Talk:1958–59 Ashes series

Too Long?

I received a notification: "This page is 131 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size." Therefore I have separated the English cricket team in Australia in 1958–59 into two articles, this one to cover the Test and the old one the rest of the MCC tour.--Philipjelley (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Number of days in a test?

I note the opening par which says there were five tests; 5 days each plus a rest day. Having a look at the dates of play (and cross-checking them with the scoreboard website) the 3rd and 4th tests were actually SIX days, plus a rest day. No time at the moment to do further resarch, but will re-visit soon. In the meantime can anyone suggest what exactly went on here? The text of the article itself doesn't help at all. TheBustopher (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that at this time Tests in Australia were scheduled for six days of play, each of either five or five-and-a-half hours duration. (I'm not sure which.) According to a reference book that I have to hand, that days on which there was play were December 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 (1st Test); December 31, January 1, 2, 3, 5 (2nd Test); January 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 (3rd Test); January 30, 31, February 2, 3, 4, 5 (4th Test); February 13, 14, 16, 17, 18 (5th Test). So you are quite right, and the opening paragraph is wrong. I think the three Tests that finished in 5 days were all won by Australia with a day to spare. Anglo-Australian series in 1946-7, 1950-1 and 1954-5 also seem to have had matches that were scheduled for six days. I'll make the necessary corrections. JH (talk page) 16:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I've corrected 1958-9. As it happened, the 1946-7, 1950-1 and 1954-5 articles were all already correct. JH (talk page) 16:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Good catch, they were of six days each. Must have been a cut and paste job I did from a later series. I note that I wrote "The 1962–63 Ashes series consisted of five cricket Test matches, each of five days with six hours play each day and eight ball overs, a change as before 1960-61 Australian Test matches had been played over six days."Philip Jelley (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

We also need to look at which test had rest days and didn't. If you look at the play dates (first and last day of each test) the third and fourth tests are of seven days' duration, while the others are six days long. This means that Brisbane and both Melbourne tests didn't have rest days, yet Sydney and Adelaide did. This is purely going on the dates of play. Would this be right? TheBustopher (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

All five Tests had a rest day, as you can see if you look at what I wrote above. Matches that finished a day early had five days of actual play plus one rest day, whilst the others had six days of actual play plus one rest day. JH (talk page) 16:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If you like I can dig out one of the original sources to confirm that they were scheduled as 6 day Tests.Philip Jelley (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Nah, not at all - the fact that you could finish a day early didn't occur to me, but duh, obviously if you are going to win 4-0 and with 8-10 wickets to spare in four of the games, then you wouldn't need to bat all the available days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBustopher (talk • contribs) 14:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Long Paragraphs

Thanks for looking into the 5/6 day problem for me - jumped before I could even think about looking further. While we're discussing things, can I justnsuggest (not to create offence) that the process of having enormously long paragraphs really makes this article hard to read. I humbly submit we need a lot more whitespace, with paragraphs of maye three or four sentences at the most. Just looking at the sections, they are all one par - one big long chunk of text, which really is heavy-going when trying to read things. This applies to probably all these historical cricket articles, although I haven't looked at all of them; but I'd suspect they might be similar... TheBustopher (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the article, I agree that the lead paragraph in particular is far too long. I'll see if I can split it into more readable chunks. I'm not sure why you think that long paragraphs might apply to all the "historical cricket articles". Different writers have different styles, and all the articles won't have been written by the same person. JH (talk page) 20:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I've now split up the lead into smaller paragraphs. It could probably also do with some reordering. In particular we don't find out the result of the series until quite a long way in. JH (talk page) 20:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

"PS Do we really need to reduce all paragraphs to two sentances?" Philip Jelley (talk) 12:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

In general I'd say no, but the first half dozen or so sentences in the lead are mostly pretty long and contain a lot of information. JH (talk page) 21:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Even so many paragraphs with more than 3-4 lines to them, you might as well just start a new paragraph with every second sentence and be done with it. Philip Jelley (talk) 12:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Garbled sentence

"It should be noted that when the 1956 Australians asked for the great English umpire Frank Chester when an illness made his decisions erratic." It looks like some words have gone AWOL from that sentence, as it doesn't make sense as it stands. JH (talk page) 09:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I have changed it to "It should be noted that the 1956 Australians asked for the great English umpire Frank Chester to be removed when an illness made his decisions erratic." Philip Jelley (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

How about added the word "successfully" before "asked", to make it clear that the tourists felt that a precedent had been set? (I'm assuming that Chester was removed.) JH (talk page) 10:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Chuckers

Why do the Australian bowlers have "chucker" in front of their names and not the English bowlers? There was still unresolved controversy about the action of bowlers on both sides. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia not an afternoon newspaper. StonePeter (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The word "chucker" is used three times to indicate the Australian bowlers who were accused of throwing the ball, which is not excessive. It is relevant to note which bowlers were accused of chucking and the most fuss was made of the Australian bowlers as the British press blamed them for England's unexpected defeat. See Umpiring in the 1958–59 Ashes series for details on the actions of Australian and English bowlers in the series. Philip Jelley (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

But this isn't an article about the British Press' reaction to England being defeated. If you want to say the British press reacted badly to England being defeated, say that. Otherwise put chucker in front of all the bowlers on both sides who were accused of chucking. Personally I think it should be removed. It makes Wikipedia seem petty.StonePeter (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It is difficult to write an article on these series without mentioning throwing as it was a major controversy and helps explains the defeat of what appeared to be a strong England team the subsequent treatment of Meckiff. I have removed the term "chucker" as you object to that, though it was a term used at the time. Philip Jelley (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Well done. It spoilt an excellent article (why is it only "C" class?). I wouldn't object to a heading "Chucking (throwing controversy)" that details the accusations and counter accusations. Meckiff later half admitted he threw and Lock totally admitted that he threw.

You have probably read this: Throwing (cricket)#Biomechanics and modifications to the throwing laws. This is why I would be reluctant to definitively label anyone as a chucker.

Try adding this to all articles about Muralitharan Chucker Muttiah Muralitharan. Where do I send the wreath? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StonePeter (talk • contribs) 21:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)