First-class cricket

First-class cricket is a standard of the sport of cricket comprising matches of three or more days' scheduled duration between two sides of eleven players each, officially adjudged to be first-class by virtue of the standard of the competing teams. Matches must allow for the teams to play two innings each although, in practice, a team might only play one innings or none at all.

First-class cricket, along with single wicket, ListA and Twenty20, is one of the concepts included in any definition of major cricket.[fc 1] The origin of the term "first-class cricket" is unknown but it was used loosely re important matches before it acquired an official status, effective in 1895, following a meeting of leading English clubs in May 1894. Subsequently, at a meeting of the Imperial Cricket Conference (ICC) in May 1947, it was formally defined on a global basis. A major omission of the ICC ruling was any attempt to define first-class cricket retrospectively. This has left historians, and especially statisticians, with the problem of how to categorise matches before 1947 (or before 1895 in Great Britain).

Test cricket, although the highest standard of cricket, is statistically a form of first-class cricket, although the term "first-class" is commonly used to refer to domestic competition only. A player's first-class statistics include his performances in Test matches.

MCC ruling, May 1894

Before 1895, "first-class cricket" was a common term used loosely to suggest that a match had a high standard. There was at the time no concept of what became Test cricket and so an international match would be called a first-class one, as would any match involving two major county clubs. At the beginning of the 1860s, there were only four formally constituted county clubs: Sussex County Cricket Club is the oldest, formed in 1839, and it had been followed by Kent, Nottinghamshire and Surrey. In the early 1860s, several more clubs were founded and questions began to be raised in the sporting press about which should be categorised as first-class, but there was considerable disagreement in the answers. In 1880, the Cricket Reporting Agency was founded. It acquired influence through the decade especially by association with Wisden Cricketers' Almanack (Wisden) and the press came to generally rely on its information and opinions.[1]

The term acquired official status, though limited to matches in Great Britain, following a meeting at Lord's Cricket Ground (Lord's) in May 1894 between the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) committee and the secretaries of the clubs involved in the official County Championship, which had begun in 1890. As a result, those clubs became first-class from 1895 along with MCC, Cambridge University, Oxford University, senior cricket touring teams (e.g., Australia and South Africa) and other teams designated as such by MCC (e.g., North v South, Gentlemen v Players and occasional "elevens" which consisted of recognised first-class players).[2] Officially, therefore, the inaugural first-class match was the opening game of the 1895 season between MCC and Nottinghamshire at Lord's on 1st and 2nd May, MCC winning by 37 runs.[3]

ICC ruling, May 1947

Definition

The term "first-class cricket" was formally defined by the then Imperial Cricket Conference (ICC) on 19 May 1947. It was made clear that the definition "will not have retrospective effect".[4] The definition is as follows:[4]

A match of three or more days' duration between two sides of eleven players officially adjudged first-class, shall be regarded as a first-class fixture. Matches in which either team have (sic) more than eleven players or which are scheduled for less than three days shall not be regarded as first-class. The Governing body in each country shall decide the status of teams.

For example, MCC was authorised to determine the status of matches played in Great Britain. For all intents and purposes, the 1947 ICC definition confirmed the 1894 MCC definition and gave it international recognition and usage.

Hence, official judgment of status is the responsibility of the governing body in each country that is a full member of the International Cricket Council (ICC). The governing body grants first-class status to international teams and to domestic teams that are representative of the country's highest playing standard. Later ICC rulings make it is possible for international teams from associate members of the ICC to achieve first-class status but it is dependent on the status of their opponents in a given match.[5]

Application

According to the ICC definition, a match may be adjudged first-class if:[5]

A Test match is a first-class match played between two ICC full member countries subject to their current status at the ICC and the application of ICC conditions when the match is played.[5]

A peculiarity of the two-innings match is the follow-on law. If the team that batted second is substantially behind on first innings total, it may be required to bat again (i.e., to immediately "follow on" from its first innings rather than innings alternating as them normally would) in the third innings of the match.[6]

Recognised matches

In 2010, the ICC published its Classification of Official Cricket which includes the criteria with which a match must comply to achieve a desired categorisation. In the section on first-class cricket, there is a list of the types of match that should qualify. It is important to note, given the differences in opinion about what constitutes a first-class match, that the ICC clearly stipulates that its match type list is not exhaustive and is merely indicative of the matches which would fall into the first-class definition. For example, the list includes matches of recognised first-class teams versus international touring teams; and the major domestic championships (using their then-current names) such as the County Championship, Sheffield Shield, Ranji Trophy, etc.[5]

No retrospective effect

The absence of any ICC ruling about matches played before 1947 (or before 1895 in Great Britain) is problematic for those cricket statisticians who wish to categorise earlier matches in the same way. They have responded by compiling their own match lists and allocating a strictly unofficial first-class status to the matches they consider to have been of a high standard. It is therefore a matter of opinion only with no official support. Inevitable differences have arisen and there are variations in published first-class statistics.

