Talk:Timeless Test

Timeless non-Tests

It's worth noting that there were also timeless matches outside Test cricket, such as this one in the 1913-14 Sheffield Shield. Loganberry (Talk) 01:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Dispute over whether the first test match was timeless

There is an archived report on the first test match at https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/from-the-archives-1877-mcg-hosts-the-first-international-test-match-20220310-p5a3h9.html that says that the first test match was played over four days of four hours each with nearly an hour for a lunch break:

"Great complaints were made, too, about the adjournment of the players for lunch. It was said, and very justly too, that commencing so late as one o’clock and not playing after five was little enough time in all conscience to devote to so important a match; but when nearly an hour is deducted from that it becomes really absurd."

This means that the first test match was not timeless 60.240.112.70 (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The match was advertised in advance as a four-day match. See The Argus, 10 March 1877: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/5915492 Sammyrice (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I found the following about the second Test match, which was also a four day match:

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/5917077?browse=ndp%3Abrowse%2Ftitle%2FA%2Ftitle%2F13%2F1877%2F03%2F29%2Fpage%2F245547%2Farticle%2F5917077

The following also says the test match in 1878-79 was also a three day match:

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/5926825?browse=ndp%3Abrowse%2Ftitle%2FA%2Ftitle%2F13%2F1879%2F01%2F01%2Fpage%2F251294%2Farticle%2F5926825 14.203.71.54 (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Charles Davis' (ACS Statistician of the year 2017) database notes the match conditions for each series/match and indeed they are all timeless. https://www.sportstats.com.au/zArchive/1800s/1800sseries.pdf

The 1881/82 series was advertised as timeless but essentially limited to 4 days - https://www.sportstats.com.au/zArchive/1800s/1881AE/1881AEcov.pdf

Home page of his site: https://www.sportstats.com.au/bloghome.html

His pdfs could be useful as additional sources to Lazenby in the article. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Added as sources in the table. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I also found a cricinfo source for the very first Test and the 1879 one to be timeless. https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/2000-tests-timeline-part-one-521948 DiamondIIIXX (talk) 04:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to believe original newspaper adverts from 1877 than a Cricinfo article which gives no sources (the link on the words 'timeless game' just links to another Cricinfo article which itself does not say the game was timeless). FieldOfWheat (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@FieldOfWheat It's not just the Cricinfo article, it's also Lazenby's book and Charles Davis' analysis. Also having looked through the newspaper articles, they would sometimes list four days then end up playing more days to finish the game. Only two of the matches in Australia were drawn and these were due to shipping schedules. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't second guess these things. If a newspaper advert from 1877 placed before the first ever Test started says it is a four-day game, you can't point to a later book which says otherwise nor a 21st C Cricinfo article. They don't conduct meticulous research at Cricinfo, they're a cricket news-cum-history(ish) site, not run by historians but journos churning out "historical" articles to deadlines.

Nor can you claim games were promoted as four-day games but you know best, they were 'really' timeless. If you have evidence please provide it.

The first ever Test to take more than four days was the 1887/88 one off game (two England teams toured Aus at the same time, when they combined together to face Australia, the match was considered a Test). But before that four-day games were the norm in Aus but three-days games the norm in England. There needs to be more evidence Tests before 1887/88 were really Timeless, rather than four-day games finishing within the time. And the evidence needs to be from the time. Modern cricket historians just repeat the mistakes of those 40 years ago, who repeated... and so on.

FieldOfWheat (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@FieldOfWheat I get where you're coming from. We can't be sure just from a book and statisticians claiming they're all timeless.

The only way we can be categorically sure of a timeless game is if

A) it was advertised as "To be played out", or

B) No dates were named, or

C) Dates were named, but the actual number of days played was higher. i.e. advertised as 3 days but played 4, or advertised 4 days but played 5 etc.

If the game was advertised as 4 days and it went for 3 or 4, we can't be sure if it was timeless.

If we want to reflect this on the article, we'll need to redo the table (possibly split into multiple tables) and go Test by Test, with the newspaper advertising and number of days on Cricinfo/similar and have a column for if the game was timeless or unclear.

This rules out a lot of the earlier games in the 1800s as the newspaper advertising was rather confusing or nonspecific.

Perhaps some prose is needed. E.g. "Lazenby claims X matches were timeless, however advertising only confirms X of these matches." DiamondIIIXX (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Clarification of meaning

As someone that isn't a expert, or even knowledgeable, in cricket, I was confused by the first line saying "the match is played until one side wins or the match is tied, with theoretically no possibility of a draw", given that in many (most?) sports a "tie" and a "draw" mean the same thing.

I understand on further searching that they have specific meanings in cricket, but perhaps some sort of clarification could be added to the lead to avoid similar confusion for others? 155.190.13.13 (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

There's already a link from the word "draw" to further clarification about the various results. 161.65.242.113 (talk) 08:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)