Tuesday, January 29, 2008
1800's first-class cricket in England: bowlers
This is Part 4 in my series on 1800's cricket in England.
1 - data
2 - classification of matches
3 - filling in the gaps
4 - bowlers
5 - batsmen
6 - bowlers across eras
7 - batsmen across eras
8 - all-rounders (across eras)
9 - wicket-keepers
(Edit: My code at first counted "absent" as a nought not out. This has been fixed. All it does is decrease of new innings and not-out tallies.)
In this post I apply the method detailed in Part 3 to all first-class scorecards with missing data. But first I have to make a small confession — the method I've used is surely not the best one. The scorecards with missing data come in (mostly) two types. The earliest scorecards only credit bowlers with bowled dismissals, and do not record the runs conceded by bowlers (this is a typical example). Later scorecards give full credit to bowlers for their dismissals, but don't record the runs conceded (this is a typical example). There are also five matches where the runs conceded are recorded but bowlers aren't given credit for catches, etc.
The method in Part 3 dealt only with the first type of scorecard. With the second type of scorecard, you should be able to get better estimates of the bowling averages, since you have more data (namely, how many wickets each bowler took). But when I tried to apply a similar method to these scorecards (finding the average percentage of team runs conceded by bowlers who took 1 wicket, bowlers who took 2 wickets, etc.), I got results that were biased in favour of regular wicket-takers. The top 18 wicket-takers in the test dataset had estimates of bowling averages that were too low, with the errors ranging from 0,2% to almost 23%. The (justified) fudge factor used in the previous method makes the estimates even lower!
I don't know (yet?) how to fix this. There must surely be a better, more sophisticated model to estimate runs conceded — you shouldn't get worse results with more data! But since that's what's happening for me, I've instead ignored all the non-bowled dismissals for these scorecards, and applied the method used on the early scorecards. I've then scaled up the estimated runs conceded and estimated wickets so that the wicket tally matches reality.
So, onto the results! In the various tables that follow, I give the start and end years of the career, matches (these may not agree with the usual sources, since I exclude matches that weren't eleven-a-side), wickets, runs conceded, bowling average, +/- %; and then batting stats (for which we have complete data): innings, not-outs, runs, average.
Note 1: If there is a decimal comma in the wickets tally, then it is almost certainly an underestimate. How big an underestimate I don't know. In my test dataset, one bowler's estimated wicket tally was 47% below what it should have been. Despite this, the estimate of the average was only out by just over 7%. For other bowlers, the wickets estimate was within 2% of reality. The lesson here is not to rely on my wicket estimates.
Note 2: One of the columns is called +/- %. About 80% of the estimated averages should fall inside the estimated averages, plus or minus the given percent. If the bowler only ever had bowleds credited to him, this value is 10%.
The first table gives the leading bowlers of the 1800's in England by bowling average. Qualification (for this table and all that follow): 200 wickets.
Note that this doesn't mean that James Cobbett had the lowest average of the 1800's — if the estimate was particularly bad, it might be up around 10. This would still be one of the lowest ever, of course. Cobbett was a round-arm spin bowler.
Second on the table is William Lillywhite, a medium-pace round-arm bowler. His wicket tally is enormous.
Third is Samuel Redgate, a fast bowler who we can thank for batting pads, along with Alfred Mynn (tenth on the table). These two were the fastest bowlers of their day, but Mynn was also a pretty good batsman. They squared off against each other in the North v South game of 1836. Mynn had hurt his ankle before play started, but nevertheless batted at 5 in South's second innings. Redgate repeatedly hit Mynn on his unprotected legs, damaging them to the point where amputation was considered. In what must be one of the most courageous innings of all-time, Mynn struck an unbeaten century (the only century of his first-class career), before being sent to London for medical treatment. After this, batsmen started wearing leg guards. You can read about this innings in more detail here.
James Broadbridge comes in fifth. This average-estimating exercise is particularly useful for the Sussex round-armer — in the standard sources his average is given as 18,62. This very wrong figure is based on just 14 of his career wickets, which total over 400!
