Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Quiz
Welcome to the WP:Cricket quiz. The quiz is a general knowledge quiz centred around the sport of cricket that any Wikipedian can enter. It is run as a friendly competition to test and improve your knowledge of one of the world's most popular games. Most importantly, it's supposed to be fun.
If you're not already, why not join the WP:Cricket project?
Template:WikiProject Cricket/Quiz archives
Rules
- Anyone can answer a quiz question, but to ask a question you must first earn the right by being the first person to answer the previous one correctly. If the current question is still open and you think you know the answer, post your answer below and wait for an adjudication from the person who placed the question. Remember to sign your post with ~~~~.
- If you are the first person to post the correct answer, the asker will post a message below your answer confirming you gave the correct response.
- You now have the baton and 24 hours to post a new question. If a new question is not posted by you within that time limit, the asker can post a new question in lieu of yourself.
Question guidelines
- If you're finding no-one can get the answer to your question, consider offering clues or replacing your question with an easier one. The aim is to keep the quiz moving.
- Remember that you have an international audience. Keep quiz questions relevant to international cricket in some way.
Number of correct answers
(as of Q142)
|
|
|
Questions
Q141
Right, here's a question that I hope you'll find interesting, and challenging: who is the only player to have been 12th Man in all 5 Tests of a series involving England? --Wisden17 20:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- A guess, Brett Lee? -- Ian ≡ talk 05:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ian, no that's not the answer. I'll post a clue this evening if nobody gets it today. --Wisden17 11:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, as nobody has got the answer right yet, I feel that a clue is in order. This man was a 12th Man in 7 Test Matches and never got a test cap (which I believe is a record, although am not 100% certain). I'll post another clue tommorow, and then if no-one gets it after that I suppose another quetion will be needed (I'll have to make it a bit easier though, from the looks of it!) --Wisden17 20:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Vic Wilson of Yorkshire was 12th man in all five Tests in Australia on the 1954-55 England tour. Presumably he did the same in the two matches in New Zealand that followed? Johnlp 21:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good - Vic Wilson (cricketer) and [1] and [2] -- ALoan (Talk) 21:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Nice quote from Frank Tyson on Wilson here: "We had a problem finding an opening partner for Hutton. Edrich was tried, so was Reg Simpson but they did not impress, then Vic was given his opportunity but he came up against Keith Miller on green wickets three times and that was his chance gone, although he was 12th man in all the Tests. It was a pity, he was a good cricketer." -- ALoan (Talk) 21:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Not to mention that Wilson was on as a substitute fielder in the Auckland Test in 1954-55, and caught New Zealand wicketkeeper Ian Colquhoun at leg gully first ball off Bob Appleyard in the first innings (Colquhoun bagged a king pair, also caught first ball in the second innings by Tom Graveney off Appleyard, also at leg gully). That was the match in which NZ made 26 all out. [3] -- ALoan (Talk) 21:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, congratulations Johnlp the answer was J.V. Wilson --Wisden17 01:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Q142
Which Test player failed as a batsman to get into double figures in 71 consecutive first-class innings? Johnlp 09:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'll make an educated guess: Bhagwat Chandrasekhar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingbatdan (talk • contribs)
- Eric Hollies...the same man who took Bradman's wicket in Bradman's final test match.--Suro 09:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Suro
Eric Hollies it is, and the batting sequence was actually underway at the time he took Bradman's wicket. He then went the whole of 1949 and well into 1950 before getting into double figures. Well done and welcome to the quiz. Your turn to set a question now. Johnlp 11:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Q143
