-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Trivia Question
- Thread starter sherb
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Whoops!! It appears I may have buggered this question up. I was going to drop a clue to the Graham Roope question, but I have just looked at Cricket Archive, and they are disputing the answer I was going to give, and when I look at the scorecard in question, it seems to make sense. The answer was going to be that Roope is the only man to have partnered two batsmen at the moment they brought up their 100th century (John Edrich and Geoff Boycott). But Cricket Archive have some info down the bottom of the county game where Roope batted with Edrich (July 9-12, 1977) which states that Roope was dismissed before Edrich reached three figures. He was definitely partnering Boycott in the fourth Test that season when Boycs reached 100.
Patrick Murphy's 1983 book "The Centurions" originally stated that Roope partnered both Edrich and Boycott, which was where I got the idea to post the question.
However, on the website http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/sports_talk/stump_bearders/3668918.stm there is a link which includes questions people used to ask of Bill Frindall. This excerpt comes from September 18, 2004, with Frindall's reply being under the bold writing:
Peter Hughes, UK
In No. 82, you mention that Graham Roope was not the batting partner when John Edrich reached his 100th century. However, Wisden 1978 (p539) says: "Curiously, Roope was the batting partner when first Edrich and then Boycott completed their hundredth hundred". Looking at the scorecard, it seems that Howarth was the batting partner, as you say. Is this a rare instance of Wisden making a mistake, and if so should there now be an erratum, albeit very belatedly?
I have a copy of the official scorecard and it shows Roope at No. 3 being bowled by Eddie Barlow for 27 and Geoff Howarth at No. 5 finishing 5 not out. The match ended as soon as John Edrich completed his hundred. In fact it should have ended at 5.30pm when he had reached 97 but Barlow, Derbyshire's captain, allowed him an extra over from occasional bowler, Alan Hill.
It could be that the official scorecard is wrong because Roope was No. 5 and Howarth No. 3 on the original batting order. They swapped places in the first innings but may not have done so in the second and possibly it was Howarth who went in first wicket down and Roope who was not out. I recall Graham telling me that he had been at the striker's end for both the Edrich and Boycott hundredth hundreds.
Jack Hill was the Surrey scorer and he was the first to use my linear book on the county circuit. I will try and find the 1977 one when I am at The Oval for the Champions Trophy final next week. Watch this space!
I have not found whether Frindall made an additional response to this. There are 150 Stump the Bearded Wonder pages within this link. So now I'm confused whether Roope did partner Edrich or not.
Patrick Murphy's 1983 book "The Centurions" originally stated that Roope partnered both Edrich and Boycott, which was where I got the idea to post the question.
However, on the website http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/sports_talk/stump_bearders/3668918.stm there is a link which includes questions people used to ask of Bill Frindall. This excerpt comes from September 18, 2004, with Frindall's reply being under the bold writing:
Peter Hughes, UK
In No. 82, you mention that Graham Roope was not the batting partner when John Edrich reached his 100th century. However, Wisden 1978 (p539) says: "Curiously, Roope was the batting partner when first Edrich and then Boycott completed their hundredth hundred". Looking at the scorecard, it seems that Howarth was the batting partner, as you say. Is this a rare instance of Wisden making a mistake, and if so should there now be an erratum, albeit very belatedly?
I have a copy of the official scorecard and it shows Roope at No. 3 being bowled by Eddie Barlow for 27 and Geoff Howarth at No. 5 finishing 5 not out. The match ended as soon as John Edrich completed his hundred. In fact it should have ended at 5.30pm when he had reached 97 but Barlow, Derbyshire's captain, allowed him an extra over from occasional bowler, Alan Hill.
It could be that the official scorecard is wrong because Roope was No. 5 and Howarth No. 3 on the original batting order. They swapped places in the first innings but may not have done so in the second and possibly it was Howarth who went in first wicket down and Roope who was not out. I recall Graham telling me that he had been at the striker's end for both the Edrich and Boycott hundredth hundreds.
Jack Hill was the Surrey scorer and he was the first to use my linear book on the county circuit. I will try and find the 1977 one when I am at The Oval for the Champions Trophy final next week. Watch this space!
I have not found whether Frindall made an additional response to this. There are 150 Stump the Bearded Wonder pages within this link. So now I'm confused whether Roope did partner Edrich or not.
Jack Hobbs ?? didn't he score one on tour in Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) which would have been his 100th century, but it was not recognised as first class at the time, but was at a later date ??
