Monty Panesar

A section to discuss matters not related to Chess in particular.
Post Reply
David Robertson
Posts: 2180
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:24 pm
Contact:

Monty Panesar

Post by David Robertson » Sun Sep 04, 2011 1:40 pm

Monty Panesar, batting at 11, scored 18 runs off 20 balls yesterday before being bowled in a game v. Durham that Sussex had long given up.

Nothing remarkable in 18 off 20 - until you learn that 17 of those balls were dots :shock: :shock: :lol:

Richard Thursby
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:25 am
Location: origin + pathname + search + hash

Re: Monty Panesar

Post by Richard Thursby » Sun Sep 04, 2011 5:20 pm

Isn't it 16 dot balls, since his 20th delivery was a wicket, not a dot ball?

Alistair Campbell
Posts: 305
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:53 pm

Re: Monty Panesar

Post by Alistair Campbell » Sun Sep 04, 2011 7:45 pm

Richard Thursby wrote:Isn't it 16 dot balls, since his 20th delivery was a wicket, not a dot ball?
Maybe he got run out going for his seventh? :) First ball duck today, though...

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9067
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Monty Panesar

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sun Sep 04, 2011 7:52 pm

Alistair Campbell wrote:
Richard Thursby wrote:Isn't it 16 dot balls, since his 20th delivery was a wicket, not a dot ball?
Maybe he got run out going for his seventh? :) First ball duck today, though...
If he got run out going for a seventh, the six runs he'd just ran wouldn't count as a "six", if that makes sense. :wink:

There's a distinction between hitting a boundary and running four or six.

Having been intrigued by the above, there were indeed 16 balls in which Panesar didn't score and didn't lose his wicket - if we're continuing the theme of pedantry, not necessarily dot balls; they might have been byes, leg-byes, no-balls or wides, which wouldn't have been credited to Panesar!* - 3 balls that Panesar hit for 6, and a ball that bowled him to take his wicket.

*At least, that's all I can tell off the scorecard...

Alistair Campbell
Posts: 305
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:53 pm

Re: Monty Panesar

Post by Alistair Campbell » Sun Sep 04, 2011 9:09 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:If he got run out going for a seventh, the six runs he'd just ran wouldn't count as a "six", if that makes sense. :wink:

There's a distinction between hitting a boundary and running four or six.
I didn't know that. So would Alan Knott's seven off Van Holder at Headingley in 1976 count as a 4? :?

Richard Thursby
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:25 am
Location: origin + pathname + search + hash

Re: Monty Panesar

Post by Richard Thursby » Sun Sep 04, 2011 9:37 pm

Wides don't get counted as balls faced (since to be a wide by definition you can't score off them-players have been out hitting balls that would otherwise have been called wide) but no balls do. I think that extras used to not be added to the bowler's runs but are now. No, the seven would not count as a four, since he scored seven, not four. Michael Clarke also scored a seven towards the end of the Ashes test in Adelaide in December 2006.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9067
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Monty Panesar

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sun Sep 04, 2011 10:48 pm

Alistair Campbell wrote:I didn't know that. So would Alan Knott's seven off Van Holder at Headingley in 1976 count as a 4? :?

...

No, the seven would not count as a four, since he scored seven, not four. Michael Clarke also scored a seven towards the end of the Ashes test in Adelaide in December 2006.
If Alan Knott ran seven, it wouldn't be a 4 or a 6. If he ran any other number, including 4 and 6, it wouldn't be a 4 or 6. Basically, you only count "Fours" and "Sixes" for balls that go to the boundary.
Richard Thursby wrote:Wides don't get counted as balls faced (since to be a wide by definition you can't score off them-players have been out hitting balls that would otherwise have been called wide) but no balls do.
You're right; there are two ways of getting out for 0 off 0 balls: run out and stumped off a wide. OK, maybe obstructing the field and timed out...
Richard Thursby wrote:I think that extras used to not be added to the bowler's runs but are now.
Only no balls and wides are added to the bowling figures, because they're deemed to be the bowler's fault. Unlike byes, leg-byes and penalty runs, which are nothing to do with the bowler. This has only been true since the 1980s.

David Robertson
Posts: 2180
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Monty Panesar

Post by David Robertson » Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:02 am

OK, sixteen dots + wicket - I'll go with the correction.

