• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

New feature - Topping the Ton: Part One

chasingthedon

International Regular
When Aubrey Faulkner joined Tip Snooke at the crease during the first match of the 1912 Triangular Test tournament at Old Trafford, South Africa were down three wickets and still 406 runs in arrears, due largely to centuries from Charles Kelleway (114) and Warren Bardsley (121). When the South African innings ended, Faulkner was undefeated on 122 from a total of 265 and, after Syd Gregory enforced the follow on (and despite failing to trouble the scorer) Faulkner had created a piece of history of which neither he, nor any of the watching throng was aware. Yet it was a feat which no one would equal for almost 100 years...

Topping the ton: Part One | Cricket Web
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Bradmans record is suprising in that every few matches he'd choke and have a clanger. But then his 100s were so frequent and usually always big daddy ones his average didnt suffer. But no I'm not surprised he hasn't had 7 matches in a row where he topped 100 runs total
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
oh wait I just checked for Bradman and he had a span of 8 matches from '37 to '38 where he accumulated over 100 runs every single game. So does this discredit the article?
 

SeamUp

International Coach
oh wait I just checked for Bradman and he had a span of 8 matches from '37 to '38 where he accumulated over 100 runs every single game. So does this discredit the article?
Wasn't there an injury that broke the sequence as stated in the article ?
 

chasingthedon

International Regular
oh wait I just checked for Bradman and he had a span of 8 matches from '37 to '38 where he accumulated over 100 runs every single game. So does this discredit the article?
Wasn't there an injury that broke the sequence as stated in the article ?
As Seamup notes, it was mentioned in the article, and would have been nine, not eight - does that discredit your post?
 

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Great work. This is the type of article that I enjoy.

Were there any narrow misses? Say someone who got 7 out of 8 tests and the one they missed they scored say 85?
 

chasingthedon

International Regular
Great work. This is the type of article that I enjoy.

Were there any narrow misses? Say someone who got 7 out of 8 tests and the one they missed they scored say 85?
Cheers NUFAN. I did mention a few in the article, notably Viv Richards, also Tendulkar with scores of 92 and 95 in between a four-run and a three-run.
 

chasingthedon

International Regular
Who are the leading contenders from the countries who don't figure in those tables?
NZ:
John Wright the only one with four in a row.
Per-match:
83.14 Donnelly (only 7)
82.88 Williamson

ZIM:
Andy Flower the only one to knock up three in a row.
Per-match:
76.10 Flower

Already mentioned Monimul for BAN
 

chasingthedon

International Regular
Wow sensitive


I didn't know it had to be an unbroken set of tests most records don't require that rule
Sorry, that was a little petulant and, I would like to think, uncharacteristic of me. There's a tendency in general for people to too readily dismiss any issue for discussion rather than discuss its relative merits (healthcare in the States being a high-profile example), as it makes life easier - nothing is typically 100% right or 100% wrong, but if we can dismiss a topic based on some minor grievance we tend to do so, as it's one less thing to worry about. Not saying my feature is on that level, but I think the generalisation holds, and I have been victim of that mindset on more than one occasion.

But to your point, as I said I did discuss Bradman's specific case in the feature. In his case though, because he a) played in the match, b) his side was "all out" in both innings and c) he didn't score, I decided it should be included, because it was unbroken runs of Tests I was looking for.
 

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Cheers NUFAN. I did mention a few in the article, notably Viv Richards, also Tendulkar with scores of 92 and 95 in between a four-run and a three-run.
Not sure how I missed Sachin as I read the part about Viv. What number in the order was Faulkner throughout his streak? I'd have assumed a top 4 bat would dominate this record so he is a surprising name.

Curious to see what part 2 is.
 

chasingthedon

International Regular
Alternated between three and five (hehe, see above).

I did give it away at the end actually - part two will look at those who top-scored in Tests.
 

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
I swear I read most of the article before commenting haha.

Cheers for providing the batting position. In drafts does anyone ever bat Forkers up at 3? I always see him at around 6.
 

AndrewB

International Vice-Captain
I put him at 3 once, and was asked why I had him so high up the order. To be fair, I had Worrell, Root and Waugh batting below him.
 
Last edited:

chasingthedon

International Regular
I put him at 3 once, and was asked why I had him so high up the order. To be fair, I had Worrell, Root and Waugh batting below him.
He's certainly under-rated IMO and not often mentioned when the great all-rounders are discussed, but in my impact study he was a colossus. Have a look at this match for example:-

1st Test: South Africa v England at Johannesburg, Jan 1-5, 1910 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

No wonder they carried him round the ground at the end!
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Sorry, that was a little petulant and, I would like to think, uncharacteristic of me. There's a tendency in general for people to too readily dismiss any issue for discussion rather than discuss its relative merits (healthcare in the States being a high-profile example), as it makes life easier - nothing is typically 100% right or 100% wrong, but if we can dismiss a topic based on some minor grievance we tend to do so, as it's one less thing to worry about. Not saying my feature is on that level, but I think the generalisation holds, and I have been victim of that mindset on more than one occasion.

But to your point, as I said I did discuss Bradman's specific case in the feature. In his case though, because he a) played in the match, b) his side was "all out" in both innings and c) he didn't score, I decided it should be included, because it was unbroken runs of Tests I was looking for.
ah okay, all good. i wasn't dismissive I actually read most of the article I must have just skim read the Bradman part and then i went off to do some independent research

but yeah nvm then if he played in the match we are talking about. I assumed 2 DNBs in a row on Bradman's cricinfo innings list meant he missed the entire match, didn't open up the scorecard to see he was actually on the team sheet. now i think about it there'd be no point in featuring the match on his innings list if he wasn't in the XI...


anyhow it's a cool little stat because it allows players other than Bradman to stand up and make a claim to be the best at something related to batting (not including records he had no chance of holding forever like most 100s and most runs)
 
Last edited:

Top