As windies put us in the wicket must be a bit more lively and we sure
dont look happy against any of them. Supposedly Mayers is only
medium pace, well he looks a little quicker than Darren stevens,
but our batters do struggle against leftys. 46-3 at lunch: will we still be
batting at the close?

mike

On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 09:29:49 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>As windies put us in the wicket must be a bit more lively and we sure
>dont look happy against any of them. Supposedly Mayers is only
>medium pace, well he looks a little quicker than Darren stevens,
>but our batters do struggle against leftys. 46-3 at lunch: will we still be
>batting at the close?
>
>mike

7 runs and 3 wickets later and it looks like it could be all out by
tea.

max.it

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 5:10:13 PM UTC, max.it wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 09:29:49 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >As windies put us in the wicket must be a bit more lively and we sure
> >dont look happy against any of them. Supposedly Mayers is only
> >medium pace, well he looks a little quicker than Darren stevens,
> >but our batters do struggle against leftys. 46-3 at lunch: will we still be
> >batting at the close?
> >
> >mike
> 7 runs and 3 wickets later and it looks like it could be all out by
> tea.

well you were nearly right! unlucky for mahmood - this was his best chance
for a 50 or even a 100, he played pretty well for a no11, as did leach - great
drive for 4 off holder.

The pitch was lively when the ball was new, but really a typical spring wkt in
england, surely nothing our batters hadnt experienced before? It was sort
of dejavu from the ashes; green wicket, moving ball = england collapse.

mike

In message <9ab940a3-2204-416a-8e18-26aba4473e86n@googlegroups.com>,
mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 5:10:13 PM UTC, max.it wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 09:29:49 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>> >As windies put us in the wicket must be a bit more lively and we sure
>> >dont look happy against any of them. Supposedly Mayers is only
>> >medium pace, well he looks a little quicker than Darren stevens,
>> >but our batters do struggle against leftys. 46-3 at lunch: will we still be
>> >batting at the close?
>> >
>> >mike
>> 7 runs and 3 wickets later and it looks like it could be all out by
>> tea.
>
>well you were nearly right! unlucky for mahmood - this was his best chance
>for a 50 or even a 100, he played pretty well for a no11, as did leach - great
>drive for 4 off holder.
>
>The pitch was lively when the ball was new, but really a typical spring wkt in
>england, surely nothing our batters hadnt experienced before? It was sort
>of dejavu from the ashes; green wicket, moving ball = england collapse.

It was a bizarre day. It can't often have happened that the two highest
scorers in a Test innings were numbers 10 and 11, or that number 11
top-scored.

As I had to be out this afternoon, I missed watching the first half of
the day, but that was definitely the right half to miss if one was an
England fan.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:10:48 +0000, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <9ab940a3-2204-416a-8e18-26aba4473e86n@googlegroups.com>,
>mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 5:10:13 PM UTC, max.it wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 09:29:49 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>> >As windies put us in the wicket must be a bit more lively and we sure
>>> >dont look happy against any of them. Supposedly Mayers is only
>>> >medium pace, well he looks a little quicker than Darren stevens,
>>> >but our batters do struggle against leftys. 46-3 at lunch: will we still be
>>> >batting at the close?
>>> >
>>> >mike
>>> 7 runs and 3 wickets later and it looks like it could be all out by
>>> tea.
>>
>>well you were nearly right! unlucky for mahmood - this was his best chance
>>for a 50 or even a 100, he played pretty well for a no11, as did leach - great
>>drive for 4 off holder.
>>
>>The pitch was lively when the ball was new, but really a typical spring wkt in
>>england, surely nothing our batters hadnt experienced before? It was sort
>>of dejavu from the ashes; green wicket, moving ball = england collapse.
>
>It was a bizarre day. It can't often have happened that the two highest
>scorers in a Test innings were numbers 10 and 11, or that number 11
>top-scored.