A key issue for the statisticians is when first-class cricket for their purpose is deemed to have begun. Writing in 1951, Roy Webber argued that the majority of matches prior to 1864 (i.e., the year in which overarm bowling was legalised) "cannot be regarded as first-class" and their records are used "for their historical associations".[7] This drew a line between what was important historically and what should form part of the statistical record. Hence, for pre-1895 (i.e., in Great Britain) cricket matches, "first-class" is essentially a statistical concept while the historical concept is broader and takes account of historical significance. Webber's rationale was that cricket was "generally weak before 1864" (there was a greater and increasingly more organised effort to promote county cricket from about that time) and match details were largely incomplete, especially bowling analyses, which hindered compilation of records.[7] According to Webber's view, the inaugural first-class match should have been the opening game of the 1864 season between Cambridge University and MCC at Fenner's on 12th and 13th May, Cambridge winning by 6 wickets.[8] When the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians (ACS) published its Guide to First-Class Cricket Matches Played in the British Isles in 1982, it tentatively agreed with Webber's 1864 start date by saying that "the line between first-class and other matches becomes more easily discernible about that date".[9] A year earlier, the ACS had published its Guide to Important Cricket Matches Played in the British Isles 1709 – 1863 in which it listed all the known matches during that period which it considered to have historical importance. They did stipulate that they had taken a more lenient view of importance re matches played in the 18th century than they did of matches played in the 19th century. As they explained, surviving details of 18th century matches are typically incomplete while there is a fairly comprehensive store of data about 19th century matches.[10]

Subsequently, Webber's view has been challenged by those who suggest earlier dates for the commencement of "first-class statistics". Bill Frindall believed that 1815 should be the start to encompass the entire roundarm bowling phase of cricket's history. However, roundarm did not begin in earnest until 1827. In Frindall's view, the inaugural first-class match should have been the opening game of the 1815 season between MCC and Middlesex at Lord's on 31st May and 1st June, Middlesex winning by 16 runs.[11] The most significant internet-based views are those of CricketArchive (CA) and ESPNcricinfo (CI), both of which hold that the earliest first-class match was Hampshire versus All-England at Broadhalfpenny Down on 24 and 25 June 1772. CA has numbered this match "f1" (i.e., first-class match number one) and CI as "First-Class # 1".[12][13]

However commendable these views may be, they are not only unofficial but also entirely statistical. The 1772 match left a scorecard that is complete apart from the bowling analyses and so the data is sufficient for a statistical study, especially as the scorecard was itself the start of a trend and there are surviving scorecards from every season commencing 1772. The historical view centres on the historical significance of a match and its known contemporary importance measured by, as is often the case with early matches, the amount of money at stake. Other factors are the size of the crowd, if known, and the fact that a match was deemed notable enough to be reported in the press. The earliest match known to have been accorded superior status in a contemporary report (i.e., "a great match" in this case) and to have been played for a large sum of money was one in Sussex between two unnamed eleven-a-side teams contesting "fifty guineas apiece" in June 1697.[14] This major cricket match has enormous historical significance but has no value at all for statisticians as there is no surviving data.

Footnotes

  1. ↑ The term "major cricket" deserves some qualification. It is not limited to "first-class cricket" which is a misleading concept that is essentially statistical and may typically ignore the more important historical aspect of a match if statistical information is missing, as is invariably the case re matches played prior to 1772. From that season, scorecards began to be created habitually and there is a continuous and adequate, though incomplete, statistical record commencing in 1772. Major cricket in the Stuart and Hanoverian periods includes both single wicket and eleven-a-side games. Features of these matches include high stakes, large crowds and evidence that the teams are representative of several parishes, perhaps of whole counties. Except in rare instances, village cricket in the shape of a match played between two parish teams, would be classified as minor.

References

  1. ↑ ACS, First-class Match Guide, p. 4.
  2. ↑ Birley, p. 145.
  3. ↑ "Marylebone Cricket Club v Nottinghamshire 1895". CricketArchive. Retrieved 26 March 2015.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Wisden 1948, p. 813.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 "ICC Classification of Official Cricket" (PDF). International Cricket Conference (ICC). Retrieved 9 February 2015.
  6. ↑ "MCC Laws of Cricket – Law 13". Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC). Retrieved 9 February 2015.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Webber, pp. 9–10.
  8. ↑ "Cambridge University v Marylebone Cricket Club 1864". CricketArchive. Retrieved 26 March 2015.
  9. ↑ ACS, First-class Match Guide, p. 3.
  10. ↑ ACS, Important Match Guide, p. 4.
  11. ↑ "Marylebone Cricket Club v Middlesex 1815". CricketArchive. Retrieved 26 March 2015.
  12. ↑ "Hampshire v England 1772". CricketArchive. Retrieved 9 February 2015.
  13. ↑ "Hampshire v England 1772". ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 9 February 2015.
  14. ↑ McCann, p. xli.

Bibliography

External links