Is this a record partnership?

[Craig]

Matt Hornes and Aaron Barnes' partnership of 337 for the 5th wicket v Northern Districts. Horne scored 209* and a century in each innings and Banres scored 134*.

The match ended in a draw after Northern fell 8 runs short and Auckland fell 2 wickets short of a win.

Is this a record partnership?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Not even close!
464* - ME Waugh & SR Waugh, NSW v WA, Perth, 1990-91
405 - SG Barnes & DG Bradman, Aus v Eng, Sydney, 1946-47
401 - MB Loye & D Ripley, Nor v Glam, Northampton, 1998
397 - W Bardsley & C Kelleway, NSW v SA, Sydney, 1920-21
393 - EG Arnold & WB Burns, Worc v Wark, Birmingham, 1909
391 - A Malhotra & S Dogra, Delhi v Services, Delhi, 1995-96
385 - SR Waugh & GS Blewett, Aus v RSA, Jo'burg, 1996-97
381 - R Nayyar & V Sehwag, N.Zone v S.Zone, Agartala, 1999-00
377* - GP Thorpe & MR Ramprakash, Eng v SA, Adelaide, 1998-99
376 - VVS Laxman & R Dravid, Ind v Aus, Kolkata, 2000-01

 

[Craig]

Well probably a NZ record partnership for the 5th wicket then?

 

[Jono]

464* - ME Waugh & SR Waugh, NSW v WA, Perth, 1990-91

I can only imagine the headlines for that.

 

[Richard]

Nowhere near as big as them after the Sabina Park one of about 1\2 the size.
And but for whoever the wicketkeeper was in that match (someone told me it was Browne, someone told me it was Murray) dropping Waugh earlyish, none of that would have happened.

 

[Swervy]

Nowhere near as big as them after the Sabina Park one of about 1\2 the size.
And but for whoever the wicketkeeper was in that match (someone told me it was Browne, someone told me it was Murray) dropping Waugh earlyish, none of that would have happened.

but it did...so there you go

 

[Richard]

What has the fact that it did got to do with what I just said?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Nowhere near as big as them after the Sabina Park one of about 1\2 the size.
And but for whoever the wicketkeeper was in that match (someone told me it was Browne, someone told me it was Murray) dropping Waugh earlyish, none of that would have happened.

Considering that Murray didn't play in that match and Browne did...

 

[Richard]

Yeh - couldn't remember and couldn't be bothered to go and look. Far easier to just wait until you reminded me.

 

[Swervy]

What has the fact that it did got to do with what I just said?

i mean, who gives a **** that someone was dropped early on, the fact of the matter is that the runs were put on the board

 

[Richard]

The fact is, cricket gives a f*ck.
Cricket is not concerned merely with what happened in the scorebook and the result of the game, it is concerned with who played well and who didn't.
If someone was dropped, clearly he wouldn't have had the runs next to his name if he hadn't been dropped.

 

[Swervy]

The fact is, cricket gives a f*ck.
Cricket is not concerned merely with what happened in the scorebook and the result of the game, it is concerned with who played well and who didn't.
If someone was dropped, clearly he wouldn't have had the runs next to his name if he hadn't been dropped.

well they obviously played well.....

 

[Richard]

Depends on when the dropped catch was as to how well they played.
Like it or not, but for it some part of the innings would not have happened.

 

[Swervy]

Depends on when the dropped catch was as to how well they played.
Like it or not, but for it some part of the innings would not have happened.

I dont care whether a player gets dropped first ball or when he is on 250, you still need to bat well to get the runs on the board.

I am afraid luck is a part of the game..as is bad fielding...everyone gets dropped occasionally, maybe some more than others, but on the whole everything evens its self out. I just dont think you can say such and such an innings or partnership isnt really worth the credit coz such and such was dropped when he was on 3 or something..thats cricket.

Some players take more risks (sometimes they are will to take even more risks if they see a fielding team cant catch a cold)...some times it comes off, some times it doesnt..that doesnt mean they dont deserve success.

The game isnt ruled by the first chance averages (I would still like to see some of these),and a great cricketer now will not be remembered in 100 years time for his first chance average..he will be remembered for what actually is in the scorebook and how he played when he was batting.

Dropped catches happen....but just as important is how a batsman deals with his innings after he has given a chance ( a chance being a purely subjective thing anyway).

When you watch a cricket match,and a batsman scores a 100, full of beautiful commanding shots all over the place, but he was dropped first ball, do you completely dismiss the innings, or just not enjoy it.

Richard, I just dont understand how you get enjoyment out of the game, because you might as well play a computer game fom what i see...you dont see the human side of it, or the luck element as being fundamental to the game...where is the enjoyment.

In a strange way I respect some of the things you say (I dont always agree, but you do provoke thought), I just want to get to the bottom of how you view this game

 

[Richard]

I dont care whether a player gets dropped first ball or when he is on 250, you still need to bat well to get the runs on the board.

I do care. I know you still need to bat well to score 250 without giving a chance - but if you do score 250 after being dropped 1st ball the fact is, but for the dropped catch you wouldn't have had the chance to bat as well as you did.

I am afraid luck is a part of the game..as is bad fielding...everyone gets dropped occasionally, maybe some more than others, but on the whole everything evens its self out. I just dont think you can say such and such an innings or partnership isnt really worth the credit coz such and such was dropped when he was on 3 or something..thats cricket.

I can, believe me. It's just like saying someone deserves credit for something that didn't happen because if a caught catch had been dropped it would have happened.
Meanwhile, rest assured, very, very rarely does everything get evened-out.

