Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Quiz/archive8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

editWP:CRIC/Quiz Archives
• Questions 1–20 • Questions 21–40 • Questions 41–60 • Questions 61–80 • Questions 81–100 • Questions 101–120 • Questions 121–140 • Questions 141–160 • Questions 161–180 • Questions 181–200 • Questions 201–220 • Questions 221–240 • Questions 241–260 • Questions 261–280 • Questions 281–300 • Questions 301–320 • Questions 321–340 • Questions 341–360 • Questions 361–380 • Questions 381–400 • Questions 401–420 • Questions 421–440 • Questions 441–460 • Questions 461–480 • Questions 481–500 • Questions 501–520 • Questions 521–540 • Questions 541–560 • Questions 561–580 • Questions 581–600 • Questions 601–620 • Questions 621–640 • Questions 641–660 • Questions 661–680 • Questions 681–700 • Questions 701–720 • Questions 721–740 • Questions 741–760

1 Q141
2 Q142
3 Q143
4 Q144
5 Q145
6 Q146
7 Q147
8 Q148
9 Q149
10 Q150
11 Q151
12 Q152
13 Q153
14 Q154
15 Q155
16 Q156
17 Q157
18 Q158
19 Q159
20 Q160

[edit] Q141

Right, here's a question that I hope you'll find interesting, and challenging: who is the only player to have been 12th Man in all 5 Tests of a series involving England? --Wisden17 20:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

A guess, Brett Lee? -- Ian ≡ talk 05:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ian, no that's not the answer. I'll post a clue this evening if nobody gets it today. --Wisden17 11:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, as nobody has got the answer right yet, I feel that a clue is in order. This man was a 12th Man in 7 Test Matches and never got a test cap (which I believe is a record, although am not 100% certain). I'll post another clue tommorow, and then if no-one gets it after that I suppose another quetion will be needed (I'll have to make it a bit easier though, from the looks of it!) --Wisden17 20:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Vic Wilson of Yorkshire was 12th man in all five Tests in Australia on the 1954-55 England tour. Presumably he did the same in the two matches in New Zealand that followed? Johnlp 21:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good - Vic Wilson (cricketer) and [1] and [2] -- ALoan (Talk) 21:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice quote from Frank Tyson on Wilson here: "We had a problem finding an opening partner for Hutton. Edrich was tried, so was Reg Simpson but they did not impress, then Vic was given his opportunity but he came up against Keith Miller on green wickets three times and that was his chance gone, although he was 12th man in all the Tests. It was a pity, he was a good cricketer." -- ALoan (Talk) 21:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that Wilson was on as a substitute fielder in the Auckland Test in 1954-55, and caught New Zealand wicketkeeper Ian Colquhoun at leg gully first ball off Bob Appleyard in the first innings (Colquhoun bagged a king pair, also caught first ball in the second innings by Tom Graveney off Appleyard, also at leg gully). That was the match in which NZ made 26 all out. [3] -- ALoan (Talk) 21:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, congratulations Johnlp the answer was J.V. Wilson --Wisden17 01:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Q142

Which Test player failed as a batsman to get into double figures in 71 consecutive first-class innings? Johnlp 09:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll make an educated guess: Bhagwat Chandrasekhar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingbatdan (talk • contribs)

Eric Hollies...the same man who took Bradman's wicket in Bradman's final test match.--Suro 09:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Suro

Eric Hollies it is, and the batting sequence was actually underway at the time he took Bradman's wicket. He then went the whole of 1949 and well into 1950 before getting into double figures. Well done and welcome to the quiz. Your turn to set a question now. Johnlp 11:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Q143