Zach Package
Prespakis2Tsatas
was also going to say hobbs, but my logic was he's scored more tonnes than anyone else that there's more chance of one being unrecognized or recognized later or something of that description
- Jul 31, 2012
- 5,512
- 8,643
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Everton, Chiefs Kingdom
Kudos to the people continuing this thread; some seriously excellent questions!
I would have thought that if Roope himself acknowledges that he was at the other end when both JE and GB reached their ton of tons, then that should settle it.
I would have thought that if Roope himself acknowledges that he was at the other end when both JE and GB reached their ton of tons, then that should settle it.
- Jul 10, 2012
- 3,868
- 2,929
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Looking at the list of guys with 100 FC 100's. Not surprising there is only 1 name is there without doing a county stint. Guess who? 
Okay its Bradman
Okay its Bradman
Zach Package
Prespakis2Tsatas
Looking at the list of guys with 100 FC 100's. Not surprising there is only 1 name is there without doing a county stint. Guess who?
Okay its Bradman
what's more astounding is that he took 295 innings to get his hundredth ton.
No one else did it in under 550 innings and only 8 others did it in under 700
There is a lot of argument about some of the first-class status of some players from the late 19th and earliest 20th century. However, when Hobbs scored his 100th ton it was acknowledged at the time - the later revision (which isn't official in any way) happened after he was retired. So he definitely only had the one experience of scoring the 100th 100.
But you are on the right track. Ok - the answer to the question is Graham Gooch. The problem was he first scored his 100th century in January 1993 on a tour of India. Cue celebrations, etc.
However.......
The ICC had an upcoming meeting in a couple of weeks where they were going to decide on the first-class status or not of the games played on the UK rebel tour of South Africa in 1982 (yes, 11 years too late - typical ICC addressing important problems in a timely fashion). This was known to be coming up at the time, so even as Gooch made his 100th 100, there was a suspicion that it might not be the 'legal' one (the records at the time included a ton he made on the rebel tour).
Anyway, the ICC said 'not first-class', so Gooch was back to 99, until he scored his next century.
But you are on the right track. Ok - the answer to the question is Graham Gooch. The problem was he first scored his 100th century in January 1993 on a tour of India. Cue celebrations, etc.
However.......
The ICC had an upcoming meeting in a couple of weeks where they were going to decide on the first-class status or not of the games played on the UK rebel tour of South Africa in 1982 (yes, 11 years too late - typical ICC addressing important problems in a timely fashion). This was known to be coming up at the time, so even as Gooch made his 100th 100, there was a suspicion that it might not be the 'legal' one (the records at the time included a ton he made on the rebel tour).
Anyway, the ICC said 'not first-class', so Gooch was back to 99, until he scored his next century.
It is fair to say that most cricket followers and record keepers, and also major resources, do still acknowledge that these are first class games. This includes Wisden, and the two major cricket websites Cricinfo and CricketArchive. A few biographies I've seen about Graham Gooch published since he made that 100th 100, also state that he made his 100th 100 in India, not in the game versus Cambridge Uni, though they do explain the ICC situation. The updated version of Patrick Murphy's "The Centurions", published after Mark Ramprakash scored his 100th 100, also states Gooch made his 100th 100 versus the Indian Under 25 team. I think it's fair to state Gooch believes his 100th 100 was made in India. http://find.galegroup.com.ezproxy.s...articleContentLink=enable&browseByDate=enable
Somewhat coincidentally, Gooch's next game on that Indian tour was the opening Test of the series, this being Gooch's 100th Test. The previous man to score 100 100s, Viv Richards, also scored his 100th 100 in a tour game (vs NSW on the 1988-89 tour of Australia) and then played his 100th Test next game. Richards also held his 100th Test catch in that Test.
sherb
Hall of Famer
- Thread starter
- #314
That's interesting, I had always been of the belief that they were regarded as first-class and didn't know that the ICC had poked its nose in.
The ICC's view seems to be irrelevant anyway given the treatment of the games as f-c by the sites you mentioned.
Now, all we need is for the WSC Supertests to be treated as first-class. It's absurd that they aren't.
No argument that Rebel tours and WSC should be regarded as FC. I know Wisden definitely came down hard on the side of 'These are First Class games'. However, Wisden also used to say the 1970 Eng vs Rest Of The World matches were Tests - but no one else agreed. (And Wisden NEVER acknowledged the Aus vs ROW games in 71/72 as Tests). They eventually dropped that.
However, if Cricket wants to maintain some standards in its record and statistics keeping (and stats are a huge part of the Story of cricket - always have been - hence blogs and sites like this one), it make sense to have a single authority in charge of defining the status of games. And that should be the ICC. You may disagree with them - but go and argue with them - don't just ignore their ruling.
