BS: cricketing faults

Subject: BS: cricketing faults
From: The Sandman
Date: 16 Mar 21 - 06:41 PM

we now have at least two different cricket games that encourage certain bad habits [t 20 and 50 overs] when it comes to test cricket. the obsession with hitting the ball in the air to try and score sixes. i would sugest a change in the rules for all 3 games, chnge the scoring of fours[ along the ground to sixes and hitting the ball over the boundary rope in the air to 4 not six. this in my opinion would encourage hitting the ball int to the ground[ reducing the chances of being out caught] this is not going to eradicate bad technique [hitting the ball int air entirely] but will go some way towards it.
it will encourage [perhaps] the use of lighter batsscoring fours [ which will now be sixes]
of course their are other aspects of bad technique that have crept into test cricket batsmanship, inabilty to use feet to get to ball
finally make Boycott the england five day test batting coach.

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 21 - 08:05 AM

When I were a little lad there was basically 5-day test cricket and 3-day county cricket at the top level, but at league cricket level and below, right down to me playing for Thornleigh first eleven (bragging again...), there were always games that had to shoehorned into a day or an afternoon. What's happened is that the short form in the guise of one-day and T20, etc., has also been adopted widely at the top level. I think the debate should be whether the shorter form, which necessitates fast scoring and more risk-taking by batsmen, has affected the long game. It's certainly made cricket more popular and high-profile, some would say kept it viable. But are we really sure that it's degraded the long game? I'm not so sure about that. I seem to remember that, in test matches, 250 runs in a day was about par for the course way back when, and, without knowing the numbers, my impression is that that hasn't changed much. And we have to remember that, as with any sport, cricket moves on...

As for boundaries, going for a six entails much more risk for the batsman getting out than hitting a four. It also takes timing and split-second judgement, just as does hitting a four, but with extra power on top of that risk, which I think it's why it's rewarded with a higher score. I wouldn't fight to change that.

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 21 - 08:10 AM

I agree that there doesn't seem to be the same emphasis on footwork at the crease as when I was playing at school, when our coach, an ex-Lancs player whose name I can't remember, laid into us big time if we didn't use that as a major part of our batting technique. But I wouldn't allow Boycott anywhere near our test cricketers, frankly!

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 Mar 21 - 09:09 AM

I would , Boycott could score quickly as well as slowly, check it out.he also knows about good batting technique, including using the feet to get to the pitch of the ball
yes they are in effect two different games, my point is runs can be scored quickly but by hitting along the ground, to encourage this the rules should be changed so that you get a six for a boundary along the ground. this would encourage good batting technique, if you attempt to score sixes over the rope all the time, you stand a higher chance of getting caught.[especially against spinners].
    trevor bailey was a much more defensive batsman than boycott, but even he on occasions could score quickly
t20 has becomemore like baseball, yes iot can be excitin but if people are scoring sixes all the time that can become predictable and monotonous.
test cricket is more about each side gaining advantage and losing it, the swings the ebb and flow from one side the the other

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 Mar 21 - 09:15 AM

hereThose were the days a suave, destructive Geoff Boycott Getty Images
Those were the days a suave, destructive Geoff Boycott Getty Images

September 4, 1965. When Yorkshire took field in the Gillette Cup Final against Surrey in 1965, the Lord s crowd probably expected a keen contest. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a rather one-sided affair, thanks to some uncharacteristic biffing from the most unexpected of sources. Abhishek Mukherjee looks at an outrageously strokeful hundred from, of all people, Geoff Boycott.

There is no typo in the title of the article. This is indeed about a day when Geoff Boycott went haywire; he took the strong Surrey attack on at Lord s, shredding them to ribbons; he scored an outrageous hundred that hit Surrey so bad that they could not equal his personal contribution. Yes, it was an innings of a lifetime not because it was a great innings, but because it was a limited-overs match set up by the blade of Boycott.