Why would I wish to remember Albert Rose-Innes as a test cricketer ? --Suro 14:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it that he was the first man to bat for South Africa in a Test? Unfortuately, he was also the first South African to score a duck in a Test as well. But it wasn't all bad for him; he took 5 wickets later that afternoon. --Deville (Talk) 15:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This was also the initial first-class innings in South Africa, too. But that has nothing to do with Tests... --Paul 17:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Albert Rose-Innes [4] made his first-class debut playing for South Africa in its first Test, against England on 12 March and 13 March 1889 at Port Elizabeth. He opening the batting at #1 twice, being bowled out for a duck with the score on 0 in the first innings, and lbw for 13 in the second innings (including one 4) with the score on 21. He also bowled (5-43 and 0-16). England won comfortably on the second day (of three) by 8 wickets. [5]

His second (and last Test) was his second first-class match, also against England, at Cape Town just under two weeks later, on 25 March and 26 March 1889. England batted first; he opened the bowling, bowling second, recording 0-30 in 12 overs. He also took two catches, including Joseph McMaster out first ball. He opened the batting again, this time at #2. In first innings, he was lbw again for 1 with the score on 2; in the second innings, following on, he was run out for another duck without facing a ball with the score on 1. Meanwile, Bernard Tancred carried his bat, scoring 26 of the South African first innings of 46, and Johnny Briggs took 7-17 (6 bowled, 1 lbw) and 8-11 (all bowled) for England, who won even more comfortably, on the second day of three, again, by an innings and 202 runs. [6]

Lots of intersting snippets there, but I guess you were looking for his first-innings duck in the first Test, or his five-for, or the run-out without facing a ball in the second innings of the second Test? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No...that is not the answer...not at least what I had in mind.--Suro

The first right-hand bat and left-arm bowl? Apart from being one of the first all-rounders, he also was active in the diamond rush at Kimberley. --Gurubrahma 17:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope. If no one gets it, I will post a clue later tonight. --Suro

You are not related to him, are you? ;) -- ALoan (Talk) 19:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

According to this report, in the first innings of the first Test, he was bowled by the first ball of Briggs' second over (the third of the match). They also have a photo of the ball. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hint : Something unique happened in the second test match between South Africa and England--Suro

He was run out without facing a ball in the second innings, and I think it was off the first ball of the innings. Johnlp 21:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That happened to me once... Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hint again and now two of them: Focus on the 2nd Innings,it is a bit special ..and do not only pay attention to Rose-Innes. Good Night and Good Luck :)--Suro 22:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Your not just looking for: that he was run out whilst the rest of his team were bowled in the 2nd innings (i.e. he's memorable as he was run out, whilst everyone else got bowled), are you? --Wisd e n17 22:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Everyone except him was bowled. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that's what I said Sam, and unless the questionner is a fan of Jim Bowen (off Bullseye, where he would refuse an answer to a question, which was phrased as a question, with the immortal lines "are you asking me or telling me?") I should be o.k.. --Wisd e n17 00:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the information there already? He opened the batting AND the bowling? But from the information above, it appears he did it in the 1st innings as well... --Jazzycab 02:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This, by the way, is what is called the software being a tricky bastard. It was clever enough to put both our comments in... Cheers, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Wisden17..well done. It was the first instance in Test Cricket where nine batsmen were bowled out in an innings. Rose-Innes being the exception.--Suro 08:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, Howstat says that nine batsmen have been out bowled in a Test on one other occasion, in Australia's second innings in the 2nd Test against England at the Oval in 1890 [7] (the odd one out being Harry Trott, caught). Cricinfo says the same thing [8].

My apologies. I stand corrected. What next ? I presume that Wisden17 will have the next question? --Suro 12:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

And the most batsmen bowled in a single ODI innings is 8 [9] which has only happened once: West Indies v New Zealand, 1984-1985 - [10] (the others were two catches) but no bowler took more than 2 wickets. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

See Q132 It seems that the second example of 9 being bowled only came into being recently, a card from 1890 has been changed. Only took 'em a hundred years to do it, too --Paul 13:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Q144