The ninth player in the table above is Thomas Nixon, a round-arm slow bowler whose first-class career comprised mostly matches for the MCC. You'll note that the +/- % figure is given as 5,0; this means that roughly half of his runs conceded came in matches where this was recorded. This gives us a useful check: we know that his average in these matches was 10,12. Since the estimated average is 10,0, it looks like the estimate is pretty good.
For what it's worth, the next table shows the leading bowlers by wickets taken. Since the amount of first-class cricket increased over the course of the 19th century, the top of the list is dominated by people who played close to 1900.
WG rather stands out in this list. Not only did he take more than 500 more first-class wickets than anyone else in England in the 1800's, but he did it while averaging over 40 with the bat.
Lillywhite's wickets estimate is almost certainly low, and he should be at least one rank higher. He might deserve to he higher still, but we can't know for sure.
To have a look at some more early bowlers, here's a table with players ordered by the starting year of their careers.
William Lambert was, along with Beauclerk, one of the stand-out all-rounders of the early 19th century. These two have similar averages, both for batting and bowling. The bowling average of around 12,5 is about typical for the era, which was very low-scoring. That should put a batting average of over 27 into some perspective. Lambert was, however, banned for life for match-fixing.
Lord Frederick Beauclerk is perhaps my favourite character in cricket history. Not only was he a Lord, a title sadly absent from modern English cricketers, but he was the golden boy of the first part of the 19th century (see his picture here). Not only was he an outstanding all-rounder, but he embodied the spirit of cricket so lacking in today's players. A clergyman, he claimed to make £600 a year from betting on cricket. He was unassuming when batting — (according to his Wikipedia article at least) he used to place an expensive watch on the middle stump. He was a "foul-mouthed, dishonest man who was one of the most hated figures in society ... he bought and sold matches as though they were lots at an auction".
You may have noticed that, along with the leading wicket-takers being from near 1900, the leading averages are mostly from around the second quarter of the century. Adjusting the bowling averages for era will be the subject of Part 6. A suivre !
If your favourite 19th century bowler with missing data has been omitted from the tables above, you can find him in the table below, which lists all bowlers whose averages needed some estimating. They are ordered by the starting year of their first-class careers.
1 - data
2 - classification of matches
3 - filling in the gaps
4 - bowlers
5 - batsmen
6 - bowlers across eras
7 - batsmen across eras
8 - all-rounders (across eras)
9 - wicket-keepers
(Edit: My code at first counted "absent" as a nought not out. This has been fixed. All it does is decrease of new innings and not-out tallies.)
In this post I apply the method detailed in Part 3 to all first-class scorecards with missing data. But first I have to make a small confession — the method I've used is surely not the best one. The scorecards with missing data come in (mostly) two types. The earliest scorecards only credit bowlers with bowled dismissals, and do not record the runs conceded by bowlers (this is a typical example). Later scorecards give full credit to bowlers for their dismissals, but don't record the runs conceded (this is a typical example). There are also five matches where the runs conceded are recorded but bowlers aren't given credit for catches, etc.
The method in Part 3 dealt only with the first type of scorecard. With the second type of scorecard, you should be able to get better estimates of the bowling averages, since you have more data (namely, how many wickets each bowler took). But when I tried to apply a similar method to these scorecards (finding the average percentage of team runs conceded by bowlers who took 1 wicket, bowlers who took 2 wickets, etc.), I got results that were biased in favour of regular wicket-takers. The top 18 wicket-takers in the test dataset had estimates of bowling averages that were too low, with the errors ranging from 0,2% to almost 23%. The (justified) fudge factor used in the previous method makes the estimates even lower!
I don't know (yet?) how to fix this. There must surely be a better, more sophisticated model to estimate runs conceded — you shouldn't get worse results with more data! But since that's what's happening for me, I've instead ignored all the non-bowled dismissals for these scorecards, and applied the method used on the early scorecards. I've then scaled up the estimated runs conceded and estimated wickets so that the wicket tally matches reality.
