Neil Pickup
Request Your Custom Title Now!
So why the **** would he do that, then?Smith loves these situations it seems.
So why the **** would he do that, then?Smith loves these situations it seems.
That's not possible.Would that include innings victories after follow-on being enforced?
How isn't it?That's not possible.
EDIT: Brain freeze. I was assuming Jamee was an idiot and expected the team following on to win by an innings. Now who looks stupid?
Great stats - so only 16 teams has a team failed to win when enforcing the follow on.I'm pretty sure this is it. I could be wrong though.
EDIT: I don't think that includes occasions where teams have won by an innings after enforcing the follow-on, actually.
I don't think we've accounted for three-innings draws that include a follow-on, actually.All matches won by teams batting first - 149 innings victories: all of these must be after follow ons - so we have 200 wins, 13 draws and 3 defeats after a follow on.
Yeah, I don't think that's possible at all.I'm trying to get a filter of matches that led to the batting team having a first-innings lead of > 200 at the moment, and not having much luck.
I can get the team batting second having a lead of > 200, which makes me think it ought to be.Yeah, I don't think that's possible at all.
I'm pretty sure this is it. I could be wrong though.
EDIT: I don't think that includes occasions where teams have won by an innings after enforcing the follow-on, actually.
All matches won by teams batting first - 149 innings victories: all of these must be after follow ons - so we have 200 wins, 13 draws and 3 defeats after a follow on.
Batted in the third innings after fielding first takes all that in.I don't think we've accounted for three-innings draws that include a follow-on, actually.
Neil said:I'm trying to get a filter of matches that led to the batting team having a first-innings lead of > 200 at the moment, and not having much luck.
Don't ask me but it's the upteanthed time he's scored in the 4th innings.So why the **** would he do that, then?
And it is, if I use negative numbers for the lead. Filter: Cricinfo Statsguru - Test matches - Team recordsI can get the team batting second having a lead of > 200, which makes me think it ought to be.
A 200+ lead has been achieved 300 times - 301 including the current game at the Wanderers.And it is, if I use negative numbers for the lead. Filter: Cricinfo Statsguru - Test matches - Team records
This gives us all the times when a lead of >= 200 has been achieved. And only once before (Cricinfo - 3rd Test: South Africa v Australia at Durban, Jan 20-24, 1950) has batting on after a follow-on led to defeat. South Africa (311 & 99) lost to Australia (75 & 336/5).
Perth to be replayed I reckonI am really worried about the way things are going atm, if the conditions remain the same tomorrow and a full day's play takes place, then South Africa pulling off a win here won't really be out of question, because unless weather intervenes in this game, I think we can pretty safely say that there will be result in this game, one way or the another.