If Mahmood hadn't been out, he'd currently be equalling the England
record for a no 11 playing his first Test innings, which is held by
Andy Caddick at 49*.

Cheers,

Mike
>As I had to be out this afternoon, I missed watching the first half of
>the day, but that was definitely the right half to miss if one was an
>England fan.

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 10:23:34 PM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:

> If Mahmood hadn't been out, he'd currently be equalling the England
> record for a no 11 playing his first Test innings, which is held by
> Andy Caddick at 49*.

Highest post-war 10th wicket partnership away from home.

Richard

On 24/03/2022 22:10, John Hall wrote:
> It was a bizarre day. It can't often have happened that the two highest
> scorers in a Test innings were numbers 10 and 11,

It was mentioned on BT Sport that it is only the 2nd time in Test
history. The first was at Sydney in 1884/85 (Tom Garrett 51* and Edwin
Evans 33 for Australia).

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/england-tour-of-australia-1884-85-61734/australia-vs-england-3rd-test-62414/full-scorecard

> or that number 11
> top-scored.

12th time for that, 7 of which have been in the last 20 years. The first
was also in the 1884/85 series, by Frederick Spofforth, who had been
demoted to #11 following the Garrett/Evans partnership.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/283162.html

--
David North

In message <snrp3hp2acvmhu4i2uicm0t6lv0s7bvf6m@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
<spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>If Mahmood hadn't been out, he'd currently be equalling the England
>record for a no 11 playing his first Test innings, which is held by
>Andy Caddick at 49*.

I'm surprised that I'[ve forgotten Andy Caddick's innings, as it must
have been pretty memorable. I'd still have been working back then, so I
may not have seen it.

I suspect that, if Mahmood hadn't been so eager to reach his 50 by close
of play, he would still be there.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

In message <2e4e1569-e9d8-49ea-b5cb-01b3922fd014n@googlegroups.com>,
Richard Dixon <richsdixon1975@gmail.com> writes
>On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 10:23:34 PM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
>
>> If Mahmood hadn't been out, he'd currently be equalling the England
>> record for a no 11 playing his first Test innings, which is held by
>> Andy Caddick at 49*.
>
>Highest post-war 10th wicket partnership away from home.
>
>Richard

It's a remarkable achievement. I still well remember the highest England
10th wicket partnership at home: Higgs and Snow - neither of whom had
previously shown any signs of batting ability - adding 128 against WI at
the Oval in 1966. And that was against an attack of Hall, Griffith,
Sobers, Gibbs and Holford. Of course Graveney and John Murray had
already done a lot of the heavy lifting, and WI had already won the
series and were probably suffering from final-Test syndrome.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

In message <ja56e0Fd0k0U1@mid.individual.net>, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>On 24/03/2022 22:10, John Hall wrote:
>> It was a bizarre day. It can't often have happened that the two
>>highest scorers in a Test innings were numbers 10 and 11,
>
>It was mentioned on BT Sport that it is only the 2nd time in Test
>history. The first was at Sydney in 1884/85 (Tom Garrett 51* and Edwin
>Evans 33 for Australia).
>
>https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/england-tour-of-australia-1884-85-61
>734/australia-vs-england-3rd-test-62414/full-scorecard

I see that Australia won that match by 6 runs. Let's hope it's an omen.

>
>> or that number 11 top-scored.
>
>12th time for that, 7 of which have been in the last 20 years.

The recent up-tick is surprising, though I suppose partly accounted for
by the increased number of Tests per year in modern times.

