Great Cricket Matches 1772-1800

Notes on the accuracy of scores We have striven throughout to give the fullest and most accurate version of the score that we can. This has frequently required us to choose between different versions in the sources. To approach this task in as consistent a way as possible, we have evolved certain guidelines. These are set out below. It is stressed that they are not in order of priority. Where they come into conflict, the choice is a matter of judgment. It is not possible to say that any one factor will automatically take priority over another. For any given match, a single source should be the ‘lead’. This does not prevent the ‘lead’ source from being supplemented by relevant additional information from other credible sources, provided they are consistent with the ‘lead’ version. It does mean, however, that sources should not normally be mixed and matched by taking, say, the first innings from one source and the second innings from another. On the very rare occasions that we have combined parts of two versions, a note explains the circumstances. Preference should be given to the fullest version of the score. Preference should be given to primary sources over secondary sources. Preference should be given to the most proximate version of the score. A newspaper that was local to the match venue is likely to have had access to reliable information; whereas a newspaper in a distant town will probably have got its information from intermediate sources. Preference should be given to contemporary versions of the score, which will often be found in newspapers. For scores from 1790 on, Britcher offers a near-contemporary source that should normally be given priority over later sources such as SB. Occasionally, a score contains a serious internal contradiction. Such a score is to be treated with great caution. Where there is a conflict between these guidelines, a decision will have to be made about which version is likely to represent the fullest and most accurate record of the match. This is a matter of judgment; it is unlikely that we shall be able to say that any particular factor, e.g. the fulness of the score, should always take priority over any other, e.g. the proximity of the source. For each match there is a footnote outlining issues relating to the version of the score that is presented, and referring to any other versions available. The scores in the current volume differ in very many particulars from previously accepted versions, especially those found in volume 1 of Scores and Biographies . Many of these changes are minor, perhaps relating only to the batting order (and see the separate note below for the issues involved in batting orders). We have also been able to give better dates for many matches, showing that virtually all of those for which a single day is given in SB in fact continued for two or more days. In addition, we have resolved all the cases where SB suggests, most implausibly, that play took place on a Sunday. 25