Apparently the record was 501 set last October in a SA domestic league,
then broken by 2 pakistan sides last week, and now by RSA and Windies.
I guess it wont be long before it gets broken again. How long before
300 is reached? It was at Centurion so i bet they must have shortened
the boundaries for so many 6s to be hit.

mike

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 15:16:38 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>Apparently the record was 501 set last October in a SA domestic league,
>then broken by 2 pakistan sides last week, and now by RSA and Windies.
>I guess it wont be long before it gets broken again. How long before
>300 is reached? It was at Centurion so i bet they must have shortened
>the boundaries for so many 6s to be hit.
>
>mike

Tomorrow if Bangladesh bat first.

max.it

On 26/03/2023 23:16, mike wrote:
> Apparently the record was 501 set last October in a SA domestic league,
> then broken by 2 pakistan sides last week, and now by RSA and Windies.

I wonder how many people here other than DavidN could have named,
without looking it up, the previous record holder for a T20 chase? It
was, according to the BBC, Bulgaria, with 243 vs Serbia last year. I
suspect that most of us would name 50+ other countries before supposing
that Bulgaria and Serbia even had cricket teams, let alone that they held
a decently positive record, not one of those minnowish things like the
widest ever margin of defeat.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Lefebure-Wely

On 27/03/2023 00:46, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 26/03/2023 23:16, mike wrote:
>> Apparently the record was 501 set last October in a SA domestic league,
>> then broken by 2 pakistan sides last week, and now by RSA and Windies.
>
>     I wonder how many people here other than DavidN could have named,
> without looking it up, the previous record holder for a T20 chase?  It
> was, according to the BBC, Bulgaria, with 243 vs Serbia last year.

I couldn't have done it without looking it up either.

It seems that the BBC got it slightly wrong. The record that Bulgaria
held was the highest total batting second, which was 246, chasing 243 to
win. However, the highest target successfully chased was 244, by
Australia, who made 245 v NZ at Auckland in 2017/18.

https://stats.acscricket.com/Records/Twenty20/Overall/Team/Largest_Targets_Successfully_Chased.html

--
David North

In message <k8cpnjFmnokU1@mid.individual.net>, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>On 27/03/2023 00:46, Andy Walker wrote:
>> On 26/03/2023 23:16, mike wrote:
>>> Apparently the record was 501 set last October in a SA domestic league,
>>> then broken by 2 pakistan sides last week, and now by RSA and Windies.
>>     I wonder how many people here other than DavidN could have
>>named,
>> without looking it up, the previous record holder for a T20 chase?  It
>> was, according to the BBC, Bulgaria, with 243 vs Serbia last year.
>
>I couldn't have done it without looking it up either.
>
>It seems that the BBC got it slightly wrong. The record that Bulgaria
>held was the highest total batting second, which was 246, chasing 243
>to win. However, the highest target successfully chased was 244, by
>Australia, who made 245 v NZ at Auckland in 2017/18.
>
>https://stats.acscricket.com/Records/Twenty20/Overall/Team/Largest_Targe
>ts_Successfully_Chased.html
>

It looks like you meant: The record that Bulgaria held was the highest
total batting second, which was 243, chasing 246 to win.

I was unimpressed that all my newspaper had this morning about the SA v
WI match was the "potted" scores in the results section, with not even a
single paragraph item about the match. But even worse was their failure
to mention the WPL final at all, with not even the potted scores,
especially since they claim to be a great supporter of women's sport.
(It was a very good - if at times rather strange - match too, with
success for two of the three English players involved. I watched almost
all of it live on Sky.)
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"

On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 8:05:46 PM UTC+11, John Hall wrote:
> In message <k8cpnj...@mid.individual.net>, David North
> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
> >On 27/03/2023 00:46, Andy Walker wrote:
> >> On 26/03/2023 23:16, mike wrote:
> >>> Apparently the record was 501 set last October in a SA domestic league,
> >>> then broken by 2 pakistan sides last week, and now by RSA and Windies..
> >> I wonder how many people here other than DavidN could have
> >>named,
> >> without looking it up, the previous record holder for a T20 chase? It
> >> was, according to the BBC, Bulgaria, with 243 vs Serbia last year.
> >
> >I couldn't have done it without looking it up either.
> >
> >It seems that the BBC got it slightly wrong. The record that Bulgaria
> >held was the highest total batting second, which was 246, chasing 243
> >to win. However, the highest target successfully chased was 244, by
> >Australia, who made 245 v NZ at Auckland in 2017/18.
> >
> >https://stats.acscricket.com/Records/Twenty20/Overall/Team/Largest_Targe
> >ts_Successfully_Chased.html
> >
> It looks like you meant: The record that Bulgaria held was the highest
> total batting second, which was 243, chasing 246 to win.