So, onto the results! In the various tables that follow, I give the start and end years of the career, matches (these may not agree with the usual sources, since I exclude matches that weren't eleven-a-side), wickets, runs conceded, bowling average, +/- %; and then batting stats (for which we have complete data): innings, not-outs, runs, average.
Note 1: If there is a decimal comma in the wickets tally, then it is almost certainly an underestimate. How big an underestimate I don't know. In my test dataset, one bowler's estimated wicket tally was 47% below what it should have been. Despite this, the estimate of the average was only out by just over 7%. For other bowlers, the wickets estimate was within 2% of reality. The lesson here is not to rely on my wicket estimates.
Note 2: One of the columns is called +/- %. About 80% of the estimated averages should fall inside the estimated averages, plus or minus the given percent. If the bowler only ever had bowleds credited to him, this value is 10%.
The first table gives the leading bowlers of the 1800's in England by bowling average. Qualification (for this table and all that follow): 200 wickets.
name start end mat wkts runs avg +/- % inns no runs avg
J Cobbett 1826 1841 94 556,3 4598,7 8,3 9,7 162 16 1437 9,84
FW Lillywhite 1825 1851 220 1599,8 14181,1 8,9 8,5 390 84 2203 7,20
S Redgate 1830 1846 74 414,0 3775,2 9,1 8,0 133 23 957 8,70
J Broadbridge 1814 1840 90 405,6 3699,7 9,1 9,9 163 21 2368 16,68
J Bayley 1822 1850 81 358,7 3500,5 9,8 9,3 140 17 905 7,36
G Freeman 1865 1880 44 288 2849,2 9,9 0,2 70 3 918 13,70
WR Hillyer 1835 1853 216 1407,3 14061,5 10,0 7,1 386 62 2544 7,85
J Wisden 1845 1863 175 1036,5 10356,9 10,0 3,4 305 29 4020 14,57
T Nixon 1841 1859 50 250 2503,5 10,0 5,0 83 17 300 4,55
A Mynn 1832 1859 200 1059,9 10940,1 10,3 7,0 372 24 4749 13,65
Note that this doesn't mean that James Cobbett had the lowest average of the 1800's — if the estimate was particularly bad, it might be up around 10. This would still be one of the lowest ever, of course. Cobbett was a round-arm spin bowler.
Second on the table is William Lillywhite, a medium-pace round-arm bowler. His wicket tally is enormous.
Third is Samuel Redgate, a fast bowler who we can thank for batting pads, along with Alfred Mynn (tenth on the table). These two were the fastest bowlers of their day, but Mynn was also a pretty good batsman. They squared off against each other in the North v South game of 1836. Mynn had hurt his ankle before play started, but nevertheless batted at 5 in South's second innings. Redgate repeatedly hit Mynn on his unprotected legs, damaging them to the point where amputation was considered. In what must be one of the most courageous innings of all-time, Mynn struck an unbeaten century (the only century of his first-class career), before being sent to London for medical treatment. After this, batsmen started wearing leg guards. You can read about this innings in more detail here.
James Broadbridge comes in fifth. This average-estimating exercise is particularly useful for the Sussex round-armer — in the standard sources his average is given as 18,62. This very wrong figure is based on just 14 of his career wickets, which total over 400!
The ninth player in the table above is Thomas Nixon, a round-arm slow bowler whose first-class career comprised mostly matches for the MCC. You'll note that the +/- % figure is given as 5,0; this means that roughly half of his runs conceded came in matches where this was recorded. This gives us a useful check: we know that his average in these matches was 10,12. Since the estimated average is 10,0, it looks like the estimate is pretty good.
