Great Cricket Matches 1772-1800

field against major southern counties, and it is significant that Leicester and Nottingham were both badly beaten. Indeed, the next year Nottingham played XXII against an equally moderate MCC team, and still lost. Slightly after our period, in 1803, Hampshire, by then a shadow of its former self, was able to beat by an innings a combined team of Nottingham and Leicester reinforced by Beauclerk (who top-scored in both innings and took two of the four Hampshire wickets for which the bowler is recorded). The evidence is clear that midland and northern sides were of much lower standard than the main southern teams so they are excluded, although the historical importance of their matches is acknowledged. Presentation of scores In order to be consistent with each other and with other ACS publications, the scores are presented in the normal ACS style. Although this means that scores are presented with many gaps, for instance in the bowling analyses and in the fall of wickets, it has the merit of making it immediately clear, in relation to any particular score, not only what is known but also, equally importantly, what is not known. Team nomenclature The nomenclature of teams is a recurring problem and one that sometimes attracts controversy. Original sources are often highly inconsistent, not only using different titles for very similar matches but also, often, using different titles for the same match. Moreover, the original team titles, in keeping with 18th-century style in other matters such as book titles, are often very descriptive and wordy by modern standards. So the fact that a team may be described in this book simply as, say, ‘Surrey’, does not exclude the possibility that its original title may have been far longer. A further complicating factor is that teams are often named after their patron or sponsor, even if the team itself is plainly intended to represent a county or other recognised cricketing entity. The use of ‘given men’ as a way of balancing the teams (or, sometimes, as a way of strengthening both teams) was common practice well into the 19th century. It adds to the potential for confusion, particularly in the early part of our period, when only a few counties were involved at top level. A team playing against Hampshire might be described in one source as ‘England’, in another as ‘Kent with three given men’, and in yet another as ‘Kent and Surrey combined’. Since any given men in the Kent team would in all likelihood come from Surrey, and since an England team opposed to Hampshire would consist mainly of Kent and Surrey players in any case, the difference between the various titles is likely to be marginal. Finally, where a single club is dominant within a county, there may be no clear distinction between the two. For instance, during our period the Hornchurch club was preeminent in Essex and the team organised by the club can be variously described under either title without any discernible difference in personnel. In the next century a similar situation arose with Nottingham and Nottinghamshire and in other cases, and this book follows the established ACS practice of classifying the match according to the strength of the side, whilst reflecting the contemporary title. In attempting to make sense of this, and title teams and matches in a clear and consistent way, a degree of streamlining and rationalisation is inevitable. Apart from any other factors, insistence on the use of full titles would render it impossible to index 22