Best Batting Average 1st class

[cricket player]

Who has or had the best batting average playing 1st class cricket?

 

[mofo123]

bradman? 95.5 or sumthing

 

[Tapioca]

Norman Callaway

 

[Richard]

I really wish they'd show that more often, instead of using the silly restrictions they use... if people want it to a reasonable degree, I'm sure there are stats-engines they can use.
I've never found-out who's actually got the highest Test-match average.

 

[a massive zebra]

I've never found-out who's actually got the highest Test-match average.

Excluding those who never got out, the highest average is 112.00 by West Indian wicketkeeper Andy Ganteaume who made 112 on debut against England in 1947/48 but was then dropped and never played again.

 

[Prince EWS]

I really wish they'd show that more often, instead of using the silly restrictions they use... if people want it to a reasonable degree, I'm sure there are stats-engines they can use.
I've never found-out who's actually got the highest Test-match average.

Andy Ganteaume

 

[Richard]

Eh, aren't one-Test-wonders a shame.

 

[marc71178]

Excluding those who never got out, the highest average is 112.00 by West Indian wicketkeeper Andy Ganteaume who made 112 on debut against England in 1947/48 but was then dropped and never played again.

Sorry, but I once read a scribbled report from someone whose great uncle (who incidentally had lost his wife to an affair with Ganteaume) was at the game.

He said that Ganteaume was dropped 5 times before he got off the mark and was plumb LBW 17 times in the first hour, so Ganteaume's actual average can be scaled down to -6, the only incidence of a negative average in Test history!

 

[King_Ponting]

sounds like someones not happy with ganteaumes innings

 

[a massive zebra]

Sorry, but I once read a scribbled report from someone whose great uncle (who incidentally had lost his wife to an affair with Ganteaume) was at the game.

He said that Ganteaume was dropped 5 times before he got off the mark and was plumb LBW 17 times in the first hour, so Ganteaume's actual average can be scaled down to -6, the only incidence of a negative average in Test history!

Hehehe...

 

[Pratters]

Sorry, but I once read a scribbled report from someone whose great uncle (who incidentally had lost his wife to an affair with Ganteaume) was at the game.

He said that Ganteaume was dropped 5 times before he got off the mark and was plumb LBW 17 times in the first hour, so Ganteaume's actual average can be scaled down to -6, the only incidence of a negative average in Test history!

17 times lbw and not given out? Sounds like the great uncle was angry at the inning.

 

[superkingdave]

 

[Kweek]

Sorry, but I once read a scribbled report from someone whose great uncle (who incidentally had lost his wife to an affair with Ganteaume) was at the game.

He said that Ganteaume was dropped 5 times before he got off the mark and was plumb LBW 17 times in the first hour, so Ganteaume's actual average can be scaled down to -6, the only incidence of a negative average in Test history!

yer...a uncle for a cousin who was a mate of the sister of him...right marc. sounds realy crappy.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I'm not entirely convinced that Mr Robbins senior is a genuine person, but maybe I'm just being excessively cynical?

 

[marc71178]

I cannot believe that 3 people believed that.

 

[Deja moo]

I cannot believe that 3 people believed that.

 

[Richard]

Sorry, but I once read a scribbled report from someone whose great uncle (who incidentally had lost his wife to an affair with Ganteaume) was at the game.

He said that Ganteaume was dropped 5 times before he got off the mark and was plumb LBW 17 times in the first hour, so Ganteaume's actual average can be scaled down to -6, the only incidence of a negative average in Test history!

And I many times said that a single report is not neccesarily a reliable account of an innings, especially when you take account of biases that you learn to spot in certain writers.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

And I many times said that a single report is not neccesarily a reliable account of an innings, especially when you take account of biases that you learn to spot in certain writers.

No surprise there - even after other people have made the error and been corrected, Richard still doesn't realise it's a joke and responds in a serious fashion.

 

[Richard]

Err - no, I just realise that it was a joke made with very, very obvious meaning, which you'd know if you'd read myself and marc's many correspondances where he's insisted that without seeing something you have no authority to comment on it.

 

[Nate]

Err - no, I just realise that it was a joke made with very, very obvious meaning, which you'd know if you'd read myself and marc's many correspondances where he's insisted that without seeing something you have no authority to comment on it.

I just find it funny that you never seem to laugh at a joke, but rather respond with a semmingly serious comment that analyses every word in the post...