> The first was also in the 1884/85 series, by Frederick Spofforth, who
>had been demoted to #11 following the Garrett/Evans partnership.
>
>https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/283162.html
>

Thanks. I see that Nathan Lyon managed it when scoring only 14!
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 8:56:42 AM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> In message <2e4e1569-e9d8-49ea...@googlegroups.com>,
> Richard Dixon <richsdi...@gmail.com> writes
> >On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 10:23:34 PM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> >
> >> If Mahmood hadn't been out, he'd currently be equalling the England
> >> record for a no 11 playing his first Test innings, which is held by
> >> Andy Caddick at 49*.
> >
> >Highest post-war 10th wicket partnership away from home.
> >
> >Richard
> It's a remarkable achievement. I still well remember the highest England
> 10th wicket partnership at home: Higgs and Snow - neither of whom had
> previously shown any signs of batting ability - adding 128 against WI at
> the Oval in 1966. And that was against an attack of Hall, Griffith,
> Sobers, Gibbs and Holford. Of course Graveney and John Murray had
> already done a lot of the heavy lifting, and WI had already won the
> series and were probably suffering from final-Test syndrome.
> --
> John Hall
> "Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
> But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
> Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

I watched the entire Test. Snow had a reputation for having batting talent but not bothering to use it.. He averaged 13 in Tests and Higgs 11. Not only did both players look very comfortable they scored quickly.

The Test had several other interesting features of the game . Tom Graveney and Murray dig England out of a hole with centuries - Murray matched Graneney for elegance in that innings.

In the West Indies second innings Brian Close made an astonishing catch off Sobers. Close was fielding a few yards from the bat square on the leg side. The ball was dropped short and Sobers hooked vigorously but only succeeded in gently lobbing a catch to Close who had not moved. Any other fielder would have taken evasive action and missed the catch. .

There was also an astonishing throw by Hall. The pitch was pretty much in the centre of the square. Hall chased a ball driven towards what is now the Bedser stand . He caught the ball just inside the boundary turned and sent a throw which went over the the Windies keeper and pitched at least 30 yards past the wicket . The throw must have been well over 100 yards. RH

In message <Z$uynXBjGYPiFwLj@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> writes
>In message <2e4e1569-e9d8-49ea-b5cb-01b3922fd014n@googlegroups.com>,
>Richard Dixon <richsdixon1975@gmail.com> writes
>>On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 10:23:34 PM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>
>>> If Mahmood hadn't been out, he'd currently be equalling the England
>>> record for a no 11 playing his first Test innings, which is held by
>>> Andy Caddick at 49*.
>>
>>Highest post-war 10th wicket partnership away from home.
>>
>>Richard
>
>It's a remarkable achievement. I still well remember the highest
>England 10th wicket partnership at home: Higgs and Snow - neither of
>whom had previously shown any signs of batting ability - adding 128
>against WI at the Oval in 1966. And that was against an attack of Hall,
>Griffith, Sobers, Gibbs and Holford. Of course Graveney and John Murray
>had already done a lot of the heavy lifting, and WI had already won the
>series and were probably suffering from final-Test syndrome.

When I said Higgs and Snow's partnership was the highest at home, I
somehow overlooked Root and Anderson's 198 against India in 2014. Of
course, that's a bit recent for me to remember it clearly. :)
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On 2022-03-24, John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <9ab940a3-2204-416a-8e18-26aba4473e86n@googlegroups.com>,
> mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 5:10:13 PM UTC, max.it wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 09:29:49 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>> >As windies put us in the wicket must be a bit more lively and we sure
>>> >dont look happy against any of them. Supposedly Mayers is only
>>> >medium pace, well he looks a little quicker than Darren stevens,
>>> >but our batters do struggle against leftys. 46-3 at lunch: will we still be
>>> >batting at the close?
>>> >
>>> >mike
>>> 7 runs and 3 wickets later and it looks like it could be all out by
>>> tea.
>>
>>well you were nearly right! unlucky for mahmood - this was his best chance
>>for a 50 or even a 100, he played pretty well for a no11, as did leach - great
>>drive for 4 off holder.
>>
>>The pitch was lively when the ball was new, but really a typical spring wkt in
>>england, surely nothing our batters hadnt experienced before? It was sort
>>of dejavu from the ashes; green wicket, moving ball = england collapse.
>
> It was a bizarre day. It can't often have happened that the two highest
> scorers in a Test innings were numbers 10 and 11, or that number 11
> top-scored.
>

