The Interesting Scorecard Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

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.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

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 Plus the England v RoW matches in 1970 - these were initially treated as Tests, but that status was withdrawn later.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

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Check out this scorecard, there was an occurrence in this game which ranks 2nd overall in the history of first-class cricket.

Can you spot it?

 
That is quality sir.

I was going to guess second fastest triple century in minutes, just after Compton

 
Two centuries and 11 wickets for Franklyn Stephenson in a losing cause

Stephenson played for Tasmania in the 1981/82 shield season.

I posted about him on another forum some time back. He was a gun:-

200+ FC games
8600 runs @ 28 with 12 centuries
790 wickets @ 24

Went on a rebel tour of SAF in 1982 which ended with a lifetime ban playing for the WI. Was lifted in 1989 but by that time any hope of test cricket had passed.

Pretty good golfer as well, played semi professionally. One of only a handful of Golfers to birdie the extreme 19th hole at the legend Golf and Safari resort in SAF.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_19th

1730420839113.png
 
The Test match that just finished between South Africa and Bangladesh

Tony de Zorzi 177
Bangladesh 159 & 143

de Zorzi score of 177 was greater than Bangladesh in both innings

 

Remove this Banner Ad

The Interesting Scorecard Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top