Jump to content

Talk:Les Jackson (cricketer)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comparison with Barnes

[edit]

His strengths were accuracy and economy: in 1958, he took 143 wickets at the phenomenal average of 10.99 runs per wicket, an economy rate not seen since the days of S.F. Barnes before the First World War and not equalled by a regular first-class bowler since.

The last bowler to take more than 100 wickets in a season with a better average was Tom Richardson in 1894 (196 @ 10.32, [1] ). So this line may be modified to stress that. Barnes had 10.02 in 1913 and 10.25 in 1928, but he played only four and two matches in those seasons. Tintin (talk) 05:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Les Jackson (cricketer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]