Limited-overs cricket was in its nascent stages. A mere two years had passed since Lancashire had beaten Leicestershire at Old Trafford in the first List A match ever. Gillette Cup 1965 involved 22 teams, including Minor Counties, and neither Surrey nor Yorkshire needed to play the elimination match.

Middlesex amassed 250 for 8 from 60 overs in the semi-final at The Oval, and though Surrey were reduced to 169 for 5, Ken Barrington and Mike Edwards saw Surrey home. The other semi-final, at Edgbaston, was a closer affair: after being bowled out for 177, Yorkshire were almost out of the contest when Warwickshire reached 64 for 1; then wickets kept falling, and when all seemed over, the tail wagged a bit; but eventually Yorkshire prevailed by 20 runs.

Boycott s blitzkrieg (no typo there)

Boycott had scored 2,110 runs at 52.75 the previous season and was named Wisden Cricketer of the Year the previous season. He was already hailed as one of the finest openers in England, but aggression was certainly not among his plus points.

He had a decent, but not outstanding, Gillette Cup 1965 till then, with 56 against Leicestershire at Grace Road and 23 not out against Somerset at Taunton (Yorkshire were chasing a mere 64). There was, however, no indication of what was to follow.

The final was played almost two months after the semi-finals. There was a thunderstorm the previous evening, but the new drainage system at Lord s meant that the ground was ready for the match after an hour s delay.

Yorkshire were a formidable outfit: led by Brian Close, the side consisted of Boycott, Ken Taylor, Fred Trueman, Don Wilson, Doug Padgett, Phil Sharpe, Ray Illingworth, and Jimmy Binks all of whom had played Test cricket by then. The other two, John Hampshire and Richard Hutton, would go on to earn Test caps as well.

Surrey, on the other hand, boasted of only three in Micky Stewart (the captain), John Edrich, and Barrington, though Geoff Arnold would play Test cricket in future.

The conditions were overcast in St John s Wood that morning. The outfield was damp and slow. Stewart decided to bowl in front of a 25,000-strong crowd. Boycott and Taylor opened batting. Arnold and David Sydenham bowled to a perfect line, conceding a mere 22 from the first 12 overs. Then Taylor gave Barrington an easy catch at gully off Sydenham.

Close promoted himself up the order, ahead of Padgett. This was only the 60th List A match: pinch-hitters were a concept of the future. But Close knew exactly what needed to be done: not only could he take the bowlers on, but was also a left-hander who could take Sydenham on. Boycott was, as Eknath Solkar would testify, never comfortable against left-arm seam.

Boycott later told Simon Lister of The Wisden Cricketer that Close s promotion was not an impromptu decision. He was the only left-hander among the recognised batsmen, and the entire promotion had been planned a fortnight in advance.

There was a marked change in Boycott s approach shortly after Close s arrival. There were speculations that Close had asked him to accelerate, but Boycott has denied it vehemently in Boycott: The Autobiography: The suggestion is, of course, that I was piddling along until [Brian] Close arrived and told me to get on with it or else, thus forcing me to play a memorable innings, which would not have been possible without his rugged intervention. It makes for good reading but it is not the way I remember it at all.

Close had a reprieve when on 3 as a snick off Gibson flew between first and second slips. He never looked back. As was typical of him, tested Boycott with a few sharp singles, putting pressure on the Surrey fielders. Then Close walked up to Boycott, giving him full license. And Boycott docile, defensive, bespectacled Boycott exploded.

They bowled short. He cut and pulled. They over-pitched. He drove past cover-point and mid-wicket. Gibson and Sam Storey, the change bowlers, could not contain him. Yorkshire, after being 22 from 12 overs, managed 87 from the next 18 but the fun had just begun.

Stewart turned to the off-breaks and Ron Tindall and the leg-breaks of Barrington. Boycott, despite his bravado, was reluctant to loft the spinners. It took some coaxing from Close, but when Boycott responded, the two part-timers vanished into oblivion. Close contributed as well, and between them the pair conceded 90 from 8 overs.

