131 years ago today.....

[Rebecca]

131 years ago today, the first ever test match was played........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Test_cricket_from_1877_to_1883

I didn't realise some of the first matches had no time limit!

 

[Richard]

Yeah, most pre-WWI matches in Australia were timeless games. And very often the last game of a series, if the series was not decided, was a timeless one. It was only in 1947 that 5 days became the standard.

On 2 occasions, this resulted in ridiculous games. At Sabina Park in 1930, England and West Indies played on for 9 days. And at Kingsmead in 1938\39, England and South Africa went 1 better. Both games were abandoned as draws as the team had to catch the boat home.

 

[neville cardus]

Sinister mussitations were legion after Australia's maiden 45-run victory. It was believed that England had fixed the match to ensure a big return gate, but I doubt it. Although match-fixing was even then a potent undertide, Lillywhite's men were in no fit state for cricket. "I was simply spun out of myself," recalled Alfred Shaw of the gruelling trip leading up to the Test.

They arrived several days late, without their wicketkeeper, and had almost no time for a breather. Against an Australian line-up which bore such names as Blackham, Garrett, Cooper, the Gregorys, Midwinter, Bannerman, Kendall and Horan, the Englishmen, understrength in both representation and fitness, had little chance.

 

[Richard]

By a return gate do you mean in the next game on that tour Rodders? Or a return game as in one in England?

 

[neville cardus]

I mean the second Test -- which England won comfortably, amplifying the sceptics' volume.

 

[Richard]

Right, yes, thought so - unless I'm much mistaken those games weren't regarded as "Tests" or anything like at the time, though it was was it not the first time an eleven from England had met an eleven from Australia?

Whereas the game in 1880 was regarded as something much more like what we now think of as a Test was it not?

Another thing I presume you'd know which I never have - when was the term "Test match" first used in cricket?

 

[neville cardus]

Tests were not acknowledged as Tests at the time, so England in 1876/77 was actually "Lillywhite's Eleven" and Australia the "Combined Australia XI". The Test itself was dubbed the "Grand Combination Match".

The 1880 game was pretty close to fully representative of both nations' cricketing stocks, although Australia (owing to Joseph Franks's diabolical excuse for a bowling action) was without Fred Spofforth and had to make do with the journeyman Billy Moule (who, admittedly, did rather well). The first time that England and Australia really met at fullish strength was at the Oval in 1882.

As far as when the term was first used is concerned, I have done original research of which I am rather too proud to share here. I'll send you an email.

 

[neville cardus]

Botheration. There goes another one. What is this unearthly wont that my historical discursives have of killing off perfectly healthy threads? I've half a mind to become a modernistic dullard.

 

[shortpitched713]

Historical discursives can be made interesting too you know.

Just throwing that out there.

 

[neville cardus]

Historical discursives can be made interesting too you know.

Ah. I'm a historical dullard, then. That's probably the worst type.

Maybe I should swear a bit more.

 

[honestbharani]

Maybe you should share your work on when the term "tests" begun to be used in cricket here... That would probably generate some interest and debate.

 

[neville cardus]

Maybe you should share your work on when the term "tests" begun to be used in cricket here... That would probably generate some interest and debate.

Not really. I have merely ascertained that the first Test Match to be called a Test Match was the 1882 affair at the Kennington Oval. The Penny Illustrated of 2 September, in its report, referred to it as "above all others the test match of the season".

Apologies to Richie for forgetting to send this to him.

 

[archie mac]

Some suggest that is was Rugby that first used the term Test

 

[neville cardus]

Ironically, "test match" was first used for cricket before the first Test Match had been played. The term's maiden appearance is in Hammersley's Sands & Kenny's Cricketers Guide for Heathfield Stephenson's pioneering jaunt of 1861/62.

 

[cover drive man]

Wonder if no limit tests would work today? I mean I don't think so with a tour being schedule you could seriously **** up the schedule, although it might speed the game up a bit instead of batters just going for the draw when they are losing playing incredibly defensively instead of going out for the win.

 

[neville cardus]

Wonder if no limit tests would work today?

I believe they would; in fact, they would do the game a helluva lot of good. Out of necessity, schedules would be less ludicrously engorged, and players would have more time away from the game. Test Matches, being fewer and further between, would hold greater value, and the quality of play would see manifold improvement.

If timeless Tests were brought back, however, I should insist on the return of uncovered wickets, too.

it might speed the game up a bit instead of batters just going for the draw when they are losing playing incredibly defensively instead of going out for the win.

That's an interesting way of looking at it.

 

[cover drive man]

I believe they would; in fact, they would do the game a helluva lot of good. Out of necessity, schedules would be less ludicrously engorged, and players would have more time away from the game. Test Matches, being fewer and further between, would hold greater value, and the quality of play would see manifold improvement.

If timeless Tests were brought back, however, I should insist on the return of uncovered wickets, too.



That's an interesting way of looking at it.

The more tests the more money made and at the end of the day that's all they care about. Although lets say a match went on for about 7 days there would be a lot of tickets sold for each day but what about people who bought tickets to see it all. Plus Say if they reduced a series to 3 matches because they were unlimited. Lets say they played in lords edgbaston and Trent Bridge. This would mean me and a lot of other people would have to miss out on getting a chance to see the match. There would also be more of a rush for tickets and this could result in more trouble because someone would end up making a protest and is it really all worth it?.

 

[neville cardus]

I think we all know that it isn't viable in this money-driven epoch -- you'd be a charlie to think otherwise --, but there's nowt wrong with a spot of idle fantasy.

 

[cover drive man]

I think we all know that it isn't viable in this money-driven epoch -- you'd be a charlie to think otherwise --, but there's nowt wrong with a spot of idle fantasy.

True.