Test match Records that will never be broken !!

[smash84]

The problem is whenever Steyn bowls an awesome spell on a flattie, People say the ball was swinging as though it's a completely random occurrence irrelevant to the skill of the bowler extracting said swing.

lol.........now when I think about it you have raised a good point

I would be suprised if anyone breaks one of Murali's three big records of most wickets, most 5-fors, and most 10-fors.

I think Bapu Nadkarni's record of 21 consecutive maidens deserves a place in the unbreakable category.

TJ Mathews is the only bowler to take two hat-tricks in a test-match which I doubt will ever be equalled. Interestingly enough those were only wickets he got in the match.

Two hatricks in a match might be broken (especially with good reverse swing bowling and a very weak tail). Wasim Akram has come close I believe and his 2 hattricks came against SL in two successive matches IIRC.

 

[benchmark00]

lol.........now when I think about it you have raised a good point



Two hatricks in a match might be broken (especially with good reverse swing bowling and a very weak tail). Wasim Akram has come close I believe and his 2 hattricks came against SL in two successive matches IIRC.

There's no way I can see someone taking three hat tricks in the same game.

May be equalled, but never surpassed.

 

[smash84]

There's no way I can see someone taking three hat tricks in the same game.

May be equalled, but never surpassed.

sorry. You are right. I meant it can be equaled

 

[Migara]

Bradman's record is too much overhyphed as the highest ever career average. If a batsman retires after one test, scoring 150 in that his career average will be 150, and it's higher than Bradman. And there are possibly one or two players who average better than Bradman in their careers, and that record clearly does not belong to Bradman. But that doesn't mean that Bradman is the best ever batsman though.

Once you start to qualify records you can qualify whatever the way you want it. If somebody says that Bradman has the highest average from players who have played 20+ tests, another can argue that he's going to the raide the bar to 80 tests and say Sobers had the best average. No point in adding queries when you speak about records. just get the plain and simple numbers.

 

[TT Boy]

Yeah see the thing about that particular spell is that it was a good spell but it was made to look awesome due to the ball being changed and him ripping out the tail because that. That particular ball was almost near perfect for reverse swing. Before that he had bowled really well but it wasn't a "tear through the line up" kind of thing. It was only when the ball had changed just before tea and then about 5 overs after tea India were bowled out. He himself credited the ball change

Dale Steyn credits ball change before tea | Cricket News | India v South Africa 2009/10 | ESPN Cricinfo

Before that ball change he had bowled some good spells (particularly to Vijay and Sachin) and then in the second innings he also bowled pretty well. But IMO that 7 wicket spell isn't what I consider total ownage on a flat deck.

What about when he helped (5-23) bowl out India for 70 odd and then AB de Villiers gets a double hundred and South Africa win by an innings? Wicket can’t have changed much as India batted 20 overs...

 

[Debris]

All the records mentioned so far have some possibility of being broken and will be if test cricket is played long enough. There are, of course, a whole lot of firsts which will never be broken eg. first player to score a hundred, first player to take 10 wickets in a match, etc.

Of records that it is possible to break, the oldest player on debut might end up being the hardest. James Sutherland was 49 years 119 days on his debut. Wilfred Rhodes was 52 years 156 days old on his last test. Those couple might be tricky.

 

[Furball]

bradman's record is too much overhyphed. If a batsman retires after one test, scoring 150 in that his career average will be 150, and it's higher than bradman. And there are possibly one or two players who average better than bradman in their careers, and that record clearly does not belong to bradman. But that doesn't mean that bradman is the best ever batsman though.

Once you start to qualify records you can qualify whatever the way you want it. If somebody says that bradman has the highest average from players who have played 20+ tests, another can argue that he's going to the raide the bar to 80 tests and say sobers had the best average. No point in adding queries when you speak about records. Just get the plain and simple numbers.

 

[NUFAN]

I think Bapu Nadkarni's record of 21 consecutive maidens deserves a place in the unbreakable category.

I would hope so! That's an incredible record, one that I had no idea about tbh and would hate to see broken.

 

[vcs]

It amazes me when people say Bradman's average wouldn't translate to the modern game citing improvements in bowling attacks, different types of bowlers, fielding standards, pitches, video analysis and what not. Totally defies logic. From what I've read, what set him apart was his freakish hand-eye coordination (practised bouncing a golf ball off a curved surface with a stump ), lightning footwork and superhuman powers of concentration. What part of that wouldn't carry over to this era?

The way I visualize Bradman's batting is : he must have been as technically solid and adaptable as a Tendulkar with a Sehwag-like freakish talent for boundary-hitting and constructing long innings (under all types of conditions). If you could put the talents of those two together in the modern era, wouldn't you get a batsman averaging 100 easily? Heck, he'd average 120 if he played most of his career in the last decade.

The man also had to contend with a unique tactic solely designed to keep him quiet, and what's more, implemented by an ATG bowler. Still managed to average 56+, which was much more than his team-mates managed.

 

[smash84]

It amazes me when people say Bradman's average wouldn't translate to the modern game citing improvements in bowling attacks, different types of bowlers, fielding standards, pitches, video analysis and what not. Totally defies logic. From what I've read, what set him apart was his freakish hand-eye coordination (practised bouncing a golf ball off a curved surface with a stump ), lightning footwork and superhuman powers of concentration. What part of that wouldn't carry over to this era?

