Hi Joel, we only issue Cap numbers to 1st Graders, doing 125 years down all the grades would be near impossible. Like you, we use the alphabetical rather than batting order methodology. The alphabetical is the common method used and the major flaw I see with batting order is what if your side fields in the 1st Innings, and gets even worse, what's to say your team fields first and then the rest of the game is rained out, there is now batting order for your team (only a hypothetical one).

We actually started giving out numbers which included all our teams about 20 years ago which has made the task much easier to manage. With the First Match Player report from CS I was able to just run the report for our 1st XI only and resort it alphabetically like you do. I actually just presented this 1st XI only list to the committee this season but was told this was "elitist" and i should just continue with the old way of including all teams when running the report!

Gents, if you want it alphabetical as the second sort criteria then simply post it up as a suggestion. While I appreciate the discussion, a "suggestion" is the place to get action. Be sure to vote on it while you are there. Looking forward to seeing it.

@Joel Norman Dumping it out to a spreadsheet and sorting by teams is the best solution for you if you want it sub-sorted by your 1st XI

@Pat Culpan If a match is rained out before the 2nd team has batted, and you want the players in the second team credited on this report, then you need to enter them on a scorecard and put them all as DNB.

Thanks Mark - i'll put this up as a suggestion.

I just wanted to put it in here first to see if anyone else agreed with us first before doing the suggestion.

https://www.cricketstatz.com/support-forum/5a235ec009dd690014684d7c/player-by-first-match-report-sort-order

Hi all.

We use the sorting feature Date played and batting position.

This affects our honour board and the cap numbers that have already been issued. I appreciate that the other users in the forum have used alphabetical sorting but apart from the first Test Match (England and Australia) where both teams received their cap numbers alphabetically that is no longer the case.

We use the DNB as Mark mentioned above. Look at the following international scorecard. Michael Slater (356) and Brendon Julian (357) debuted on the same day, however Michael Slater has the earlier number because they battered first. https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/australia-tour-of-england-and-ireland-1993-61338/england-vs-australia-1st-test-63609/full-scorecard Is there a way a sorting flowchart table could be activated by the end user to keep everyone happy?

Thank you,

Mark

@Mark Ulcigrai Thanks for posting up.

I suspected this might happen where we have people wanting different systems. There appears to be no "standard" on this. It makes it difficult to keep everyone happy.

I think the only solution is to have two separate reports and you guys can then pick and choose (I have kept the old report format handy - just in case this happened).

Leave it with me.

You will find the Australian team do use the alphabetical system. That Mark Slater/Brendan Julian issue is a whole other story and was caused by Slater believing as he would have the lower number by batting higher than Julian, had the number tattooed on his body, the rest they say is folklore Cricket 2021: Michael Slater tattoo, Brendon Julian Test cap number switch (news.com.au)

And from Wikipedia (yes I know you can't believe everything you read in here) "Where more than one player won his first Test cap in the same Test match, those players are listed alphabetically by surname."

@Joel Norman And just a tip for you. *If* you wanted the report to sort by 1st XI then 2nd XI then you could cheat a little by changing the 2nd XI matches to start 1 minute later. It sorts by date/time so this would work nicely. You would only need to do it for matches where there we players starting on the same day in each of the 1st and 2nd teams. I don't think this would happen too often each year so there wouldn't be too many 2nd matches that would need an edit.

Thanks Mark i was thinking of starting the other XI matches 1 minute later to help my situation when i realized the time also came into the sorting of this report. Originally i thought that i might have to change all the 2nd XI start times by a minute but you're right i only need to do if for the affected matches, which wouldn't be that many.

And as Pat confirmed above the Slater/Julian is a bad example for the Aust order as Slater stuffed up and presumed he was head of Julian because he opened the batting which is not the case.

We have both report options now available so people can pick and choose which suits their needs the best.

And then there is the option to export to a spreadsheet and do it manually if neither option works.

Hi...not sure that the time given after the date of first match is necessary.....as far as I am concerned it is unnecessary.

Mike, it becomes necessary when doing a whole of club where matches start at different times of the day, or a single team where two T20s can be played on the same day.