Thankfully, though these were 60-over contests, the over-limit for the bowlers was 13 overs; 8 overs were all Stewart needed from his spinners.

Close scored 79 after a 192-run stand in less than three hours and immediately promoted Trueman. The great fast bowler scored a quickfire 24.

Boycott eventually fell for 146 to Barrington, of all people. He hit 15 fours, and hold your breath three towering sixes.

Hampshire continued with the onslaught in the company of Wilson, and Yorkshire finished on 317 for 4. The last 30 overs had yielded 208. It was an unthinkable total given the era. Neither Padgett nor Sharpe, outstanding batsmen on their days, got an outing.

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 21 - 09:15 AM

Some interesting numbers were calculated by the statszone. The run rate per over in test matches has gone up since 1986 from around 2 3/4 per over to about 3 1/4. The upturn was a bit sudden, around the millennium. I'll keep looking. It would possibly be rash just to "blame" limited-overs cricket. Arguably, pitch prep might have slightly favoured batsmen. Remember how those drying wickets favoured spinners? Well these days they dash out with the covers at the first hint of rain. A lot of wickets look like dustbowls these days. They might favour bowlers more towards the end of the match when the pitch has broken up a bit, I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Mar 21 - 10:29 AM

There is no doubting that Boycott was a fine cricketer.

However ..............

Such is the nature of the man he winds people up, he is unlikely to find favour in English cricket and he is over 80 years of age which many would suggest would preclude him from being a viable coach.

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Mar 21 - 11:01 AM

At a time when abuse and assault on women is at the top of the news, and the image of sport is frequently tarnished by its exponents, the last person who should be involved with our national team in any capacity would be someone who is a convicted squaw-basher.

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 17 Mar 21 - 01:05 PM

I think limited-over cricket is a far better game, due to the faults of "test" cricket mentioned in this poem "Dot-Ball"

(PS: I've added that bit of prose as the mods have twice deleted my post with just the link to that PERTINENT poem - having previously told me I can link to my poems but not copy/paste the words here - even though others can and do. If highly trained and travelled folks are prevented from having their polite say, God knows, things are bound to get worse for humanity, AND IT'S NOT CRICKET! Accordingly, may I recommend that if a moderator does delete one of our posts, they take a moment to message a brief explanation.)

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 21 - 01:28 PM

If the mods did a brief explanation for each of my deleted posts, it would produce a book thicker than the Bible! In most cases I can work it out for meself...One simply has to be philosophical...

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 17 Mar 21 - 01:36 PM

...not sure if that's cricket, either..?!..if, in most cases, you can work it out for yourself, Steve, why so many?

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 Mar 21 - 03:20 PM

STEVE , In my opinion my suggestion is not the cure all, but a cure for part of the batting deficiencies

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 21 - 06:38 PM

Don't you think that batting has at least become more colourful, more adventurous, more risky, therefore more entertaining to watch? Never saw a reverse sweep in my yoof, for example...

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 Mar 21 - 07:04 PM

NO , I think back to graceful, elegant cricketers david gower, tom graveney, it does not have to be brute force.
denis compton was risky and adventurous, so was garfield sobers, so was colin milburn. and ray marshall who specialised in centuries before lunch, no i do not agree
county bowlers such as bomber wells were very entertaining and also made no 11 batting something to look forward to.
we now have reached the age of the competent. levels of fitness are higher but the game is no more entertaining, more athleticism, yet more injuries.
far less characters, nobody like pont riding a bicyle across the cricket pitch during a county match or david gower hiring a plane during an ausrtalian tour.
joie de vivre

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 Mar 21 - 07:11 PM

David Gower (left) and John Morris prepare to take the infamous Tiger Moth flight over an Australian cricket ground during the 1991 England Ashes tour. Both were heavily reprimanded for the incident © Getty Images

On January 21, 1991, David Gower and John Morris left the cricket ground during a tour match against Queensland, hopped on a Tiger Moth at the nearby airfield, persuading the pilot to fly low over the field of action. Arunabha Sengupta recalls the day when the classy batsman and his young teammate were severely penalised for their harmless caper.