unusual to use eight bowlers in such a low-scoring innings I reckon

On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 22:23:34 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:10:48 +0000, John Hall
> <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In message <9ab940a3-2204-416a...@googlegroups.com>,
> >mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> >>On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 5:10:13 PM UTC, max.it wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 09:29:49 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >As windies put us in the wicket must be a bit more lively and we sure
> >>> >dont look happy against any of them. Supposedly Mayers is only
> >>> >medium pace, well he looks a little quicker than Darren stevens,
> >>> >but our batters do struggle against leftys. 46-3 at lunch: will we still be
> >>> >batting at the close?
> >>> >
> >>> >mike
> >>> 7 runs and 3 wickets later and it looks like it could be all out by
> >>> tea.
> >>
> >>well you were nearly right! unlucky for mahmood - this was his best chance
> >>for a 50 or even a 100, he played pretty well for a no11, as did leach - great
> >>drive for 4 off holder.
> >>
> >>The pitch was lively when the ball was new, but really a typical spring wkt in
> >>england, surely nothing our batters hadnt experienced before? It was sort
> >>of dejavu from the ashes; green wicket, moving ball = england collapse.
> >
> >It was a bizarre day. It can't often have happened that the two highest
> >scorers in a Test innings were numbers 10 and 11, or that number 11
> >top-scored.
> If Mahmood hadn't been out, he'd currently be equalling the England
> record for a no 11 playing his first Test innings, which is held by
> Andy Caddick at 49*.

That would be his first Test innings *at #11* (Edgbaston 2001), but his 46th Test innings overall. He put on 103 with Alec Stewart.

So Mahmood presumably has the record for an England #11 in his first Test innings.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 07:00:49 -0700 (PDT), David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 22:23:34 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:

>> If Mahmood hadn't been out, he'd currently be equalling the England
>> record for a no 11 playing his first Test innings, which is held by
>> Andy Caddick at 49*.
>
>That would be his first Test innings *at #11* (Edgbaston 2001), but his 46th Test innings overall. He put on 103 with Alec Stewart.
>
>So Mahmood presumably has the record for an England #11 in his first Test innings.

Thanks for the correction; I misspecified my parameters when
consulting my stats thing.

Certainly no-one has made more than 49 for England in their first
innings at 11, whether or not it was their first Test innings. Only
Agar's recent 98 and a 54 by Pat Symcox for SA exceed it worldwide.

Cheers,

Mike

On 25/03/2022 11:08, John Hall wrote:
> In message <Z$uynXBjGYPiFwLj@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
> <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> writes
>> In message <2e4e1569-e9d8-49ea-b5cb-01b3922fd014n@googlegroups.com>,
>> Richard Dixon <richsdixon1975@gmail.com> writes
>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 10:23:34 PM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>>
>>>> If Mahmood hadn't been out, he'd currently be equalling the England
>>>> record for a no 11 playing his first Test innings, which is held by
>>>> Andy Caddick at 49*.
>>>
>>> Highest post-war 10th wicket partnership away from home.
>>>
>>> Richard
>>
>> It's a remarkable achievement. I still well remember the highest
>> England 10th wicket partnership at home: Higgs and Snow - neither of
>> whom had previously shown any signs of batting ability - adding 128
>> against WI at the Oval in 1966. And that was against an attack of
>> Hall, Griffith, Sobers, Gibbs and Holford. Of course Graveney and John
>> Murray had already done a lot of the heavy lifting, and WI had already
>> won the series and were probably suffering from final-Test syndrome.
>
> When I said Higgs and Snow's partnership was the highest at home, I
> somehow overlooked Root and Anderson's 198 against India in 2014. Of
> course, that's a bit recent for me to remember it clearly. :)

Didn't Snow begin his career as a batsman? I have a vague memory of him
opening the batting for Sussex in JPL matches after his international
career had finished.
Steve Hague