An oft heard question is what is the highest number of extras in a Test Match innings; so a much better, and significantly harder question, would be what is the highest total of a Test Match innings which had no leg-byes in it? --Wisd e n17 17:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I make it 7-549, one of three of over 500 --Paul 18:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well done Paul, that is indeed the correct answer, if I get to do another question, I really must try to make it harder. Well, take it away Paul! --Wisd e n17 19:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Test statty ones like that are easy for me. I'll try and make mine a bit harder --Paul 19:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Q145

There's been a few century makers from No. 10 (three to be exact). But what about the other side of the coin? WHich bowler to take a Test five-for was called into the attack the latest? --Paul 19:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

OK,OK, don't everyone answer at once. He was English and did it against Pakstan --Paul 09:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

David Allen was the eighth bowler used against Pakistan at Dacca in 1961-62. [11] Johnlp 10:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It was indeed. Never heard of him before I looked into that. You're it --Paul 11:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Q146

Easy one. Whose catch ended whose Test career homophonously in Colin Milburn's first game? Johnlp 12:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Why, that would have to be David Allan catching David Allen in the second innings. [12]

DA Allen c Allan b Gibbs 1 2 9 0 0 --Deville (Talk) 12:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Over to you. Johnlp 13:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks --Deville (Talk) 13:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Q147

What is the largest number of runs scored in an over in first-class cricket? --Deville (Talk) 13:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The most runs off a 6-ball over are the 6 sixes for Gary Sobers off poor Malcolm Nash for Nottingham against Glamorgan at Swansea, and for Ravi Shastri off Tilak Raj for Bombay against Baroda at Bombay.[13] But counting extras, Lee Germon and Roger Ford added 77 (75 runs off the bat and 2 more for dot no balls - 0444664614106666600401 - and only five of those were legitimate deliveries) in a dodgy New Zealand domestic match (Canterbury against Wellington at Christchurch). The game was heading for a draw, but Wellington needed a win, so Bert Vance was ordered to bowl lots of no balls to give Canterbury a chance of winning, because Wellington thought they might then get the last two wickets. Everyone - players, umpires, scorers - got very confused - so much so that Canterbury ended up levelling the scores! [14] -- ALoan (Talk) 14:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Man! It turns out that every question I ask, there is a CricInfo page entitled, roughly, "Here is the answer to Deville's question, and some more info". I should probably search Cricinfo for the answer to my question before I pose it ;) Anyway, here is an entertaining account of that 77 run over [15]. --Deville (Talk) 15:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I happened to know the answers too, but the Cricinfo pages helped to nail the details :) -- ALoan (Talk) 16:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt. Re. ALoan's question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket/Quiz/archive7#Q131) about the cricketer to play before I WW and after II WW - D. B. Deodhar is one as well. I too have read that Ashdown is the *only* player to do it. Our sources must both be wrong. Deodhar played in the Bombay Triangular in 1911 and Ranji in 1946, so it could not be that the fc status of any of his matches changed recently either. [16] Tintin (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good catch, sir. Almost an urban legend. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Q148

Which club's colours were (allegedly) stolen by the MCC? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Would it be I Zingari? If so, this is ironic, as I am the last editor to that article! ;) But cricinfo seems to think that this is true, or at least allegedly, as well [17]. --Deville (Talk) 17:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would be. Well done. THat is an article that Giano asked me to create some time ago to fill a redlink on one of his projects. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's actually a little spooky. You were the first editor, and I was the last, and it came up like that. Anyway, now I have to come up with a question not on Cricinfo --Deville (Talk) 19:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Q149

I am a famous cricketer whose visage was used prominently by Monty Python. Who am I? --Deville (Talk) 19:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What a great question, makes a change from the constant stats based ones: Dennis Compton, I believe was the cricketer of choice. --Wisd e n17 19:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, that's actually not what I was looking for. I don't know if Compton's face was actually ever shown on Monty Python, although of course his name arose all the time. But here I'm looking for someone whose face features prominently in Python work. --Deville (Talk) 19:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I take it all back: what a rubbish question! I'm only joking, if it's a face your after that's easy, good ol' William Gilbert Grace. --Wisd e n17 20:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

