The Lemon Fool

As has been widely reported recently, Alistair Cook and Joe Root now share the record for being the joint youngest batsmen to hit 10000 test runs, at 31 years 157 days.

This is, strictly speaking, incorrect. (*) Alistair Cook is the youngest batsman, by a day, to do it - 11479 days vs. 11480 days (for Joe Root). Feel free to consult Wikipedia and timeanddate.com to verify this.

Both had accumulated the same number of leap days (7) at the time their records were achieved.


So, how is the difference explained ?



(*) I have attempted to ask The Times and The BBC to correct this.

moorfield wrote:As has been widely reported recently, Alistair Cook and Joe Root now share the record for being the joint youngest batsmen to hit 10000 test runs, at 31 years 157 days.

This is, strictly speaking, incorrect. (*) Alistair Cook is the youngest batsman, by a day, to do it - 11479 days vs. 11480 days (for Joe Root). Feel free to consult Wikipedia and timeanddate.com to verify this.

Both had accumulated the same number of leap days (7) at the time their records were achieved.


So, how is the difference explained ?



(*) I have attempted to ask The Times and The BBC to correct this.

Cook scored his 10000th run in Sri Lanka, hence was younger?

damn you've said they had the same leap days

so I think Spet's got the right idea and it's to do with re-location on the globe within a "day"
see also: "Around the World in Eighty Days"

Spet0789 wrote:Cook scored his 10000th run in Sri Lanka, hence was younger?

That sounds like a timezone argument, but I don't think it works at the granularity of days. Unless perhaps Root was so far west as to tick over a day? West Indies might just at a squeeze, or maybe there's some cricketing Pacific island across the dateline from Oz?

But in what timezone were the two born? That could make a difference to their respective ages.

Spet0789 wrote:Cook scored his 10000th run in Sri Lanka, hence was younger?

Something to do with it being in a place where it was "the next day" relative to his birthday was my first guess, but the big clue is actually in the thread title ... (and, BTW it was against Sri Lanka at Chester-le-Street. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/36321836)

Ok so ... ahhhh, this is quite interesting. Well I think so at least, but I've had to do a lot of date calculations in my past!

"Both had accumulated the same number of leap days (7) at the time their records were achieved."

Indeed, however in Cook's case 6 of those are included in his "31 years" and the remaining 1 in the "157 days", whereas in Root's case all 7 are included in his "31 years". In other words, at Root's 31st birthday he'd lived a day longer than Cook had at his 31st.

So while they both did it at 31 years 157 days, Cook's 31 years was a day shorter than Root's.

But pray tell, what on earth made you discover this?!

mc2fool wrote:
But pray tell, what on earth made you discover this?!

Yes that's right mc2fool.

I was listening to the discussion about it on TMS and thought I would check it. I have also had to do a lot of day count calculations in the past for various financial products (bonds,swaps,options etc. etc.) and have come across this bug before in software. (My line about the leap days was a herring.)

I emailed TMS with an explanation. I think I may again and see if I can get a shout out to Lemonfool from Aggers the next time they are on. If any cricket fans want to try the same, please do!

I was following this on Sunday, and casually assumed it was to do with one of them having less leap year cycles than the other, but it seems that was wrong.

Could it be to do with where each was in the given 4 yr leap day cycle when they achieved the feat.

Cook was May 2016, so only about 3 months past the last extra day. Root is June 2022, so 2 years and 3 months past the last extra day. Using rounding, Root could now be rounded up to an extra day as he is >0.5 way through the current cycle.

?

moorfield wrote:Yes that's right mc2fool.

I was listening to the discussion about it on TMS and thought I would check it. I have also had to do a lot of day count calculations in the past for various financial products (bonds,swaps,options etc. etc.) and have come across this bug before in software. (My line about the leap days was a herring.)

I emailed TMS with an explanation. I think I may again and see if I can get a shout out to Lemonfool from Aggers the next time they are on. If any cricket fans want to try the same, please do!

TMS? Aggers? Now you've lost me! And that undoubtedly tells you what my level of interest in cricket is ...

Yes, but in this case it's not so much a bug as just how we, as the general public, think of age and in particular what birthdays mean. Indeed, the same could be applied to any anniversary (inc. jubilees).

mc2fool wrote:TMS? Aggers? Now you've lost me! And that undoubtedly tells you what my level of interest in cricket is ...

Yes, but in this case it's not so much a bug as just how we, as the general public, think of age and in particular what birthdays mean. Indeed, the same could be applied to any anniversary (inc. jubilees).

Ha ha. You don't to know too much about or have much interest in Cricket to listen to TMS tbh, a lot of it is just quite entertaining chat to have on in the background - I recommend it. (This might whet your appetite https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzEBLrz3S1o)

Alistair Cook was discussing who really had the bragging rights over the record, based on what time of day they were each born. I suppose that's what piqued my interest into looking into it further. Well, he has, having done it in one less elapsed day than Root - the maths is irrefutable.

Spet0789 wrote:Cook scored his 10000th run in Sri Lanka, hence was younger?

If you adjust one date to Sri Lanka time, then surely you also have to adjust his birth date to Sri Lanka time to get the correct duration?

UncleEbenezer wrote:

Spet0789 wrote:Cook scored his 10000th run in Sri Lanka, hence was younger?

