Can you beat for the cricket guru title?

[JASON]

Bryce, I am afraid, your question has stumped everyone and the fact that no one has even attempted to answer it means, its either too good a question or too far fetched!! I don't want to say which group it might belong to , but would suggest (in helping this thread move along rather than stagnate on this question for a few weeks. ) you give a clue. (It is infact an unspoken rule of this thread that if no one gets close to getting the answer within 24 hours a clue of some sort be given.)


May I ask you to do the same, since its nearing 40 odd hours since any posting has been made on this thread, and we are not able to move on !!


To all contributors to this thread, (I ask Biased Indian, Marc also to give their opinion on this) Please make questions clearly worded as possible and as SJS has pointed out in the recent past, please avoid posting vague questions or questions which no-one can figure out !! (since no one will be able to get into your mind to work out what the intended question was ).

Also while it is important to post a question that is unique, it is just as important that the answer is also not restricted to one country or is so unique that very few people would know it or be aware of it or be able to figure it out or even(in the worst case ) Yahoo it or Google it.

Otherwise this thread is likely to end up becoming stagnant on certain questions which no-one knows the answer to, except of course the person who posted the question.

 

[SJS]

Totally agree. Also, I have two more suggestions.

1. If the original question is not answered in a fixed time frame (you decide how much) the one who asked it should come forward and give the answer AND ask another one.

2. If an answer is givem but goes unacknowledged for a certain period of time (you decide how much), the person who has answered and thinks it is right should be allowed to ask the next question.

FINALLY, I would be very happy to know what is the source/method of arriving at the answer. Search Engine, personal knowledge or whatever .

What do you guys say ?

ONE MORE THING. It would be a good idea to number the questions serially. Sometimes, one misses the answers and would like to know if some questions as well as their answers have been missed. I would love to go back and look at all of them. Its something like this reason for my numbering the Bizzare Incidents thread

 

[JASON]

Thanks for the support, SJS.

With regard to the time frame its generally 24 hours isn't it , as has been followed so far WRT acknowledging answers or posting questions by the previous person with correct answer.

I am not sure whether questions posted so far can be numbered. I guess only one of the CW Administrators such as Marc can answer that or do anything about that.

 

[Deja moo]

quoting the post numbers # will work just as fine to prevent misunderstanding.

 

[Tapioca]

On the third day, play was delayed for 20 minutes by a mad dog on the field.

Sayeth google :

http://usa.cricinfo.com/link_to_dat...ANJI/CENTRAL/VIDAR_UP_RJI-C_28-31DEC2000.html

 

[Tapioca]

Please make questions clearly worded as possible and as SJS has pointed out in the recent past, please avoid posting vague questions or questions which no-one can figure out

You can't blame the QM all the time if a question is a bit vague. With some questions, it is not easy to do frame them. Since my last question was a bit vague initially, I have to say that the QM might be tempted/forced to keep it vague due to three reasons

(1) He wants to give a chance to those who have 'superior knowledge'

(2) It might be difficult to provide an elegant clue

(3) Giving a clue might make it a sitter.

All three were true for that question. Mentioning about Pakistan in the first post might have screwed up the whole thing because there are just about two Pakistani fc matches from the 1950 that are well known - the one in which Hanif scored 499 and the one where Aziz died. If I had mentioned Pakistan straightaway, Jason or SJS would have worked back from there and cracked it that way, which was not what I wanted.

So when a question is vague it is not always right to blame the question setter. Am not trying to justify vague questions, but just stating the other point of view.

 

[marc71178]

Afraid it's not something I can help with, I'm just a staff member.

 

[JASON]

You can't blame the QM all the time if a question is a bit vague. With some questions, it is not easy to do frame them. Since my last question was a bit vague initially, I have to say that the QM might be tempted/forced to keep it vague due to three reasons

(1) He wants to give a chance to those who have 'superior knowledge'

(2) It might be difficult to provide an elegant clue

(3) Giving a clue might make it a sitter.

All three were true for that question. Mentioning about Pakistan in the first post might have screwed up the whole thing because there are just about two Pakistani fc matches from the 1950 that are well known - the one in which Hanif scored 499 and the one where Aziz died. If I had mentioned Pakistan straightaway, Jason or SJS would have worked back from there and cracked it that way, which was not what I wanted.

So when a question is vague it is not always right to blame the question setter. Am not trying to justify vague questions, but just stating the other point of view.

I didn't realise this was a quiz to test Superior Knowledge !! I have always thought of this as a fun cricket trivia rather than what Tapioca seems to imply. For, If I wanted a test of Superior Knowledge this would certainly not be the place to look for .

To me the thrill of asking a question also lies in crediting the person who answers it rather than a game of one-up-man ship. (not implying anything here.)

