1798 English cricket season

The 1798 English cricket season was marked by numerous matches involving town clubs rather than county teams.

The above was excluded from a previous classification but the players are recognised so this has important match status. However, the return game between Beauclerk and Tufton on 24 August was nine a side with weak teams (SB245).

^ As in 1797, Montpelier had a fairly strong team, especially with given men, so their two games v MCC were good quality. The majority of players are recognised.

The Beauclerk v Whitehead game on 13–14 July (SB238) was single innings, whether this was intentional or not, and the names of four Whitehead players are unknown. All things considered, this is a marginal fixture needing further analysis.

Herts had a weak team here and was not an important team unless with given men.

This was a single innings game and the teams were local club standard only. Woolwich &c. in full is Woolwich, Crayford & Dartford (also on 8–9 October below).

^# These three matches were unknown till Britcher’s scores came to light recently. They are minor matches involving local clubs only.

Note that many scorecards in the 18th century are unknown or have missing details and so it is impossible to provide a complete analysis of batting performances: e.g., the missing not outs prevent computation of batting averages. The "runs scored" are in fact the runs known.

Fewer matches were recorded in 1798 than in previous years. The batsmen who scored over 100 runs were:

Note that the wickets credited to an 18th-century bowler were only those where he bowled the batsman out. The bowler was not credited with the wickets of batsmen who were caught out, even if it was "caught and bowled". In addition, the runs conceded by each bowler were not recorded so no analyses or averages can be computed.

Thomas Boxall just led the bowlers with 42 wickets, beating Lord Frederick Beauclerk who took 40

Other leading bowlers were John Wells 30; William Fennex 23; Tom Walker 16; David Harris 15; Thomas Lord 15

Note that many scorecards in the 18th century are unknown or have missing details and so the totals are of the known catches and stumpings only. Stumpings were not always recorded as such and sometimes the name of the wicket-keeper was not given. Generally, a catch was given the same status as "bowled" with credit being awarded to the fielder only and not the bowler. There is never a record of "caught and bowled": the bowler would be credited with the catch, not with the wicket.

...
Wikipedia