No, Bulgaria was chasing 243 and made 246/4, hitting a boundary when scores were level

On 27 Mar 2023, Hamish Laws wrote

> On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 8:05:46 PM UTC+11, John Hall wrote:
>> In message <k8cpnj...@mid.individual.net>, David North
>> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>>> On 27/03/2023 00:46, Andy Walker wrote:
>>>> On 26/03/2023 23:16, mike wrote:
>>>>> Apparently the record was 501 set last October in a SA
>>>>> domestic leagu
> e,
>>>>> then broken by 2 pakistan sides last week, and now by RSA and
>>>>> Windies
> .
>>>> I wonder how many people here other than DavidN could have
>>>> named,
>>>> without looking it up, the previous record holder for a T20
>>>> chase? It
>
>>>> was, according to the BBC, Bulgaria, with 243 vs Serbia last
>>>> year.
>>>
>>> I couldn't have done it without looking it up either.
>>>
>>> It seems that the BBC got it slightly wrong. The record that
>>> Bulgaria held was the highest total batting second, which was
>>> 246, chasing 243 to win. However, the highest target
>>> successfully chased was 244, by Australia, who made 245 v NZ at
>>> Auckland in 2017/18.
>>>
>>> https://stats.acscricket.com/Records/Twenty20/Overall/Team/Larges
>>> t_Targe
>
>>> ts_Successfully_Chased.html
>>>
>> It looks like you meant: The record that Bulgaria held was the
>> highest total batting second, which was 243, chasing 246 to win.
>
> No, Bulgaria was chasing 243 and made 246/4, hitting a boundary
> when scores were level

Wandering a bit off topic, the wording of that has always struck me
as a bit strange. (I was a latecomer to following cricket - started
c.30 years ago, when I was 40-ish - so these things often look odd to
me.)

In a non-cricket setting, I'd have thought that the figure one
"chases" would be the first team's score -- that is, you "chase" to
catch up to someone or something, and to win, you'd need "the score
that's being chased + 1".

It's another example of cricket using words in a way that isn't
intuitive outside of cricket -- like using what looks very much like
a decimal point to mean "+" when counting balls in an over. ("5.5"
still looks to me like "5 1/2" rather than "5 5/6" overs...)

--
Cheers, Harvey

On Monday, 27 March 2023 at 11:15:44 UTC+1, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 8:05:46 PM UTC+11, John Hall wrote:
> > In message <k8cpnj...@mid.individual.net>, David North
> > <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
> > >On 27/03/2023 00:46, Andy Walker wrote:
> > >> On 26/03/2023 23:16, mike wrote:
> > >>> Apparently the record was 501 set last October in a SA domestic league,
> > >>> then broken by 2 pakistan sides last week, and now by RSA and Windies.
> > >> I wonder how many people here other than DavidN could have
> > >>named,
> > >> without looking it up, the previous record holder for a T20 chase? It
> > >> was, according to the BBC, Bulgaria, with 243 vs Serbia last year.
> > >
> > >I couldn't have done it without looking it up either.
> > >
> > >It seems that the BBC got it slightly wrong. The record that Bulgaria
> > >held was the highest total batting second, which was 246, chasing 243
> > >to win. However, the highest target successfully chased was 244, by
> > >Australia, who made 245 v NZ at Auckland in 2017/18.
> > >
> > >https://stats.acscricket.com/Records/Twenty20/Overall/Team/Largest_Targe
> > >ts_Successfully_Chased.html
> > >
> > It looks like you meant: The record that Bulgaria held was the highest
> > total batting second, which was 243, chasing 246 to win.
> No, Bulgaria was chasing 243 and made 246/4, hitting a boundary when scores were level

Yes. Actually, what I meant was the highest total batting second *to win*. I am not sure if anyone had made more than 246 and not won, and do not have time to check at the moment.

