Talk:Steve Atkinson (cricketer)

Bowling analysis

Six balls bowled, with an analysis of 0/37? That equates to all six legitimate deliveries being hit for six, plus a no-ball. That beats Nash's record against Sobers, so I think it would be recorded somewhere. However, I think it is most probably a mistake. LessHeard vanU 12:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's no mistake. See the scorecard. Four wides and a no-ball. Andrew nixon 12:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have loved to see the scorers sheet. It was either 5 X 6 + 1 X 2, or 4 X 6 + 2 X 4 (plus extras as described). It is still likely be some sort of record. Does Wisden make any comment? LessHeard vanU 23:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that the wides and no-balls could have gone for runs. From an over with five extra deliveries, it would theoretically be possible to score 37 without ever hitting a boundary. Scores like this from an over are certainly uncommon, but not without precedent. In a match between Auckland and Wellington in 1995/96 one over went for 35 runs, which included only 19 runs from the bat. I'm not sure if Wisden makes any comment in the handful of paragraphs they usually give to the ICC Trophy, but the fact that no-one talks about it suggests that nothing that interesting happened beyond it being an eleven ball over. Whether it's a record for the ICC Trophy or not could only be found by further research. Andrew nixon 06:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, being an ex-bowler whose batting average was based on balls survived, but I thought that if you hit a ball it cannot be called wide? The no-ball could have been hit, for a max of seven, and the wides could have been only one ball that avoided all of the fielders and got to the boundary (this would suggest a severely sloping pitch, given the result of the legitimate deliveries, or overthrows of the no-ball which might result in five runs) resulting in a mere eight ball over...

I love cricket, what other sport gives so much to discuss over the analysis of one over? LessHeard vanU 08:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The four wides could all have gone to the boundary for four runs each, which is relatively common, making 20 runs, leaving just 17 to get from the six legitimate balls and no-ball. Andrew nixon 08:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Theoretically yes, but those 20 runs would be in the analysis and the scorecard. There was a total of 14 wides only in the game (and there were no other extra's than them and Atkinsons no-ball, and my suggestion of 5 runs from it is also wrong) so it appears that the legitimate balls went for 32 runs. The only question that remains is how many balls were bowled; the minimum being 8 and the maximum of 11. Does anyone have Atkinsons' phone number?LessHeard vanU 09:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see what you're on about now. I wasn't looking at the scorecard correctly. It looks like the batsman who hit the runs must have been A Tawatatau, who scored 31. Shame the scorecard doesn't break down the sixes and fours for the players. Atkinson is a junior selector for Hong Kong, so I might send an e-mail enquring! Andrew nixon 10:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)