On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 8:46:42 AM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> In message <snrp3hp2acvmhu4i2...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
> <sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
> >If Mahmood hadn't been out, he'd currently be equalling the England
> >record for a no 11 playing his first Test innings, which is held by
> >Andy Caddick at 49*.
> I'm surprised that I'[ve forgotten Andy Caddick's innings, as it must
> have been pretty memorable. I'd still have been working back then, so I
> may not have seen it.
>

i think it was the ashes 2001 when i think many [well i did] thought we
might have a chance at the ashes. but i think we lost most of the top
order to injuries, and roped in a few misfits from the counties, collapsed
and then stewart and caddick of all people thrashed the bowling to all
parts for an hour or 2 in a last wkt stand. that was the hipoint of that
match, as the oz openers then gave our bowlers a terrific beating
including caddick in particular and the inevitable heavy defeat followed.

but back to grenada: rubbish opening hour by england, then a fight back,
again mahmood proving his worth and then a surprise, woakes has
presumably his best ever spell abroad [i think he once took 6 in a odi],
and stokes returns from the injury bench [ i thought he might not bowl
again when he took a wkt and immediately departed]. However can
england finish off the tailenders? will windies embarrass them like
leach etc yesterday? But unless theres a russian missile strike, i think
this looks like a result pitch. beautiful setting this ground.

mike

On 25/03/2022 14:00, David North wrote:
> On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 22:23:34 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:10:48 +0000, John Hall
>> <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <9ab940a3-2204-416a...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 5:10:13 PM UTC, max.it wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 09:29:49 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> As windies put us in the wicket must be a bit more lively and we sure
>>>>>> dont look happy against any of them. Supposedly Mayers is only
>>>>>> medium pace, well he looks a little quicker than Darren stevens,
>>>>>> but our batters do struggle against leftys. 46-3 at lunch: will we still be
>>>>>> batting at the close?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mike
>>>>> 7 runs and 3 wickets later and it looks like it could be all out by
>>>>> tea.
>>>>
>>>> well you were nearly right! unlucky for mahmood - this was his best chance
>>>> for a 50 or even a 100, he played pretty well for a no11, as did leach - great
>>>> drive for 4 off holder.
>>>>
>>>> The pitch was lively when the ball was new, but really a typical spring wkt in
>>>> england, surely nothing our batters hadnt experienced before? It was sort
>>>> of dejavu from the ashes; green wicket, moving ball = england collapse.
>>>
>>> It was a bizarre day. It can't often have happened that the two highest
>>> scorers in a Test innings were numbers 10 and 11, or that number 11
>>> top-scored.
>> If Mahmood hadn't been out, he'd currently be equalling the England
>> record for a no 11 playing his first Test innings, which is held by
>> Andy Caddick at 49*.
>
> That would be his first Test innings *at #11* (Edgbaston 2001), but his 46th Test innings overall.

Correction: his 69th innings, in his 46th Test.

--
David North

In message <t1ksif$1klm$1@gioia.aioe.org>, steve hague
<stevehague82@gmail.com> writes
>On 25/03/2022 11:08, John Hall wrote:
>> In message <Z$uynXBjGYPiFwLj@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
>><john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> writes
>>> In message <2e4e1569-e9d8-49ea-b5cb-01b3922fd014n@googlegroups.com>,
>>>Richard Dixon <richsdixon1975@gmail.com> writes
>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 10:23:34 PM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If Mahmood hadn't been out, he'd currently be equalling the England
>>>>> record for a no 11 playing his first Test innings, which is held by
>>>>> Andy Caddick at 49*.
>>>>
>>>> Highest post-war 10th wicket partnership away from home.
>>>>
>>>> Richard
>>>
>>> It's a remarkable achievement. I still well remember the highest
>>>England 10th wicket partnership at home: Higgs and Snow - neither of
>>>whom had previously shown any signs of batting ability - adding 128
>>>against WI at the Oval in 1966. And that was against an attack of
>>>Hall, Griffith, Sobers, Gibbs and Holford. Of course Graveney and
>>>John Murray had already done a lot of the heavy lifting, and WI had
>>>already won the series and were probably suffering from final-Test syndrome.
>> When I said Higgs and Snow's partnership was the highest at home, I
>>somehow overlooked Root and Anderson's 198 against India in 2014. Of
>>course, that's a bit recent for me to remember it clearly. :)
>
>Didn't Snow begin his career as a batsman? I have a vague memory of him
>opening the batting for Sussex in JPL matches after his international
>career had finished.
>Steve Hague