In message <7390d8f9-6c03-490f-b92a-3ae8c2eede7cn@googlegroups.com>,
Hamish Laws <hamish.laws@gmail.com> writes
>On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 8:05:460 >> In message <k8cpnj...@mid.individual.net>, David North
>> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>> >On 27/03/2023 00:46, Andy Walker wrote:
>> >> On 26/03/2023 23:16, mike wrote:
>> >>> Apparently the record was 501 set last October in a SA domestic league,
>> >>> then broken by 2 pakistan sides last week, and now by RSA and Windies.
>> >> I wonder how many people here other than DavidN could have
>> >>named,
>> >> without looking it up, the previous record holder for a T20 chase? It
>> >> was, according to the BBC, Bulgaria, with 243 vs Serbia last year.
>> >
>> >I couldn't have done it without looking it up either.
>> >
>> >It seems that the BBC got it slightly wrong. The record that Bulgaria
>> >held was the highest total batting second, which was 246, chasing 243
>> >to win. However, the highest target successfully chased was 244, by
>> >Australia, who made 245 v NZ at Auckland in 2017/18.
>> >
>> >https://stats.acscricket.com/Records/Twenty20/Overall/Team/Largest_Targe
>> >ts_Successfully_Chased.html
>> >
>> It looks like you meant: The record that Bulgaria held was the highest
>> total batting second, which was 243, chasing 246 to win.
>
>No, Bulgaria was chasing 243 and made 246/4, hitting a boundary when
>scores were level

Thanks. Rereading it, I now see that I got confused.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"

On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 8:55:45 AM UTC-4, HVS wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2023, Hamish Laws wrote
> > On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 8:05:46 PM UTC+11, John Hall wrote:
> >> In message <k8cpnj...@mid.individual.net>, David North
> >> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
> >>> On 27/03/2023 00:46, Andy Walker wrote:
> >>>> On 26/03/2023 23:16, mike wrote:
> >>>>> Apparently the record was 501 set last October in a SA
> >>>>> domestic leagu
> > e,
> >>>>> then broken by 2 pakistan sides last week, and now by RSA and
> >>>>> Windies
> > .
> >>>> I wonder how many people here other than DavidN could have
> >>>> named,
> >>>> without looking it up, the previous record holder for a T20
> >>>> chase? It
> >
> >>>> was, according to the BBC, Bulgaria, with 243 vs Serbia last
> >>>> year.
> >>>
> >>> I couldn't have done it without looking it up either.
> >>>
> >>> It seems that the BBC got it slightly wrong. The record that
> >>> Bulgaria held was the highest total batting second, which was
> >>> 246, chasing 243 to win. However, the highest target
> >>> successfully chased was 244, by Australia, who made 245 v NZ at
> >>> Auckland in 2017/18.
> >>>
> >>> https://stats.acscricket.com/Records/Twenty20/Overall/Team/Larges
> >>> t_Targe
> >
> >>> ts_Successfully_Chased.html
> >>>
> >> It looks like you meant: The record that Bulgaria held was the
> >> highest total batting second, which was 243, chasing 246 to win.
> >
> > No, Bulgaria was chasing 243 and made 246/4, hitting a boundary
> > when scores were level
> Wandering a bit off topic, the wording of that has always struck me
> as a bit strange. (I was a latecomer to following cricket - started
> c.30 years ago, when I was 40-ish - so these things often look odd to
> me.)
>
> In a non-cricket setting, I'd have thought that the figure one
> "chases" would be the first team's score -- that is, you "chase" to
> catch up to someone or something, and to win, you'd need "the score
> that's being chased + 1".
>
> It's another example of cricket using words in a way that isn't
> intuitive outside of cricket -- like using what looks very much like
> a decimal point to mean "+" when counting balls in an over. ("5.5"
> still looks to me like "5 1/2" rather than "5 5/6" overs...)
>
> --
> Cheers, Harvey

Could use 5,5 instead of 5.5!

On 27 Mar 2023, drye...@gmail.com wrote
> On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 8:55:45 AM UTC-4, HVS wrote:

-snip-

>> It's another example of cricket using words in a way that isn't
>> intuitive outside of cricket -- like using what looks very much
>> like a decimal point to mean "+" when counting balls in an over.
>> ("5.5" still looks to me like "5 1/2" rather than "5 5/6"
>> overs...)
>>
>> --
>> Cheers, Harvey
>
> Could use 5,5 instead of 5.5!

Yeah, that would certainly suit me better -- 5+5 would also work...

--
Cheers, Harvey

On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 10:55:45 PM UTC+10, HVS wrote:
> It's another example of cricket using words in a way that isn't
> intuitive outside of cricket -- like using what looks very much like
> a decimal point to mean "+" when counting balls in an over. ("5.5"
> still looks to me like "5 1/2" rather than "5 5/6" overs...)