England was not enjoying the best of tours. They had lost the first two Ashes Tests and drawn the third. In the three-nation Benson & Hedges World Series, the tourists had lost four matches on the trot. Even the tour match against New South Wales held less than a week before the tie against Queensland had ended in an ignoble defeat by 6 wickets. The mood in the camp was morose, not exactly helped by the regimental, all-work-and-no-play attitude of captain Graham Gooch and coach Micky Stewart.

However, it took somewhat more than defeats to subdue the spirits of David Gower. Besides, the left-hander, one of most esoteric timers of the ball in the history of the game, had been in sublime form. He had stroked his way to delectable hundreds in the second and third Tests even as the team had meekly surrendered.

So, when England was having a smooth run against Queensland, his spirits soared as he watched the biplanes flying over the Carrara Oval, a scenic venue on the Gold Coast. At lunch on the third day, with England showing some form, already leading on the first innings with five second innings wickets in hand, Gower fancied that he could do with some aviation. He mentioned his intentions to Robin Smith and Allan Lamb.

Smith was still at the wicket, closing in on a hundred. Lamb was yet to bat. However, standing nearby was the stylish Derbyshire middle-order batsman John Morris. The young man, just three Test matches old, had not played any Tests on the tour, but had seized the opportunity in the tour match by walking in at No. 4 and scoring an impressive 132. In excellent spirits himself, he eagerly requested Gower to include him in the high-flying plans. It is quite revealing that although their career figures were diametrically different, Morris and Gower did have one thing in common. Both were born quite aptly on the first of April.

Taking off

Gower had played with Gooch long enough to know that the austere captain would not really be delighted with the idea. So, Morris in tow, he left for the airport without a word to anyone else. The air-strip was close enough to the ground for the two to hasten back in case of a sudden batting collapse. On arrival, they checked to find that Smith and Lamb were still holding fort and took off on a pre-War Tiger Moth.

The planes were supposed to fly at heights over 2000 feet. However, Gower had charmed the pilot into flying much lower. The Tiger Moth hovered over the ground at something more like 200 feet. Lamb, having no doubt about the identity of the aviators, raised his bat like a gun and fired off a couple of rounds to shoot them down. But, the English dressing room remained blissfully unaware about the new ways two of their batsmen had devised to get on top of the bowling.
A banner proclaiming the innocence of David Gower and John Morris circles the WACA ground during the 1991 Test between England and Australia at Perth. This followed the infamous Tiger-Moth incident which effectively cost John Morris his Test career © Getty Images
A banner proclaiming the innocence of Gower and Morris circles WACA during the 1991 Test between England and Australia at Perth. This followed the infamous Tiger Moth incident which effectively cost John Morris his Test career © Getty Images

Unhappy landing

However, luck did not favour the brave duo. Adrian Murrell, a photographer covering the trip, thought that he recognised the passengers through a telephoto lens. When the two made their way surreptitiously back to the dressing room, a rather suspicious Graham Gooch asked: “That wasn’t you two up there by any chance, was it?” Prompted by Gower, the two stuck resolutely to stout denial.

But, the damage had been done. One of the pilots had alerted the press and a circulating rumour claimed that Gower had intended to drop a water bomb on the pitch. The English team manager, Peter Lush, was asked for reactions — and he bristled with indignation.

The two adventurers were summoned for a hasty hearing in front of the team disciplinary committee. To the infinite chagrin of Gooch, Stewart and Lush, Gower and Morris were back at the airport to pose for another photographer, Graham Morris, who had missed the fly-by pictures.

From the shoot, Gower went directly to a dinner with David Firth, while Morris returned to the hotel. Gower observed later that Morris was: “John Morris puffed in shortly afterwards and was pounced on by this human volcano (Lush).”