Why would I wish to remember Albert Rose-Innes as a test cricketer ? --Suro 14:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Is it that he was the first man to bat for South Africa in a Test? Unfortuately, he was also the first South African to score a duck in a Test as well. But it wasn't all bad for him; he took 5 wickets later that afternoon. --Deville (Talk) 15:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- This was also the initial first-class innings in South Africa, too. But that has nothing to do with Tests... --Paul 17:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Albert Rose-Innes [4] made his first-class debut playing for South Africa in its first Test, against England on 12 March and 13 March 1889 at Port Elizabeth. He opening the batting at #1 twice, being bowled out for a duck with the score on 0 in the first innings, and lbw for 13 in the second innings (including one 4) with the score on 21. He also bowled (5-43 and 0-16). England won comfortably on the second day (of three) by 8 wickets. [5]
- His second (and last Test) was his second first-class match, also against England, at Cape Town just under two weeks later, on 25 March and 26 March 1889. England batted first; he opened the bowling, bowling second, recording 0-30 in 12 overs. He also took two catches, including Joseph McMaster out first ball. He opened the batting again, this time at #2. In first innings, he was lbw again for 1 with the score on 2; in the second innings, following on, he was run out for another duck without facing a ball with the score on 1. Meanwile, Bernard Tancred carried his bat, scoring 26 of the South African first innings of 46, and Johnny Briggs took 7-17 (6 bowled, 1 lbw) and 8-11 (all bowled) for England, who won even more comfortably, on the second day of three, again, by an innings and 202 runs. [6]
- Lots of intersting snippets there, but I guess you were looking for his first-innings duck in the first Test, or his five-for, or the run-out without facing a ball in the second innings of the second Test? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
No...that is not the answer...not at least what I had in mind.--Suro
- The first right-hand bat and left-arm bowl? Apart from being one of the first all-rounders, he also was active in the diamond rush at Kimberley. --Gurubrahma 17:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Nope. If no one gets it, I will post a clue later tonight. --Suro
- You are not related to him, are you? ;) -- ALoan (Talk) 19:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- According to this report, in the first innings of the first Test, he was bowled by the first ball of Briggs' second over (the third of the match). They also have a photo of the ball. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Hint : Something unique happened in the second test match between South Africa and England--Suro
- He was run out without facing a ball in the second innings, and I think it was off the first ball of the innings. Johnlp 21:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- That happened to me once... Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Hint again and now two of them: Focus on the 2nd Innings,it is a bit special ..and do not only pay attention to Rose-Innes. Good Night and Good Luck :)--Suro 22:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Your not just looking for: that he was run out whilst the rest of his team were bowled in the 2nd innings (i.e. he's memorable as he was run out, whilst everyone else got bowled), are you? --Wisden17 22:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Everyone except him was bowled. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think that's what I said Sam, and unless the questionner is a fan of Jim Bowen (off Bullseye, where he would refuse an answer to a question, which was phrased as a question, with the immortal lines "are you asking me or telling me?") I should be o.k.. --Wisden17 00:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Is the information there already? He opened the batting AND the bowling? But from the information above, it appears he did it in the 1st innings as well... --Jazzycab 02:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- This, by the way, is what is called the software being a tricky bastard. It was clever enough to put both our comments in... Cheers, Sam Korn (smoddy) 10:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think that's what I said Sam, and unless the questionner is a fan of Jim Bowen (off Bullseye, where he would refuse an answer to a question, which was phrased as a question, with the immortal lines "are you asking me or telling me?") I should be o.k.. --Wisden17 00:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Wisden17..well done. It was the first instance in Test Cricket where nine batsmen were bowled out in an innings. Rose-Innes being the exception.--Suro 08:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Um, Howstat says that nine batsmen have been out bowled in a Test on one other occasion, in Australia's second innings in the 2nd Test against England at the Oval in 1890 [7] (the odd one out being Harry Trott, caught). Cricinfo says the same thing [8].
