Hai Mark, am I missing something or is there a reason this "11th" wicket partnership is showing on our report Valley Dist Cricket Club - Top Partnerships by Wicket (cricketstatz.com), there are no retirements and it lists Stubbings as a member of that 11th wicket and he was listed as FoW #8 Valley Dist Cricket Club - Match Report 214269 (cricketstatz.com)
top of page
bottom of page
Yes you are missing something. You have a player a position 9 that was DNB.
This really messes things up with partnership calculations.
You can't have a player there as DNB and have players that have batted following them in the batting line up.
This really isn't a system issue - it is a bad data issue.
I am going to move this to the questions thread.
Anyone reading this - If you are seeing partnership calculation issues then please be sure you are putting accurate entries on the scorecard. Common errors that cause calculation issues - incorrect FOW entries, incorrect batting order, not having DNB players at the end of the batting line-up or not listing the score when a player retires. If you simply have missing partnership info then tick the box for "Incomplete FOW" and the partnerships for that innings will be excluded from the reports.
@Pat Culpan And the other thing, your FOW list doesn't match the batting order. Either the batting order is wrong or the FOW list is wrong - specifically around Shallcross.
At some stage Garden and Knight are batting. Garden gets out (according to your FOW) and Carroll comes in to join Knight (according to your batting order). But then you have Shallcross getting out at FOW 6-168. But Shallcross is not in. It is Knight or Carroll that should be at FOW 6- or Carrol and Shallcross need to swap positions in the batting order.
Something is incorrect here. Until it is fixed, you won't get sensible partnership calculations.
Hi Mark, how about this one, 11th wicket partnership record Valley Dist Cricket Club - Top Partnerships by Wicket (cricketstatz.com) here is the game Valley Dist Cricket Club - Match Report 216578 (cricketstatz.com). No batsmen out of order, no retirements, 11 players and FoW in order. I'm noticing a few of these, we should have no 11th wickets as we play "proper" cricket.
Damn should take a break for the afternoon, my eyes are playing tricks on me
Thank you, looks better now too