For what it's worth, the next table shows the leading bowlers by wickets taken. Since the amount of first-class cricket increased over the course of the 19th century, the top of the list is dominated by people who played close to 1900.
name start end mat wkts runs avg +/- % inns no runs avg
WG Grace 1865 1899 732 2495 43960 17,62 0 1250 89 46792 40,30
J Briggs 1879 1899 446 1907 29384 15,41 0 686 44 11593 18,06
A Shaw 1864 1897 377 1881 23108,4 12,29 0,01 582 92 6244 12,74
W Attewell 1881 1899 399 1809 27955 15,45 0 600 60 7577 14,03
J Southerton 1854 1879 282 1674 24171 14,44 0 474 128 3136 9,06
JT Hearne 1888 1899 258 1635 25986 15,89 0 390 118 3029 11,14
R Peel 1882 1899 397 1606 25233 15,71 0 630 56 10837 18,88
FW Lillywhite 1825 1851 220 1599,8 14181,1 8,86 8,5 390 84 2203 7,20
GA Lohmann 1884 1896 256 1590 21968 13,82 0 371 36 6495 19,39
T Emmett 1866 1888 405 1493 20081 13,45 0 664 87 8641 14,98
WG rather stands out in this list. Not only did he take more than 500 more first-class wickets than anyone else in England in the 1800's, but he did it while averaging over 40 with the bat.
Lillywhite's wickets estimate is almost certainly low, and he should be at least one rank higher. He might deserve to he higher still, but we can't know for sure.
To have a look at some more early bowlers, here's a table with players ordered by the starting year of their careers.
name start end mat wkts runs avg +/- % inns no runs avg
Lord F Beauclerk 1801 1825 94 406,4 5106,9 12,6 10 172 14 4319 27,34
W Lambert 1801 1817 62 318,1 3960,3 12,5 10 112 5 2961 27,67
J Wells 1801 1815 44 271,1 3090,2 11,4 10 85 9 615 8,09
TC Howard 1803 1828 81 462,3 5712,4 12,4 10 149 16 1454 10,93
EH Budd 1803 1831 68 285,8 4200,8 14,7 10 119 9 2597 23,61
W Ashby 1808 1830 37 209,5 2236,8 10,7 10 64 21 213 4,95
J Broadbridge 1814 1840 90 405,6 3699,7 9,1 9,9 163 21 2368 16,68
J Bayley 1822 1850 81 358,7 3500,5 9,8 9,3 140 17 905 7,36
FW Lillywhite 1825 1851 220 1599,8 14181,1 8,9 8,5 390 84 2203 7,20
W Clarke 1826 1855 129 714,1 7588,7 10,6 5,2 220 35 1966 10,63
William Lambert was, along with Beauclerk, one of the stand-out all-rounders of the early 19th century. These two have similar averages, both for batting and bowling. The bowling average of around 12,5 is about typical for the era, which was very low-scoring. That should put a batting average of over 27 into some perspective. Lambert was, however, banned for life for match-fixing.
Lord Frederick Beauclerk is perhaps my favourite character in cricket history. Not only was he a Lord, a title sadly absent from modern English cricketers, but he was the golden boy of the first part of the 19th century (see his picture here). Not only was he an outstanding all-rounder, but he embodied the spirit of cricket so lacking in today's players. A clergyman, he claimed to make £600 a year from betting on cricket. He was unassuming when batting — (according to his Wikipedia article at least) he used to place an expensive watch on the middle stump. He was a "foul-mouthed, dishonest man who was one of the most hated figures in society ... he bought and sold matches as though they were lots at an auction".
You may have noticed that, along with the leading wicket-takers being from near 1900, the leading averages are mostly from around the second quarter of the century. Adjusting the bowling averages for era will be the subject of Part 6. A suivre !
If your favourite 19th century bowler with missing data has been omitted from the tables above, you can find him in the table below, which lists all bowlers whose averages needed some estimating. They are ordered by the starting year of their first-class careers.