That's right! [18] Actually, I thought that one would be harder; it's my impression that that is not really a very well known fact amongst cricket fans. Your go.--Deville (Talk) 20:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Q150

Right, here's a question which I hope you will all find interesting. A bowler comes on to open the bowling at the start of the match, and bowls 1 No Ball, but in doing so pulls his hamstring, and so cna't complete the over, and he doesn't bowl again in the match. What is his bowling analysis (i.e. his Over, Maidens, Runs, Wickets (OMRW) totals)? --Wisd e n17 17:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

0-0-1-0. I thought this happened in a Test match some time under a different circumstance, when the winning run came from a no-ball bowled by a bowler who hadn't previously bowled. Perhaps someone can remember when. Johnlp 00:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the circumstances surrounding the event you describe, but your answer is not correct. I think we've probably had enough stats questions on here (as the answers to the vast majority can be found in a matter of seconds on the internet), so I've branched off into my scoring knowledge. The answer to this question cannot be found in the Laws of Cricket, as it is a Technical Committee of the ACU&S decision, and so is the recommended practice for scoers across the world to use. It shouldn't be beyond your ability to work out what their decision was (but the point is you'll have to think about the question, as opposed to just using Cricinfo). --Wisd e n17 00:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This is probably what John was thinking of, and unless they've changed the rules since, Gower's 0-0-4-0 would suggest 0-0-1-0 is correct (?) --Paul 03:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

How about 0.0-0-1-0 ? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That's correct ALoan. The point is that you put the .0 to show that the over has been started, but that no legal deliveries have been bowled. --Wisd e n17 12:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Kind of redundant, as someone who hasn't bowled has no figures at all. Ergo 0-0-1-0 is exactly the same as 0.0-0-1-0. And there's no confusing 0-0-0-0 with a DNB as you can't get those figures anymore --Paul 14:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but the point is that the bowler has bowled. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and their figures are 0-0-1-0. IF you have figures, you have started an over. The ".0 to show that the over has been started" is unnecessary --Paul 15:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be necessary if it was 1.0 as opposed to 1 though. So for consistency at least it should be 0.0. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean.. say four off the first over, and then the hammy ripping no-ball to start the next would be written 1-0-5-0, not 1.0-0-5-0. --Paul 17:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You should be able to tell as much as possible from a scorecard. 1-0-5-0 says five runs were scored in the over. 1-1-1-0 is clearly impossible, but 1.0-1-1-0 clearly is. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

How do you account for it in the player's career figures? Presumably the career total of balls doesn't increase even when the number of runs goes up by one for the no-ball? So in career terms the ball doesn't exist. Not even as a .0. Johnlp 18:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The same as any no-ball, yes. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I do take onboard the idea that 1-0-5-0 might be written 1.0-0-5-0, it's just I've never seen it, there's never been a x.0 (where x>0) analysis in either Test or ODI history, and I merely assumed CI used 0.0 because of the very unusual circumstances. The Wisden books I have and CricketArchive both use 0-0-4-0 for Gower --Paul 18:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm - what if the bowler runs the last player out during the delivery of his first ball (a la Mankad)? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe, according to the laws, that the over has commenced, and therefore the .0 is necessary, as no legal balls have been bowled in the over. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

So the analysis would be 0.0-0-0-0? I wonder if this has ever happened... -- ALoan (Talk) 20:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Q151

Which flamboyant cricketer questioned the wisdom of being in bed at 11 before a match because the match would be starting at 11:30? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

My fingers are desperately trying to type Geoffrey Boycott, but I think I remember seeing that attributed to Beefy. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Not the person I am thinking of - before their time. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I must have been thinking of Miss Barbados. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Colin Ingleby-Mackenzie allegedly told his players to be in bed before breakfast time on match days. Which isn't quite the same thing. Johnlp 20:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Ingleby-Mackenzie's obit in the Telegraph quotes a television interview after Hants' championship in 1961 :

"Mr Ingleby-Mackenzie, to what do you attribute Hampshire's success?"

