Wicket partnership records - retired hurt

[Starfighter]

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.

The OP asked:

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?

AndrewB gave the answer. There are two partnerships for the second wicket, which are not summed when treating partnerships in overall records.

I don't see why you're so insistent on contesting this. It's the accepted convention.

 

[Molehill]

The OP asked:

AndrewB gave the answer. There are two partnerships for the second wicket, which are not summed when treating partnerships in overall records.

I don't see why you're so insistent on contesting this. It's the accepted convention.

Because I answered the question that was asked. The partnership between batsmen 2 & 3 is 30 runs and between 2 & 4 it's 40 runs. But for the 2nd wicket, it's 70 runs. Overall records may not treat it that way (and you can understand why because it gets messy), but that's not to say it isn't correct.

 

[Brook's side]

I would say that it strikes me as a bit odd (although I don't dispute it) that the 2nd wicket 'partnership' would not be the sum of the individual 'partnerships' for that wicket.

The whole point of the record as I understood it was to record the greatest partnership for (not during or similar) that wicket.

I struggle to see the relevance of a stat for the highest partnership during a particular wicket, or at least it seems to me to be less relevant than the total amount of runs put on for the wicket.

Just my thoughts, and thanks all for the thoughts and insights from all which I have read with genuine interest.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Someone's reading a bit too literally into terms such as 'second-wicket partnership'. It's a conventional way of naming what could be described as 'partnership between the batsman going in at three and whoever was still in after the first wicket fell'. Retired hurts aren't so common that anyone thought it necessary to develop some sort of alternative terminology.

 

[Brook's side]

Someone's reading a bit too literally into terms such as 'second-wicket partnership'. It's a conventional way of naming what could be described as 'partnership between the batsman going in at three and whoever was still in after the first wicket fell'. Retired hurts aren't so common that anyone thought it necessary to develop some sort of alternative terminology.

But from the comments above, 'partnership between the batsman going in at three and whoever was still in after the first wicket fell', isn't how the stat is actually recorded.

Rather it seems it is, 'the higher of the partnerships of the batsman going in at three and whoever was still in after the first wicket fell, and - for instance in situations where a batsman has retired hurt - of any other combination of batsmen before the fall of the second wicket'

 

[NotMcKenzie]

But from the comments above, 'partnership between the batsman going in at three and whoever was still in after the first wicket fell', isn't how the stat is actually recorded.

The two are equivalent, and 'second-wicket partnership' is a handy way of saying it because a limited and set number of wickets can fall and a wicket falling is a discrete event that separates two batsmen.

The only exception is if someone retires hurt (or retires not out some other way). In that case, ten wickets (at most) still fall, but with two different pairs of batsmen playing before a wicket does fall, one can say there were two partnerships for that certain wicket. And it's easier

Rather it seems it is, 'the higher of the partnerships of the batsman going in at three and whoever was still in after the first wicket fell, and - for instance in situations where a batsman has retired hurt - of any other combination of batsmen before the fall of the second wicket'

Normally, there's only one score to choose from, so this doesn't make sense.

 

[Brook's side]

Normally, there's only one score to choose from, so this doesn't make sense.

It does make sense though in the context discussed above. We all appreciate how unusual it is for a batsman to retire, but it does happen and it's that eventuality - or at least the basis of the partnership record, in light of the potential for that eventuality - which is the very subject which we are discussing.

 

[tony p]

Back in 1973, the Hampshire first wicket record of 249 was technically passed by a three way partnership of 334,between Barry Richards, 143 ret h, Gordon Greenidge, 118 & David Turner 64, against Kent.
However Richards had to retire hurt with a depressed fracture of the cheekbone with the score at 241, eight behind the old 1960 record of Roy Marshall & Jimmy Gray, but the 249 remained as the record in the books at the time.
It's since been passed about 5 or 6 times since.

 

[AndrewB]

FWIW, the 1980-1985 Playfair Cricket Annuals gave the Richards/Greenidge/Turner partnership as a footnote in the list of Hampshire partnership records. The 1980 Annual at least specifically says "... in the absence of any official ruling on the matter, it is a matter of opinion as to whether it should be regarded as the first-wicket record for the county".

The Vengsarkar/Viswanath/Yashpal partnership of 415 got a similar footnote in the list of "Test partnerships of over 300" (though for some reason it doesn't in the list of "record Test partnerships" - at the time the highest 3rd wicket partnership was 370 by Compton and Edrich).

In 1986 Bill Frindall took over editing the annual, and removed the footnote for Richards/Greenidge/Turner, but not the one for Vengsarkar/Viswanath/Yashpal - again, it's not clear why.

 

[Brook's side]

Back in 1973, the Hampshire first wicket record of 249 was technically passed by a three way partnership of 334,between Barry Richards, 143 ret h, Gordon Greenidge, 118 & David Turner 64, against Kent.
However Richards had to retire hurt with a depressed fracture of the cheekbone with the score at 241, eight behind the old 1960 record of Roy Marshall & Jimmy Gray, but the 249 remained as the record in the books at the time.
It's since been passed about 5 or 6 times since.

