Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Thanks a lot DA that was a good read!

I love the fact that Ranatunga and Healy had dinner together despite the specific nature of the comments made!

I wonder if anyone has a career total of 1000 runs as a runner?

A recommended read for anyone who is interested by the way...

While checking out the final score of Ind/WI 2nd test on CricInfo, I wondered what if WI had equaled our score and then be all out... Would Indians still need to bat and score 1 run or just be declared winners? It surely cannot be a win by an inning!

Has this happened before?

I'm sure they would have to bat again and score 1, Indus - I seem to recall having seen this happen, but can't remember anything about which match it was. It's usually safest to assume that, if something can happen, then it probably has!

If the scores were level, then India would need one run to win the game so, yes India would have had to bat again.

The closest I've seen to this was England v Pakistan in the 90s. Pakistan came out second innings needing just two runs to win.

DeltaAlpha wrote:I'm sure they would have to bat again and score 1, Indus - I seem to recall having seen this happen, but can't remember anything about which match it was. It's usually safest to assume that, if something can happen, then it probably has!

I, in particular, liked the way you infused Quantum Physics way of thinking in Cricket

Speaking of which, we have to resurrect our discussion on that science thread. One active contributor (and a very knowledgeable I might add) Mr. LaughingDevil is MIA unfortunately but I am sure we can find things to talk still

Thanks, Mr. Aidan11.

It also brings out another thought I have had a few times: Why make the opponent bat just to score 1 or 2 runs! Would be easy to just call it a game (pun not intended)... But Cricket scoring is done at a finer granularity. So, rather than saying XYZ won (period), we have to know how many balls were thrown, how many wickets taken and etc... Thinking out loud.....

Indus I think it happened in the 50s, I am going to look now to make sure...

Australia (401 & 1-0) beat South Africa (203 & 198)
Johannesburg
1957-58

Ah - also in the 20s...
Australia (396 & 1-0) beat South Africa (180 & 216)
Cape Town
1920/21

On this link at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australia_Test_cricket_records_against_South_Africa#Greatest_win_margins_.28by_wickets.29
Here on cricinfo: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/62833.html

Our man Richie Benaud had a fantastic game! You can probably find the 20s one as well...

That is good detective work, Mr. braveneutral Thanks for the article link! Looks like Dr. DeltaAlpha was correct.... yet again! It has already happened

That's ok!

Incidentally, it may well have happened on more occasions than that, I did not do a full sweep...

The 1957 one had quite an amusing end (I wasn't actually there - saw it on film a few years later)

SA skipper Jackie McGlew pretended to attempt a rugby tackle on one of the Australian batsman as he ran through for the required single.

Probably be fined half his match fee these days...

alfie wrote:The 1957 one had quite an amusing end (I wasn't actually there - saw it on film a few years later)

SA skipper Jackie McGlew pretended to attempt a rugby tackle on one of the Australian batsman as he ran through for the required single.

Probably be fined half his match fee these days...

A random one for you - does anyone know:
a. the highest innings total without an individual century?
b. the highest aggregate runs scored in a test without an individual century?

At Edgbaston in 05 England got 400 without a 100 being scored.