Talk:List of Kent county cricketers to 1842

Disputed content

This article deserves to be tagged as {{Disputed}} and {{Fringe theories}}. The essence of the issue is the presence in the lead section of this statement and citations:

Matches played by teams using the name Kent continued throughout the 18th century, and matches by the side have been considered first-class from 1773.

The idea that first-class cricket began in 1772 is a fringe theory put forward by CricketArchive, a statistical database that is generally unreliable in its coverage of early cricket. First-class cricket is held to have begun unofficially in 1864, the season in which overarm bowling was legalised. Another key consideration was the growth around that time of county cricket. There were only four major county clubs in 1862, but ten in 1871. First-class was ruled to be an official status on 1 May 1894, effective from the beginning of the 1895 season.

The two ACS handbooks cited are reliable sources in terms of WP:V, but neither of them directly support the claim that first-class cricket began in the 1770s. On the contrary, pages 4 and 5 of the "First-Class Match" guide contain a lengthy description of how first-class cricket began, and a list of first-class teams (mostly county clubs) with the date that they became first-class. The earliest date, which applies to eleven teams, is 1864. The purpose of the "Important Match" guide is to classify pre-1864 matches according to their historical and, to some extent, statistical importance. It is true that most of page 10 is about Kent, but nowhere does it say the team was first-class before 1864.

The scope of the "Important Match" guide can be seen in its title, which includes the timespan 1709–1863. The "First-Class Match" guide doesn't have a date in its title, but its startpoint is 1864.

The article as a whole uses numerous sources, the most common one being Kent County Cricketers, A to Z: Part One (1806–1914) by Derek Carlaw. Like the ACS handbooks, this is another reliable source. In his introduction, the author states quite plainly: "The aim is a biography of every cricketer who has appeared for Kent since 1806, the year of Kent's first match of the 19th century. Part One is confined to players who appeared for Kent in important matches from 1806 to 1863 and first-class matches from 1864 to 1914". In other words, he agrees with the ACS that first-class matches began in 1864. Another eminent cricket historian, Roy Webber, may have been the first to set 1864 as the startpoint. In his Playfair Book of Cricket Records (pages 9–10), Webber said: "Matches prior to 1864 cannot be regarded as first-class" and their records are used "for their historical associations".

In the full list, there are about 250 claims of first-class status for players whose careers preceded its 1864 startpoint. Quoting {{Fringe theories}}, the article contains fringe theories without giving appropriate weight to mainstream views. As {{Disputed}} says: This article's factual accuracy is disputed.

I'll refrain from posting the fringe theory tag immediately, as discussion is recommended first. Jack (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell besides CricketArchive, Cricinfo, ACS and Wisden are all now aligned in considering 1772 as the start of first-class cricket so I don't agree that this is a "fringe theory". I have removed the PROD notice as I don't think this constitutes an uncontroversial deletion. The concerns regarding the page appear more to do with content rather than notability of the page itself so I think a wider discussion is required. JP (Talk) 09:48, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, JP. That's okay. I'll address the content as that will probably resolve the issues. Thanks, Jack (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Necessary action

The content issues here have been encapsulated in the Multiple Issues banner.

First, WP:NOTSTATS applies, especially as the appearance totals are FALSE information based on incomplete data. This can NOT be presented as fact, and doing so is a breach of WP's fundamental policies of verification, no original research, and neutral point of view. While we have comprehensive data about people who played county cricket in the first quarters of the 20th and 21st centuries, what we know of someone who played in the first quarter of the 19th century is limited, and very much so. The list said William Deedes, for example, definitely played in 24 matches to 1825. That cannot be verified because we DO NOT KNOW how many matches he played in, so 24 is false information.

The second issue is the non-statistical content which has obviously been copied from the players' biographical articles. A case in point is William Bedster's job as Tankerville's butler. That sort of needless repetition amounts to WP:DUP and WP:REDUNDANT. Those are relevant reasons for merging or deleting an article. Merging a list is impractical, but I could take it to AfD. On balance, I prefer to keep it, and the group will meet WP:NLIST in any case.

It's been agreed above that the issue is content, not the list itself. Using List of Sussex cricketers to 1838 as precedent, I am removing all content which breaches NOTSTATS, DUP, and REDUNDANT. I'll retain the non-database references, especially Carlaw, as they verify that the player did play for Kent (and all sources SAY Kent, not "a Kent side").

This will take a while to do. Thanks, Jack (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Actual scope

The old version was based on the rather stupid idea that first-class cricket began in 1772 when scorers started writing out scorecards and keeping them. This nonsense began with CricketArchive, a statistical database that is extremely unreliable for anything before 1826, reasonably reliable for anything from then to 1863, and generally okay for anything since then.

Kent as a county team has been active since 1709, and all sources including CricketArchive call it Kent whether it was organised by the Duke of Dorset or the KCCC. So, if we are going to have a list of players who played for Kent until the first KCCC was formed in 1842, the scope is ALL players beginning with William Bedle, who was certainly around in 1709.

I've added every player I can find and provided years in which they were known to play for Kent, or for one of its Alternate Title XIs. I hope the references to Carlaw & Co. are okay (they might not be), but I can't be bothered to check them, so I've just kept them.

This article was shambolic when I found it last month. A lot of work has been done to resolve the multiple issues (see above), and meet its true scope. I hope it is now at least useful. Jack (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2026 (UTC)