Great post.

 

[Brook's side]

FWIW, the 1980-1985 Playfair Cricket Annuals gave the Richards/Greenidge/Turner partnership as a footnote in the list of Hampshire partnership records. The 1980 Annual at least specifically says "... in the absence of any official ruling on the matter, it is a matter of opinion as to whether it should be regarded as the first-wicket record for the county".

The Vengsarkar/Viswanath/Yashpal partnership of 415 got a similar footnote in the list of "Test partnerships of over 300" (though for some reason it doesn't in the list of "record Test partnerships" - at the time the highest 3rd wicket partnership was 370 by Compton and Edrich).

In 1986 Bill Frindall took over editing the annual, and removed the footnote for Richards/Greenidge/Turner, but not the one for Vengsarkar/Viswanath/Yashpal - again, it's not clear why.

Brilliant post. Thanks.

 

[Brook's side]

Could be cricket thread of the year this.

 

[Brook's side]

My only, or at least only remaining, Wisden is from 1995.

It includes the Indian 3rd wicket partnership as 316 but includes a footnote reading, "415 runs were scored for this wicket in two separate partnerships..."

By the way, absolutely staggering to see so many figures and statistics stated in one small hardback book (length and width ways it's no bigger than my hand, but contains over 1,400 pages of cricket stats)! Remarkable.

 

[AndrewB]

India have had at least two Test "partnerships" involving 4 batsmen:

- In 1976 at Kingston, they were 216-3: then Vengsarkar added 21 with Gaekwad, 36 with Patel and 7 with Madan Lal, all for the 4th wicket as Gaekwad and Patel both retired hurt (hit in the face by deliveries from Holding and Holder respectively).

- In 2007 at Mirpur, Jaffer and Karthik added 175 for the 1st wicket, at which point Karthik retired with cramp; Jaffer and Dravid then added another 106 before Jaffer retired with dehydration; Dravid and Tendulkar then added 127, taking India to 408, when they finally lost a wicket - Dravid. (Karthik then came back in).

Sri Lanka similarly had a 4-man "partnership" in the 1975 World Cup against Australia: Wettimuny-Mendis (66*), Wettimuny-Tennekoon (14*), Tennekoon-Tissera (82) took them from 84-2 to 246-3, both Wettimuny and Mendis being felled by Thomson.

 

[Brook's side]

India have had at least two Test "partnerships" involving 4 batsmen:

- In 1976 at Kingston, they were 216-3: then Vengsarkar added 21 with Gaekwad, 36 with Patel and 7 with Madan Lal, all for the 4th wicket as Gaekwad and Patel both retired hurt (hit in the face by deliveries from Holding and Holder respectively).

- In 2007 at Mirpur, Jaffer and Karthik added 175 for the 1st wicket, at which point Karthik retired with cramp; Jaffer and Dravid then added another 106 before Jaffer retired with dehydration; Dravid and Tendulkar then added 127, taking India to 408, when they finally lost a wicket - Dravid. (Karthik then came back in).

Sri Lanka similarly had a 4-man "partnership" in the 1975 World Cup against Australia: Wettimuny-Mendis (66*), Wettimuny-Tennekoon (14*), Tennekoon-Tissera (82) took them from 84-2 to 246-3, both Wettimuny and Mendis being felled by Thomson.

Cricinfo describes this thus:

" Fall of wickets: 0-175, 0-281* (Wasim Jaffer, retired ill), 1-408 (Rahul Dravid, 108.2 ov)"

Karthik is not expressly mentioned (other than the score when he initially retired), but unlike Jaffer he returned to bat.

By the way, the score in that innings was 610/3, with a highest score of 138.

 

[TheJediBrah]

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

OK. Makes sense.

It's wrong, so it shouldn't make sense

If you have a "partnership" broken up by a retired hurt and involving more than 2 players, it will not qualify for a partnership record. Unless one of those partnerships of 2 players breaks the record alone

edit: only read the first 2 responses, see that Starfighter has already covered it. Fun fact: Starfighter is always right, if you're arguing with him, you're almost certainly wrong by default.

 

[Brook's side]

@honestbharani
not going to share what's amused you?

 

[Brook's side]

It's wrong, so it shouldn't make sense

If you have a "partnership" broken up by a retired hurt and involving more than 2 players, it will not qualify for a partnership record. Unless one of those partnerships of 2 players breaks the record alone

edit: only read the first 2 responses, see that Starfighter has already covered it. Fun fact: Starfighter is always right, if you're arguing with him, you're almost certainly wrong by default.

If you continue to read, you'll see that it's been a matter of debate and uncertainty amongst the game's leading statisticians.

Which makes both you and @Starfighter wrong doesn't it?

 

[honestbharani]

@honestbharani
not going to share what's amused you?

That weird scorecard. Thought it was obvious?

 

[Brook's side]

That weird scorecard. Thought it was obvious?

My bad. No worries. Thanks for clarifying.