In his first f-c match for Sussex in 1961, he batted at number 9 in both
innings. IOn his last JPL match for Sussex, in 1977, he batted at number
8. He returned for one JPL season (and one Gillette Cup match) with
Warwickshire in 1980, after not playing in the previous two seasons. For
them he seems to have batted at 7 or 8. His batting averages were Tests
13.54, ODIs 4.50, F-C 14.17, Limited overs 12.86.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On 25/03/2022 19:05, John Hall wrote:
> In message <t1ksif$1klm$1@gioia.aioe.org>, steve hague
> <stevehague82@gmail.com> writes
>> On 25/03/2022 11:08, John Hall wrote:
>>> In message <Z$uynXBjGYPiFwLj@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
>>> <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> writes
>>>> In message <2e4e1569-e9d8-49ea-b5cb-01b3922fd014n@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Richard Dixon <richsdixon1975@gmail.com> writes
>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 10:23:34 PM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If Mahmood hadn't been out, he'd currently be equalling the England
>>>>>> record for a no 11 playing his first Test innings, which is held by
>>>>>> Andy Caddick at 49*.
>>>>>
>>>>> Highest post-war 10th wicket partnership away from home.
>>>>>
>>>>> Richard
>>>>
>>>> It's a remarkable achievement. I still well remember the highest
>>>> England 10th wicket partnership at home: Higgs and Snow - neither of
>>>> whom had previously shown any signs of batting ability - adding 128
>>>> against WI at the Oval in 1966. And that was against an attack of
>>>> Hall, Griffith, Sobers, Gibbs and Holford. Of course Graveney and
>>>> John Murray had already done a lot of the heavy lifting, and WI had
>>>> already won the series and were probably suffering from final-Test
>>>> syndrome.
>>>  When I said Higgs and Snow's partnership was the highest at home, I
>>> somehow overlooked Root and Anderson's 198 against India in 2014. Of
>>> course, that's a bit recent for me to remember it clearly. :)
>>
>> Didn't Snow begin his career as a batsman? I have a vague memory of
>> him opening the batting for Sussex in JPL matches after his
>> international career had finished.
>> Steve Hague
>
> In his first f-c match for Sussex in 1961, he batted at number 9 in both
> innings. IOn his last JPL match for Sussex, in 1977, he batted at number
> 8. He returned for one JPL season (and one Gillette Cup match) with
> Warwickshire in 1980, after not playing in the previous two seasons. For
> them he seems to have batted at 7 or 8. His batting averages were Tests
> 13.54, ODIs 4.50, F-C 14.17, Limited overs 12.86.

I found a few matches where he opened the batting for the Lord's
Taverners between 1988 and 1996.

--
David North

On 25/03/2022 15:06, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 07:00:49 -0700 (PDT), David North
> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 22:23:34 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
>
>>> If Mahmood hadn't been out, he'd currently be equalling the England
>>> record for a no 11 playing his first Test innings, which is held by
>>> Andy Caddick at 49*.
>>
>> That would be his first Test innings *at #11* (Edgbaston 2001), but his 46th Test innings overall. He put on 103 with Alec Stewart.
>>
>> So Mahmood presumably has the record for an England #11 in his first Test innings.
>
> Thanks for the correction; I misspecified my parameters when
> consulting my stats thing.
>
> Certainly no-one has made more than 49 for England in their first
> innings at 11, whether or not it was their first Test innings. Only
> Agar's recent 98 and a 54 by Pat Symcox for SA exceed it worldwide.

