100 Hundreds

[JBH001]

When did they upgrade Hobbs to 199? Every book I have ever read has the Master at 197

Yeah, so did I.

But apparently (or so I heard, correct me if I am wrong please) they dug up some old forgotten/lost records and found that Hobbs had scored another couple of centuries. Therefore 199 FC Centuries.

 

[JBH001]

Ah, I think I got it.
There is a discrepancy between the Wisden figures and the Cricinfo figures.
Wisden has it at 197, and Cricinfo has it at 199.

As to why? Not a clue.

 

[andyc]

Ponting is the best chance you'd think. Lehmann doesn't seem particularly close to retirement either... he was right up there in Pura Cup runscoring, and has another season with Yorkshire now. 2 or 3 more years and he could do it.

Lehmann's got another 25 to go, so it'd take him a few more seasons yet.

 

[James90]

None of them will get it. IMO it would have to be someone who played a hell of a lot of domestic cricket (England or India) and scored a lot of runs but never played many Tests due to better, in-form players being in the side and a few failures at 'A' team level. He would have to start playing from late teens to late thirties - 20 years, five tons a year?

Vinod Kambli fits that description pretty well but only has 35 FC hundreds.

 

[age_master]

yeah id back Ponting to get there next.

 

[Swervy]

Ah, I think I got it.
There is a discrepancy between the Wisden figures and the Cricinfo figures.
Wisden has it at 197, and Cricinfo has it at 199.

As to why? Not a clue.

I think that 2 of the hundreds out of the 199 are disputed due to the fact no-one seems to know whether those games were first class or not. I cant remember the full story on it though...will get back to to you on that one

 

[archie mac]

Ah, I think I got it.
There is a discrepancy between the Wisden figures and the Cricinfo figures.
Wisden has it at 197, and Cricinfo has it at 199.

As to why? Not a clue.

I hate when they do things like this, I remember for a long time they were disputing WG and they had him at 124 centuries, but now they seem to have gone back to 126?

 

[a massive zebra]

Here is your answer, Archie Mac, JBH001 and Swervy.

His total number of runs was recorded as 61,221 for many years until another innings was discovered and the figure became 61,237. Since then, two innings he played in South Africa have been ruled not to be first-class, and the generally accepted figure is 61,167. There is some dispute about his 1930-31 figures in India, and some historians, of who I am one, would add the 593 he scored in that season (although it is fair to say that Hobbs himself did not consider them as first-class). No matter, he is well ahead of all others, with or without those 593 runs. Similarly, his 197 (or 199 if the India tour is included) centuries far outshine all others. He himself is said to have much regretted not making it to 200, and if things had gone better for him, he would no doubt have done so - if, for example, he had not missed practically all the 1921 season, or if he had played a few more games against the universities.

 

[a massive zebra]

I hate when they do things like this, I remember for a long time they were disputing WG and they had him at 124 centuries, but now they seem to have gone back to 126?

I can explain this when I have time.

 

[Craig]

Here is your answer, Archie Mac, JBH001 and Swervy.

His total number of runs was recorded as 61,221 for many years until another innings was discovered and the figure became 61,237. Since then, two innings he played in South Africa have been ruled not to be first-class, and the generally accepted figure is 61,167. There is some dispute about his 1930-31 figures in India, and some historians, of who I am one, would add the 593 he scored in that season (although it is fair to say that Hobbs himself did not consider them as first-class). No matter, he is well ahead of all others, with or without those 593 runs. Similarly, his 197 (or 199 if the India tour is included) centuries far outshine all others. He himself is said to have much regretted not making it to 200, and if things had gone better for him, he would no doubt have done so - if, for example, he had not missed practically all the 1921 season, or if he had played a few more games against the universities.

That's quite remarkable even without missing a whole season, but that he did makes it even more extraordinary.

 

[Craig]

Some other names

SG Law 72
JL Langer 71
MG Bevan 68
BC Lara 61
SR Tendulkar 59

I'm a little bit surprised that Tendulkar and Lara have so few compared to Law, Langer, and Bevan.

As for Hobbs I believed he scored 98 FC 100's after his 40th birthday?

 

[archie mac]

Here is your answer, Archie Mac, JBH001 and Swervy.

His total number of runs was recorded as 61,221 for many years until another innings was discovered and the figure became 61,237. Since then, two innings he played in South Africa have been ruled not to be first-class, and the generally accepted figure is 61,167. There is some dispute about his 1930-31 figures in India, and some historians, of who I am one, would add the 593 he scored in that season (although it is fair to say that Hobbs himself did not consider them as first-class). No matter, he is well ahead of all others, with or without those 593 runs. Similarly, his 197 (or 199 if the India tour is included) centuries far outshine all others. He himself is said to have much regretted not making it to 200, and if things had gone better for him, he would no doubt have done so - if, for example, he had not missed practically all the 1921 season, or if he had played a few more games against the universities.

Thanks for that, I remember reading about that tour, I think Hobbs refused to play on Sundays?

It should also be remembered that Hobbs lost a number of seasons to WWl.

