Variations in published cricket statistics have come about because there is no official view of the status of cricket matches played in Great Britain prior to 1895 or in the rest of the world prior to 1947. As a result, historians and statisticians have compiled differing lists of matches that they recognise as (unofficially) first-class. The problem is significant where it touches on some of the sport's first-class records, especially in regards to the playing career of W. G. Grace.
Concept and definition of first-class cricket The concept of a "first-class standard" was formalised in May 1894 at a meeting of the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) committee and the secretaries of the 14 clubs in the official County Championship, which had begun in 1890.ACS match guide, pp. 3–6. As a result, these 14 clubs became officially first-class from 1895 along with MCC, Cambridge University, Oxford University, the main international touring teams and other teams designated as such by MCC (e.g., North v South, Gentlemen v Players, occasional XIs, etc).
First-class cricket was formally defined by the then Imperial Cricket Conference (ICC) in May 1947 as a match of three or more days' duration between two sides of eleven players officially adjudged first-class, with the governing body in each country to decide the status of teams. Significantly, it was stated that the definition does not have retrospective effect.Rae, p. 497.Wisden 1948, p. 813.
The absence of any ruling about matches played prior to 1947 (or prior to 1895 in Great Britain) has caused problems for cricket historians and especially statisticians. Matches that are believed to have met the official definitions, assuming they featured teams of the necessary high standard, have been recorded since 1697 (having been in vogue since the 1660s).Altham, p. 23.
It was inevitable that historians and statisticians would seek to apply unofficial first-class status retrospectively, despite the ICC and MCC's directives. The position is that each writer must compile their own list based on personal opinion: as a result, significant differences may be observed in published statistical records, with particular impact on the career records of W. G. Grace, Jack Hobbs and Herbert Sutcliffe. There are also differences in the perceived status of certain matches played by Gloucestershire teams before the county club was formed in 1870, and by Somerset in 1879 and 1881.ACS match guide, p. 11.
One of the problems here is that statisticians have tended not to publish their match lists with their findings: it should, however, be noted that the number of differences is extremely small in terms of the sport's overall statistics.
Development of scoring to 1895 The problem of different versions is as old as cricket scorecards themselves. The earliest known scorecards are dated 1744 but very few were created (or have survived) between 1744 and 1772 when they became habitual.
The main source for scorecards from 1772 until the 1860s is Arthur Haygarth’s Scores & Biographies, which was published in several volumes. Haygarth used a number of sources for his scorecards including many that were created by the Hambledon Club and MCC. He frequently refers to earlier compilers such as Samuel Britcher, W. EppsEpps' standard work is A Collection of all the Grand Matches of Cricket 1771 to 1791 (1799) and Henry Bentley.Bentley is known for his lengthily titled A Correct Account of all the Cricket Matches which have been played by the Mary-le-bone Club, and all other principal matches, from the Year 1786 to 1822 inclusive (1823) Haygarth often mentions in his match summaries that another version exists of the scorecard he has reproduced. Sometimes he outlines the differences which range from players' names to runs scored and even to apparent discrepancies in innings totals or match results.Haygarth, Vol. 1, pp. 14–24.
Haygarth first mentions the difficulty of obtaining scorecards in his summary of the Hampshire v Surrey match at Broadhalfpenny Down on 26 August 1773:Haygarth, Vol. 1, p. 14. "The Score of this match was obtained from the Hampshire Chronicle, and it was not inserted in the old printed book of Hambledon Scores from 1772 to 1784".
Then, in his summary of the Surrey v Hampshire match at Laleham Burway on 6–8 July 1775:Haygarth, Vol. 1, p. 24. "The above is taken from the old printed score books; but in another account, in the first innings of Surrey, Miller is b Brett...&c".
He goes on to list a total of 13 differences between his two versions, some re dismissal details and others re scores. He then makes a highly pertinent comment: "It may here be remarked, that when there are two scores of the same match, they never agree" (the italics are Haygarth's own).
In saying that, Haygarth has recognised the essence of the problem when there is no standard means of scoring and no centralised control over the system of capturing and storing the data. Scoring systems in the 18th century and most of the 19th century had nothing like the consistency of standard that was employed through the 20th century to the present. Many early cards gave no details of dismissal. Where dismissal was recorded, it was limited to the primary mode and so a fielder would be credited with a catch but the bowler would not be credited with the wicket unless he bowled out the batsman. MCC finally responded to the problem in 1836 when they decided to include in their own scorecards (i.e., for matches played at Lord's) the addition of bowlers' names when the dismissal was caught, stumped, lbw or hit wicket. Haygarth comments that "this was a vast improvement in recording the game and but justice to the bowler".Haygarth, Vol. 2, p. 355. As a result, scorecards became more detailed through the second half of the 19th century but reliability remained a problem and different versions continued to appear. It was some time before the MCC scorecard standard was adopted throughout the country and the inclusion of bowling analyses "was not introduced until several years afterwards".