It wasn't Symcox's first Test innings, either. It was the only time he
batted at 11 in Tests, but with McMillan, Pollock and Klusener at 8, 9
and 10, he wasn't out of position.

--
David North

On 25/03/2022 08:52, John Hall wrote:
> In message <ja56e0Fd0k0U1@mid.individual.net>, David North
> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>> On 24/03/2022 22:10, John Hall wrote:
>>> It was a bizarre day. It can't often have happened that the two
>>> highest scorers in a Test innings were numbers 10 and 11,
>>
>> It was mentioned on BT Sport that it is only the 2nd time in Test
>> history. The first was at Sydney in 1884/85 (Tom Garrett 51* and Edwin
>> Evans 33 for Australia).
>>
>> https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/england-tour-of-australia-1884-85-61
>> 734/australia-vs-england-3rd-test-62414/full-scorecard
>
> I see that Australia won that match by 6 runs. Let's hope it's an omen.
>
>>
>>> or that number 11  top-scored.
>>
>> 12th time for that, 7 of which have been in the last 20 years.
>
> The recent up-tick is surprising, though I suppose partly accounted for
> by the increased number of Tests per year in modern times.
>
>> The first was also in the 1884/85 series, by Frederick Spofforth, who
>> had been demoted to #11 following the Garrett/Evans partnership.
>>
>> https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/283162.html
>>
>
> Thanks. I see that Nathan Lyon managed it when scoring only 14!

Yes, that was the innings when Australia threatened the lowest Test
total. The 2nd-highest score was 12* by Peter Siddle, who had batted at
#10 in the first innings, but was promoted to #9 in the 2nd, above Shaun
Marsh, who had a back problem.

--
David North

On 25/03/2022 13:59, johnson wrote:
> On 2022-03-24, John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <9ab940a3-2204-416a-8e18-26aba4473e86n@googlegroups.com>,
>> mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 5:10:13 PM UTC, max.it wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 09:29:49 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> As windies put us in the wicket must be a bit more lively and we sure
>>>>> dont look happy against any of them. Supposedly Mayers is only
>>>>> medium pace, well he looks a little quicker than Darren stevens,
>>>>> but our batters do struggle against leftys. 46-3 at lunch: will we still be
>>>>> batting at the close?
>>>>>
>>>>> mike
>>>> 7 runs and 3 wickets later and it looks like it could be all out by
>>>> tea.
>>>
>>> well you were nearly right! unlucky for mahmood - this was his best chance
>>> for a 50 or even a 100, he played pretty well for a no11, as did leach - great
>>> drive for 4 off holder.
>>>
>>> The pitch was lively when the ball was new, but really a typical spring wkt in
>>> england, surely nothing our batters hadnt experienced before? It was sort
>>> of dejavu from the ashes; green wicket, moving ball = england collapse.
>>
>> It was a bizarre day. It can't often have happened that the two highest
>> scorers in a Test innings were numbers 10 and 11, or that number 11
>> top-scored.
>>
>
> unusual to use eight bowlers in such a low-scoring innings I reckon

England once used 8 bowlers in an India innings of 29/1, but that was at
the end of a drawn match. The wicket was the only one Allan Lamb took in
Tests.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/england-tour-of-india-1984-85-61797/india-vs-england-3rd-test-63393/full-scorecard

The lowest completed innings in which 8 bowlers were used was England's
107 v WI at Port-of-Spain in 1934/35.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/england-tour-of-west-indies-1934-35-61755/west-indies-vs-england-2nd-test-62625/full-scorecard

It look like there have been 4 other such completed innings below 204,
including England's 192 at Adelaide 3 months ago.

--
David North