Talk:Herbert Sutcliffe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Herbert Sutcliffe is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by editing the article Herbert Sutcliffe, or visit the project page for more details.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

>> In the second Test at the MCG he was on the field for all but seventeen minutes of a six-day match.

http://cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Scorecards/f/10/f10874.html

The match lasted for seven days (which I have edited already) but the 17 minutes stat is wrong. From the scorecard it is obvious that it refers to the second innings (Chapman came in at the fall of Sutcliffe at 280 and he batted for 16 minutes).

In the first innings, Sutcliffe was fifth out with the score at 404. The last five wickets took the score to 479 in approximately 66 minutes.

Unless someone has an objection, I intend to change seventeen minutes to 'an hour or so'.

Tintin1107 12:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 == 2 == 3 Well... 4 F-c average

[edit] ==

Changed 17 minutes to an hour (it is more like 80 minutes). Feel free to revert if you have an authentic source.

Tintin1107 04:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ==

If I am not mistaken, Bradman's average is 99.94, which is much higher than Sutcliffe. No disrespect to the player, for he was in a league of his own, but to say that Bradman's was only a scratch higher is a misrepresentation. I haven't changed it, because I do not know how to word it in context of the sentence. I will leave it up to someone else.

(Argonavtica) 00:42, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I think you've misread it. It says he's 4th in the list. The next 2 players up (Headley 60.8 and Pollock 60.9) have only fractionally higher averages. Bradman's average is a league apart - ie "more than a fraction" higher. - "His Test batting average of 60.73 is the fourth highest of any player, and only Don Bradman's is more than a fraction higher. " - is correct and doesn't say that Bradman's average is only a fraction higher than his. --LiamE 17:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well...

I don't know where the "seventeen minutes" came from, but it may be wrong.

One thing I must say is: how did Sutcliffe fail to gain a single nomination in the 2000 Wisden Cricketer Of The Century poll?? The 2000 Wisden itself is remarkable for not noticing this fact: his figures, given the conditions he faced, were at his peak without comparison, really.

[edit] F-c average

Sutcliffe's first-class career batting average of 51.95 is bettered among batsmen with over 30,000 runs only by Hammond.

Only if you restrict the filter to those who have completed their careers: as I write, Hick has 38,125 runs at 53.47. I've edited the text slightly for this reason, but my wording is a bit inelegant so maybe someone else can find a better form of words. Besides, Hick's career is very much in its later stages now, and he's likely to end up with a better average than Sutcliffe even once he's retired.

Also, Cricinfo give Sutcliffe a f-c average of 52.02 (as reflected in the Infobox) as opposed to 51.95 in the text; presumably this is a similar disagreement as with the number of Hobbs' f-c centuries (where Cricinfo claim 199, rather than the usual 197). Personally I'd prefer to use Wisden stats, but in an Infobox, with Cricinfo explicitly mentioned as the source, I think I really do have to use the precise numbers they give. Loganberry (Talk) 00:42, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Boycott(48,426 at 56.8) and Hutton (40,140 at 55.5) both beat that record too so I was going to remove that sentence. However it looks like its true if we change 30,000 to 50,000. The 50,000 plus list is of course a very short one though. --LiamE 12:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)