- My apologies. I stand corrected. What next ? I presume that Wisden17 will have the next question? --Suro 12:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- And the most batsmen bowled in a single ODI innings is 8 [9] which has only happened once: West Indies v New Zealand, 1984-1985 - [10] (the others were two catches) but no bowler took more than 2 wickets. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
See Q132 It seems that the second example of 9 being bowled only came into being recently, a card from 1890 has been changed. Only took 'em a hundred years to do it, too --Paul 13:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Q144
An oft heard question is what is the highest number of extras in a Test Match innings; so a much better, and significantly harder question, would be what is the highest total of a Test Match innings which had no leg-byes in it? --Wisden17 17:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- I make it 7-549, one of three of over 500 --Paul 18:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well done Paul, that is indeed the correct answer, if I get to do another question, I really must try to make it harder. Well, take it away Paul! --Wisden17 19:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Test statty ones like that are easy for me. I'll try and make mine a bit harder --Paul 19:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Q145
There's been a few century makers from No. 10 (three to be exact). But what about the other side of the coin? WHich bowler to take a Test five-for was called into the attack the latest? --Paul 19:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- OK,OK, don't everyone answer at once. He was English and did it against Pakstan --Paul 09:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- David Allen was the eighth bowler used against Pakistan at Dacca in 1961-62. [11] Johnlp 10:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- It was indeed. Never heard of him before I looked into that. You're it --Paul 11:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- David Allen was the eighth bowler used against Pakistan at Dacca in 1961-62. [11] Johnlp 10:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Q146
Easy one. Whose catch ended whose Test career homophonously in Colin Milburn's first game? Johnlp 12:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Why, that would have to be David Allan catching David Allen in the second innings. [12]
- DA Allen c Allan b Gibbs 1 2 9 0 0 --Deville (Talk) 12:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed it is. Over to you. Johnlp 13:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks --Deville (Talk) 13:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Q147
What is the largest number of runs scored in an over in first-class cricket? --Deville (Talk) 13:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- The most runs off a 6-ball over are the 6 sixes for Gary Sobers off poor Malcolm Nash for Nottingham against Glamorgan at Swansea, and for Ravi Shastri off Tilak Raj for Bombay against Baroda at Bombay.[13] But counting extras, Lee Germon and Roger Ford added 77 (75 runs off the bat and 2 more for dot no balls - 0444664614106666600401 - and only five of those were legitimate deliveries) in a dodgy New Zealand domestic match (Canterbury against Wellington at Christchurch). The game was heading for a draw, but Wellington needed a win, so Bert Vance was ordered to bowl lots of no balls to give Canterbury a chance of winning, because Wellington thought they might then get the last two wickets. Everyone - players, umpires, scorers - got very confused - so much so that Canterbury ended up levelling the scores! [14] -- ALoan (Talk) 14:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Man! It turns out that every question I ask, there is a CricInfo page entitled, roughly, "Here is the answer to Deville's question, and some more info". I should probably search Cricinfo for the answer to my question before I pose it ;) Anyway, here is an entertaining account of that 77 run over [15]. --Deville (Talk) 15:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- I happened to know the answers too, but the Cricinfo pages helped to nail the details :) -- ALoan (Talk) 16:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to interrupt. Re. ALoan's question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket/Quiz/archive7#Q131) about the cricketer to play before I WW and after II WW - D. B. Deodhar is one as well. I too have read that Ashdown is the *only* player to do it. Our sources must both be wrong. Deodhar played in the Bombay Triangular in 1911 and Ranji in 1946, so it could not be that the fc status of any of his matches changed recently either. [16] Tintin (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, good catch, sir. Almost an urban legend. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Q148
Which club's colours were (allegedly) stolen by the MCC? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Would it be I Zingari? If so, this is ironic, as I am the last editor to that article! ;) But cricinfo seems to think that this is true, or at least allegedly, as well [17]. --Deville (Talk) 17:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it would be. Well done. THat is an article that Giano asked me to create some time ago to fill a redlink on one of his projects. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, that's actually a little spooky. You were the first editor, and I was the last, and it came up like that. Anyway, now I have to come up with a question not on Cricinfo --Deville (Talk) 19:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it would be. Well done. THat is an article that Giano asked me to create some time ago to fill a redlink on one of his projects. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Q149
I am a famous cricketer whose visage was used prominently by Monty Python. Who am I? --Deville (Talk) 19:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- What a great question, makes a change from the constant stats based ones: Dennis Compton, I believe was the cricketer of choice. --Wisden17 19:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Believe it or not, that's actually not what I was looking for. I don't know if Compton's face was actually ever shown on Monty Python, although of course his name arose all the time. But here I'm looking for someone whose face features prominently in Python work. --Deville (Talk) 19:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- I take it all back: what a rubbish question! I'm only joking, if it's a face your after that's easy, good ol' William Gilbert Grace. --Wisden17 20:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- That's right! [18] Actually, I thought that one would be harder; it's my impression that that is not really a very well known fact amongst cricket fans. Your go.--Deville (Talk) 20:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Q150