"Oh, wine, women and song, I should say."

"But don't you have certain rules, discipline, helpful hints for the younger viewer?"

"Well, everyone in bed in time for breakfast, I suppose."

"Yes, thank you. Perhaps we could take a look in the dressing room?"

"Certainly, if you don't mind me wandering about in the nude." Tintin (talk) 04:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to give it to Johnlp - that is not the incident I was thinking of, but the correct answer is Colin Ingleby-Mackenzie. That obit in The Telegraph goes on to talk about his tour of the West Indies in 1956 with E.W. Swanton

Ingleby-Mackenzie professed bafflement when Swanton insisted that the players should be in bed by 11.00. "But surely," he objected, "the match starts at 11.30."

He was also reputedly the last person to see Lord Lucan before he disappeared. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Q152

Which Test player qualified to play county cricket in England by being slightly economical with the details of his birthplace? Johnlp 18:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a wild stab in the dark - was it Albert Trott? QazPlm 10:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

No, not Trott. But you're in the right general geographical direction, though not exactly right. This player played Test cricket for his home country, never for England, and he toured England twice with a team from his own country, playing Tests in England on one of the tours. Johnlp 13:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

One last stab - Charles Dempster? He toured England with NZ in 1927, played no Tests then, returned in 1931 and scored a century in the First Test at Lord's. He also played for Leicestershire and Warwickshire. QazPlm 14:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You are very close: right country, right tours... but wrong player. Give yourself another go. Johnlp 14:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ken James? Toured 1927 & 1931, later played for Northamptonshire? QazPlm 14:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The player in question played for Somerset a few years before the first New Zealanders came to England: he was a student at Cambridge at the time... You've got to get there now. Johnlp 15:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess it was Tom Lowry then. It's not abundantly clear in that article what the qualification matter was all about. Ah, now I get it.--Paul 15:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Just goes to show that cricinfo doesn't know everything. ;—) Lowry wasn't the first player to use this ploy to qualify for Somerset: Peter Randall Johnson [19] a generation earlier played for Somerset also by declaring himself to have been born at Wellington, omitting to say that it was not the Somerset one but the New Zealand one. Sorry, QazPlm, after you did the hard work, Paul just nicked it. Johnlp 16:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, the trivia quiz world, it's a cut-throat and dirty business :P --Paul 06:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom Lowry was next on the list. I would have got him eventually! :) QazPlm 00:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Q153

Shouldn't be too hard: I was a well-performed top order batsman, averaging over 40 in Tests, yet I once scored 0,0,1,0,0,0 in Test series. Who am I --Paul 06:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Mohinder Amarnath? Gizza^Chat ^© 06:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy it is, makes a nice trough in his graph. Funnily, he had scored 598 in a series against the same oppostion ealier in the year. --Paul 08:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Maravan Attapattu too made similar scores in his debut series against India in India sumal 08:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

His first six Test scores were a very similar-looking, 0,0, 0,1, 0,0, but were scored in three matches in three different series: against India in India in 1990/91; against Australia in Sri Lanka in 1992; and against India in India in 1993/94.[20] -- ALoan (Talk) 12:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Q154

India v Pakistan Test series are always unique. Yet two of these series have been more unique than others. So unique that it has only happened in two other series ever. What is it? (I may need to give a clue) Gizza^Chat ^© 19:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, there were two series (1954/55, 1960/61) in which all five matches were drawn.[21] That must be pretty rare. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Gosh - that was a complete guess! What were the other two, as a matter of interest? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Here. [22] and [23] Johnlp 10:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it perhpas time for Rule 3 to be invoked, and for Gizza^Chat ^© to post the next question. --Wisd e n17 13:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Aloan has been active in the past few days but I think he forgot about the quiz. I've notified him. Besides, I'm too tired (2:00 am in Sydney) to ask another question. Gizza^Chat ^© 15:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Q155

Sorry - I keep forgetting.

