Talk:First-class cricket

I wrote the latter and prefer it because it's a major county that's Welsh, not a Welsh county that's major.Bagpuss

Changing it back. Bagpuss

A possible trap for the unwary (which caught me out when working on Gentlemen v Players): CricketArchive considers the first first-class match to have been England v Surrey in 1801, so that (for example) the 1806 Gentlemen v Players records are included in its first-class statistics. This may affect those writing articles relating to early cricketers. Loganberry (Talk) 15:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone know what the precise rules are for what matches are or are not first-class? The definitions do keep changing (including retrospectively - for example, a small number of matches between coloureds in apartheid South Africa are now recognised as first-class, though they were not at the time), 17:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

As the article states, there is no exact definition. A match is first-class if it fulfils the requirements of a first-class match and the supervising board decrees it to be first-class. Essentially, it's up to the whim of the board. Which is why it can be unclear or even change. -dmmaus 23:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

First class cricket was defined in 1947, but there has been always disputes over the status of some matches. It seems that MCC used to be the one who decided on the disputes and they arbitrarily set the starting point at 1815. In the early 1990s Association of Cricket Statisticians undertook a revision of the status of matches, giving some non-fc matches fc status and vice versa. As part of this, the cut-off was extended to 1801. Wisden stats still start from 1815 and hence has the lowest team score as 12 while ACS has a 6 allout made in 1810.

For political reasons, ICC did not give the rebel tours to South Africa fc status, but ACS refuse to comply. ICC later fell in line. Back in 1993, this had caused a major controversry regarging Gooch's 100th fc 100.

ACS had as opportunity to do the same with the Tsunami matches and Supertests, but they chickened out and agreed to consider them as tests and ODIs Tintin 03:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

So where's the ICC definition for past matches? jguk 06:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Is there any ? I guess it was decided more on the basis of convention, convenience and what Wisden thought about them. There are numerous matches which were scheduled for two days. 12 a side first class matches have been played as late as in the 1920s. There have been all sorts of exhibition matches and privately organized ones which are fc. Many matches of a dubious nature have been given fc status just because WG Grace played in it. There are some others like the 'barndoor match' (See comments at the end of the scorecard).

I think you mean this 1837 match where the Players defended an outsized wicket; in the 1832 match you linked to above it was the other way about, with the Gentlemen defending an undersized wicket. (See List of Gentlemen v Players matches, which by happy coincidence now mentions both!) Loganberry (Talk) 11:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Must be the other one then. Took one scorecard for the other ! Tintin 11:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Nice work on that list, Loganberry! :) Could add a few pictures of WG Grace and we might get it featured ;) Sam Vimes 11:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Heh, thanks! I still have to finish that blasted record section in the Gentlemen v Players article, though; with luck I'll get that done tonight. =:) Loganberry (Talk) 16:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Damn. I don't know how you guys manage to do so much so quickly. To write a couple of lines, I take half an hour. Tintin 16:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Is that why we have so much on English and Australian cricket but so little on Indian cricket? :) Mind you, I suppose India are only in third place in the Test championship table - best to concentrate on the leaders;) jguk 16:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Had McGrath been playing, you wouldn't be saying such things today :) Tintin 16:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Warne, however, is playing. Unfortunately... Loganberry (Talk) 14:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

So is Freddie. :) Sam Vimes 15:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Even in the 1990s a team fielded only nine players in an fc match [1]. Also look at the comments under this match. This issue is a complete mess Tintin 07:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I sent a question into "Ask Phillip" at CricInfo a few years ago: How many first class matches have been played, it was about 45,000 I think. A bit too vague to include in the article, though. --Paul 18:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I have a question about the follow-on rule. The article currently reads

• If more than one day is abandoned, the second and subsequent days are still counted for the calculation of follow-ons.

I haven't heard of this before. Law 13.3 reads

• If no play takes place on the first day of a match of more than one day's duration, [the follow-on targets] above shall apply in accordance with the number of days remaining from the actual start of the match. [Italics mine]

This seems to me to say the opposite. The mention of the first day of the match being abandoned is only to say that at least one day has been lost at the start of the match. But then the follow-on target is calculated according to the actual start of the match.

