Editing First-class cricket (section)

==Retrospective classification of matches played before the definitions==
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 cricket statistics]]. In November 2021, the ICC retrospectively applied first-class status to [[women's cricket]], aligning it with the men's game.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.icc-cricket.com/media-releases/2355517 |title=ICC Board appoints Afghanistan Working Group |work=International Cricket Council |access-date=17 November 2021 |archive-date=17 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211117061128/https://www.icc-cricket.com/media-releases/2355517 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.womenscriczone.com/icc-appoints-working-group-to-review-afghanistan-cricket |title=ICC appoints Working Group to review status of Afghanistan cricket; women's First Class, List A classification to align with men's game |work=Women's CricZone |access-date=17 November 2021 |archive-date=17 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211117092611/https://www.womenscriczone.com/icc-appoints-working-group-to-review-afghanistan-cricket |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Issue for statisticians===
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".{{sfn|Webber|1951|pp=9–10}} 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 (cricket)|bowling]] analyses, which hindered compilation of records.{{sfn|Webber|1951|pp=9–10}} According to Webber's view, the inaugural first-class match was the opening game of the 1864 season between [[Cambridge University Cricket Club|Cambridge University]] and MCC at [[Fenner's]] on 12 and 13 May, Cambridge winning by 6 wickets.<ref name="CA1313">{{cite web |url=https://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/1/1313.html |title=Cambridge University v Marylebone Cricket Club, 12–13 May 1864 |work=CricketArchive |access-date=17 September 2022 |url-access=subscription |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920170944/https://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/1/1313.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Important matches list===
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".{{sfn|ACS|1982|p=3}} 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. The ACS did stipulate that they had taken a more lenient view of importance regarding 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, certainly since 1825.{{sfn|ACS|1981|p=4}}

===Earlier startpoints suggested===
Subsequently, Webber's view was challenged by [[Bill Frindall]] who believed that 1815 should be the startpoint to encompass the entire [[roundarm bowling]] phase of cricket's history,{{sfn|Frindall|1998|p=1}} although roundarm did not begin in earnest until 1827.{{sfn|Altham|1962|pp=61–62}} In Frindall's view, the inaugural first-class match should have been the opening game of the 1815 season between MCC and [[Middlesex county cricket teams|Middlesex]] at Lord's on 31 May and 1 June, Middlesex winning by 16 runs.<ref name="CA356">{{cite web |url=https://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/0/356.html |title=Marylebone Cricket Club v Middlesex, 31 May – 1 June 1815 |work=CricketArchive |access-date=17 September 2022 |url-access=subscription |archive-date=5 July 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220705130500/https://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/0/356.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Notwithstanding Frindall's reputation, Webber's view has been revived and reinforced in recent times. For example, the Kent researcher Derek Carlaw began his study of Kent cricketers since 1806 by stating: "Part One is confined to players who appeared for Kent in important matches from 1806 to 1863 and first-class matches from 1864 to 1914".{{sfn|Carlaw|Winnifrith|2020|p=2}}

On the internet, the ''CricketArchive'' (CA) and ''[[ESPN Cricinfo]]'' (CI) databases both say the earliest first-class match was [[Hampshire county cricket teams|Hampshire]] v [[Non-international England cricket teams|England]] at [[Broadhalfpenny Down]] on 24 and 25 June 1772.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/0/4.html |title=Hampshire v England, 24–25 June 1772 |work=CricketArchive |access-date=17 September 2022 |url-access=subscription |archive-date=26 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220926192653/https://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/0/4.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1770S/1772/ENG_LOCAL/HANTS-XI_ENG_24-25JUN1772.html |work=ESPNcricinfo |title=Hampshire v England, 24–25 June 1772 |access-date=9 February 2015 |archive-date=9 February 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150209125355/http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1770S/1772/ENG_LOCAL/HANTS-XI_ENG_24-25JUN1772.html |url-status=live }}</ref> At that time, cricket matches were played with a two-stump [[wicket]] and exclusively [[underarm bowling]], although other features of the modern game had been introduced.{{sfn|Haygarth|1996|p=99}} The opinion of these databases has been repudiated by both ''Wisden'' and ''[[Playfair Cricket Annual]]''. ''Wisden'' agrees with Frindall by commencing its first-class records in 1815.{{sfn|Wisden|2019|pp=1215–1242}} ''Playfair'' supports Webber and begins its records in 1864.{{sfn|Playfair|2018|pp=159, 173, 180}}

The status of earlier matches, including many in the ACS' ''Important Matches'' guide, which have left no scorecard and for which only a brief announcement or report exists, must be based on other factors. Contemporary importance was often measured by the amount of money at stake and the fact that a match was deemed notable enough to be reported in the press. The 18th century matches in the ACS list were primarily compiled to assist historians.{{sfn|ACS|1981|p=4}} The earliest match known to have been accorded superior status in a contemporary report (i.e., termed "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 [[guinea (British coin)|guineas]] apiece" in June 1697, a match of enormous historical significance but with no statistical data recorded.{{sfn|McCann|2004|p=xli}}