that's a good haul for the series ...

LINK

That's an interesting link IMO because:

a) the best haul for a 4 match series is better than the best haul for a 5 match series, which is in turn better than the best haul for a 6 match series. If we were to include the 1970-71 Ashes series, listed as 7 Tests in the records (although only 6 were played), the paradox would extend further.

b) the record for a '1 match series' is not listed. This is a shame as it is probably a record that will be challenged frequently in coming years.

Is the record for a '1 match series' Murali's 16 at the Oval in 1998? I realise I could find this out for myself but can't be bothered.

Must have been nice when England weren't an embarrassment on the world stage of cricket.

MoH wrote:Is the record for a '1 match series' Murali's 16 at the Oval in 1998? I realise I could find this out for myself but can't be bothered.

Not surprisingly, yes, MoH. Chuck's 16 wkts is the record for most wkts in a 1-Test series.

And a quick look at statguru tells me that hasn't been bettered in any Test since then (next best is Harbhajan's 15). I see what lardbucket is saying that with more one off Tests likely to happen in the future that record is more likely to be broken but it will still take some beating.

16 wickets will take one helluva beating. That was exceptional bowling by Muttiah.

IMHO, it will never be beaten, but Chuck's records will always have an asterisk.

As I said, that record may be challenged in years to come.

Still two things, regardless of his boggle-eyed cheating:

1. Exceptional skill delivered in those bowling innings.

2. Exceptionally twattishly inept batting by England in those batting innings.

Only the 2nd innings really. The 1st innings was fine.

Thinking about that match the bowling was probably even more to blame than the batting. Pretty sure they were trying to bounce out Jayasuriya on a flat Oval track. Two hundred runs later...

MoH wrote:Is the record for a '1 match series' Murali's 16 at the Oval in 1998? I realise I could find this out for myself but can't be bothered.

Hirwani also took 16 wickets in his only test in a series

aye, but that wasn't a "one match series"

Has there ever been a one match series?

That's the point.

One-off Test matches, IF they can be called a series.

Just looked in my Macquarie Dictionary & it says a series is "a division of a system of rocks, marked by sedimentary deposits formed during a geological epoch".

So, I would say the answer is YES.

....... or NO.