It's pretty funny that after the ICC ruled Gooch's initial 100th century as 'not first class' the next he scored was against Cambridge University - who really haven't been anywhere near first-class standard since about WW1 (and I think have since lost that status). But because of history - they were kept on the list.
However, if Cricket wants to maintain some standards in its record and statistics keeping (and stats are a huge part of the Story of cricket - always have been - hence blogs and sites like this one), it make sense to have a single authority in charge of defining the status of games. And that should be the ICC. You may disagree with them - but go and argue with them - don't just ignore their ruling.
It's pretty funny that after the ICC ruled Gooch's initial 100th century as 'not first class' the next he scored was against Cambridge University - who really haven't been anywhere near first-class standard since about WW1 (and I think have since lost that status). But because of history - they were kept on the list.
Completely agree.
If they can come up with convoluted stuff like "The Aussies are so good let's get a best of the rest" and play a Test in Sydney, then the WSC records must be included.
sherb
Hall of Famer
- Thread starter
- #317
I can see with what you are saying. While Frindall was editor of Wisden (or was it Playfair) for instance he refused to recognize the ICC Test as such. Despite the ICC ruling on the matter. I thought he was being a bit of a prima donna to be honest.
I always thought that the rebel matches were treated as first-class because the SACA, as the ruling body in that country, had deemed them as such. After all, that's a major part of the definition of a f-c match.
Now the definition also allows for the ICC to make a ruling, but why would they over-ride the local governing body? For purely political reasons I would assume, similar reasons as why the WSC matches get ignored (ie the matches being staged in the face of the establishment).
Although with the WSC matches, at the local body (CA) at least agreed with them.
In a purely logical assessment of the situation, it would be ridiculous to not treat the rebel matches as f-c when the local domestic competition (Currie Cup or whatever it is called now) is treated as f-c, when they meet all the standards required (ie playing conditions) and the local body regards them as such.
sherb
Hall of Famer
- Thread starter
- #318
I personally think that the RoW games in 70 & 71/72 and the WSC Supertests should all be regarded as test matches.Completely agree.
If they can come up with convoluted stuff like "The Aussies are so good let's get a best of the rest" and play a Test in Sydney, then the WSC records must be included.
If nothing else occurs however at very minimum the WSC matches should be afforded first-class status and the WSC one-day internationals List A status.
I disagree. Tests should be reserved for Country vs Country. But that's just me (and yes, the Australia vs World XI should not be a test).
An interesting case relates to Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. They have no FC cricket recognized before they played Test cricket (actually that's the same for everyone - India, Pakistan, Wi and Aus - only England recognizes FC cricket before the first Test matches). So now the Bangers and Zims get their local cricket recognized as FC - but it is still the same standard it was before they started Test cricket. So why shouldn't they get retrospectively recognized? (And of course, Zimbabwe used to play in the Local SA comp as Rhodesia). If we say 'no First Class in a country before that country played Test Cricket' - well, WG Grace made more than 50 centuries before Test cricket started. Be prepared for a big argument. What about the period where South Africa was prevented from playing Test cricket?
How about ODIs and T20s? I know some of you will say 'who cares' - but if we have records, they have to be protected and they have to be honest. You can't have local bodies deciding on status of games. What about the T20 game a couple of years ago where NSW played Andrew Johns to attract the crowd? Should the players still have that game in the 'FC T20' record? What about Testimonial fund-raisers that can involve a lot of first-class cricketers, but are basically exhibitions?
You have to leave it to some central body to decide on status of matches - or at least to set the guidelines. If you say the games must be played with the approval of the country's controlling authority - well, that leaves out WSC.
It's not an easy question.
An interesting case relates to Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. They have no FC cricket recognized before they played Test cricket (actually that's the same for everyone - India, Pakistan, Wi and Aus - only England recognizes FC cricket before the first Test matches). So now the Bangers and Zims get their local cricket recognized as FC - but it is still the same standard it was before they started Test cricket. So why shouldn't they get retrospectively recognized? (And of course, Zimbabwe used to play in the Local SA comp as Rhodesia). If we say 'no First Class in a country before that country played Test Cricket' - well, WG Grace made more than 50 centuries before Test cricket started. Be prepared for a big argument. What about the period where South Africa was prevented from playing Test cricket?
How about ODIs and T20s? I know some of you will say 'who cares' - but if we have records, they have to be protected and they have to be honest. You can't have local bodies deciding on status of games. What about the T20 game a couple of years ago where NSW played Andrew Johns to attract the crowd? Should the players still have that game in the 'FC T20' record? What about Testimonial fund-raisers that can involve a lot of first-class cricketers, but are basically exhibitions?