name start end mat wkts runs avg +/- % inns no runs avg
Lord F Beauclerk 1801 1825 94 406,4 5106,9 12,6 10 172 14 4319 27,34
W Lambert 1801 1817 62 318,1 3960,3 12,5 10 112 5 2961 27,67
J Wells 1801 1815 44 271,1 3090,2 11,4 10 85 9 615 8,09
TC Howard 1803 1828 81 462,3 5712,4 12,4 10 149 16 1454 10,93
EH Budd 1803 1831 68 285,8 4200,8 14,7 10 119 9 2597 23,61
W Ashby 1808 1830 37 209,5 2236,8 10,7 10 64 21 213 4,95
J Broadbridge 1814 1840 90 405,6 3699,7 9,1 9,9 163 21 2368 16,68
J Bayley 1822 1850 81 358,7 3500,5 9,8 9,3 140 17 905 7,36
FW Lillywhite 1825 1851 220 1599,8 14181,1 8,9 8,5 390 84 2203 7,20
W Clarke 1826 1855 129 714,1 7588,7 10,6 5,2 220 35 1966 10,63
J Cobbett 1826 1841 94 556,3 4598,7 8,3 9,7 162 16 1437 9,84
T Barker 1826 1845 70 241,0 2543,2 10,6 9,0 128 12 1236 10,66
S Redgate 1830 1846 74 414,0 3775,2 9,1 8,0 133 23 957 8,70
FH Hervey-Bathurst 1831 1861 83 310,7 3676,5 11,8 7,5 142 19 755 6,14
A Mynn 1832 1859 200 1059,9 10940,1 10,3 7,0 372 24 4749 13,65
WR Hillyer 1835 1853 216 1407,3 14061,5 10,0 7,1 386 62 2544 7,85
J Dean 1835 1861 296 1118,8 13358,0 11,9 4,9 533 63 4794 10,20
CG Taylor 1836 1859 122 292,0 3281,1 11,2 7,0 222 11 3020 14,31
W Martingell 1839 1860 170 516,3 5722,1 11,1 3,5 290 45 2258 9,22
T Nixon 1841 1859 50 250 2503,5 10,0 5,0 83 17 300 4,55
D Day 1842 1852 41 204,2 2253,5 11,0 6,4 71 14 352 6,18
J Wisden 1845 1863 175 1036,5 10356,9 10,0 3,4 305 29 4020 14,57
T Sherman 1846 1870 78 322 3986,8 12,4 3,6 133 32 704 6,97
RC Tinley 1847 1874 113 287 4239,1 14,8 0,5 191 23 1890 11,25
J Lillywhite 1848 1873 178 223 2573,4 11,5 0,4 312 26 5084 17,78
W Caffyn 1849 1873 180 564 7654,1 13,6 0,3 314 20 5405 18,38
E Willsher 1850 1875 247 1209 15600,8 12,9 0,3 435 60 4699 12,53
J Grundy 1850 1869 282 1063 13202,8 12,4 1,9 477 37 5600 12,73
D Buchanan 1850 1881 56 359 5552,6 15,5 1,0 96 34 224 3,61
T Sewell 1851 1868 149 315 6161,4 19,6 0,1 250 51 2422 12,17
FP Miller 1851 1868 134 253 5129,4 20,3 0,5 230 20 3053 14,54
T Hayward 1854 1872 108 237 3890,9 16,4 0,6 182 11 4487 26,24
FR Reynolds 1854 1874 65 208 3530,6 17,0 1,4 106 26 444 5,55
J Jackson 1855 1867 107 613 7132,8 11,6 0,1 176 30 1821 12,47
VE Walker 1856 1877 135 328 5039,3 15,4 0,9 213 31 3186 17,51
T Hearne 1857 1876 165 287 4120,0 14,4 0,4 277 19 4807 18,63
GF Tarrant 1860 1869 63 365 4539,6 12,4 0,4 106 8 1467 14,97
G Wootton 1861 1873 175 904 12080,3 13,4 0,2 282 61 2343 10,60
RD Walker 1861 1877 113 318 5468,0 17,2 0,5 186 7 3521 19,67
ID Walker 1862 1884 269 208 4634,8 22,3 0,2 466 39 10470 24,52
A Shaw 1864 1897 377 1881 23108,4 12,3 0,0 582 92 6244 12,74
G Freeman 1865 1880 44 288 2849,2 9,9 0,2 70 3 918 13,70
F Morley 1871 1883 212 1184 15748,8 13,3 0,0 324 84 1292 5,38
A Hill 1871 1883 188 722 10392,8 14,4 0,0 303 33 2346 8,69
CT Studd 1879 1884 85 426 7427,5 17,4 0,2 145 23 3928 32,20
# posted by David Barry : 18:07
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