Right, here's a question which I hope you will all find interesting. A bowler comes on to open the bowling at the start of the match, and bowls 1 No Ball, but in doing so pulls his hamstring, and so cna't complete the over, and he doesn't bowl again in the match. What is his bowling analysis (i.e. his Over, Maidens, Runs, Wickets (OMRW) totals)? --Wisden17 17:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
0-0-1-0. I thought this happened in a Test match some time under a different circumstance, when the winning run came from a no-ball bowled by a bowler who hadn't previously bowled. Perhaps someone can remember when. Johnlp 00:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know about the circumstances surrounding the event you describe, but your answer is not correct. I think we've probably had enough stats questions on here (as the answers to the vast majority can be found in a matter of seconds on the internet), so I've branched off into my scoring knowledge. The answer to this question cannot be found in the Laws of Cricket, as it is a Technical Committee of the ACU&S decision, and so is the recommended practice for scoers across the world to use. It shouldn't be beyond your ability to work out what their decision was (but the point is you'll have to think about the question, as opposed to just using Cricinfo). --Wisden17 00:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- This is probably what John was thinking of, and unless they've changed the rules since, Gower's 0-0-4-0 would suggest 0-0-1-0 is correct (?) --Paul 03:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- How about 0.0-0-1-0 ? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- That's correct ALoan. The point is that you put the .0 to show that the over has been started, but that no legal deliveries have been bowled. --Wisden17 12:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Kind of redundant, as someone who hasn't bowled has no figures at all. Ergo 0-0-1-0 is exactly the same as 0.0-0-1-0. And there's no confusing 0-0-0-0 with a DNB as you can't get those figures anymore --Paul 14:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- That's correct ALoan. The point is that you put the .0 to show that the over has been started, but that no legal deliveries have been bowled. --Wisden17 12:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, but the point is that the bowler has bowled. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, and their figures are 0-0-1-0. IF you have figures, you have started an over. The ".0 to show that the over has been started" is unnecessary --Paul 15:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, but the point is that the bowler has bowled. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- It would be necessary if it was 1.0 as opposed to 1 though. So for consistency at least it should be 0.0. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean.. say four off the first over, and then the hammy ripping no-ball to start the next would be written 1-0-5-0, not 1.0-0-5-0. --Paul 17:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- You should be able to tell as much as possible from a scorecard. 1-0-5-0 says five runs were scored in the over. 1-1-1-0 is clearly impossible, but 1.0-1-1-0 clearly is. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- How do you account for it in the player's career figures? Presumably the career total of balls doesn't increase even when the number of runs goes up by one for the no-ball? So in career terms the ball doesn't exist. Not even as a .0. Johnlp 18:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- The same as any no-ball, yes. Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- How do you account for it in the player's career figures? Presumably the career total of balls doesn't increase even when the number of runs goes up by one for the no-ball? So in career terms the ball doesn't exist. Not even as a .0. Johnlp 18:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- You should be able to tell as much as possible from a scorecard. 1-0-5-0 says five runs were scored in the over. 1-1-1-0 is clearly impossible, but 1.0-1-1-0 clearly is. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean.. say four off the first over, and then the hammy ripping no-ball to start the next would be written 1-0-5-0, not 1.0-0-5-0. --Paul 17:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- It would be necessary if it was 1.0 as opposed to 1 though. So for consistency at least it should be 0.0. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I do take onboard the idea that 1-0-5-0 might be written 1.0-0-5-0, it's just I've never seen it, there's never been a x.0 (where x>0) analysis in either Test or ODI history, and I merely assumed CI used 0.0 because of the very unusual circumstances. The Wisden books I have and CricketArchive both use 0-0-4-0 for Gower --Paul 18:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm - what if the bowler runs the last player out during the delivery of his first ball (a la Mankad)? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- I believe, according to the laws, that the over has commenced, and therefore the .0 is necessary, as no legal balls have been bowled in the over. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- So the analysis would be 0.0-0-0-0? I wonder if this has ever happened... -- ALoan (Talk) 20:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Q151
Which flamboyant cricketer questioned the wisdom of being in bed at 11 before a match because the match would be starting at 11:30? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- My fingers are desperately trying to type Geoffrey Boycott, but I think I remember seeing that attributed to Beefy. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Not the person I am thinking of - before their time. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I must have been thinking of Miss Barbados. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Colin Ingleby-Mackenzie allegedly told his players to be in bed before breakfast time on match days. Which isn't quite the same thing. Johnlp 20:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ingleby-Mackenzie's obit in the Telegraph quotes a television interview after Hants' championship in 1961 :
- "Mr Ingleby-Mackenzie, to what do you attribute Hampshire's success?"
