Absolutely ridiculous/odd cricket scorecards

[AlanJLegend]

Title kinda sums it up.


What are some matches where score-wise some absolutely ridiculous things happen? Here are a couple I have some across;

Leicestershire vs Essex, 2006
Leicestershire v Essex at Leicester, Sep 20-23, 2006 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Basically seems to start off pretty normally. Then in Essex's second innings the only bowlers used are Paul Nixon and Darren Robinson, both who are not even bowlers. Essex's batting performance in that innings needs to be seen to be believed. I'd love for somebody to tell me what the hell was going on, because I have no idea.


Western Australia Vs South Australia, 1996
http://static.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1995-96/AUS_LOCAL/SS/SOA_WA_SS-FINAL_30MAR-03APR1996

First innings Gilchrist gets 189*. South Australia eventually realise they cannot win and decided to bat it out as that will win them the Sheffield shield. Siddons gets 4 off 134 balls. May gets a duck off 52 balls. SA went on to draw the match and win the Shield.



Pretty interesting stuff.

 

[Simon]

1st one looks like it was manufactured to try and get a result. Looking at the time of year it was probably the last game of the season with both teams needing a win or something like that.

 

[stumpski]

Yes, used to be fairly common in rain-affected matches itbt, a big factor in adopting four day games. Wisden relegates hundreds scored in these circumstances to a footnote in its Records section.

 

[morgieb]

1st looks like it was done so a result could be done, and the 2nd, well, SA needed to win the Shield, obv.

 

[Dissector]

1st one looks like it was manufactured to try and get a result. Looking at the time of year it was probably the last game of the season with both teams needing a win or something like that.

What does that mean? The two teams agreed to an approximate target and the number of overs and then the bowlers bowled rubbish in the third innings so that the right target could be reached? Wouldn't this be against the rules and practically be a kind of match fixing?

 

[stumpski]

What does that mean? The two teams agreed to an approximate target and the number of overs and then the bowlers bowled rubbish in the third innings so that the right target could be reached? Wouldn't this be against the rules and practically be a kind of match fixing?

That's exactly what happens, or what used to happen fairly regularly. It's not against any of the existing Laws, but 'the authorities' took a very dim view of it when it first occurred.

If a match is badly affected by rain though, sometiimes it's hard to get a result any other way.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

What does that mean? The two teams agreed to an approximate target and the number of overs and then the bowlers bowled rubbish in the third innings so that the right target could be reached? Wouldn't this be against the rules and practically be a kind of match fixing?

That's exactly what happens, or what used to happen fairly regularly. It's not against any of the existing Laws, but 'the authorities' took a very dim view of it when it first occurred.

If a match is badly affected by rain though, sometiimes it's hard to get a result any other way.

Or possibly there wasn't any collaboration between the captains/teams. Leicestershire declared well behind, then offered up the absolute least of their bowlers, knowing that Essex would attack savagely then declare, needing a win themselves. Whenever a target was set, Leics just went out there and attacked it.

Of course this is just a theory, but shows that there needn't be anything to frown upon nor accusations of match-fixing to get a result like that.

 

[Neil Pickup]

What does that mean? The two teams agreed to an approximate target and the number of overs and then the bowlers bowled rubbish in the third innings so that the right target could be reached? Wouldn't this be against the rules and practically be a kind of match fixing?

Rubbish as in 30mph leg stump full tosses, I expect. Also, how is it match fixing? It is creating a situation where a result is possible (any of three) - both teams had to win to gain promotion (and hope Worcestershire didn't): a draw was no good to either.

Almost all of day three was lost due to rain. When Leics declared 114 behind, there were 86 overs left in the day - the game was dead to all intents. Notts then made 186 in ten overs - making the lead 300, and 72 overs remaining (two overs lost at each innings break). Leics made 301/5 in 70.1 overs... it could easily have been any of the three (four) results, giving both sides that chance of going up.

As it turned out, Worcestershire won their game anyway and it made no difference.

 

[Chubb]

Or possibly there wasn't any collaboration between the captains/teams. Leicestershire declared well behind, then offered up the absolute least of their bowlers, knowing that Essex would attack savagely then declare, needing a win themselves. Whenever a target was set, Leics just went out there and attacked it.

Of course this is just a theory, but shows that there needn't be anything to frown upon nor accusations of match-fixing to get a result like that.

There was collusion in that match- I remember discussion of it on the Essex website. They've been keener to set up results than most counties in recent season, though they hardly ever win when they do for some reason.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

There was collusion in that match- I remember discussion of it on the Essex website. They've been keener to set up results than most counties in recent season, though they hardly ever win when they do for some reason.

Wasn't necessarily referring to what happened in that match. Just posing a theory of what could have happened in such a situation.