A greater problem surfaced after 1890 with the establishment of the County Championship because, as described above, this gave rise in 1895 to the concept of first-class cricket and so, for the first time, there was a perceived higher standard based on organisation of games in an official competition. Until then, everything had been somewhat ad hoc and "playing standards" was a term applied very liberally, especially with teams containing guest or occasional players in addition to recognised players.Webber, 1951, Introduction.
Commencement of statistical records
England The earliest mainstream publication of cricket statistics was done by members of the Lillywhite family. Frederick Lillywhite, son of William Lillywhite, first published his Guide to Cricketers in 1848. In 1865, his brother John published his Cricketer's Companion (known as "Green Lilly" on account of its cover). Two years later the two were amalgamated with the Companion "incorporating" the Guide. In 1872, their cousin James Lillywhite junior started his Cricketers' Annual (known as "Red Lilly"). A further period of competition ensued until another amalgamation in 1880 created John and James Lillywhite's Cricketer's Companion, still incorporating the Guide. This survived until 1883 when James announced he was "now sole proprietor". After 1885, the Companion was incorporated with the Annual, which continued until 1900.Rae, p. 52.
In 1864, John Wisden introduced his Wisden Cricketers' Almanack which, after an uncertain start, went on to become "the cricketers' Bible".Rae, p. 56. Meanwhile, Arthur Haygarth published his Scores and Biographies for Frederick Lillywhite from 1862 to 1871, but these were not statistical as such, rather a record of known scorecards.
The concept of a first-class level of cricket seems to have taken hold in the 1860s, perhaps through the influence of the Guide to Cricketers, and W. G. Grace certainly considered his matches in 1864 to have been "first-class".Rae, p. 55. Nevertheless, Grace's "first-class career" was effectively defined after his death when F. S. Ashley-Cooper compiled a season-by-season record to supplement Grace's obituary in the 1916 edition of Wisden. This record became Grace's "traditional figures" and, as described later, was the statistical basis for the celebrations in 1925 when Jack Hobbs passed the total of 126 career centuries that Ashley-Cooper had attributed to Grace.
Playfair Cricket Annual began in 1947, but followed Wisden in statistical terms. In 1951, Roy Webber published his Playfair Book of Cricket Records and, in his introduction, expressed the view that "first-class records should commence in 1864". A number of sources have agreed with this date. Webber then commenced a review of 19th century matches and later published his version of Grace's career record, declaring that Ashley-Cooper had allocated first-class status to a number of minor matches.
Bill Frindall published The Kaye Book of Cricket Records in 1968, and subsequently several editions of his Wisden Book of Cricket Records: as he explained in the preface to one of the Wisden editions, he favoured 1815 as the starting point for "proper" first-class cricket, though he conceded that there is a reasonable case for several other years, particularly Webber's 1864. Frindall thus included the entire roundarm era, but also a substantial part of the underarm era. Wisden Cricketers' Almanack, for which Frindall was the chief statistician, also commences its first-class records section in 1815.
The Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians (ACS) was founded in 1973, with Rowland Bowen among the first to raise doubts in its journal that there could ever be a generally acknowledged list of first-class matches.ACS, The Cricket Statistician, no. 2, pages 5 and 6 – The Classification of Matches by Rowland Bowen.ACS, The Cricket Statistician, no. 3, pages 25 and 26 – The Status of Matches in England and some other Countries by Rowland Bowen. In 1976, the ACS produced a booklet, A Guide to First-class Cricket Matches played in the British Isles (with a second edition in 1982), outlining its view of the first-class matches played from 1864 to 1946. This was followed by booklets covering other countries and, in 1981, A Guide to Important Cricket Matches played in the British Isles 1709–1863.
From 1996, the ACS produced a further series of booklets giving complete scorecards of matches from 1801 that it now considered first-class. The ACS gave in its journal a number of reasons for taking its startpoint back from 1864 to 1801, among them an agreement with Frindall's view that the standard of play during the roundarm era were as high as those in the overarm era.ACS, The Cricket Statistician, no. 133. The ACS disagreed with Frindall about 1815 because it wanted to include the full set of Gentlemen v Players fixtures that began in 1806. It chose 1801 as a date of convenience, and thereby set up a division between the 18th and 19th centuries, which was contested by several people (including many ACS members) who recognised 1772 as the startpoint given the availability of data in surviving scorecards from that season. In its spring 2006 journal, the ACS admitted that it could not decide upon its position vis-à-vis 18th century records because of "missing or incomplete scorecards". But it is by no means certain that there is a complete statistical record of matches between 1801 and 1825 either, especially given the loss of records in the catastrophic Lord's fire. Certainly, there are no complete bowling figures in that period, or until 1836, and the surviving scorecards are similar in standard and content to 18th century scorecards.