A perceptibly nervous Morris dialled the restaurant and warned Gower that they were in hot water and that a choleric Lush was foaming at the mouth, demanding to see the curly haired stalwart at once. However, Gower already was tucking into a lavish dinner and splitting a bottle of 1987 McLaren Vale Chardonnay.

Besides, he had been around for more than a dozen years and was not eager to be intimidated by a top brass eager to instil military discipline.

When he finally waltzed back after his rendezvous, he found three hand-written summons from Lush, scripted in exponentially increasing degrees of peevishness.

Gower and Morris shuffled across to face the committee of captain, coach and manager. The three men looked at them with grim faces and set lips, the high school disciplinary committee written all over them.

Gower shrugged and provided them with the available options: “You can either be heavy about it or you can treat it as harmless prank.”The triumvirate had already decided on the former approach. And Gooch, from under his intimidating walrus moustache, voiced doubts about David Gower’s commitment.

According to the captain: “They let us down badly. What if the rest of the team, especially the younger ones, thought that sort of behaviour was par for the course?”

Gower recalled later: “Gooch and Stewart were very regimental in their dealings at the time. It was a one-rule-for-all-types regime, which didn’t allow someone to have a little bit of fun.”

It was indeed rather surprising that the immensely experienced Gower, an ex-captain and one of the greatest batsmen of his era, was not taken aside and dealt with separately rather than with a very junior player. In some ways it was a direct disregard for his credentials.

The severe punishment

The decision was delayed till the eve of the fourth Test. According to Lamb, the vice-captain, the disciplinary panel had considered sending both of them back home, finally overruled because the side was doing extremely poorly.

Gower and Morris were made to cough up a fine of £1,000 each, the maximum punishment allowed by their contracts. For Morris, a junior player who received £15,000 for the whole four-month trip, that was quite a financial hit.

It needs to be remembered that Lush was the manager on tour during the infamous Mike Gatting-Shakoor Rana incident. The captain had walked away on that occasion without punishment for stretching the spirit of the game to the very limits. On the contrary, the entire team had been paid an extra £1,000 as hardship allowance.

Gower’s reactions were as casual and cool as his crisp strokeplay. When Lush informed him of the fine, while also unravelling his intention to issue a press release labelling the incident ‘immature, ill-judged and ill-timed’, the southpaw responded saying that he was over-reacting. To the press, Gower said that £1027 (the fine and the cost of the joy-ride) was a little too steep for a 20-minute flight.

There was some support for the pair in the press. Christopher Martin-Jenkins wrote in The Cricketer : “One would hate to think that it has become a crime to enjoy a cricket tour.” David Firth, who had that excellent dinner with Gower on that fateful evening, wrote: “The fines should ensure that no England player in future will even dare to look up from his crossword puzzle while a match is in progress.”

For all Gower’s flamboyant reactions, decision did not go down well with him. The indifference for his seniority and feats cut him to the quick. His form plummeted to despairing depths. He scratched around for runs in the two remaining Tests, managing just 11 and 16 at Adelaide, and 28 not out and five at Perth. His relationship with Gooch, never cordial to start with, reached an absolute low. And after the tour, he played just three more Tests before his illustrious career came to a sad, deplorable end.

Morris, on his part, never played for England again.

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 21 - 07:32 PM

There were plenty of characters in that memorable Ashes series in 2005. Today we have Jimmy Anderson and Ben Stokes. When I was a little lad watching test matches on the telly in the school hols, my favourite thing to do, I watched Barrington, Graveney, Dexter, Cowdrey, Close, Trueman, Statham, Benaud, Sobers, Worrell...Yes, elegant batting (I loved watching Sir Frank's late cuts...), but (isn't it so easy to remember just the sunshiny days...) also longeurs often leading to many a match drawn, and it wasn't always the weather. Far fewer test matches are drawn these days (a checkable fact). Easy enough to pick out a few legends and meld them into some sort of golden age. That, to me, doesn't match reality. That isn't to say that we shouldn't relish our favourite legends. As I said, with cricket I think that, as with football, the skill levels and fitness levels today easily eclipse those of those hazy days of the past. It's all good. Let's enjoy what we've got.