Here is a little known fact about the great man, he applied to migrate to Australia after the Great War

 

[a massive zebra]

It was the late Roy Webber who first suggested that the traditional first-class figures for W.G. Grace were, to some extent, suspect. When he did so, in 1961, he explained, in an article in Playfair Cricket Monthly, how the figures had been produced in the first place. It all goes back to the Lillywhite annual dealing with the 1873 season. Grace's figures for that season were impressive enough, but the compilers of Lillywhite thought it appropriate to include his performance in four matches of doubtful status, in order to boost his total of runs to a figure in excess of 2,000, and so to "give" him a season's double of 2,000 runs and 100 wickets, the first man to achieve this. When F.S. Ashley-Cooper, the renowned statistician, produced the "obituary" figures for Wisden 1916, he again included these figures, and went further. He remarked, magisterially, that it was an example of the "loose manner" in which statistics had been compiled in former days that, although Grace's batting figures in certain matches in 1873 had been included, his bowling in the same matches was ignored completely - and so he added these bowling figures to the total. It seems not to have occured to him to question the inclusion of any figures from these matches, and this is odd, since two of the fixtures in question were matches between the M.C.C. and Hertfordshire and Staffordshire, counties which have never at any time before or since been regarded as first-class. Moreover, the compilers in 1873 did not record the figures of anybody else who played in these matches in their first-class reckoning, so that we have the odd proposition that one man is playing in a first-class match on a particular day, whereas the 21 other players in the same match were engaged in a minor match. It's hard to understand how Ashley-Cooper, who was a real expert, could have countenanced this, and even harder to understand how he could then go on to include the parallel figures in 1872, as first-class - but he did.

The matches that have now been removed from Grace's career record, and in doing so brought his centuries down from 126 to 124, are:

M.C.C. v Staffordshire, 1872, 1873. M.C.C. v Hertfordshire, 1873.

There can, as I have said, be no argument about these games. Wisden has never rated either county as first-class, and the sides were not strengthened by the inclusion of players from first-class counties.

South v North, 1872, 1873.

In each year, a three day match arranged at the Oval finished on the second day, and a fill-up game was arranged for the entertainment of the crowd on the third day. These games were arranged to be played on one day only, which would be enough to determine their status as not first-class, and, again, only Grace's figures, and not those of the 21 other participants, were ever included in first-class career records.

Canadian XI v XIV of M.C.C., 1873.

An amateur team had toured Canada in 1872/73, and a match was arranged between this side, and the Gentlemen of England, at Lord's in July 1873. The Gentlemen were unable to raise a strong enough team, and a match against odds was substituted. Yet again, only Grace's figures were acknowledged as first-class at the time, and there must always be a presumption that a match against odds was not first class.

 

[a massive zebra]

Thanks for that, I remember reading about that tour, I think Hobbs refused to play on Sundays?

It should also be remembered that Hobbs lost a number of seasons to WWl.

Here is a little known fact about the great man, he applied to migrate to Australia after the Great War

Oh really, I never knew that. Was his application unsuccessful or was he pursuaded to stay?

 

[archie mac]

Oh really, I never knew that. Was his application unsuccessful or was he pursuaded to stay?

He wanted toe emigrate but his application to play for South Australia was turned down by the SACA

 

[JBH001]

Man, thats crazy - they turned down The (original) Master?!

They may have thought he was too old, perhaps?
More fool them I guess, as he would go on to score the majority of his runs after the Great War then before. And, of course, play a crucial part in returning The Ashes to England in 1926 with that opening stand of 161 on a sticky wicket at The Oval with Herbert Sutcliffe.

(In an aside, Mailey?/Grimmett? had Hobbs lbw for a duck in that inning but did not appeal as he thought the ball had pitched outside off stump, neither did Oldfield behind the stumps. The umpire Frank Chester later said that he would have given it out if the Aussies had only appealed!)

Btw, thanks for the stats and explanation Massive Zebra.
Hobbs could probably have scored a lot more, if he had wanted, but as Wilfred Rhodes once commented Hobbs often gave his wicket away after making a hundred, many times to a young bowler, so as to give someone else a chance!

 

[James90]

I would be stoked with hitting one century in any form of organised cricket before I die...puts things into perspective

 

[Craig]

He wanted toe emigrate but his application to play for South Australia was turned down by the SACA

Trust that by the SACA.

Although if he did come over there is no way he would have scored as many as he would have.

Incidently when did Hick get his 100th 100?

 

[pinchy81]

Incidently when did Hick get his 100th 100?

bout 2-3 years ago

 

[superkingdave]

bout 2-3 years ago

8 years ago in fact (1998)

anyway i brought this back up as Hick has just overtaken Sir Len Hutton to go 8th on the all time list with his 130th hundred.

Meanwhile Mark Ramprakash has notched his 83rd century (and his 4th in eight matches this year) as well as becoming the first person to 1000 runs this year.

At this rate he'll be on about 86/87 at the end of the year, 2/3 more years and he could do it. Surrey seem to be resting him for OD games now and then.