The way I visualize Bradman's batting is : he must have been as technically solid and adaptable as a Tendulkar with a Sehwag-like freakish talent for boundary-hitting and constructing long innings (under all types of conditions). If you could put the talents of those two together in the modern era, wouldn't you get a batsman averaging 100 easily? Heck, he'd average 120 if he played most of his career in the last decade.

The man also had to contend with a unique tactic solely designed to keep him quiet, and what's more, implemented by an ATG bowler. Still managed to average 56+, which was much more than his team-mates managed.

A point well made.

Weren't u in india until last week (or month)???

 

[vcs]

A point well made.

Weren't u in india until last week (or month)???

I'm back in India for good. Made the account when I was in the US briefly.

 

[andyc]

Bradman's record is too much overhyphed. If a batsman retires after one test, scoring 150 in that his career average will be 150, and it's higher than Bradman. And there are possibly one or two players who average better than Bradman in their careers, and that record clearly does not belong to Bradman. But that doesn't mean that Bradman is the best ever batsman though.

Once you start to qualify records you can qualify whatever the way you want it. If somebody says that Bradman has the highest average from players who have played 20+ tests, another can argue that he's going to the raide the bar to 80 tests and say Sobers had the best average. No point in adding queries when you speak about records. just get the plain and simple numbers.

I can kind of (a very minuscule amount) understand the point you're making wrt qualifying records, but I really don't think would honestly claim that he's overhyped and wasn't the best batsman ever. Because, averaging 99.94 despite missing what is normally the prime of a batsman's career due to the war, and battling a whole bowling system concocted purely to curtail him (and coming out with a more than handy average regardless) is hardly overrated. Oh, and there's this.

Ignore the ODI graph obvs, cbf cropping it out at this time of the night after a few beers. Suspect PEWS has it though and he can edit it in if he really cares that much.

 

[The Sean]

Sehwag has 6 and one 182 and one 195.

Depends on how long he plays but he can certainly come close to it ,if he plays about 4/5 years more.

He's 32 now isn't he? The 182 and 195 are irrelevant, so to break the record he'd need to score seven Test double centuries after his 32nd birthday. Not going to happen IMO.

 

[The Sean]

Bradman's record is too much overhyphed. If a batsman retires after one test, scoring 150 in that his career average will be 150, and it's higher than Bradman. And there are possibly one or two players who average better than Bradman in their careers, and that record clearly does not belong to Bradman. But that doesn't mean that Bradman is the best ever batsman though.

Once you start to qualify records you can qualify whatever the way you want it. If somebody says that Bradman has the highest average from players who have played 20+ tests, another can argue that he's going to the raide the bar to 80 tests and say Sobers had the best average. No point in adding queries when you speak about records. just get the plain and simple numbers.

Ha ha, one of your very best Migara.

 

[The Sean]

Can never see that graph often enough - just says it all really.

 

[Migara]

I can kind of (a very minuscule amount) understand the point you're making wrt qualifying records, but I really don't think would honestly claim that he's overhyped and wasn't the best batsman ever. Because, averaging 99.94 despite missing what is normally the prime of a batsman's career due to the war, and battling a whole bowling system concocted purely to curtail him (and coming out with a more than handy average regardless) is hardly overrated. Oh, and there's this.

Ignore the ODI graph obvs, cbf cropping it out at this time of the night after a few beers. Suspect PEWS has it though and he can edit it in if he really cares that much.

You are waaaaaaay off the topic I am afraid. People here say Bradman has the highest CAREER average, which is not true. Where is the guy who averaged 112 in his test career in your graph?

Your graph has added a filter. Once you filter data, records can be tricky, because your filter is as arbitrary as mine.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I think Bapu Nadkarni's record of 21 consecutive maidens deserves a place in the unbreakable category.

I hear suicide bombers get 72 consecutive maidens tbh.

 

[Teja.]

What's the record for the slowest century? Don't think it'll be broken.

 

[pup11]

I think one can pretty safely say that every record that Sachin holds to his name in test cricket is very unlikely to be broken, Murali's 800 is also a feat that I can't see any bowler even coming close to.
Don's career average though is something that might get eclipsed in the future by a very good batsman, becuase I can only see the wickets getting flatter and hence bowling attacks becoming even more toothless around the world, mind you it still would be some achievement.
Australia's record streak of 16 wins in a row is something though that I can't see no team replicating any time soon.

 

[andyc]

You are waaaaaaay off the topic I am afraid. People here say Bradman has the highest CAREER average, which is not true. Where is the guy who averaged 112 in his test career in your graph?

Your graph has added a filter. Once you filter data, records can be tricky, because your filter is as arbitrary as mine.

Can't say I understand your point though. Most people accept that around 20 Tests is as decent a place for a cut-off as any. We obviously don't use just one or two Tests because you need a number of games over a decent length of time to get an idea of how good a player is. Can't believe I'm having to explain this to anyone on a cricket site, tbh.

Look, if Bradman averaged 99.94 from 20 Tests, you might have a case in saying he's overhyped. From 48 (IIRC) Tests though, over a 20 year time span, there's not much you can say. Not sure why I should be defending the man with the average almost twice as good as anyone else (after a reasonable period of time, FFS); tbh, if you're going to be accusing him of being overhyped, surely you should be providing something other than a one-Test-wonder.