Could someone more knowledgeable than me clarify the correct interpretation of this Law? Stephen Turner 09:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't know the answer to this for sure, but I wonder whether the version in the article comes from the playing conditions of a specific competition rather than applying generally. It would be useful if we could find a scorecard for a match where this had arisen - for example, a two-day County Championship game, of which there must have been a number since four-day cricket was introduced. Loganberry (Talk) 22:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

My understanding of the law, was the same as Stephen Turner's. This was backed up in an umpire's course. I think the article should reflect this, and if an individual competition has different rules, then that should be mentioned as an exception. JPD (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Surely this whole section should be in the Laws of Cricket page or a History of the Laws of Cricket page. Nigej 08:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This continues part of the discussion in CricketArchive above. The "Definition" section is limited to history in the making: recent and current matches. The "Point of Origin" section really concerns the definition for 204 years of cricket history in England, 1660-1864. (This distinction between Definition and Origin is fine with me, although it is not the American English I would write. My point is to point out the scope of the Point of Origin:-)

The "Point of Origin" section of the article does a very good job covering the issue regarding timespan of first-class cricket in England. Several articles published by ACS (why not ACSH? is Historians an afterthought?) reveal how much is happening very recently: Early Cricket History project approved only at the 2006 annual meeting, Match Classification working group set up only months ago, and the news index still features several items on a match classification non-dispute between ACS and the international governing body ICC. (I infer that many ACS members dispute the ICC decision but the organization does not.)

Regarding the basic facts, my two questions are

1. What time period does ICC govern, with the acquiescence of ACS? all the way back to 1660?
2. What is the "Origin" (definition for historical games) of first-class in other parts of the world? Is it agreed that 1660-1864 first-class cricket is England or England and Wales only? --P64 20:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

--That is a good answer to the latter in overnight revisions.)

I have slightly that entire comment mainly to clarify the reference to news from the ACS. For more on the origin and early history in England, see "Members Research" published by ACS http://acscricket.com/Research/index.html, especially "In the Mists of Time: The History of Cricket: 1300 - 1730" by John Leach. --P64 16:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

• 1660 is a theoretical date for the start of the "historical record", but it is also a logical one given the historical evidence available, which isn't much to be honest. The theory in the Mists of Time paper was reviewed by several ACS&H members and was published unamended so it is fair to say that its proposals have "tacit" acceptance for the present, pending further analysis should additional data come to light. The important date from the analysis standpoint is 1772, which is the date that the ACS&H has now at last recognised as the beginning of the first-class "statistical record" given regular match scorecards since then. There was of course no first-class cricket outside England until 1851 as the article now states. Regards, --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

When was the last first-class match played to have 12 or more players on a side? I know there were 12-a-side first-class university games at least into the 1920s (eg Gloucs v Oxford U in 1924) but I don't know how long these persisted. Loganberry (Talk) 23:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is at least one from India in the 1940s/ early fifties. Will post here if I can find it again. Tintin 02:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

At the moment, both Beaumont Cup and Guystac Trophy are listed here. Is this correct? Both are defunct competitions, and we don't list (for example) Gentlemen v Players under the England heading. If we're only listing current competitions, then shouldn't both Beaumont Trophy and Guystac Cup be removed? Loganberry (Talk) 16:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

There seems to be a quarrel going on here about how long a first class match is. According to ICC Classification of Official Cricket, three days would be enough, and first class matches in Sri Lanka are played over three days. So why does the article consistently state that it has to be 4 or 5 days? Sam Vimes 11:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good question. Change it. Mooretwin (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I looked at this yesterday, and it actually said 3, 4 and 5 in three different places. I believe the correct answer is three, but not certain.Eregli bob (talk) 12:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I decided to edit after Mooretwin supported it. So now it should say 3 or more everywhere (that's what the ICC pdf says anyway) Sam Vimes 12:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good work. Mooretwin (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Reply: First class cricket in Australia such as the Sheffield Shield (Pura Cup) is played in a minimum of 4 days, or even 5 days, see Sheffied Shield Cup or the South Australian Cricket Association for further info. http://www.cricketsa.com.au/content.aspx?p=327 Thanks! Uqahr talk 13:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

4 or 5 days is covered by "3 or more days", so that's fine. Mooretwin (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps it is worth mentioning that most first class cricket is 4-day though (except in Sri Lanka and some five-day play-offs). The article shouldn't just be talking about the definition, but also how it works in practice (and has worked in practice, the County Championship was three-day until ~1980s).