5.5 is correct, it's just in base 6 (rather than our standard base 10).

Although this does make me wonder how electronic scorecards deal with legal deliveries beyond the 6th. IIRC once a Test umpire allowed 8 legal deliveries in an over, by mistake.

Would the scorecards read?
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
I guess they'd have to.

On 27/03/2023 22:38, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 10:55:45 PM UTC+10, HVS wrote:
>> It's another example of cricket using words in a way that isn't
>> intuitive outside of cricket -- like using what looks very much like
>> a decimal point to mean "+" when counting balls in an over. ("5.5"
>> still looks to me like "5 1/2" rather than "5 5/6" overs...)
>
> 5.5 is correct, it's just in base 6 (rather than our standard base 10).

.... but in base 6, one more ball would take it to 10, rather than 6.

--
David North

On 27/03/2023 14:00, David North wrote:
> On Monday, 27 March 2023 at 11:15:44 UTC+1, Hamish Laws wrote:
>> On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 8:05:46 PM UTC+11, John Hall wrote:
>>> In message <k8cpnj...@mid.individual.net>, David North
>>> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>>>> On 27/03/2023 00:46, Andy Walker wrote:
>>>>> On 26/03/2023 23:16, mike wrote:
>>>>>> Apparently the record was 501 set last October in a SA domestic league,
>>>>>> then broken by 2 pakistan sides last week, and now by RSA and Windies.
>>>>> I wonder how many people here other than DavidN could have
>>>>> named,
>>>>> without looking it up, the previous record holder for a T20 chase? It
>>>>> was, according to the BBC, Bulgaria, with 243 vs Serbia last year.
>>>>
>>>> I couldn't have done it without looking it up either.
>>>>
>>>> It seems that the BBC got it slightly wrong. The record that Bulgaria
>>>> held was the highest total batting second, which was 246, chasing 243
>>>> to win. However, the highest target successfully chased was 244, by
>>>> Australia, who made 245 v NZ at Auckland in 2017/18.
>>>>
>>>> https://stats.acscricket.com/Records/Twenty20/Overall/Team/Largest_Targe
>>>> ts_Successfully_Chased.html
>>>>
>>> It looks like you meant: The record that Bulgaria held was the highest
>>> total batting second, which was 243, chasing 246 to win.
>> No, Bulgaria was chasing 243 and made 246/4, hitting a boundary when scores were level
>
> Yes. Actually, what I meant was the highest total batting second *to win*. I am not sure if anyone had made more than 246 and not won, and do not have time to check at the moment.

They have - twice. The previous record total batting second was in the
match in Pakistan that mike mentioned above, when Quetta Gladiators made
253/8 in reply to Multan Sultans' 262/3.

--
David North

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 15:16:38 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>Apparently the record was 501 set last October in a SA domestic league,
>then broken by 2 pakistan sides last week, and now by RSA and Windies.
>I guess it wont be long before it gets broken again. How long before
>300 is reached? It was at Centurion so i bet they must have shortened
>the boundaries for so many 6s to be hit.

I'm old enough to remember when those sorts of scores were considered
quite a lot to get in 40 overs on a Sunday afternoon.

Cheers,

Mike

On 27 Mar 2023, jack fredricks wrote

> On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 10:55:45 PM UTC+10, HVS wrote:
>> It's another example of cricket using words in a way that isn't
>> intuitive outside of cricket -- like using what looks very much
>> like a decimal point to mean "+" when counting balls in an over.
>> ("5.5" still looks to me like "5 1/2" rather than "5 5/6"
>> overs...)
>
> 5.5 is correct, it's just in base 6 (rather than our standard base
> 10).

-snip-

Ah, yes; the Lehrer explanation: base 6 is like base 10, if you're
missing four fingers.

