Wicket partnership records - retired hurt

[Brook's side]

If a batsman retires hurt, how is that considered (if at all) in partnership stats?

eg:
Fall of 1st wicket 30-1
Batsman retires hurt @ 60-1
Fall of 2nd wicket 100-1

What is the total of the 2nd wicket partnership and which batsmen were involved in it?

 

[Molehill]

The 2nd wicket partnership is 70 runs. It just featured 3 batsmen.

 

[Brook's side]

The 2nd wicket partnership is 70 runs. It just featured 3 batsmen.

OK. Makes sense.

Has there ever been a wicket partnership record involving 3 batsmen?
I don't ever recall hearing one.

 

[Molehill]

That's a niche stat request and one I would have no idea how to find. Others here might....

 

[AndrewB]

If a batsman retires hurt, how is that considered (if at all) in partnership stats?

eg:
Fall of 1st wicket 30-1
Batsman retires hurt @ 60-1
Fall of 2nd wicket 100-1

What is the total of the 2nd wicket partnership and which batsmen were involved in it?

In partnership lists (eg on Statsguru) that would be one partnership of 30* and one of 40.

 

[AndrewB]

OK. Makes sense.

Has there ever been a wicket partnership record involving 3 batsmen?
I don't ever recall hearing one.

In 1982 India added 415 for their 3rd wicket in the 5th Test against England: 99* by Vengsarkar and Viswanath, and 316 by Viswanath and Yashpal Sharma. That would be India’s record partnership for any wicket, but it’s not generally listed as such.

 

[Brook's side]

It sounds as though we have found a cricketing paradox.

 

[Starfighter]

If a batsman retires hurt, how is that considered (if at all) in partnership stats?

It's considered the end of the partnership, just without a dismissal (same as the way the batsman's innings is not out).

Molehill is wrong, as usual.

 

[Prince EWS]

Molehill is wrong, as usual.

Not sure he's made enough posts to say anything is usual for him, so this shade really amused me.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Our record partnership for the 5th wicket is 344 between The Prince and Pedro Collins (Whose contribution was only 13 off 47 balls.)

 

[Molehill]

It's considered the end of the partnership, just without a dismissal (same as the way the batsman's innings is not out).

Molehill is wrong, as usual.

I don't even know who you are, but nice that you've noticed me.

Anyway, look back at the original question, "what is the total of the 2nd wicket partnership"?

The answer is still 70, but individual partnerships between batsmen are 30 and 40.

PS I've spent rather too much time over the past 10 years scoring matches in Girls Junior Cricket.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Glad you said matches.

 

[Starfighter]

I don't even know who you are, but nice that you've noticed me.

Anyway, look back at the original question, "what is the total of the 2nd wicket partnership"?

The answer is still 70, but individual partnerships between batsmen are 30 and 40.

PS I've spent rather too much time over the past 10 years scoring matches in Girls Junior Cricket.

Except they're way they're actually treated, the total is irrelevant.

 

[Prince EWS]

Glad you said matches.

Say his name.

 

[Molehill]

Glad you said matches.

Yeah, that was actually a late addition when I realised it could be somewhat misconstrued.

 

[Molehill]

Except they're way they're actually treated, the total is irrelevant.

Why is the total irrelevant? You could have 5 retired hurts, but if no one is out until 100 runs, the 2nd wicket partnership is still 70.

No need to be pedantic, you made a mistake, now move on.....

 

[Brook's side]

Wow, this thread has real potential.

 

[Starfighter]

Why is the total irrelevant? You could have 5 retired hurts, but if no one is out until 100 runs, the 2nd wicket partnership is still 70.

No need to be pedantic, you made a mistake, now move on.....

No it's not because the partnership ends at the retirement. The next one might still be for the second wicket, but it's a new partnership and is not summed to the first. Hence why you do not see the example mentioned by @AndrewB listed amongst Indian partnership records.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Say his name.

Uh, Molehill Bracewell

 

[Molehill]

No it's not because the partnership ends at the retirement. The next one might still be for the second wicket, but it's a new partnership and is not summed to the first. Hence why you do not see the example mentioned by @AndrewB listed amongst Indian partnership records.

I get what you're saying, but look at the original question.

When a batsman retires hurt, that's not the end of the 2nd wicket partnership. That's just the end of the partnership between those two batsmen. The next man out is still going to be the 2nd wicket.

Partnership records presumably look at the most amount of runs scored between 2 batsmen, not necessarily the total amount for a wicket.