Talk:First-class cricket

message: I have a question about the follow-on rule. The article currently reads
*If more than one day is abandoned, the second and subsequent days are still counted for the calculation of follow-ons.
I haven't heard of this before. Law 13.3 reads
*If no play takes place on the first day of a match of more than one day's duration, [the follow-on targets] above shall apply in accordance with the number of days remaining from the actual start of the match. [Italics mine]
This seems to me to say the opposite. The mention of the first day of the match being abandoned is only to say that at least one day has been lost at the start of the match. But then the follow-on target is calculated according to the actual start of the match.
Could someone more knowledgeable than me clarify the correct interpretation of this Law? Stephen Turner 09:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the answer to this for sure, but I wonder whether the version in the article comes from the playing conditions of a specific competition rather than applying generally. It would be useful if we could find a scorecard for a match where this had arisen - for example, a two-day County Championship game, of which there must have been a number since four-day cricket was introduced. Loganberry (Talk) 22:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding of the law, was the same as Stephen Turner's. This was backed up in an umpire's course. I think the article should reflect this, and if an individual competition has different rules, then that should be mentioned as an exception. JPD (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely this whole section should be in the Laws of Cricket page or a History of the Laws of Cricket page. Nigej 08:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Follow-on rule 

message: When was the last first-class match played to have 12 or more players on a side? I know there were 12-a-side first-class university games at least into the 1920s (eg Gloucs v Oxford U in 1924) but I don't know how long these persisted. Loganberry (Talk) 23:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is at least one from India in the 1940s/ early fifties. Will post here if I can find it again. Tintin 02:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last first-class match with more than 11 a side? 

message: At the moment, both Beaumont Cup and Guystac Trophy are listed here. Is this correct? Both are defunct competitions, and we don't list (for example) Gentlemen v Players under the England heading. If we're only listing current competitions, then shouldn't both Beaumont Trophy and Guystac Cup be removed? Loganberry (Talk) 16:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Definition of first-class cricket" section - esp. West Indies 

message: I apologise if I'm treading on anyone's toes here but this stuff about "important matches" is absolute rubbish. Someone is having a laugh. I've a friend at our local cricket club who's a member of the ACS and he says they never had any intention of creating a new classification. Their handbook was just a list of early matches, nothing more, which cricket historians might find useful. The word "important" was an ADJECTIVE only that could have been "noteworthy", whatever. All they tried to do was select the known matches that were outside of a single town or parish and were, as such, of two wider geographical entities like towns or even whole counties. It really annoyed me to read that Lancashire was not first-class until 1895 and the same is true of a half a dozen other county clubs. Unbelievable that someone can get away with stuff like that. It's what you call "original research" and it's absolute rubbish. I'm happy for anyone to adapt what I've done on the article but, please, lets get shut of this nonsense. The worst thing about it is how it's been transcripted into other articles without question. Scribbles by The Scribbler (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If we are not to regard the above as your own OR, please supply reliable sources for verification. Bjenks (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Important match" classification 

message: I just added a wikitable for listing the currently active first class domestic competitions, as examples. I placed it after the two sections relative to the concept definition, and before the one occupied with historical issues.
As for the table's structure, only country name and competition name are reported so far, together with a "Notes" field. The competitions are grouped by country and then sorted by date of gaining first-class status - for each country the first tournament to reach it is considered. --5.91.30.238 (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples table 

message: I note the records of certain women former-players include a category WFC (presumably women's first class)in their records which refers to this page eg Rachael Heyhoe Flint. There is however no mention on this page of women's matches. Also, personally, I am not aware any of two-innings women's mathches other than tests, so I am wondering what the matches in question were, who decided they were first class and when were they were discontinued (as modern players have no such item in their records - eg Sarah Taylor? I think the answer should be added to this article, (if anyone knows).  John Price (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women's cricket 

message: I'm well aware of the shifting views about WHEN first-class cricket began and it seems there is (note: seems there is, not there is) a current consensus in the ACS and among other interested parties that Roy Webber was right all along and that the advent of overarm bowling was the true beginning of first-class, especially with the concurrent rush to form county clubs. I've been studying some of the entries in the Carlaw/Winnifrith work for the ACS on Kent players and their view on first-class status is exactly as per Webber's and stated right there in the very first paragraph.
I've amended the article to include this source. As Loganberry wrote above in July 2005, the weight of evidence in this article must affect other articles about cricket subjects in the 18th and 19th centuries. As Tintin said in August 2005, the issue is "a complete mess". I think one way to get some closure on the question, as far as WP is concerned, is to have this article formally reviewed and so I'm submitting it to GAN. Whether it passes or not is academic. It will be interesting to see a reviewer's consideration of the start date issue. BcJvs UTC 15:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomination for GA review