Talk:Jack Crossland

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jack Crossland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sahara4u (talk · contribs) 06:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• Any image for the lede?

• Unfortunately not; can't find a picture of him at all! Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• You may link English and Nottinghamshire

• I linked Nottinghamshire, but not English, per WP:OVERLINK. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "His best year was in 1882,..." no need of "in"

• Fixed. Harrias ^talk 14:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• In the article you are saying that his bowling average is 10.95 whereas in the infobox it is 12.48.

• Fixed. Harrias ^talk 14:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Early career

• eight wickets and conceded 88 → eight wickets and conceded eighty-eight........... as you have done in the next sentence
• twenty eight → twenty-eight

• I've made this consistent, but in the other way, so all examples should now be of the form "eight for 88". Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Link innings

• Linked. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Lancashire professional

• Crossland's performances for Enfield ... Whay is Enfield?

• The cricket club he played for. Earlier in the article this is mentioned: "Crossland first gained employment as a professional cricketer in 1876, with Enfield Cricket Club." Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• twenty six → twenty-six

• See above. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• ....at the Oval.[15] → I think this should be The Oval

• I know that the cricket style guide suggests that, but it's just bad grammar, and I disagree. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• ...touring Australians,[17] In the ..... In should be in

• Tidied up a little. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• claiming seven wickets for 72.[20] → "seventy-two" for consistency

• See above. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Throwing controversies

• ...he was never no balled by the umpires.[8] → it was never given no ball by the umpires.

• I'm not convinced that is an improvement, though I can see your point. I have reworded it, how is it now? Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• ...eight for 57... for consistency "fifty-seven"

• See above. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• A link to "gentlemen's"

• Linked. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Termination of county cricket career

• he took four for 52 and three for 51 .....→ You are not consistant about numbering throughout the article.

• See above. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• ...at Old Trafford. → at the Old Trafford.

• Old Trafford is just referred to as such, without the definite article. It would be "the Old Trafford Cricket Ground" though.

Later life and career

• ...after his explusion.... → "expulsion"

• I thought it'd be a good cross between expulsion and explosion! Fixed. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• ...bowlers came to a close,... no need of "a"

• I disagree, in fact, I appear to have actually missed an "a" earlier in the sentence, which I've fixed. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Very smoothly written, I really appreciate your work! Zia Khan 06:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, as always, for your feedback and review. I think I have dealt with all of your comments, feel free to ping me if I've missed anything. I look forward to any further comments you might provide. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Link CricketArchive

• Linked. Harrias ^talk 14:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Why are refs 49 and 51 in Italic

• Because they are books. It's how the template renders it. Harrias ^talk 14:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• In ref 49, what "(1980) and [1899]" means?

• It means that it is a 1980 publication of a book first published in 1899. Harrias ^talk 14:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Final review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a: b:

7. Conclusion: Promoted to GA status, good work. Keep it up! Zia Khan 18:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail:

The History of the Lancashire County Cricket Club

• Wynne-Thomas, Peter (1989). The History of Lancashire County Cricket Club. Bromley, Kent: Christopher Helm. ISBN 0-7470-3411-7.

All quotes from PWT unless stated:

Page 31: Crossland makes his debut in 1878 and played more in 1879: mentioned in Lillywhite's Companion: (directly quoted in PWT) "he did not do very much and his fast bowling can hardly be distinguished from throwing." Crossland played at Enfield, and according to PWT, "The fact that Lancashire had so many prosperous local clubs which lured professionals to the county and thus qualified them by residence, was proving a great advantage" (p. 33. For context, George Nash and Johnny Briggs also came via this route)

Pages 34-35: (Lancashire had unsettled team in 1880 but had a regular and more successful eleven in 1881): "Crossland played in seven matches, but his bowling was not often required, though when it was it proved fatal to the opposition - at the Oval he took seven for 14 as Surrey were dismissed for 36. In the first few matches the County had preferred another fast bowler, the Uppingham schoolboy, Henry Miller, but he appeared in only four games."

Page 39: Crossland had 112 wickets in 1882 and "was the leading bowler in England" (though Lancashire team-mates close behind him). "When the England selectors totally ignored Crossland for the Test match at the Oval, despite the fact that his record was second to none among English fast bowlers at that point in the season, and that the other leading contender, Fred Morley, was unavailable through injury, the newspapers assumed that the selectors judged Crossland's bowling as unfair, though 'no umpire has been found willing to no-ball him.'" [The source of the quote is not given. PWT is also being a little misleading here as there were no England selectors until 1899; this would have been the Surrey committee who ignored Crossland. But no source to hand to support this right now!]

Page 40: Crossland drew attention because of his action and his residential qualification in April and May 1883. Nottinghamshire protested his qualification for Lancs and "furnished the MCC with 'proof' that Crossland lived in Nottinghamshire." MCC ruled in Lancashire's favour "though stating that Notts were justified in bringing the case to the authorities' attention." MCC also said that "umpires should enforce the Law relating to unfair delivery more stringently".