That sounds like a timezone argument, but I don't think it works at the granularity of days. Unless perhaps Root was so far west as to tick over a day? West Indies might just at a squeeze, or maybe there's some cricketing Pacific island across the dateline from Oz?

But in what timezone were the two born? That could make a difference to their respective ages.

Time zone differences could work on the granularity of days, if the press were reporting based on local dates.

A simple example: Take two lads both born at exactly the same time on, say, 1-Jan-00 who pledge that they will always drink a pint at the same time. Come 1-Jan-22 they've both had 999 pints, but one is now in London and the other in Paris. The one in London has his 1000th pint at 11.30pm and the one in Paris has his at the same time at 00:30am 2-Jan-22 local time. So, the press could figure and report that the one in London had his after 22 years and the one in Paris 22 years 1 day.

But as I say in my previous post, that's not the answer here.

BTW: Cook and Root were both born in the UK and both scored their 10000th in the UK.

moorfield wrote:

mc2fool wrote:TMS? Aggers? Now you've lost me! And that undoubtedly tells you what my level of interest in cricket is ...

Yes, but in this case it's not so much a bug as just how we, as the general public, think of age and in particular what birthdays mean. Indeed, the same could be applied to any anniversary (inc. jubilees).

Ha ha. You don't to know too much about or have much interest in Cricket to listen to TMS tbh, a lot of it is just quite entertaining chat to have on in the background - I recommend it. (This might whet your appetite https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzEBLrz3S1o)

Alistair Cook was discussing who really had the bragging rights over the record, based on what time of day they were each born. I suppose that's what piqued my interest into looking into it further. Well, he has, having done it in one less elapsed day than Root - the maths is irrefutable.

And I still had to do a couple of googles to find out what "TMS" stands for! (It doesn't say anywhere on that youtube page.)

Yeah, and that's another thing we generally don't consider when talking about age, time of birth. Nor, for that matter, GMT vs BST. Between those two it could also make one persons 30 years a full 24+ hours longer than another's....

A question for moorfield, who is clearly a cricket buff. I notice that all ten dismissals in New Zealand's innings of 553 in the current Trent Bridge test were caught. I wonder how rare this is.

Cinelli

cinelli wrote:A question for moorfield, who is clearly a cricket buff. I notice that all ten dismissals in New Zealand's innings of 553 in the current Trent Bridge test were caught. I wonder how rare this is.

Cinelli

Can be answered theoretically by fairly simple probability? Let's say half of dismissals in general are caught. Could be a bit less, I haven't checked, but probably more I'd have thought. Then the probability of all dismissals in an innings being caught is around 1 in a thousand, which is not that small... and greater than that if the catches in the innings are not independent of each other (talented slips, particular bowling style etc).

So I'd guess it happens several times annually in first class cricket.


GS

GoSeigen wrote:

cinelli wrote:A question for moorfield, who is clearly a cricket buff. I notice that all ten dismissals in New Zealand's innings of 553 in the current Trent Bridge test were caught. I wonder how rare this is.

Cinelli

Can be answered theoretically by fairly simple probability?

GS

Not really. That assumes that dismissals are independent events, distributed across all of first class cricket.

For your calculation to hold water, you need the probability of being dismissed by catching to be independent of per-match factors.

If bowler X's deliveries, or wicket keeper Y, lead to a disproportionate number of catches over other dismissals (or vice versa), then having them in the game affects your odds. Other factors like the pitch or the weather might also have a significant effect.

UncleEbenezer wrote:

GoSeigen wrote:

cinelli wrote:A question for moorfield, who is clearly a cricket buff. I notice that all ten dismissals in New Zealand's innings of 553 in the current Trent Bridge test were caught. I wonder how rare this is.

Cinelli

Can be answered theoretically by fairly simple probability?

GS

Not really. That assumes that dismissals are independent events, distributed across all of first class cricket.

For your calculation to hold water, you need the probability of being dismissed by catching to be independent of per-match factors.

If bowler X's deliveries, or wicket keeper Y, lead to a disproportionate number of catches over other dismissals (or vice versa), then having them in the game affects your odds. Other factors like the pitch or the weather might also have a significant effect.

Let's quote my post more fully, shall we?

Goseigen wrote:and greater than that if the catches in the innings are not independent of each other (talented slips, particular bowling style etc).

Glad we agree so closely...



GS

While we are in the mood for cricket, I have a claim. Last Friday saw the most extraordinary bowling figures in history:

Ben Mike 2-1-25-0

It happened in the Vitality Blast T20 game between Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire. Mike was unfortunate in coming across a belligerent Alex Hales and his first over went 144646. He came back later in the innings and bowled a maiden over to Samit Patel. Can anyone beat that?

Cinelli

cinelli wrote:A question for moorfield, who is clearly a cricket buff. I notice that all ten dismissals in New Zealand's innings of 553 in the current Trent Bridge test were caught. I wonder how rare this is.

Cinelli

I think this is more common than one might think, catching is by far the most common means of dismissal, no doubt there is a web page somewhere with some stats on. I'm not a massive buff actually, normally I just like to have TMS on to relieve the tedium of the day job. The thread arose from me fact checking the widely misreported discussion (imo) headline about the two batsmen I heard.