Hi Mark - this is a great report. Right now, I can see it if I log in as Administrator, but this report (and the previous new one 'Innings to reach Minimum Wickets'), are not shown as options in the reports available to everyone.

Mark - you are quite correct. I had never noticed the 'unknown' button in the old system, and was unaware of the default setting when no choice was made. Apologies, entirely my fault. I see no benefit in continuing the re-migration, since it's inaccurate data anyway. Feel free to close this thread, and I'll get on with finding the best approach to reconciling the data. Regards, Peter

Mark - our early data is indeed flaky, we are a single team wandering club (we have no ground) playing friendly matches only. Our data is as good as whichever of the team is persuaded to deal with the scorebook on the day. In many cases, the toss result is unknown, and therefore unrecorded in our base data. Because 'unknown' is an specified option in the on-line system, I expected that these situations would migrate as unknown. However, you tell me that all these situations are now recorded as 'the 1st batting team wins the toss'. There is no point in our continuing on this basis, so I will find a way to reconcile the whole list manually. Can you just tell me which match was the last that was migrated from our original database, so I know when to stop? Regards, Peter

That sounds like a sensible approach, yes let's try that. Thanks.

Hi Mark - thanks for the quick response. Yes, it would seem that the migration defaulted to the home side having won the toss, unless there was no toss result recorded, in which case it's (correctly) blank. Had I known about the data discrepancies, I would have raised the issue earlier. But it's only the release of your new report that has identified the anomalies. I assume you may get a few more similar situations from other early adopters. I can see why option 2 is undesirable, although I doubt that much of our data has changed. However, that leaves me needing to reconcile a few hundred matches, and then amending those that are showing wrong data. I don't have the original source data (i.e. the scorebooks), so it means I would first need to look at every match in the old database, manually note the toss result, and then proceed as you suggest. Unless there's a report in the old system that would show this data? Otherwise, what would be most helpful would be if you could run a simple list from our old database, showing: * match date * teams involved * toss result (or blank, if not recorded) .....and mail it to me (Word, Excel, .pdf or any other commonly used format). Best regards, Peter

Thanks Mark (and to Joel and Pat). I've now rectified the omissions, and everything now looks correct. Fortunately, I still maintain the old, off-line system as well (easy for a one-team, 15 matches-or-so-a-year club), so I could reconcile against that data.

Mark - thanks for the guidance, and the additional information.

..........Mark, further to the previous post. Having looked more deeply at the data, my suggestion was ONLY for catches (either taken by the selected player, or off their bowling). The draft reports are showing - for example - run out contributions mixed with catches taken. And when a bowler is selected, it's listing ALL dismissals, not just caught/c&b.

Mark - thanks for the advice. We're a single-team 'wandering' club that doesn't play League cricket. All our games are 'friendlies' (...allegedly !)

That looks sorted, thanks Mark

Doh! Thanks Mark. A couple more brain cells, and I'd be a plant.

Mark - that fixed it, thanks. Peter

Hi mark - What's the size constraint of the comments field? Our reports are typically 500-800 words.