Page 41: Lord Harris pursued unfair bowling in 1883 and wrote to all the counties. Notts had "the most effective response" and refused to play Lancashire. Their reason (quoted by PWT) "That this committee expresses its entire concurrence with the views expressed by Lord Harris and resolves not to play matches with any county having bowlers with delivery open to suspicion."

(There then followed a frankly hilarious exchange between the committees: Lancashire sent Notts a Xmas card taking the piss giving a set of "rules" drawn up by Notts such as "That Lancashire shall not be allowed any bowlers" and so Notts sent a New Years Card giving Lancashire's qualification rules as "must not be born in Lancashire". There was also a bit of official grumbling from Lancs that Notts were putting themselves above the MCC and the umpires in deciding who was bowling unfairly)

Pages 41-42: Nash, whose action was also judged suspect, dropped for 1884 and Crossland injured for several matches so there were fewer claims that Lancashire's bowling was unfair that season. Lancashire had a much weaker attack that the previous season.

Page 42: Old Trafford played its first Test [again, PWT omits that the Lancashire committee would have chosen the team] and Crossland was selected in the twelve initial names (five of whom were Lancashire players). Crossland was left out of the final team for Barlow. "Lord Harris, it was reported, refused to play in protest at the selection of Crossland." [PWT does not say who reports it]

[In passing, Lancs very rich after this season and could afford seven professionals on the staff. Membership up as well]

Page 43: "The Lancashire committee brought the throwing controversy to a head in May 1885." They chose Nash (recalled after barely playing in 1884) and Crossland to play Kent. The Kent captain, Lord Harris, wrote in protest to the club after the game complaining about the bowling of Nash and Crossland and threatened to cancel the return game. The Kent committee agreed with him. Lancashire said that Harris "should not take matters into his own hands" and pointed out that Crossland had played for the MCC in 1884 and Lord's had no problems. They also said that Nash had not played the previous year because the pitches did not suit him, not because Lancashire thought he threw.

Page 43: In June 1885, Notts again said that Crossland not qualified for Lancs and said he lived mainly in Sutton-in-Ashfield. This time the MCC agreed and Crossland was banned. A meeting of the Notts club said that if Kent agreed, fixtures with Lancs could resume in 1886.

Pages 43-44: Official MCC decision, quoted by PWT: "That it having been established to the satisfaction of the committee that Crossland has resided in his native county, Notts, from October 1884 until April 1885, this committee is of opinion that he no longer possesses a residential qualification for Lancashire."

Page 44: The emergence of Briggs as a bowler offset the loss of Crossland.

Page 45: "The problem of Crossland re-emerged at the County Club's AGM ... on 29 January 1886. A. B. Rowley, from the chair, said Crossland's bowling action was one of the fairest he had seen and that several members of the MCC Committee were incapable of judging the difference between bowling and throwing. It was equally absurd, went on Mr Rowley, that Crossland should be debarred from county cricket after seven or eight years, simply because he had decided to move house." [It is interesting to compare this to Alfred Jeacocke, many years later!]

Page 122: County Diamond Jubilee dinner in 1924 had Lord Harris as a guest. "Lord Harris was still remembered by Lancastrians as the man who had outlawed Crossland and other bowlers with doubtful actions." He even managed to irritate them in his speech as he said he would be enquiring in Ted MacDonald was really qualified to play for the county.

Quite a lot here. Hopefully some of it is useful. Sarastro (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Next Man In

• Brodribb, Gerald (1995). Next Man In: A Survey of Cricket Laws and Customs. London: Souvenir Press. ISBN 0-285-63294-9.

Page 155: [In 1864, the MCC legalised bowling with the arm at any height; bowling with the arm above the shoulder had led to several incidents of bowlers being no-balled.] "With the new Law passed it seemed that all argument about the methods of bowling might be at an end, but before long, more controversy was to arise when several bowlers in the early 1880s were charged with throwing the ball instead of bowling it. The Australian touring team of 1880 had made complaints about some bowlers they had met, and in his Cricketers' Annual for 1882 James Lillywhite supported them. 'It is difficult, of course, to characterise any bowler as addicted to continuous throwing,' he wrote, 'but [Page 156] still there are a select few of whom it is quite safe to say that they unhesitatingly throw one ball every over, if not more.' Lancashire was the county moist objected to, and it used to be said of their attack that 'Crossland, Nash, and Alec Watson all threw, after which, as a change, Barlow went on to bowl.' Nash and Watson were fairly slow bowlers, but Crossland bowled very fast with a short run, and H.S. Altham says of his action that 'it was perhaps the most questionable that has ever gone unchecked for any considerable time in first-class cricket.'"

Brodribb goes on to say that none were every no-balled and repeats the story of Lord Harris (and gets his dates wrong). Lord Harris's efforts stopped any throwing controversy, apart from the odd incident, until the late 1890s. (all on page 156, then goes onto the story of Arthur Mold and Jim Phillips)