Who was the first Indian bowler to take 16 wickets in a single test cricket match? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Who was the first Indian bowler to take 16 wickets in a single test cricket match?

Answer: Narendra Hirwani.

Reply

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Who was the first Indian bowler to take 16 wickets in a single test cricket match?....

QA->Who was the first Indian to take 16 wickets in a single test match?....

QA->Who became the first Indian to take 16 wickets in a single test match?....

QA->Who became the first Indian to take 16 wickets in a single test match....

QA->Who became the first bowler to take 300 wickets in T20 matches when he dismissed David Miller of Kings XI Punjab in the IPL match held in Mohali?....

MCQ-> In an innings of a T20 cricket match (a team can bowl for 20 overs) 6 bowlers bowled from the fielding side, with a bowler allowed maximum of 4 overs. Only the three specialist bowlers bowled their full quota of 4 overs each, and the remaining 8 overs were shared among three non-specialist bowlers. The economy rates of four bowlers were 6, 6, 7 and 9 respectively. (Economy rate is the total number of runs conceded by a bowler divided by the number of overs bowled by that bowler). This however, does not include the data of the best bowler (lowest economy rate) and the worst bowler (highest economy rate). The number of overs bowled and the economy rate of any bowler are in integers.Read the two statements below:S1: The worst bowler did not bowl the minimum number of overs. S2: The best bowler is a specialist bowler.Which of the above statements or their combinations can help arrive at the minimum number of overs bowled by a non-specialist bowler?...

MCQ-> In the table below is the listing of players, seeded from highest (#1) to lowest (#32), who are due to play in an Association of Tennis Players (ATP) tournament for women. This tournament has four knockout rounds before the final, i.e., first round, second round, quarterfinals, and semi-finals. In the first round, the highest seeded player plays the lowest seeded player (seed # 32) which is designated match No. 1 of first round; the 2nd seeded player plays the 31st seeded player which is designated match No. 2 of the first round, and so on. Thus, for instance, match No. 16 of first round is to be played between 16th seeded player and the 17th seeded player. In the second round, the winner of match No. 1 of first round plays the winner of match No. 16 of first round and is designated match No. 1 of second round. Similarly, the winner of match No. 2 of first round plays the winner of match No. 15 of first round, and is designated match No. 2 of second round. Thus, for instance, match No. 8 of the second round is to be played between the winner of match No. 8 of first round and the winner of match No. 9 of first round. The same pattern is followed for later rounds as well.

If there are no upsets (a lower seeded player beating a higher seeded player) in the first round, and only match Nos. 6, 7, and 8 of the second round result in upsets, then who would meet Lindsay Davenport in quarter finals, in case Davenport reaches quarter finals?
...

MCQ-> Our Glory of Cricket’ club intends to give its membership to a selected few players based on the following criteria The player must be above 16 years and not more than 24 years of age as on 1.2.99. He must pay Rs. 15,000 as entrance fee and Rs. 1,000 as monthly fee throughout his membership period. In case, he pay Rs. 25,000 as additional entrance fee the monthly payment condition is waived. In addition to this he should satisfy at least one of the following conditions : (I) He has won any one inter-college cricket tournament by leading his college team and has scored at least one century in college level tournaments. (II) He has scored at least one century and two fifties in interuniversity of inter state tournaments. (III) He has led his cricket team at college level at least thrice and has taken 10 or more wickets either by bowling or while wicket-keeping or has made aggregate 1000 runs in college level matches. (IV) He has represented his state in national level matches at least thrice with a remarkable bowling or batting or wicket keeping record. (V) He has six centuries at his credit in college level matches and is a spin or medium fast bowler having taken at least one wicket per match in college level matches. Based on the above conditions and the data given in each of the following cases you have to take decision. You are not supposed to assume anything. All the facts are given as on 1.2.99.Ameya started his cricket career exactly 5 years ago by celebrating his 18th birthday by scoring a century. He is ready to pay Rs. 40,000/- at entry level. He scored three fifties representing his state as captain. He is an excellent leg spinner.
...