--
Cheers, Harvey

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 10:01:54 +0100, John Hall wrote:

> In message <k8cpnjFmnokU1@mid.individual.net>, David North
> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>>On 27/03/2023 00:46, Andy Walker wrote:
>>> On 26/03/2023 23:16, mike wrote:
>>>> Apparently the record was 501 set last October in a SA domestic
>>>> league,
>>>> then broken by 2 pakistan sides last week, and now by RSA and
>>>> Windies.
>>>     I wonder how many people here other than DavidN could have
>>>named,
>>> without looking it up, the previous record holder for a T20 chase?  It
>>> was, according to the BBC, Bulgaria, with 243 vs Serbia last year.
>>
>>I couldn't have done it without looking it up either.
>>
>>It seems that the BBC got it slightly wrong. The record that Bulgaria
>>held was the highest total batting second, which was 246, chasing 243 to
>>win. However, the highest target successfully chased was 244, by
>>Australia, who made 245 v NZ at Auckland in 2017/18.
>>
>>https://stats.acscricket.com/Records/Twenty20/Overall/Team/Largest_Targe
>>ts_Successfully_Chased.html
>>
>>
> It looks like you meant: The record that Bulgaria held was the highest
> total batting second, which was 243, chasing 246 to win.
>
> I was unimpressed that all my newspaper had this morning about the SA v
> WI match was the "potted" scores in the results section, with not even a
> single paragraph item about the match. But even worse was their failure
> to mention the WPL final at all, with not even the potted scores,
> especially since they claim to be a great supporter of women's sport.
> (It was a very good - if at times rather strange - match too, with
> success for two of the three English players involved. I watched almost
> all of it live on Sky.)

British media is really very ARROGANT like I pointed out before.

It's a SHAME they didn't even mention WPL which ENCOURAGES more women in
cricket playing countries to take to cricket because of HIGH WPL PAY which
MOTIVATES them even more to play BETTER.

In message <6sk52il1k5ebdneg9p4ie721pvupuptni6@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
<spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 15:16:38 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Apparently the record was 501 set last October in a SA domestic league,
>>then broken by 2 pakistan sides last week, and now by RSA and Windies.
>>I guess it wont be long before it gets broken again. How long before
>>300 is reached? It was at Centurion so i bet they must have shortened
>>the boundaries for so many 6s to be hit.
>
>I'm old enough to remember when those sorts of scores were considered
>quite a lot to get in 40 overs on a Sunday afternoon.

Yep. I recall that in the first season of the Sunday League in 1969 a
par score was about 160, so just four an over. (And when the Gillette
Cup began in 1963 - with 65 overs a side - a par score was about 180, so
just around three an over. jmind you, they played on some pretty
dreadful pitches back then.)
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"

In message <XnsAFD5922E0C865whhvans@88.198.57.247>, HVS
<office@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> writes
>On 27 Mar 2023, jack fredricks wrote
>
>> On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 10:55:45 PM UTC+10, HVS wrote:
>>> It's another example of cricket using words in a way that isn't
>>> intuitive outside of cricket -- like using what looks very much
>>> like a decimal point to mean "+" when counting balls in an over.
>>> ("5.5" still looks to me like "5 1/2" rather than "5 5/6"
>>> overs...)
>>
>> 5.5 is correct, it's just in base 6 (rather than our standard base
>> 10).
>
>-snip-
>
>Ah, yes; the Lehrer explanation: base 6 is like base 10, if you're
>missing four fingers.
>
And since his day job was as a professor of mathematics, he should have
known. :)
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"

On Sunday, 26 March 2023 at 23:38:01 UTC+1, max.it wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 15:16:38 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >Apparently the record was 501 set last October in a SA domestic league,
> >then broken by 2 pakistan sides last week, and now by RSA and Windies.
> >I guess it wont be long before it gets broken again. How long before
> >300 is reached? It was at Centurion so i bet they must have shortened
> >the boundaries for so many 6s to be hit.
> >
> >mike
> Tomorrow if Bangladesh bat first.

Well they've batted first in the first two matches, and made just over 200 both times (albeit their innings were reduced by 4 balls in the 1st match and 3 overs today).

On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 05:26:53 -0700 (PDT), David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sunday, 26 March 2023 at 23:38:01 UTC+1, max.it wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 15:16:38 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>> >Apparently the record was 501 set last October in a SA domestic league,
>> >then broken by 2 pakistan sides last week, and now by RSA and Windies.
>> >I guess it wont be long before it gets broken again. How long before
>> >300 is reached? It was at Centurion so i bet they must have shortened
>> >the boundaries for so many 6s to be hit.
>> >
>> >mike
>> Tomorrow if Bangladesh bat first.
>
>Well they've batted first in the first two matches, and made just over 200 both times (albeit their innings were reduced by 4 balls in the 1st match and 3 overs today).

