Talk:David Harris (English cricketer)

First-class cricket

Cite me some sources that define first class cricket in the 18th century and I'll cite you Wikipedia's own sources which dispute them. Wikipedia's own article on first class cricket offers 1864 as the most used date. Other dates include 1815 and 1801. 18th century matches should be "major" or "great". johnnybriggs (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all I will refer you to WP:CIVIL and remind you that use of confrontational tone is not tolerated on this site. I would also suggest you read WP:NPOV.

Wikipedia's article First-class cricket says nothing at all about the origin of first-class cricket per se and only discusses the two dates (1895 and 1947) when the term came into official use via the MCC and the ICC respectively. Wikipedia's key article about the "idea" of first-class cricket is Variations in first-class cricket statistics which describes the various suggestions put forward by the likes of Roy Webber and Bill Frindall before it looks at the more recent view that c.1660 marked the start of first-class cricket's "historical record" and 1772 its "statistical record". This view has been published by two sites, the ACS and Stumpsite. In addition, the article explains the CricketArchive position whereby 18th century matches are classified as major or minor, it being clearly understood that "major matches" are the equivalent of first-class pending an overall accord with other researchers, because of the fact that 18th century scorecards are not as complete as later ones (e.g., dismissal details); however, the same is true of all scorecards up to the 1830s.

Furthermore, if Harris was a "major cricket player" as you allow, then he must have been first-class in WP terms because the article major cricket makes clear that first-class, ListA, single wicket and other forms as appropriate are all components of major cricket.

It is therefore quite proper in terms of Wikipedia's own coverage of the subject to describe David Harris as a first-class cricketer. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I bow to your judgement and I apologise if you think I was being confrontational. I'd be horrified to think that. However you have to allow that we have different points of view and given my reading of the above sources and others, mine is just as valid as yours. A major match may be the equivalent of a first class match but it doesn't mean that it IS a first class match. johnnybriggs (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"EM (Grace) performed one of the most amazing all-round feats ever on 15 August 1862. He carried his bat through the entire MCC innings, scoring 192 not out of a total of 344. He then took all 10 wickets in the Kent first innings for 69 runs. However, although the match is recognised as first-class, this is not an official record as it was a 12-man game". Discuss —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnybriggs (talk • contribs) 20:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for setting things straight.

As a matter of fact, my "personal view" is that a first-class match should be one that forms part of a national championship (i.e., double wicket, three days, two innings). I don't see how Yorkshire v OUCC can have the same classification as Yorkshire v Lancashire. I would limit first-class status to matches in the official County Championship since 1890, the Sheffield Shield since 1892, the Ranji Trophy since 1934 and so on. I would have a separate classification for all ad hoc senior matches from 1697 including Hambledon v All-England, MCC v Yorkshire, NSW v West Indians, etc. I think Test cricket should be a third classification.

Unfortunately, because ICC and MCC have ruled that matches outside the official competitions can be classed as first-class, it is only right that historians should take that concept right back to the year dot. But, as our Variations article points out, problems arise when someone tries to use a cut-off date because there is always going to be an earlier match or player that makes nonsense of that date: e.g., you cannot exclude players like Harris, Small, Lumpy, Beldham and Walker from the first-class records if you are going to include a whole regiment of Varsity chaps who only played a couple of matches each. For example, Webber's 1864 date leaves William Caffyn with a first-class record of only a handful of matches when he was past his prime.

All the best. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)