Anyway getting back to Tapioca's question re-cricketers dying in the midst of cricket matches, It seems a total newcomer going by the name of Indie2 suddenly appeared and answered that question.(vague or otherwise) (in their only post on this forum).

Now He (or She ) is unique, (not implying anything here) in that they seemed to be the only person who were able to figure out that question correctly (possibly a case of ESP from Tapioca, may be!!


Getting back to the current question. I guess we await Tapioca's question now.

 

[bryce]

i get where you guys are coming from but its no fun when you try your best to think of a tough but 'answerable' question and someone fires up cricinfo/google etc & answer your question within the minute, i have the frame of mind as tapioca said in trying to prove superior knowledge(sorry ) and/or provide a very challenging question which is not simple but still very much 'answerable' both as the quiz master and question answerer.

 

[SJS]

I would like to clarify something here.

Vague questions :

Suppose I wanted to ask how many times, and where when etc a particular thing has happened (like say someone batting thru an innnigs twice in the same match) and suppose it has happened three times.

I could ask a direct question like "how many batsmen have batted through an innings twice in the same match?"
OR
I could ask, what has happened once in a match between team X and team Y, once between team X and team Z, and once between Teams A and B ?. Now this second is a vague question because it could be anything !! Anything whatever. Someone getting hurt, getting married during the match, becoming a father, losing a father...anything !!

How is one supposed to guess this ??

So the questions should at least be such as to be suggestive of an answer if one knows. In the above example, even if I knew, that player A and B and C have achieved this feat. I am never going to think of it because the question does not connect to the feat whatsoever. You might as well ask what has happened three times on a Friday in April that was also the 13th of the month and it might have the same answer as the one above !!

LOOKING UP ANSWERS/BECOMING A GURU :

I think the fun of a quiz for me, I would like to presume, for most others, is to test my knowledge of the game and its history. Unfortunately, with search engines this need not be the case. It is , therefore, becoming more and more a question of asking that which cant be looked up in a search engine.

I think, if we want to have more fun, maybe we need to modify the game a bit and frame the rules so that it is possible (at least sometimes ) to answer the questions without resorting to search engines all the time. Its no fun.

What do you say guys ?

 

[Tapioca]

could ask, what has happened once in a match between team X and team Y, once between team X and team Z, and once between Teams A and B ?. Now this second is a vague question because it could be anything !! Anything whatever. Someone getting hurt, getting married during the match, becoming a father, losing a father...anything !!

IMHO, how good that question is depends on how good its answer is. If the answer is something like what you have mentioned, surely it would be a stupid question. But the answer is guessable or workout-able from the given information, it is a decent question. Obviously this definition covers a large territory and there will be exceptions, but I think that is a general guideline for a 'scorecard question'.

"how many batsmen have batted through an innings twice in the same match?"

There have been bad examples of this type of questions here - about somebody's bowling average in some inconsequential series, and things like that.

My suggestion is that if an answer is too easily lookupable and if it cannot be answered without looking up, it should be avoided. Generally, answers to such questions aren't too interesting too.

Next question. Identify this Test cricketer :

(1) Scored a hundred on test debut. Started his career in the middle order and ended it as an opening batsman.

(2) Played test cricket for nearly a decade and was one of the dullest batsmen in an era of dull batsmen.

(3) In an era of players with dubious actions, his too was one. But was never called for chucking (not sure about fcc). He considered himself a chucker.

(4) Became a commentator in the 1970s and after getting into certain financial troubles, commited suicide by shooting himself.

 

[Tapioca]

I think, if we want to have more fun, maybe we need to modify the game a bit and frame the rules so that it is possible (at least sometimes ) to answer the questions without resorting to search engines all the time. Its no fun.

Fully agree. Maybe the QM can mention with the question whether the participants should avoid googling and the rest follow it, or something like that

 

[Deja moo]

At a time when batsmen are encouraged not to walk, do you really think people will be so truthful and admit googling for the answer ?

 

[Tapioca]

No.

I should have mentioned that this chap was predominantly a batsman - a batting allrounder.

 

[SJS]

Jim Burke of Australia

 

[Tapioca]

Burke it was. Over to you.

 

[JASON]

Jim Burke

At a time when batsmen are encouraged not to walk, do you really think people will be so truthful and admit googling for the answer ?

Well said.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I can honestly say I did look this up on Cricinfo records.

 

[SJS]

Jim Burke



Well said.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I can honestly say I did looked this up on Cricinfo records.

Jason. for being honest enough to 'walk' you have the honour to ask the next question.

 

[JASON]

Jason. for being honest enough to 'walk' you have the honour to ask the next question.

Thank You.

Who is the oldest bowler to take 5 wickets in a Test match?

 

[Tapioca]

Thank You.

Who is the oldest bowler to take 5 wickets in a Test match?

Bert Ironmonger [am not cheating ]