I have been including, in the database for pre-1915 Tests,
ball-by-ball reconstructions for certain innings and/or matches,
made in the absence of complete scorebooks. I just wanted to make some points clear
about this process, especially as the Database approaches the 1902 Tests played
by Australia in England and South Africa.
It is a great misfortune that no scorebooks are known to
exist for these matches. However, greater resources are becoming available in
terms of match reports in newspapers, to the extent that it is possible to
construct over-by-over (sometimes ball-by-ball) versions of some innings,
particularly those that involve rapid scoring or frequent falls of wickets. The
British Newspaper Archive now boasts dozens of titles, available in full and
online, for the year 1902. In addition to this I have accessed, from libraries,
copies of other newspapers that are not in this Archive. These reports vary in
detail, but when distilled together, and taken with information from other
sources (such as a partial score available for the Old Trafford Test), it makes
possible a ‘best rendering’ of important innings that in turn allow estimates
of balls faced and other important statistics.
This has also been done for the series in South Africa.
Although sources are fewer, the South African papers of the time often used a
strictly narrative style (old-fashioned at the time) of reporting that mentions
almost all scoring shots in sequence. Australian papers prior to 1894 often
used the same style; after that, a more interpretive style of reporting came
into vogue that makes it much harder to reconstruct innings statistically.
Three points:
1) Even with combined sources, gaps occur that must be
filled using educated interpolation,
2) The sources sometimes conflict.
3) It is not always possible to come up with a sequence of
overs that is perfectly consistent with every source.
Generally, however, the broad structure of innings are clear
(who was bowling when, and in which overs wickets fell), and many of the
scoring details can be accurately placed. It is just certain passages of play
that must be filled in. Periods of slow play with occasional singles and
maidens are particularly difficult; by the same token, they are often not
important. Some other detail from the sources can assist, such as the reporting
of the number of ones, twos, threes and fours for major innings, and this can
be found in certain sources.
I hope that the reconstructions can be accepted in this
spirit; that they are not exact, but offer a useful guide to the progress of
certain important innings and matches.
There are more sources out there, unexamined: perhaps others
can take up the challenge of tracking more of them down. For instance, Gerald Brodribb gives a ball-by-ball list of Gilbert Jessop’s
famous 104 at the Oval, but does not name his (newspaper) source. Having looked
at dozens of potential sources, I have yet to find this.
So don’t fret over potential errors: improve on it if you
can!