only for
the FIRST 97 minutes at the crease; he then went on to score 10*. I couldn't
find any instance of a player who batted for at least an hour in a Test
innings without scoring at least one run.

A. Longest time before scoring the first run in a first-class match:

Mins
101 GI Allott (0) New Zealand v S Africa Auckland 1998-99
97 TG Evans (10*) England v Australia Adelaide 1946-47
87 VR Hogg (0) Zim-Rhodesia B v Natal B P'maritzburg 1979-80
84 RK Chauhan (9) India v Sri Lanka Ahmedabad 1993-94
82 PI Pocock (13) England v West Indies Georgetown 1967-68
81 EJW Jackson (4) Cambridge U v Oxford U Lord's 1974

In Test matches only:

74 JT Murray (3*) England v Australia Sydney 1962-63
72 CG Rackemann (9) Australia v England Sydney 1990-91
72 HH Streak (19*) Zimbabwe v Pakistan Karachi 1993-94
70 WL Murdoch (17) Austalia v England Sydney 1882-83
69 RM Hogg (7*) Australia v West Indies Adelaide 1984-85
67 CJ Tavare (82) England v Pakistan Lord's 1982
66 JG Wright (38) New Zealand v Australia Wellington 1981-82
65 Shujauddin (45) Pakistan v Australia Lahore 1959-60
64 CE Eks*** (21) S Africa v New Zealand Auckland 1994-95
63 CJ Tavare (9) England v Australia Perth 1982-83
63 PCR Tufnell (2*) England v India Bombay 1992-93
62 MA Taylor (49) Australia v England Sydney 1994-95

B. Longest intervals without adding to a score during a first-class innings
(individual score was greater than 0 when the ordeal began):

131 Shoaib Mohammad Kar Blues v Lahore Whites Lahore 1983-84
111 AGD Wickremasinghe Sri Lankans v Victoria Sale 1989-90
107 JD Siddons S Aust v W Aust Adelaide 1995-96
98 HJ Kimber Canterbury v N Districts Hamilton 1991-92
94 MC Snedden New Zealand v Australia Wellington 1989-90
93 Mohsin Khan Punjab v England XI Bhawalpur 1977-78
91 JJ Crowe New Zealand v West Indies Bridgetown 1984-85
90 B Mitchell South Africa v Australia Brisbane 1931-32
90 CJ Tavare England v Austraila Perth 1982-83
90 G Fowler Lancashire v Warwicks Birmingham 1989

aslam
GO PACERS!!!

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://SportToday.org/; Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

by **Srira** » Wed, 03 Mar 1999 04:00:00

Any particular reason why the comparisons are made only on the basis of
time as opposed to number of balls faced? I do know that time was the
norm long long ago. But I was under the impression that no. of balls is
the preferred statistic these days. Im not trying to slam you Aslam,
just curious. This particular record has been mentioned only in terms of
time, wonder why.

-Sriram

by **Stephen Devau** » Thu, 04 Mar 1999 04:00:00

Quote:

> Any particular reason why the comparisons are made only on the basis of
> time as opposed to number of balls faced? I do know that time was the
> norm long long ago. But I was under the impression that no. of balls is
> the preferred statistic these days. Im not trying to slam you Aslam,
> just curious. This particular record has been mentioned only in terms of
> time, wonder why.

> -Sriram

Hm. John Clark's formula may be very accurate in predicting how many
deliveries a batsman faced in scoring a century, but why do I feel it
would be useless in predicting how many he faced in scoring a duck?

Fraternally in cricket,

Steve the Bajan

by **Aslam Siddiqu** » Thu, 04 Mar 1999 04:00:00

Quote:

> Any particular reason why the comparisons are made only on the basis of
> time as opposed to number of balls faced? I do know that time was the
> norm long long ago. But I was under the impression that no. of balls is
> the preferred statistic these days. Im not trying to slam you Aslam,
> just curious. This particular record has been mentioned only in terms of
> time, wonder why.

> -Sriram
> In the past, before the advent of the Limited-overs games, the records
> for the ball faced by a batsman were not universally kept, whereas the
> time was always available from the scorebooks. For example, Jimmy Sinclair
> of South Africa scored a Test century in 80 minutes (v Aus, Cape Town,
> 1902-03) but the number of balls faced by him wasn't recorded at that
> time. A reconstruction from the scorebooks shows that it may actually have
> been faster than Viv Richards 56-ball effort (a record in terms of balls
> received).

Simply put, the record for the time spent at the crease is always available
but not the number of the balls faced.

aslam

by **cl..** » Sat, 06 Mar 1999 04:00:00

Quote:

> > Any particular reason why the comparisons are made only on the basis of
> > time as opposed to number of balls faced? I do know that time was the
> > norm long long ago. But I was under the impression that no. of balls is
> > the preferred statistic these days. Im not trying to slam you Aslam,
> > just curious. This particular record has been mentioned only in terms of
> > time, wonder why.

> > -Sriram

> Hm. John Clark's formula may be very accurate in predicting how many
> deliveries a batsman faced in scoring a century, but why do I feel it
> would be useless in predicting how many he faced in scoring a duck?

Yes, it is quite useless for low scores (and 0 is one of the lowest!).

The main reason that time is preferred to balls faced for these records (slow
and fast scoring) is historical. Only recently has the number of balls faced
been recorded, so we can't compare Allott's effort with others simply because
the information wasn't recorded.

Chances are that Evans (the previous record holder in terms of minutes) did
face more balls than Allott, since overs were bowled at a much faster rate
then.

John Clark.

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Sport Today

Allott's 'duck'

Allott's 'duck'

Allott's 'duck'

Allott's 'duck'

Allott's 'duck'

Allott's 'duck'