There's an enduring story (apocryphal, who knows?) in Radcliffe around the efforts, in the sixties, to honour that Lancashire lad Brian Statham by naming a street after him on a new housing estate. The eventual winner was Statham Avenue, but not before a councillor, completely ignorant of cricket, had suggested "Brian Close..." :-)

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: Malcolm Storey
Date: 17 Mar 21 - 08:50 PM

Love it!
I cannot watch any "sport" these days. Although I do watch some (live and on the TV) when in Oz.
It all seems a bit like wrestling was.
3 small points.
When test cricket finally returned to free to view TV in the UK it was pointed out that a couple of the England side had not been born when it was last the case.
One of the things that helped the strong showing of the Australian side in the 1990s onwards was their ability to score quickly in test matches.
This was a deliberate policy which I believe Ricky Pontin had a fair bit to do with.
Yorkshire's 317 from 60 overs would be considered quite pedestrian these days where at least a run a ball is expected.

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: keberoxu
Date: 17 Mar 21 - 09:56 PM

"specialised in centuries before lunch"


I fail to comprehend --
are we separated by a common language again?

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 03:03 AM

roy marshall was an opening batsman for ham[pshire and also occasionally west indies play would start at 11 30 pm and by opne oclock [lunch timehe would hace scored 100 runs, he did this regularly .one very simple technique of playing spin bowling when the ball is turning a lot is to play the ball along the ground and at a player , the excees spin will direct it away from the player if you are hitting in to the ground you are less likely to be caught
   Marshall made his Test debut against Australia on 9 November 1951 at the Gabba, making 28 and 30. After three further Tests against Australia and New Zealand, Marshall was omitted from the West Indian side and moved to England in 1953 to qualify for Hampshire.

He played for Hampshire from 1953 to 1972, qualifying for Championship matches in 1955, and captained them from 1966 to 1970. Marshall was an important component of Hampshire's 1961 Championship-winning side. He was an attacking opening batsman
Steve Shaw
i have named more than a few legends
He scored over 1,000 runs in 17 of his 18 full county seasons and made 60 centuries for Hampshire. His best season was 1961 when he scored 2,607 runs. Marshall played 504 first-class matches for Hampshire, scoring 30,303 runs in his time with the county.[1]

Marshall died from cancer at Taunton, Somerset, England on 27 October 1992.

to answer Malcolms point
One of the things that helped the strong showing of the Australian side in the 1990s onwards was their ability to score quickly in test matches
yes, but they did it without getting out
how do you do this ,
well its easier not to get out if you hit the ball in to the ground not up in the air.
Gower Botham Milburn ingleby mackenzie roy marshall graveney compton Sobers Dexter Godfrey Evans Nnrman o Neill Seymour Nurse Wally Hammond
finally the reverse sweep
Mushtaq is regarded as one of the first cricketers to use the reverse-sweep in the 1970s. Though his elder brother Hanif Mohammad is sometimes credited as the inventor.

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 03:10 AM

if a test match is drawn it does mean it lacked excitement or entertainment the same applies for tied matches., however as well as entertainment the purpose of a test match is to win as well.
    England have not done this recently because of bad batting technique, this is partly to do with t20 technique of slogging in the air, lack of batting footwork and inabilty to play spin well.
my suggestion that boundaries along the ground in t20 and tests should get more runs than boundaries over the ropes in the air would encourage better technique.
its simple hit the ball up in the air you are more likely to be out

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 03:12 AM

SteveShaw ..reverse sweep was invented nearly 50 years ago

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Mar 21 - 03:28 AM

here is an EXTRACT from an article on quick scoring test hundreds , i have omitted pre 1900
these were taken from the era of scoring runs quickly but along the ground
D. G. Bradman, 334 for Australia against England at Leeds, 1930. On the opening day Australia scored 458 for three, Bradman's share being 309. He reached 50 in even time, 102 out of 127 in 95 minutes, and at lunch he was 105 out of 134. He added 115 between lunch and tea, and another 89 after tea. This was the fastest double-century and triple-century in Anglo-Australian Tests and for sustained fast scoring has few equals.

