Great Cricket Matches 1772-1800

in), which can have the paradoxical effect that the top scorer, if he batted through most of the innings, is listed at or near the bottom rather than near the top as we should expect. At least one card lists the teams in order of score, from highest to lowest. And there is some evidence that Epps took advantage of the great consistency of team selection in the 1770s to carry the same list of names forward from match to match without altering the order. This would have meant that only the score and method of dismissal had to be altered for each match, rather than the whole assembled block of type. It must have saved a lot of time, but unfortunately it means that Epps contains many batting orders that make little sense in the context of the match. The same problem affects other publications (notably Scores and Biographies ) that have relied on Epps as a source. Reference to contemporary sources, especially newspapers, has often revealed batting orders that appear to be preferable to those in SB. In assessing this we have had regard to factors such as, for instance, where the not-out batsman is listed and his score. Thus, we know that if the man listed third scored 0 not out in a total of 150, it is most unlikely that the team is given in batting order. Lists with noblemen at the top are similarly suspect, although this should not be carried too far: the scores show that the Duke of Dorset, for instance, although hardly up to professional standard, was far from incompetent as a batsman and he may indeed have opened the innings on occasion. So in the end, where sources give different batting orders it has to be a matter of judgment which to prefer. Subject to all these caveats, we have attempted to list teams in the order that seems most plausible overall, and we have been able to improve the order in a very large number of matches, especially compared with the versions in Scores and Biographies . However, we have made no attempt to ‘force’ a plausible order when no source provides one. Users of this book are therefore advised to treat batting orders with a degree of caution. Given the inconsistent approach of contemporary sources, it should be accepted that many will remain incorrect, or at least unproven, and the batting order cannot be regarded as such a fundamental part of the score as, for instance, batsmen’s totals and modes of dismissal. Second-innings batting order is even more uncertain. A glance at many scores is sufficient to show that it was very common for teams to vary their order at the second attempt, but in only a handful of cases have we been able to find satisfactory evidence allowing us to show a definite second-innings order. Continuity and change: cricket then and now Any reader accustomed to modern cricket scorecards, but coming to the 18th-century game for the first time, is likely to be struck not by how different everything is but by how familiar it seems. At first glance, the scorecards do indeed look very similar to what a modern cricket follower would expect: there are two teams consisting of (usually) eleven players, to each of whom is ascribed an individual score and means of dismissal in each of two innings. The individual totals are added and a result is given by so many runs or wickets. A second glance might reveal some differences. Bowlers receive credit only when a batsman is bowled, almost never for other types of dismissal such as catches and lbw. And the bowling figures themselves are nugatory; in fact, they contain nothing but what can be derived from the batting details (which is very little). 27