Talk:Variations in first-class cricket statistics/Archive

Discussion

I'm fully aware that the style of the article might not be suitable for Wikpedia, although I had fun writing it. If anyone wants to rewrite it I'd be delighted although I'd like to remain the detail, which I feel is important (although others might disagree) since it's an area that people comment on without really understanding the issues Nigej 19:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to discover who produced the list of Grace's centuries (in 1895 at the latest) that became the basis for his 'traditional' total Nigej 08:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Planning to expand the other cricketers section Nigej 08:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. One factor contributing to Hobbs' decision to retire when he did in 1934 seems to have been the realisation that his failing form meant that he had little chance of reaching 200 f-c centuries, being on (as he though) 197. Had he believed he was on 199 he might well have continued a little longer, in search of the 200th. JH (talk page) 10:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sort of article that could expand and expand. I feel there's more than enough detail now (perhaps too much) to enable the reader to understand the issues involved; this being my original purpose in writing it in the first place. Could still be tidied up. Nigej 08:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a well written article - I'm not sure the title does it justice! Perhaps something along the lines of Disputed cricket statistics or something that at least mentions cricket! –MDCollins (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed for deletion

This article is an attempt to promote a minority view within the ACS as a major issue that affects the whole sport. This view has no more relevance than the view of a cricket fan at a match who thinks it might rain this afternoon. The article breaches WP guidelines as explained in the deletion proposal.

There is no issue about WG Grace's career statistics. They are as given in Wisden and Playfair. As WP must quote authoritative sources, it must quote Wisden in particular with playfair as a good secondary source. Any opinion that a certain person in the ACS (or outside it) may have is his alone and a WP article is not the place to voice that opinion.

In addition, the ACS self-publishes its material and so it cannot claim any authority whatsoever in terms of its own views, any more than I can or Fred Bloggs can. The difference is that Mr Bloggs and I do not create WP articles to tell the world that it is wrong and we are right. Fiddlers Three 07:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on WT:CRIC these are not "traditional totals" but Universally Accepted Totals. The article has no place here. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playfair

The statistics given in Playfair are not the same as those in Wisden. Mr Frindall holds views on the status of several recent matches. Wisden is not 'offcial'. In fact the ACS has been consulted by ICC and ECB on the status of matches, compiling the working list used by ECB for one day matches.(see ACS website) Richard Daft (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that Wisden is not "official". Checking in the 2007 Wisden, I see that Philip Bailey has taken over from Bill Frindall as the compiler of their Records section, something that I hadn't previously noted. However a cursory glance suggests that he has not altered the "traditional" Wisden statistics, which corresponded to those in Playfair (which Mr Frindall edits). If you've identified some things on which Wisden and Playfair disagree, then I'd be interested to learn what they might be. JH (talk page) 19:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The criterea in the case of both magazines is set by the editor. Differences relate mainly to one day cricket because Frindall has views on certain 'abandoned mathes' and the Super Series. Bailey has provided, or been involved in the compilation of the statistics of both publications for several years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.101.5 (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Richard Daft has been banned from the site for violations so he will not be able to answer you. Philip Bailey has worked on Playfair with Bill Frindall for several years, I think. --The Ghost | ^séance 17:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article.

Considering the scope of the subject this is a superb article. On the status of ACS, can anyone find a decent book on cricket history not written by an ACS member, or having extensively used them in research(such as John Major's Book) Richard Daft (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S&B ;-) Tintin 19:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, calling it a "superb article" is a matter of opinion. I see it was completely rewritten and expanded by BlackJack. So, an interesting opinion.

Tintin is absolutely right about S&B and, just for starters, there are all of these that are in a list on the site:

H S Altham, A History of Cricket, Volume 1 (to 1914), George Allen & Unwin, 1962
H S Altham and EW Swanton, A History of Cricket, Volume 2 (to 1945), George Allen & Unwin, 1947
Ralph Barker & Irving Rosenwater, England v Australia: A compendium of Test cricket between the countries 1877-1968, Batsford, 1969, ISBN 0-7134-0317-9
Neville Cardus, Second Innings, Collins, 1950 (and everything else by Cardus)
F S Ashley-Cooper, At the Sign of the Wicket: Cricket 1742-1751, Cricket Magazine, 1900
F S Ashley-Cooper, Kent Cricket Matches 1719-1880, Gibbs & Sons, 1929
Derek Birley, A Social History of English Cricket, Aurum, 1999
Rowland Bowen, Cricket: A History of its Growth and Development, Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1970
Samuel Britcher, A list of all the principal Matches of Cricket that have been played (1790 to 1805)
G B Buckley, Fresh Light on 18th Century Cricket, Cotterell, 1935
G B Buckley, Fresh Light on Pre-Victorian Cricket, Cotterell, 1937
Bill Frindall, The Wisden Book of Test Cricket 1877-1978, Wisden, 1979
David Frith, The Golden Age of Cricket 1890-1914, Lutterworth, 1978
Arthur Haygarth, Scores & Biographies, Volumes 1-15, Lillywhite, 1862-79
Fred Lillywhite, The Guide to Cricketers, Lillywhite, 1851 to 1866 (reviews of seasons 1850 to 1865)
James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual (Red Lilly), Lillywhite, 1872 to 1900 (reviews of seasons 1871 to 1899)
John Lillywhite's Cricketer's Companion (Green Lilly), Lillywhite, 1865 to 1885 (reviews of seasons 1864 to 1884)
John Marshall, The Duke Who Was Cricket, Frederick Miller Ltd, 1961
Ashley Mote, The Glory Days of Cricket, Robson, 1997
Ashley Mote, John Nyren's "The Cricketers of my Time", Robson, 1998
James Pycroft, The Cricket Field, Longman, 1854
HF & AP Squire, Pre-Victorian Sussex Cricket, Padwick, 1951
E W Swanton (editor), Barclays World of Cricket, Guild, 1986
David Underdown, Start of Play, Allen Lane, 2000
H T Waghorn, Cricket Scores, Notes, etc. (1730-1773), Blackwood, 1899
H T Waghorn, The Dawn of Cricket, Electric Press, 1906
Plum Warner, How We Recovered The Ashes, Longman, 1905
Roy Webber, The Playfair Book of Cricket Records, Playfair Books, 1951
C L R James, Beyond a Boundary, Hutchinson, 1963
Chris Harte, A History of Australian Cricket, Andre Deutsch, 1993
Ray Robinson, On Top Down Under, Cassell, 1975
Greg Ryan, The Making of New Zealand Cricket, 1832-1914, Cass, 2004
Trevor Chesterfield, South Africa's Cricket Captains: From Melville to Wessels, New Holland Publishers, 1999
Louis Duffus, South African Cricket, Volume 3, 1927-1947, The South African Cricket Association, 1948
various writers, A Century of South Africa in Test & International Cricket 1889-1989, Ball, 1989
Vasant Raiji, India's Hambledon Men, Tyeby Press, 1986
Mihir Bose, A History of Indian Cricket, Andre-Deutsch, 1990
Ramachandra Guha, A Corner of a Foreign Field - An Indian History of a British Sport, Picador, 2001

and many, many more. --The Ghost | ^séance 17:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ACS Members

The ACS started in I think 1973 so if we excluded those who couldn't have been members due to death. Perhaps I should have specified recent books. I believe Frith( long standing member), Bose, Mote(certainly frequently canvases opinion of ACS and was going to speak at a meeting I believe)Bowen and Frindall(ACS Award winner). The South African Book listed involved some members. Swanton was often in contact with some members and rather oddly used the ACS version of Grace and Hobbs records in his later work having opposed their usage earlier. The World Of Cricket involved some ACS members and at least one of the Indian authors was either a member or in contact with ACS regularly. Chris Harte was involved with ACS members, I can't recall if he was a member but I rather think he was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.101.5 (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ACS

It is worth mentioning again that ACS has, at one time or another, had virtually all the major statisticians as members. It's books are self published but are available to the general public. Cricket Archive consists of Philip Bailey and Peter Griffiths, both leading members and both applying decisions made by the ACS in general to the site. It would appear that Cricket Archive has become the site of choice for statisticians of cricket. Wisden used to be riddled with errors. In a sense it still contains some. The current editor believes that Ernest Tyldesley, Christianed George Ernest, should be E Tyldesley because it always was E Tyldesley. It was E because at the time there was also RK and J, otherwise it would have just be Tyldesley. He was known to his family as George, a point Wisden ignores. There are several other examples. The records have often contained anomalies. Argentina v Chile featured in the f-c records in the 30's. Records included certain matches for some players but not for others. The fact is WG Grace's record was fiddled by FS Ashley-Cooper. However it is a matter of historgraphical interest as to whether it should be accepted. On facts alone it shouldn't as it includes games that were not included in the records of his contemporaries. I don't think it is for the editor of Wisden to decide on this. Bill Frindall is deciding what or what is not a Test Match or ODI, much as Ashley-Cooper did. It requires a concencus of experts.01:47, 13 February 2008 JimBakken (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]