S. J. McCabe, 189 not out for Australia against South Africa at Johannesburg, 1935-36. In a remarkable match Australia needed 399 runs to win after South Africa had fought back with a score of 491 (Nourse 231). They reached 85 for one before bad light ended the third day's play. Of these McCabe had scored 59, reaching 50 in 40 minutes with ten 4s. Next morning, on a turning, dusty pitch, he continued to hit while Fingleton kept his end up. When Fingleton was out for 40, the two had put on 177 runs of which McCabe had made 148. He reached 100 in 91 minutes, 150 in 145 minutes, and at lunch he was 159. By mid-afternoon, with Australia 274 for two and victory in sight, lightning and thunder clouds encircled the ground. It was so dark that the South African captain appealed against the light on the grounds that the fielders could no longer see the ball leave McCabe's bat. This unique appeal was upheld, and within minutes the field was under water. McCabe's innings (29 4s) seemed to Fingleton like a crazy dream.

R. Benaud, 121 for Australia against West Indies at Kingston, Jamaica, 1954-55. After West Indies had scored 357, Australia replied with 758 for eight declared. Five batsmen made centuries, the most dramatic of them being Benaud's. Coming in eighth, with the score 597 for six, he reached 50 in 38 minutes and 100 in 78 minutes, and when finally caught he had made 121 out of 161 in 96 minutes. He hit two 6s and eighteen 4s, five of them off consecutive balls from Dewdney. His hitting, for all its power, was admirably controlled.

B. R. Taylor, 124 for New Zealand against West Indies at Auckland, 1968-69. In what was the first century made by a New Zealander against West Indies, Taylor, primarily an opening bowler but also a powerful left-handed hitter, went in No. 8 at 152 for six. He reached 50 in 30 minutes and 100 in 86 minutes. When out he had made 124 in 110 minutes, including five 6s and fourteen 4s. A notable match ensued. This was Taylor's second century in first-class cricket, both of them in Test matches.

Another, remarkable Test innings, worthy of mention, was R. C. Fredericks's 169 for West Indies against Australia at Perth in 1975-76. In reply to Australia's 329 on a fast pitch, opener Fredericks hooked his second ball from Lillee for 6, almost on to the sightscreen. Within 45 minutes, he reached 50 off 33 balls. His opening partner, Julien, was out for 25 in the tenth over with the score at 91. At lunch, when only fourteen overs had been bowled in the 90-minute session, the score was 130 for one. Fredericks's hundred came up in 116 minutes off only 71 balls, and he continued to savage the bowling until he was third out at 258 for a score of 169. West Indies went on to score 585, made at a rate of six runs an over off Lillee, Thomson, Gilmour, Walker and Mallett. This is the second-fastest Test hundred based on balls received. The comparatively slow time shows how much a leisurely over-rate can distort the balance between balls received and time taken.

Two other memorable spell of fast scoring were by McCabe, in his 232 against England at Trent Bridge in 1938, when he scored his last 72 runs out of 77 in 28 minutes, and by Botham in his 118 against Australia at Old Trafford in 1981 when he scored his last 90 runs off 49 balls in 53 minutes.
© John Wisden & Co

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 19 Mar 21 - 10:04 AM

I think Viv Richards was the biggest "batting star" when I started watching test cricket on tv. He was very capable of big hitting and still had a test average of over 50.

On the Australian bit, my perhaps faulty memory suggests that the Matthew Hayden/ Justin Langer opening combination could set the scoreboard moving at a good pace?

Staying with Australia, Adam Gilchrist comes to my mind as being a pretty effective quick scorer as well as being regarded as a very decent wicketkeeper.