You have to leave it to some central body to decide on status of matches - or at least to set the guidelines. If you say the games must be played with the approval of the country's controlling authority - well, that leaves out WSC.
It's not an easy question.
On an ironic note, considering the topic which raised this issue, if the WSC Supertests ever were granted first class status, this would alter the time when Viv Richards achieved his 100th 100.
Sorry the link I provided in my previous post doesn't seem to work. I'll try posting a copy of the relevant article later tonight.
This is the answer to my question:
Speaking of centuries, which English cricketer in the year 2000 played a Test innings in which the number 100 was significant for three reasons?
Alec Stewart in the third Test vs West Indies in 2000, on the second day's play (August 4), made a century (105) in his 100th Test on the Queen Mother's 100th birthday.
Sorry the link I provided in my previous post doesn't seem to work. I'll try posting a copy of the relevant article later tonight.
This is the answer to my question:
Speaking of centuries, which English cricketer in the year 2000 played a Test innings in which the number 100 was significant for three reasons?
Alec Stewart in the third Test vs West Indies in 2000, on the second day's play (August 4), made a century (105) in his 100th Test on the Queen Mother's 100th birthday.
I suspected it was Stewart - he played his 100th test around that time, but I figured he must have scored an even 100, and I couldn't find an instance of that. I probably would not have got the QM . (Did you know she only married into the Royal Family because of Jack The Ripper? True. According to this Theory I read..................................)
. (Did you know she only married into the Royal Family because of Jack The Ripper? True. According to this Theory I read..................................)
Here is the article I was trying to link to in relation to Gooch's feelings about his alleged 100th 100 vesus Cambridge. It's from The Times, May 4, 1993. In the end it was easier for me to just type it word for word.
"Gooch's silent century protest" by Alan Lee
Graham Gooch has always believed in letting his bat do the bulk of his talking, but on Saturday at Fenner's, he made two of the most eloquent points of his career by laying the bat down in silent, disdainful protest.
The decision of the International Cricket Council (ICC) posthumously to withhold first class status from the matches played by unofficial touring teams in South Africa, including an England 11 eleven years ago, meant that Gooch's century in Cuttack during January technically became his 99th, rather than his hundredth.
Given that this judgement, handed down at a meeting in early February, was crassly mistimed and misguided, there was a pleasing sense of the ludicrous about Saturday's events, in which Gooch made the missing century against Cambridge University in a fixture that retains its first class label only through anachronistic nostalgia.
Gooch made his gesture with style. He reached his century with a six, tucked his bat under his arm and walked off, giving himself out through retirement. In so doing, he was silently making public his views on the ICC ruling and the legitimacy of the universities' status.
It is monstrous that the milestone century of his career should be recorded against undergraduates of variable ability and potential when, for reasons nobody has adequately explained, the ICC has ruled out a hundred made against an international-class attack in a five day match.
It is understood that the ICC is having second thoughts; it should act in July to reverse its verdict on the South African tours, and the Test and COunty Cricket Board should ensure that university matches are downgraded so that there can be no repeat of Saturday's gratifying farce.
"Gooch's silent century protest" by Alan Lee
Graham Gooch has always believed in letting his bat do the bulk of his talking, but on Saturday at Fenner's, he made two of the most eloquent points of his career by laying the bat down in silent, disdainful protest.
The decision of the International Cricket Council (ICC) posthumously to withhold first class status from the matches played by unofficial touring teams in South Africa, including an England 11 eleven years ago, meant that Gooch's century in Cuttack during January technically became his 99th, rather than his hundredth.
Given that this judgement, handed down at a meeting in early February, was crassly mistimed and misguided, there was a pleasing sense of the ludicrous about Saturday's events, in which Gooch made the missing century against Cambridge University in a fixture that retains its first class label only through anachronistic nostalgia.
Gooch made his gesture with style. He reached his century with a six, tucked his bat under his arm and walked off, giving himself out through retirement. In so doing, he was silently making public his views on the ICC ruling and the legitimacy of the universities' status.
It is monstrous that the milestone century of his career should be recorded against undergraduates of variable ability and potential when, for reasons nobody has adequately explained, the ICC has ruled out a hundred made against an international-class attack in a five day match.
It is understood that the ICC is having second thoughts; it should act in July to reverse its verdict on the South African tours, and the Test and COunty Cricket Board should ensure that university matches are downgraded so that there can be no repeat of Saturday's gratifying farce.