Some players take more risks (sometimes they are will to take even more risks if they see a fielding team cant catch a cold)...some times it comes off, some times it doesnt..that doesnt mean they dont deserve success.

Very, very dicey.
Nothing to suggest that if you ask me.
I am concerned with the success of a batsman due to how well he has played. Not whether the fielders have helped him.

The game isnt ruled by the first chance averages (I would still like to see some of these),and a great cricketer now will not be remembered in 100 years time for his first chance average..he will be remembered for what actually is in the scorebook and how he played when he was batting.

Fortunately dropped catches have only reached the epidemic proportions they are at now in recent years.
Hopefully they will soon abate again, and less lucky players will be perceived as good.

Dropped catches happen....but just as important is how a batsman deals with his innings after he has given a chance ( a chance being a purely subjective thing anyway).

When you watch a cricket match,and a batsman scores a 100, full of beautiful commanding shots all over the place, but he was dropped first ball, do you completely dismiss the innings, or just not enjoy it.

I just think "but for that dropped catch that wouldn't have happened".
There is rarely disagreement over what constitutes a chance, meanwhile.
A batsman doesn't deserve any credit for a let-off, meanwhile, so how he "deals with it" isn't in my view anything significant.

Richard, I just dont understand how you get enjoyment out of the game, because you might as well play a computer game fom what i see...you dont see the human side of it, or the luck element as being fundamental to the game...where is the enjoyment.

In a strange way I respect some of the things you say (I dont always agree, but you do provoke thought), I just want to get to the bottom of how you view this game

I enjoy what I enjoy - as I discussed in another thread, I can't explain why I enjoy what I enjoy. It's just idiosyncratic.

 

[Swervy]

I do care. I know you still need to bat well to score 250 without giving a chance - but if you do score 250 after being dropped 1st ball the fact is, but for the dropped catch you wouldn't have had the chance to bat as well as you did.

I can, believe me. It's just like saying someone deserves credit for something that didn't happen because if a caught catch had been dropped it would have happened.
Meanwhile, rest assured, very, very rarely does everything get evened-out.

Very, very dicey.
Nothing to suggest that if you ask me.
I am concerned with the success of a batsman due to how well he has played. Not whether the fielders have helped him.

Fortunately dropped catches have only reached the epidemic proportions they are at now in recent years.
Hopefully they will soon abate again, and less lucky players will be perceived as good.

I just think "but for that dropped catch that wouldn't have happened".
There is rarely disagreement over what constitutes a chance, meanwhile.
A batsman doesn't deserve any credit for a let-off, meanwhile, so how he "deals with it" isn't in my view anything significant.

I enjoy what I enjoy - as I discussed in another thread, I can't explain why I enjoy what I enjoy. It's just idiosyncratic.

'very rarely things get evened out'..hows that then...does cricket defy all laws of probabilty then...some days you get dropped, other days you get bowled by a ball that just rolled along the ground at 90 mph....nowt you can do about it, or other days a fielder might pluck the ball out of thin air to get you out, these things happen to every player in the world,always have , always will.Over a period of time you will have lucky days, you will have unlucky days

And I dont think dropped catches are that much greater in number compared to previous times, you just get to see it more on TV etc...these are players that compared to even 20 years ago are light years ahead in fielding...i just dont know where you have got that from

And there is rarely disagreement over what a chance is because really is doesnt matter...what matters is what happens until and including when you get out...but your view on what a chance is may well be different to what mine is,may well me different to what Geoff boycotts is..and so on.

 

[Richard]

'very rarely things get evened out'..hows that then...does cricket defy all laws of probabilty then...some days you get dropped, other days you get bowled by a ball that just rolled along the ground at 90 mph....nowt you can do about it, or other days a fielder might pluck the ball out of thin air to get you out, these things happen to every player in the world,always have , always will.Over a period of time you will have lucky days, you will have unlucky days

Misdefinition of "luck". Luck is simply dropped-catches, missed-stumpings and bad Umpiring-decisions in your favour. Bad luck is basically Umpiring decisions against you and run-outs which are not your fault. Yes, you get lucky catches and RUDs - but you simply have to remember them, and take an average in context.

And I dont think dropped catches are that much greater in number compared to previous times, you just get to see it more on TV etc...these are players that compared to even 20 years ago are light years ahead in fielding...i just dont know where you have got that from

If you've researched the matter (as I have) you'll find that catching in general was better not too long ago. Ground fielding might be far better now than 20 years ago, but catching and stumping in general are now worse. However, we can't judge on Umpiring, of course.

And there is rarely disagreement over what a chance is because really is doesnt matter...what matters is what happens until and including when you get out...but your view on what a chance is may well be different to what mine is,may well me different to what Geoff boycotts is..and so on.

Rubbish. Everyone will know what should have been caught and what shouldn't have been, when you actually get them to think about it.
Trouble is, hardly anyone ever does.

 

[Swervy]

If you've researched the matter (as I have) you'll find that catching in general was better not too long ago. Ground fielding might be far better now than 20 years ago, but catching and stumping in general are now worse. However, we can't judge on Umpiring, of course.

Please quote me the reference material you have used to find out if there are more dropped catches now than say 40 years ago

 

[Richard]

I cannot possibly list every single newspaper I have used.
Nor can I identify every source of article. Sometimes these things weren't recorded in those days.

 

[Swervy]

I cannot possibly list every single newspaper I have used.
Nor can I identify every source of article. Sometimes these things weren't recorded in those days.

so your sources are generally based on anecdotal evidence of games say 30, 40, 50 years ago.....could they not be open to exaggeration as well (with reference to your comment that people exaggerate the past, from about a week or so back).

Do you have good hard statistical data to back up such as claim?