Which bowler has taken the most Test wickets in an innings without conceding any runs? -- ALoan (Talk) 08:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Richie Benaud. 3.4-3-0-3 v India at Delhi 1959-60. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Wisden to hand, I take it :) -- ALoan (Talk) 11:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

As always. Question to follow... Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I given Sam a reminder about posting the next question, in case anyone is worried he's forgotten. --Wisd e n17 16:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As indeed I had... Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Q156

Which author, who made broadcasts for Nazi Germany during WWII, named one of his principal characters after a Warwickshire seamer, saying that he greatly admired his action? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Lord Haw Haw (i.e. William Joyce) --Wisd e n17 17:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

'Fraid not. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

P.G. Wodehouse, with the character Jeeves, a Yorkshire man who played for Warwickshire. --Wisd e n17 17:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Percy Jeeves it is, of Warwickshire. [24]. To you, good sir. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sam, I should point ou that I probably won't get a chance to post a question within the next 24 hours. I hope that doesn't bother people too much, if it does I'm happy for Sam to post another. Although I should get a chance to post one in within the next 48. --Wisd e n17 22:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Q157

Right, here's a Laws' question. A fair ball is delivered which hits the batsman on the front pad as he shoulders arms. As he does this the ball cannons up and hits his bat and goes flying off into the outfield. The batsmen start running, and having just crossed on their first run, Third Man makes an attempt to run the striker out. The ball misses the stumps and runs away to the boundary, however, it is picked up on the boundary by Long-on who has a shy at the stumps (the batsmen have completed another run between the two run-out attempts, and have just crossed for another run at the 2nd run out attempt). This run-out attempt also fails and the ball flies off to the boundary, (crossing it after the batsmen have completed another run after the 2nd run out attempt and have just crossed on another run). The question is: how many runs are scored, and it's probably easiest if you show your working? --Wisd e n17 00:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How about no "run"s (or byes or leg byes): the batsman wasn't trying to hit the ball, so the ball is dead after it hits his pad. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep that is correct ALoan, as he had not attempted to play a shot, or avoid injury then he can score absoluetly no runs (not even any Penalty Runs). The only runs that could have resulted from such a senario above is the penalty for a No-Ball(if it had been one). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisden17 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 1 April 2006