I think Tests are a subset of first class cricket as well (at least that's how FC stats tend to work), so that probably needs to be worked in here too. Sam Vimes 14:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree with that. Mooretwin (talk) 11:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I apologise if I'm treading on anyone's toes here but this stuff about "important matches" is absolute rubbish. Someone is having a laugh. I've a friend at our local cricket club who's a member of the ACS and he says they never had any intention of creating a new classification. Their handbook was just a list of early matches, nothing more, which cricket historians might find useful. The word "important" was an ADJECTIVE only that could have been "noteworthy", whatever. All they tried to do was select the known matches that were outside of a single town or parish and were, as such, of two wider geographical entities like towns or even whole counties. It really annoyed me to read that Lancashire was not first-class until 1895 and the same is true of a half a dozen other county clubs. Unbelievable that someone can get away with stuff like that. It's what you call "original research" and it's absolute rubbish. I'm happy for anyone to adapt what I've done on the article but, please, lets get shut of this nonsense. The worst thing about it is how it's been transcripted into other articles without question. Scribbles by The Scribbler (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

If we are not to regard the above as your own OR, please supply reliable sources for verification. Bjenks (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've seen the handbook that's supposedly the source for this "classification" and it's been misrepresented. It's a list of matches, now a bit out of date, and it makes no attempt to "classify" the games except inasmuch as they ain't village cricket. As I say, someone has invented a theory here. Anyway, the handbook ends in 1863, the year before Lancashire was founded and the ACS in another handbook says the club was first-class from its first match so this person's case doesn't add up. It's widely agreed that first-class matches date back to the earliest days and the 1895 ruling by MCC was only done to ensure clarification in the future. If you look at cricinfo you can see that it ranks all matches by county clubs, starting with Sussex in 1839, and the earlier county teams first-class. There's no such thing as an important match classification. Scribbles by The Scribbler (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I just added a wikitable for listing the currently active first class domestic competitions, as examples. I placed it after the two sections relative to the concept definition, and before the one occupied with historical issues.

As for the table's structure, only country name and competition name are reported so far, together with a "Notes" field. The competitions are grouped by country and then sorted by date of gaining first-class status - for each country the first tournament to reach it is considered. --5.91.30.238 (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I note the records of certain women former-players include a category WFC (presumably women's first class)in their records which refers to this page eg Rachael Heyhoe Flint. There is however no mention on this page of women's matches. Also, personally, I am not aware any of two-innings women's mathches other than tests, so I am wondering what the matches in question were, who decided they were first class and when were they were discontinued (as modern players have no such item in their records - eg Sarah Taylor? I think the answer should be added to this article, (if anyone knows). John Price (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm well aware of the shifting views about WHEN first-class cricket began and it seems there is (note: seems there is, not there is) a current consensus in the ACS and among other interested parties that Roy Webber was right all along and that the advent of overarm bowling was the true beginning of first-class, especially with the concurrent rush to form county clubs. I've been studying some of the entries in the Carlaw/Winnifrith work for the ACS on Kent players and their view on first-class status is exactly as per Webber's and stated right there in the very first paragraph.

I've amended the article to include this source. As Loganberry wrote above in July 2005, the weight of evidence in this article must affect other articles about cricket subjects in the 18th and 19th centuries. As Tintin said in August 2005, the issue is "a complete mess". I think one way to get some closure on the question, as far as WP is concerned, is to have this article formally reviewed and so I'm submitting it to GAN. Whether it passes or not is academic. It will be interesting to see a reviewer's consideration of the start date issue. BcJvs UTC 15:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I’m a total cricket noob, but I feel like there should be some sort of explanation as to how a team would play “no innings at all” instead of just as a throwaway line. 71.178.30.158 (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply