The Interesting Scorecard Thread

[sabso]

It's an absolute nonsense that games involving a social cricket club were given first-class status.

Especially as tour matches between international teams and domestic FC sides don’t get given that status - that’s pretty much as it should be since they’re often 15-a-side slap and tickle games.

 

[akkaps]

This game was also given FC status

vs Cricket Scorecard at London, June 01 - 02, 1829

Get cricket scorecard of vs , England Domestic Season 1829 at Lord's, London dated June 01 - 02, 1829.

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[big_e]

This game was also given FC status

vs Cricket Scorecard at London, June 01 - 02, 1829

Get cricket scorecard of vs , England Domestic Season 1829 at Lord's, London dated June 01 - 02, 1829.

www.espncricinfo.com

Featuring some of the same guys that played in this match:

vs Cricket Scorecard at London, July 29 - 31, 1850

Get cricket scorecard of vs , England Domestic Season 1850 at Lord's, London dated July 29 - 31, 1850.

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[akkaps]

There's this as well

vs Cricket Scorecard at London, July 18 - 19, 1831

Get cricket scorecard of vs , England Domestic Season 1831 at Lord's, London dated July 18 - 19, 1831.

www.espncricinfo.com

vs Cricket Scorecard at London, July 28 - 30, 1851

Get cricket scorecard of vs , England Domestic Season 1851 at Lord's, London dated July 28 - 30, 1851.

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[Richard Pryor]

It's an absolute nonsense that games involving a social cricket club were given first-class status.

The retroactive application of Test match status to some of the early tours is also weird, like you have South African tours with random English people who didn't even play county cricket classified as Tests. Matches against the US teams of the time with Bart King playing were internationals of a higher standard.

 

[Sea fog]

Have always thought that the Rest of the World 71-2 and Packer games should have received test status.

 

[big_e]

I will go to my grave arguing that the Packer stuff should not be considered either tests or first-class matches.

Yes, it was great cricket. Yes, they ultimately did a lot of good for cricket as a sport and cricketers in particular (although Kerry P did better out of it than all of them combined). And yes there are exhibition games all throughout history (mainly 1800-1900s England) that have first-class status.

But they knew in advance that those games weren't going to be official matches, and they did it anyway. They can have their own special category - which there was talk of CA doing a few years ago - but I'm a hard no on those being given status retrospectively.

 

[akkaps]

Also the ICC TROPHY games are not given ODI or LA status. Would have expected they’d get LA status, but alas

 

[sherb]

Have always thought that the Rest of the World 71-2 and Packer games should have received test status.

I agree 100%. Plus the England v RoW matches in 1970 - these were initially treated as Tests, but that status was withdrawn later.

At least the 70 & 71-72 games are regarded as first-class. The Packer Supertests aren't even treated as that - Cricket Australia could easily rectify that situation if they so desired.

 

[sabso]

Also the ICC TROPHY games are not given ODI or LA status. Would have expected they’d get LA status, but alas

Some of those icc trophy games don’t even have the full xis listed, let alone captains or keepers

 

[sabso]

Have always thought that the Rest of the World 71-2 and Packer games should have received test status.

To me a test match should be one scheduled as a two-innings unlimited-overs match between two teams each representing a particular country or region with test status. So the eng v row games are out, Alan Jones rightfully doesn’t get a cap number, the Packer supertests are out, the 2005 icc super series is out. No way would Aussies agree to that last one because in that case Jimmy Anderson would have more test wickets than Shane Warne.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...-icc-world-xi-only-test-221840/full-scorecard

I could argue for restoring the “unofficial test” in centurion that India whinged about (though ironically they considered it a test and South Africa didn’t)

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...dia-unofficial-3rd-test-106790/full-scorecard

 

[Gough]

I agree 100%. Plus the England v RoW matches in 1970 - these were initially treated as Tests, but that status was withdrawn later.

At least the 70 & 71-72 games are regarded as first-class. The Packer Supertests aren't even treated as that - Cricket Australia could easily rectify that situation if they so desired.

More than twenty years dead and Bradman's influence still lingers.

 

[Rabish Binney]

Especially as tour matches between international teams and domestic FC sides don’t get given that status - that’s pretty much as it should be since they’re often 15-a-side slap and tickle games.

Agree 100%.

Interestig when you consider that World Series (WSC) games were not afforded 1st class status.

I agree 100%. Plus the England v RoW matches in 1970 - these were initially treated as Tests, but that status was withdrawn later.

At least the 70 & 71-72 games are regarded as first-class. The Packer Supertests aren't even treated as that - Cricket Australia could easily rectify that situation if they so desired.

100% spot on Sherb.

One can debate as to whether or not WSC games should be included in FC records but the fact that they are not, whilst games such as Cambridge vs Oxford are is ludicrous.