MCQ->Sarvesh has a record of having taken two or more wickets at every match played by him for his college. He is a medium fast bowler. He is a good medium fast bowler. He is a good batsman also and has scored three centuries and four fifties while playing interuniversity matches. His college has always won the match under his captaincy during the last 4 years. He has amassed 1200 runs in these matches. He is ready to pay Rs. 40,000/- at entry level. His date of birth is 30.01.76....

MCQ-> Choose the best answer for each question.The production of histories of India has become very frequent in recent years and may well call for some explanation. Why so many and why this one in particular? The reason is a two-fold one: changes in the Indian scene requiring a re-interpretation of the facts and changes in attitudes of historians about the essential elements of Indian history. These two considerations are in addition to the normal fact of fresh information, whether in the form of archeological discoveries throwing fresh light on an obscure period or culture, or the revelations caused by the opening of archives or the release of private papers. The changes in the Indian scene are too obvious to need emphasis. Only two generations ago British rule seemed to most Indian as well as British observers likely to extend into an indefinite future; now there is a teenage generation which knows nothing of it. Changes in the attitudes of historians have occurred everywhere, changes in attitudes to the content of the subject as well as to particular countries, but in India there have been some special features. Prior to the British, Indian historiographers were mostly Muslims, who relied, as in the case of Sayyid Ghulam Hussain, on their own recollection of events and on information from friends and men of affairs. Only a few like Abu’l Fazl had access to official papers. These were personal narratives of events, varying in value with the nature of the writer. The early British writers were officials. In the 18th century they were concerned with some aspect of Company policy, or like Robert Orme in his Military Transactions gave a straight narrative in what was essentially a continuation of the Muslim tradition. In the early 119th century the writers were still, with two notable exceptions, officials, but they were now engaged in chronicling, in varying moods of zest, pride, and awe, the rise of the British power in India to supremacy. The two exceptions were James Mill, with his critical attitude to the Company and John Marchman, the Baptist missionary. But they, like the officials, were anglo-centric in their attitude, so that the history of modern India in their hands came to be the history of the rise of the British in India.The official school dominated the writing of Indian history until we get the first professional historian’s approach. Ramsay Muir and P. E. Roberts in England and H. H. Dodwell in India. Then Indian historians trained in the English school joined in, of whom the most distinguished was Sir Jadunath Sarkar and the other notable writers: Surendranath Sen, Dr Radhakumud Mukherji, and Professor Nilakanta Sastri. They, it may be said, restored India to Indian history, but their bias was mainly political. Finally have come the nationalists who range from those who can find nothing good or true in the British to sophisticated historical philosophers like K. M. Panikker.Along the types of historians with their varying bias have gone changes in the attitude to the content of Indian history. Here Indian historians have been influenced both by their local situation and by changes of thought elsewhere. It is this field that this work can claim some attention since it seeks to break new ground, or perhaps to deepen a freshly turned furrow in the field of Indian history. The early official historians were content with the glamour and drama of political history from Plassey to the Mutiny, from Dupleix to the Sikhs. But when the raj was settled down, glamour departed from politics, and they turned to the less glorious but more solid ground of administration. Not how India was conquered but how it was governed was the theme of this school of historians. It found its archpriest in H. H. Dodwell, its priestess in Dame Lilian Penson, and its chief shrine in the Volume VI of the Cambridge History of India. Meanwhile, in Britain other currents were moving, which led historical study into the economic and social fields. R. C. Dutt entered the first of these currents with his Economic History of India to be followed more recently by the whole group of Indian economic historians. W. E. Moreland extended these studies to the Mughal Period. Social history is now being increasingly studied and there is also of course a school of nationalist historians who see modern Indian history in terms of the rise and the fulfillment of the national movement.All these approaches have value, but all share in the quality of being compartmental. It is not enough to remove political history from its pedestal of being the only kind of history worth having if it is merely to put other types of history in its place. Too exclusive an attention to economic, social, or administrative history can be as sterile and misleading as too much concentration on politics. A whole subject needs a whole treatment for understanding. A historian must dissect his subject into its elements and then fuse them together again into an integrated whole. The true history of a country must contain all the features just cited but must present them as parts of a single consistent theme.Which of the following may be the closest in meaning to the statement ‘restored India to Indian history’?
...