I had hoped to be able to find out whether Monty hit more (or as many) 'sixes' in this one innings as in the rest of his First Class career combined. I suspect it will be a close run thing. Alas, Cricinfo records one 'six' in Tests, but thereafter gives no data for other games as far as I can tell.

Alistair Campbell
Posts: 305
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:53 pm

Re: Monty Panesar

Post by Alistair Campbell » Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:13 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:If Alan Knott ran seven, it wouldn't be a 4 or a 6. If he ran any other number, including 4 and 6, it wouldn't be a 4 or 6. Basically, you only count "Fours" and "Sixes" for balls that go to the boundary.
The ball did go to the boundary - Andy Roberts threw it there. :D Knott and Tony Greig ran a quick single, then two on the first overthrow.

I wasn't aware of the Michael Clarke 7, but having researched the matter I see that it didn't count as a boundary. Or at least not as a boundary 4 or a boundary 6. I think he had an all run 4 in the first innings as well.
You're right; there are two ways of getting out for 0 off 0 balls: run out and stumped off a wide. OK, maybe obstructing the field and timed out...
Or handled the ball, c.f. Andrew Hilditch given out at the non-striker's end at the WACA in 1979. (It's been a productive morning).
Only no balls and wides are added to the bowling figures, because they're deemed to be the bowler's fault. Unlike byes, leg-byes and penalty runs, which are nothing to do with the bowler. This has only been true since the 1980s.
I thought this had been the case for much longer. :?:

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9067
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Monty Panesar

Post by Alex Holowczak » Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:25 pm

Alistair Campbell wrote:
You're right; there are two ways of getting out for 0 off 0 balls: run out and stumped off a wide. OK, maybe obstructing the field and timed out...
Or handled the ball, c.f. Andrew Hilditch given out at the non-striker's end at the WACA in 1979. (It's been a productive morning).
OK, but that sounds a bit like it was obstructing the field!
Alistair Campbell wrote:I thought this had been the case for much longer. :?:
Well, one upon a time there was no penalty (or extra ball) for a wide or no ball, if I recall correctly.

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_%28cricket%29

"Wides are considered to be the fault of the bowler, and are recorded as a negative statistic in a bowler's record. However, this has only been the case since the early 1980's - the first Test to record wides (and no-balls) against the bowler's analyses was India vs Pakistan in September, 1983."

Seems like a pretty uncontroversial series in which to try such a thing... :shock:
Last edited by Alex Holowczak on Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gavin Strachan
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:06 am
Contact:

Re: Monty Panesar

Post by Gavin Strachan » Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:26 pm

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/src/webr ... -29357788/

He hit 3 sixes and went for another heave ho off Blackwell only to be bowled.

Richard Bates
Posts: 2977
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: Monty Panesar

Post by Richard Bates » Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:26 pm

David Robertson wrote:OK, sixteen dots + wicket - I'll go with the correction.

I had hoped to be able to find out whether Monty hit more (or as many) 'sixes' in this one innings as in the rest of his First Class career combined. I suspect it will be a close run thing. Alas, Cricinfo records one 'six' in Tests, but thereafter gives no data for other games as far as I can tell.
Well that six was off a certain Muttiah Muralitharan I believe, no arguably not a complete fluke - although it certainly felt somewhat surprising at the time!

Phil Neatherway
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 4:10 pm
Location: Abingdon

Re: Monty Panesar

Post by Phil Neatherway » Fri Sep 09, 2011 9:08 am

Good old Monty. Yesterday he participated in a last wicket partnership of 52, and then took 4 wickets when Worcs batted. Hopefully, this will help Sussex break their recent bad run.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9067
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Monty Panesar

Post by Alex Holowczak » Fri Sep 09, 2011 9:26 am

Phil Neatherway wrote:Good old Monty. Yesterday he participated in a last wicket partnership of 52, and then took 4 wickets when Worcs batted. Hopefully, this will help Sussex break their recent bad run.
It was looking quite good for us when Sussex were 234/7, but our bowling from then on was poor. Now we need 27 to avoid the follow on... :(

It looks like there's turn in the wicket; Panesar with 4/48 and Moeen Ali with 4/53. If it's a battle of the spinners, I don't think Moeen Ali is going to get it done for us. Worcestershire lack a decent spinner.

Phil Neatherway
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 4:10 pm
Location: Abingdon

Re: Monty Panesar

Post by Phil Neatherway » Fri Sep 09, 2011 11:23 am

Worcs all out already for 222. It seems that play started at 10.30.

Post Reply