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: Raedwulf
Date: 20 Mar 21 - 12:46 AM

I lost all respect for Don Bradman (who, if you're not an Aussie & know your cricket, is a somewhat equivocal personality anyway...) when, shortly after Harold Larwood died, he bad-mouthed him no end. Didn't have the bottle to open your gob when Lol was alive then, Don?

But "The Don" had one simple rule - if you don't hit it in the air, you can't be caught!

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Mar 21 - 04:35 AM

you see runs can be scored quickly and you are less likely to lose your wicket, if you hit boundaries along the ground, this encourages good technique, that is why i am arguing for six along the ground boundary and four over the ropes or even reduce it three for over the rope boundary, the disadvantage of that is the batsman might run four in that time.

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Mar 21 - 04:24 AM

england can win 50 overs but not 5 day tests they have to score along the ground in 5 day tests, different technique required

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 28 Mar 21 - 06:35 AM

Cricket is the most boring game imaginable. Polo is infinitely more exciting!!!

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Mar 21 - 07:30 AM

bonzo, stop trolling , there is no need for you to comment , if you dont like something, go off to a different thread.

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 21 - 10:59 AM

The subtleties of the game are understood only by intellectual giants such as Dick and meself, Bonzo, which is why you find it boring...

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Mar 21 - 12:50 PM

how anyone could dscribe the one day international that has just finished as boring . england fail by 7 runs to win off the last over, nailbiting finish

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 28 Mar 21 - 01:00 PM

Ultimate excitement sport!!!

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 21 - 02:21 PM

Thing is, Bonzo, we live in a world in which instant gratification is the order of the day. You become a famous pop singer by getting on a reality TV show, not by painstakingly working your way up through the pubs and clubs and putting up with the hard life around all that. We want stuff on a plate, now if not sooner. We can get what we want online straight away and we can get it on a credit card without having the bother of saving up. Cricket has adapted via taking on the short game and we can argue (as Dick does) that that has degraded the traditional long game (I don't agree, but hey ho). We rush around "getting things done" and we don't have the time or patience or ability to savour the tactical subtleties and intrigue of a game that can last three or five days. When I was a smallish lad I'd put the telly on in the summer hols when home alone and spend hour after hour watching the Cowdreys, Barringtons, Dexters, Benauds, Sobers, Worrells, Truemans and the rest patiently whittling away at the opposition and showing incredible technique to lads like me who loved to play the game. It meant a lot, but of course I didn't have a bloody iPad or PlayStation in those days...And cricket was on the Beeb...

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Mar 21 - 02:24 PM

Amen to that Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 28 Mar 21 - 02:52 PM

Cricket obsessives are all the same, will not tolerate their hallowed boring game being laughed at!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Mar 21 - 03:09 PM

Bonzo you did not like me laughing at Hank Marvin and the shadows dance , . I was wrong ,i should have not bothered to post to the thread, we have to learn from mistakes, that is what i am asking of you, try not to be negative.

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 21 - 06:54 PM

Laugh all tha likes, Bonzo. Laughing appears to release you from the burden of true reflection...

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: Rain Dog
Date: 29 Mar 21 - 01:34 AM

Bonzo, that should read:

"Most obsessives are all the same, will not tolerate their hallowed obsession to be laughed at "

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Mar 21 - 03:03 AM

for those who are interested the west indies test match can be streamed here, i will be watching now and again

Windies | The official website of Cricket West Indies for live ...
https://www.windiescricket.com
Follow and watch live the latest news and scores from Windies cricket on the official Cricket West Indies website.
?Latest News · ?Match Schedules · ?Results · ?Series

Subject: RE: BS: cricketing faults
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Mar 21 - 08:40 AM

now if you wish to see a hard hitting batsman, switch on to west indies srilanka test matach. at 3 pm
j cornwall who is about 7 foot tall and built like a brick wall is in this man is rather fat doesnt run much but scores fours and sixes for fun
if he gets going he could score 50 in a few overs, what larks, pip.