 

[zaremba]

When 3-day county games were played, these arrangements were common. They were unknown in Australia though. I was in Oz in 1991/2 when (IIRC) Geoff Lawson became the first State captain to forfeit an innings. Created a massive furore which, as someone brought up on county cricket, I couldn't really understand.

It's not match fixing because both teams are trying to win.

 

[Dissector]

The reason it's like match-fixing is that part of the game: i.e. the third innings in this case isn't a competitive contest but a pre-arranged agreement by the two teams to push the game in a certain direction. I can see why it might benefit the match as a whole but it strikes me as pretty dubious nevertheless.

 

[Craig]

Rubbish as in 30mph leg stump full tosses, I expect. Also, how is it match fixing? It is creating a situation where a result is possible (any of three) - both teams had to win to gain promotion (and hope Worcestershire didn't): a draw was no good to either.

Almost all of day three was lost due to rain. When Leics declared 114 behind, there were 86 overs left in the day - the game was dead to all intents. Notts then made 186 in ten overs - making the lead 300, and 72 overs remaining (two overs lost at each innings break). Leics made 301/5 in 70.1 overs... it could easily have been any of the three (four) results, giving both sides that chance of going up.

As it turned out, Worcestershire won their game anyway and it made no difference.

Then it is their fault for not playing better cricket throughout the season and not ot be in that situation. Cases like that makes it a farce and I can hold no sympathy towards either team. I would have fined both teams pretty heavily.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Then it is their fault for not playing better cricket throughout the season and not ot be in that situation.

Not at all true, considering the numerous different factors that affect results in cricket matches, let alone over the course of a season.

 

[zaremba]

Then it is their fault for not playing better cricket throughout the season and not ot be in that situation. Cases like that makes it a farce and I can hold no sympathy towards either team. I would have fined both teams pretty heavily.

What if the match is rain-affected, so you've got a day and a half to produce a result in a 4-innings match? You've got two options: either to bat out a mind-bendingly boring draw or for the skippers to get together and to negotiate a target. The aim of both captains being, throughout, for their team to win the game.

Admittedly the means of achieving this aren't pretty, and they distort certain records (many of the fastest hundreds in FC history are relegated to footnote status by Wisden because they've been scored in such contrived situations), but there's a lot of sense in allowing this to happen.

And as I've said, it used to be very, very common. The combination of 3 day cricket, uncovered pitches and the English weather basically necessitated it. It's not as though a couple of teams had a little sneaky pact at everyone else's expense, because everyone did it.

 

[Top_Cat]

Western Australia Vs South Australia, 1996
http://static.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1995-96/AUS_LOCAL/SS/SOA_WA_SS-FINAL_30MAR-03APR1996

First innings Gilchrist gets 189*. South Australia eventually realise they cannot win and decided to bat it out as that will win them the Sheffield shield. Siddons gets 4 off 134 balls. May gets a duck off 52 balls. SA went on to draw the match and win the Shield.

Was there for day 1 and 5. Was awesome just to be there; every dot ball was cheered by thousands of people. May got a standing ovation for his duck. Siddons was very lucky to last as long as he did, got bat on a bat-pad catch off Hogg late in the day but given not. Loved every moment.

Shane George plays on my indoor cricket team these days. Still a pretty terrifying bowler even at 38.

 

[Bun]

The Home of CricketArchive

 

[Howe_zat]

The Home of CricketArchive

Prior to 1900 or so, it was pretty common for touring sides to play local teams that were made up of up to twice as many players to help ease the difference in quality. You can see that Hampstead are pretty much a village side - their best bowler is also one of their best batsmen, for example. I'd expect the Thursday Club to be a good level outfit from some other part of the country on a tour in London.

Low score is explained by the low standard of play, batsmen, bats and pitch. Not all that weird. Missing info is because the card has been compiled from a match report, and wasn't properly scored.

 

[Bun]

Prior to 1900 or so, it was pretty common for touring sides to play local teams that were made up of up to twice as many players to help ease the difference in quality. You can see that Hampstead are pretty much a village side - their best bowler is also one of their best batsmen, for example. I'd expect the Thursday Club to be a good level outfit from some other part of the country on a tour in London.

Low score is explained by the low standard of play, batsmen, bats and pitch. Not all that weird. Missing info is because the card has been compiled from a match report, and wasn't properly scored.

Thanks. Just was wondering at the 20 guys making up one team.

The scorecard linked in your signature is hilarious as well!

The Home of CricketArchive

Greenwich Pensioners with One Arm v Greenwich Pensioners with One Leg

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Prior to 1900 or so, it was pretty common for touring sides to play local teams that were made up of up to twice as many players to help ease the difference in quality.

I was under the impression that the 22-man team only used 11 of them in the field at any given time, though?