- "Oh, wine, women and song, I should say."
- "But don't you have certain rules, discipline, helpful hints for the younger viewer?"
- "Well, everyone in bed in time for breakfast, I suppose."
- "Yes, thank you. Perhaps we could take a look in the dressing room?"
- "Certainly, if you don't mind me wandering about in the nude." Tintin (talk) 04:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'll have to give it to Johnlp - that is not the incident I was thinking of, but the correct answer is Colin Ingleby-Mackenzie. That obit in The Telegraph goes on to talk about his tour of the West Indies in 1956 with E.W. Swanton
- Ingleby-Mackenzie professed bafflement when Swanton insisted that the players should be in bed by 11.00. "But surely," he objected, "the match starts at 11.30."
- He was also reputedly the last person to see Lord Lucan before he disappeared. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Q152
Which Test player qualified to play county cricket in England by being slightly economical with the details of his birthplace? Johnlp 18:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'll take a wild stab in the dark - was it Albert Trott? QazPlm 10:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
No, not Trott. But you're in the right general geographical direction, though not exactly right. This player played Test cricket for his home country, never for England, and he toured England twice with a team from his own country, playing Tests in England on one of the tours. Johnlp 13:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- One last stab - Charles Dempster? He toured England with NZ in 1927, played no Tests then, returned in 1931 and scored a century in the First Test at Lord's. He also played for Leicestershire and Warwickshire. QazPlm 14:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
You are very close: right country, right tours... but wrong player. Give yourself another go. Johnlp 14:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ken James? Toured 1927 & 1931, later played for Northamptonshire? QazPlm 14:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The player in question played for Somerset a few years before the first New Zealanders came to England: he was a student at Cambridge at the time... You've got to get there now. Johnlp 15:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- I guess it was Tom Lowry then. It's not abundantly clear in that article what the qualification matter was all about. Ah, now I get it.--Paul 15:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Just goes to show that cricinfo doesn't know everything. ;—) Lowry wasn't the first player to use this ploy to qualify for Somerset: Peter Randall Johnson [19] a generation earlier played for Somerset also by declaring himself to have been born at Wellington, omitting to say that it was not the Somerset one but the New Zealand one. Sorry, QazPlm, after you did the hard work, Paul just nicked it. Johnlp 16:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Heh, the trivia quiz world, it's a cut-throat and dirty business :P --Paul 06:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Tom Lowry was next on the list. I would have got him eventually! :) QazPlm 00:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Q153
Shouldn't be too hard: I was a well-performed top order batsman, averaging over 40 in Tests, yet I once scored 0,0,1,0,0,0 in Test series. Who am I --Paul 06:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Mohinder Amarnath? GizzaChat © 06:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Jimmy it is, makes a nice trough in his graph. Funnily, he had scored 598 in a series against the same oppostion ealier in the year. --Paul 08:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)