Wilfred Rhodes vs Monte Noble

[stephen]

Well multiple editions of Wisden itself and Keith Booth's biography all say 1691.1. I suspect a typo in Wisden book of Cricket Records, but as Starfighter said, there isn't a lot of point arguing over 5 balls.

Honestly that depends on which five balls you're taking about.

 

[AndrewB]

Must have been recalculated rather than a typo, as 1690.1 is given in various sources (including Wisden 2012).

 

[a massive zebra]

Must have been recalculated rather than a typo, as 1690.1 is given in various sources (including Wisden 2012).

Don't think so, as 1691.1 is given in multiple sources across a wide span of time. To give just a couple of examples...

Tom Richardson: A Bowler Pure and Simple by Keith Booth, published in 2012:

Wisden Cricketers Almanack 1938, records section:

 

[AndrewB]

Curiouser and curiouser... all the books I have which mention it give 1690.1, e.g. this from The Hamlyn A-Z of Cricket Records (from 1983), giving the leading bowlers in 1895:



Plus various Wisdens betwen 1988 and 2012, and the Guinness Book of Cricket Facts and Feats.

 

[a massive zebra]

Interesting, how weird!

 

[Magrat Garlick]

hobbs' 197 centuries but worse

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Can someone give me a link to buy those books , thank you

 

[the big bambino]

Tate isn't, bowled off a six step run up with the keeper up to the stumps.

Saw Harmison on his first tour here bowl off about 4-6 paces after he lost his run up. Still got it mid 140s. Dick Lilley stood up to Richardson until advised by Grace to stand back.

 

[a massive zebra]

hobbs' 197 centuries but worse

The reasons for the discrepancy on Hobbs century count are well known though. Towards the end of his career, Hobbs went on a tour of India which at the time was not considered first class. He later retired with the then widely accepted tally of 197 centuries. Towards the end of the 20th century, the Association of Cricket Statisticians decided to upgrade this India tour to first class status. As Hobbs made two centuries on the tour, his centuries tally was therefore bumped up from 197 to the now widely accepted figure of 199. However, a few sources still stick with the old numbers, partly due to tradition and/or using old sources, but also because this tour was not considered first class at the time it was actually played.

I don't think Andrew or myself have any idea why there is an inconsistency in the reporting of Tom Richardson's overs count in the 1895 season.