What an extremely obscure situation, not just shoulder arms and ball then hits bat, but how bad must the fielder's be for this to be a problem??? Jazzycab 12:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Thinking about it further, I am probably wrong about the ball becoming dead when it hits the pad. Presuambly either of the run out attempts could have succeeded, and the ball does not actually become dead until it crosses the boundary; at which point the umpire puts the batsmen back where they started and tells the scorer ignore any runs that would otherwise have been scored? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just to clear up the little bit of confusion about the answer to this question. Nabhen left a message on my talk page querying the correct answer. I hadn't fully read Aloan's answer, he was right in that no runs are scored, but wrong to say the ball became dead after it hits his pads. I'll give the answer as I gave it to Nabhen. The important law to note is that of 26 which states "If a ball delivered by the bowler first strikes the person of the striker, runs shall be scored only if the umpire is satisfied that the striker has either (i) attempted to play the ball with his bat, or (ii) tried to avoid being hit by the ball. If the umpire is satisfied that either of these conditions has been met, and the ball makes no subsequent contact with the bat, runs completed by the batsmen or a boundary allowance shall be credited to the batting side as in (b)". So it doesn't matter that the ball goes on to hit the bat, as the ball first hits the striker's pads then the provision of Law 26 still apply. The fact that the ball does hit the bat only means that if he had played a shot then the runs would not have been leg-byes. So he could also have been caught. Also to clear up, the umpires should have called and signalled dead-ball after the first completed run (or after the ball crosses the boundary, whichever is the soonest) but it is only when they call and signal that the ball is dead that it will become dead (so in my scenario the umpires are a bit slow)! The point about letting the batsmen run one before calling dead ball is so that the fielding side have a chance at a run-out. It is also important to note that once the ball is dead the runs are disallowed, meaning that the batsmen are sent back to their original ends (this is an important subtlety of the laws, as runs which are 'not scored' e.g. short-runs, mean that the batsmen are not returned to their original ends). I hope this clears up any confusion regarding the question and Aloan's answer, it is my fault in part, as I did not fully read his answer. --Wisd e n17 22:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Still not convinced. The law 26 deals with leg byes and the moment the ball hits the bat, the leg bye rules cease to apply. Note that the 26.3 which negates runs from deliberate padding is titled 'Leg byes not to be awarded' and not 'Runs not to be awarded' Tintin (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, let me reiterate this is definitely the right answer. I am a Qualified Member-Umpire and Scorer of the ACU&S, and am also an examiner for that organisation. I would retirate again that you look at these specific words in Law 26: If a ball delivered by the bowler 'first strikes the person of the striker, runs shall be scored only if' the umpire is satisfied that the striker has either (i) attempted to play the ball with his bat, or (ii) tried to avoid being hit by the ball. It doesn't matter that the ball then goes on to hit the bat the conditions of Law 26.2 still have to be awarded. That probably won't have convinced you! So I'll give you some sources, http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/changes-to-the-laws-of-cricket-2000-code,202,AR.html and the fact that it says: It has always been accepted, but not written into Law, that runs from an inadvertent double strike, first on the pad and then on the bat, would be credited to the striker. The re-wording incorporates this interpretation into Law by making it clear that Leg byes, if allowed, do not involve contact with the bat except in the case of an attempt by the striker to guard his wicket. There is no change of principle. The striker must still have attempted to play the ball with his bat, or tried to avoid being hit by the ball, for any runs at all to be allowed from an initial strike on the person. It is also still true that a wilful second strike will be subject to all the provisions of Law 34 (Hit the ball twice). If that still hasn't convinced you, have a look at http://www.lords.org/data/files/law_26_qanda-9677.pdf and in particular the third question. I hope this clears up any worries you had about the answer, and I'm not surprised that you didn't think this was the right answer, most players would not know that this is the case.

Thank you. The last one removes all my doubts. Tintin (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for causing confusion with my first answer. In my defence, the "dead ball" part does not change the answer, and I had tentatively corrected that part before I noticed the debate on User talk:Wisden17 and User talk:Jazzycab - and I would not have seen that discussion at all if it had not been mentioned above.

I suppose a fuller answer would be: either (a) the umpire takes the view that the striking batsman has not tried to play or avoid the ball, so no runs (or byes or leg byes) are scored (as above); or (b) the umpire takes the view that the striking batsman has tried to avoid being hit (he has, at least, tried to avoid his bat being hit by "shouldering arms" - that is, raising his bat out of harm's way - unsuccessfully as it turned out here!), so Law 26.2(a)(ii) could apply; if so, the umpire would not call dead ball, and presumably the answer would be 7 runs (3 runs - counting the first two runs actually run by the batsmen as runs, since the ball came off the bat, notwithstanding that it hit the pad first, plus the third run, as the batsmen had crossed when the ball crossed the boundary - assuming that none of the runs are short, of course - plus 4 overthrows, Law 19.6)? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah there would be 7 runs scored in the situation you mention. Where does User talk:Jazzycab come into it? --Wisd e n17 19:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant User talk:Nabhen, not User talk:Jazzycab. Anyway, I am glad we cleared all of that up :) -- ALoan (Talk) 12:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Q158

A cricket match involving a team from a Royal Naval vessel is the first to have be reported in the press to have been played at a historic ground in an East African country (more informal matches were played here up to 15 years earlier, but the ground had not then been formally organissed and the matches were not reported). Which vessel, where, when, and, most importantly, who won? (I have some excellent clues, by the way!) -- ALoan (Talk) 12:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The crew of the H.M.S. Sparrow played in Mombasa against some local players in 1896 see here. According to this link the sailors seem to have won. I can't seem to find a scorecard, though ;-P. --Deville (Talk) 14:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Well done; clearly not as difficult as I thought. How did you get it, if you don't mind me asking? (I was taking the result from the last link, which says that Coast scored 41 in its first innings; Sparrow replied with 51; Coast then scored 50/9 declared and tried to get the Sparrow team out by calling "time"; in the end Sparrow was adjudged the winner on its first innings lead).