I was sure the Ireland annihilation would have been much heavier.

max.it

On 28 Mar 2023, John Hall wrote

> In message <XnsAFD5922E0C865whhvans@88.198.57.247>, HVS
><office@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> writes
>> On 27 Mar 2023, jack fredricks wrote
>>
>>> On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 10:55:45 PM UTC+10, HVS
>>> wrote:
>>>> It's another example of cricket using words in a way that isn't
>>>> intuitive outside of cricket -- like using what looks very much
>>>> like a decimal point to mean "+" when counting balls in an
>>>> over. ("5.5" still looks to me like "5 1/2" rather than "5 5/6"
>>>> overs...)
>>>
>>> 5.5 is correct, it's just in base 6 (rather than our standard
>>> base 10).
>>
>> -snip-
>>
>> Ah, yes; the Lehrer explanation: base 6 is like base 10, if
>> you're missing four fingers.
>>
> And since his day job was as a professor of mathematics, he should
> have known. :)

I was somewhat surprised to discover that he's still alive; he'll be
95 on Easter day.

(I discovered Lehrer in the mid 1960s -- I was about 14 or 15, and
babysat for some neighbours who had his records and let me borrow
them. With a simplified piano accompaniment, they became a bit of a
party piece in my later teens and early 20s; at one point I think I
could do about 20 of them. Pleasant memories.)

--
Cheers, Harvey

On 29/03/2023 15:39, HVS wrote:
[OT, sorry; on Tom Lehrer:]
> I was somewhat surprised to discover that he's still alive; he'll be
> 95 on Easter day.
> (I discovered Lehrer in the mid 1960s -- I was about 14 or 15, and
> babysat for some neighbours who had his records and let me borrow
> them.

I was about a decade ahead of you! He later became well-known in
the UK through his weekly appearances on TW3, and much later because of
the West End show.

> With a simplified piano accompaniment, they became a bit of a
> party piece in my later teens and early 20s; at one point I think I
> could do about 20 of them. Pleasant memories.)

Likewise. He was -- is! -- a cult figure in [some] maths depts.
Eg, not long before I retired, we recruited a young Finnish lecturer who
somewhat surprised us by knowing all the songs.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Mayer

In message <u01v7h$d89s$1@dont-email.me>, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
writes
>On 29/03/2023 15:39, HVS wrote:
>[OT, sorry; on Tom Lehrer:]
>> I was somewhat surprised to discover that he's still alive; he'll be
>> 95 on Easter day.
>> (I discovered Lehrer in the mid 1960s -- I was about 14 or 15, and
>> babysat for some neighbours who had his records and let me borrow
>> them.
>
> I was about a decade ahead of you! He later became well-known in
>the UK through his weekly appearances on TW3, and much later because of
>the West End show.

In contrast, I only discovered him in the 1970s or it may even have been
the 1980s, when a friend played me an LP of his "greatest hits". (TW3
was after my bedtime.)

>
>> With a simplified piano accompaniment, they became a bit of a
>> party piece in my later teens and early 20s; at one point I think I
>> could do about 20 of them. Pleasant memories.)
>
> Likewise. He was -- is! -- a cult figure in [some] maths depts.
>Eg, not long before I retired, we recruited a young Finnish lecturer who
>somewhat surprised us by knowing all the songs.
>

ISTR reading that Lehrer once said that he didn't actually enjoy
performing, which seems strange considering how good he was.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"

On Wednesday, 29 March 2023 at 15:17:24 UTC+1, max.it wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 05:26:53 -0700 (PDT), David North
> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, 26 March 2023 at 23:38:01 UTC+1, max.it wrote:
> >> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 15:16:38 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
> >> >Apparently the record was 501 set last October in a SA domestic league,
> >> >then broken by 2 pakistan sides last week, and now by RSA and Windies.
> >> >I guess it wont be long before it gets broken again. How long before
> >> >300 is reached? It was at Centurion so i bet they must have shortened
> >> >the boundaries for so many 6s to be hit.
> >> >
> >> >mike
> >> Tomorrow if Bangladesh bat first.
> >
> >Well they've batted first in the first two matches, and made just over 200 both times (albeit their innings were reduced by 4 balls in the 1st match and 3 overs today).
> I was sure the Ireland annihilation would have been much heavier.

I see that Ireland did the annihilating in the 3rd match today, winning by 7 wickets with 6 overs to spare.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/ireland-in-bangladesh-2022-23-1355710/bangladesh-vs-ireland-3rd-t20i-1355722/full-scorecard

Hopefuly they can carry on like that in the Test next week.