The match was apparently played in September 1896. For a bonus brownie point, do you have any idea what HMS Sparrow was doing in the previous month (which may explain why the ship reportedly did not have its cricket gear with it)? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It may also worth pointing out that there has been several Royal Navy vessels called HMS Cricket (not least, a 1906 Motor Torpedo Boat, originally classified as an Insect class coastal destroyer, and a WWII Insect class gunboat), and The Guardian reckons that the Sparrow match was the first played in Kenya. [25] -- ALoan (Talk) 19:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In August it was busy fighting off insurgents in Zanzibar, following the death of its Sultan. Regarding the navy's connection with cricket, there was an interesting article last year in How's That? (the journal of the ACU&S) which had about the HMS Cricket, and one other (who's name I can't remember). I nearly got the answer, I had it but Deville got there before me. I'd just simply looked at cricket grounds in Kenya (as Kenya was formeley known as British East Africa) and went from there, as there are only 6 grounds in Kenya or any note! --Wisd e n17 20:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Close. In August 1896, HMS Sparrow, along with another 4 ships of the Royal Navy, was busy shelling Stone Town, the capital of Zanzibar, into submission when the dead Sultan's nephew took power against British wishes. This was the Anglo-Zanzibar War, over in 45 minutes, the shortest war on record. At that time, Mombasa, part of the Zanj, was formally under the control of the Sultan of Zanzibar, although administered by the UK. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

And for any of those interested those four ships were (the very interestingly named):HMS Philomel, HMS Thrush, HMS St.George, and the HMS Racoon. --Wisd e n17 22:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit that I got it using a Google search for various things. It turns out to be a pretty crazy story, especially when you factor in the Anglo-Zanzibar War. This was a really good question, though. --Deville (Talk) 01:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Q159

I was dismissed in a Test because of an errant piece of my clothing. Who am I? --Deville (Talk) 01:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Does cap count as a part of my clothing ? Tintin (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Tintin might have just beaten me too it - but was Adam Parore dismissed when his ~~cap hit the wicket? QazPlm 03:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)~~ Make that helmet [26] QazPlm 03:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe Joe Solomon of the West Indies was dismissed against AUstralia in 1960/61 when his cap fell on the wicket? Dingbatdan 09:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The Parore incident was in an ODI - [27]. Joe Solomon is presumably the right answer - this says that he was playing back to a Richie Benaud top spinner in the Second Test in Melbourne in 1960-61.[28]. Inspired, I have added some interesting incidents to hit wicket. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There are three cap-fell-on-the-wicket (not helmet!) dismissals in Test cricket - Solomon, Ashok Mankad off Chris Old at Edgbaston 1974 and Dilip Vengsarkar off Thomson at Brisbane 1977-78. Tintin (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was actually thinking of Ashok Mankad, but technically Dinba got there first. I guess I have to give Dinba the point for the right answer, Tintin an honorable mention, and ALoan mad props for turning around and improving an article over it. Dinba, it's your go... --Deville (Talk) 13:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"Mad props"? Anyway, now I need to add Mankad and Vengsarkar... -- ALoan (Talk) 13:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see!Thanks, I guess :) -- ALoan (Talk) 16:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you should be happy.... mad props are good! I guess I've been living in NYC too long, sorry...:-)--Deville (Talk) 14:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Q160

When and why in a test match did it take 3 bowlers to complete 1 over? Dingbatdan 06:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sri Lanka v WI, Kandy, 2001-02. Dillon retired during the over, Colin Stuart who came in to complete the over was banned after he bowled two beamers at Jayasuriya, Gayle finally completed the over. Tintin (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, fast response! I hoped it wouldn't be too easy... Over to you!Dingbatdan 06:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)