Talk:Yorkshire captaincy affair of 1927

Hill's Book

The article is basically what Hill said which was poorly recieved at time. Suggest you read Woodhouse, Gents v Players, Cricketer of those years, Hodgson's book on Yorkshire. Also RC Robertson-Glasgow who briefed against Sutcliffe. Swanton is unreliable. To write an article on a contentious subject requires primary sources - Letters and Committee stuff at YCCC. Yorkshire Post. Local Press. You simply cannot speculate and use conditional language if you do not know. Sutcliffe would have become Amateur but if you read widely you will see that the Grimshaw poll had little effect on the committee who were under pressure from supporters of Rhodes, themselves because of Sutcliffe's constant acting above his station, pressure from other counties viz-a-vie precedent, a lot of briefing against HS by prominent amateurs. It was a complex issue - like the sacking of Close. Incidentally, Sellars was no long term appointment. NWD Yardley or Gibb would have replaced him in 39 had he not taken a grip and been very good at it - despite unpopularity with Verity, Bowes and Hutton. (He mellowed after the war)See Bowes, See Bowen.See Birley See press. See articles in Wisden Cricketwer in 70's and 80's A Tillmann

Alan Hill's book won The Cricket Society's Literary Award so they must have received it well enough and it is an excellent source for this article, which is itself very well written. Please read WP:NPOV and make sure you present opinions that are balanced and can be verified. Not for the first time, you are making a WP:POINT and it really is about time you learned to respect site guidelines.

The site does not allow information to be taken direct from primary sources like contemporary newspapers. All information must be drawn from a secondary source such as a book like Wisden, a website like CricketArchive or a magazine like The Cricketer. It is in order ro mention that the information was originally in the Yorkshire Post but your source must be a secondary one who might have got the information from the paper. A good example is G B Buckley who quotes his primary sources: I might say that a match was reported in the Daily Advertiser but I must cite Buckley as my source for all of the information given. The reason for using a secondary source is that its author is deemed to have verified the original data by publishing it anew. After all, we can't believe everything we read in the papers, can we?

Turning to yourself, if I may. You have been asked before to contribute to the site by writing and editing articles. Since you clearly have so much knowledge about this subject, and evidently have several sources at your disposal, would you care to contribute to this article? Contributing to the site means editing articles. No one takes much notice of talk page stuff (I doubt if anyone is reading what I've written here either).

In addition, you have been told before to sign your talk page posts using the four tildes (i.e., at the end of a talk page post, enter ~ four times and the system will convert it into a legitimate signature). Please do this in future so that your edits can be properly logged per site conventions. Better still, seeing as you like to use the name Tillmann, join the site as a member (it's free; and simple to set up) under that name. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 12:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Another possible source

Alan Gibson's book, The Cricket Captains of England, has a good, if brief, piece about the affair - the pretext being that had Sutcliffe become captain of Yorkshire then he might in due course have become captain of England. A few years latter, Walter Hammond changed from professional to amateur because he wanted to be able to captain his country. JH (talk page) 09:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yorkshire captaincy crisis of 1927/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Overall, the article is pretty good, though I do have a few concerns:

• "In the 1920s, every county had an amateur captain (when Leicestershire appointed Ewart Astill as their captain for the 1935 season he became the first professional appointed to regularly captain any county since the nineteenth century)" The parenthesis stuff feels odd added in there. Maybe reword and de-parenthesis it, or possibly remove it. Breaks up the flow as is.

Moved to aftermath section where it (hopefully) fits a little better. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not getting entirely why a profession would be bad because he makes his living playing cricket. Wouldn't someone who makes his living through cricket be better as a captain? I could just be overthinking things on this point though and be dead wrong.

As JHall1 says below, it was entirely an English upper class thing. For amateur, read upper class and for professional read working class! I've tried to explain and reference this in the article. If it doesn't work, I'll take it out again. I've also relinked "amateur" but tried to make it more specific in the article it links to. But I thought a brief explanation here would be beneficial. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• "A man called S.E. Grimshaw carried out a poll of the 7,000 Yorkshire members. The results were that 2,264 people were in favour of an amateur captain, while 444 were in favour of a professional." Instead of "a man called" maybe note his profession. also, what was the rationale for it not adding up to 7,000? I presume it was because people refused to answer, though noting it might be nice.

Called him a Yorkshire member, that's all I know about him. Not sure about the 7,000. Doesn't seem to relate to the poll at all. Comes from the ref I give, but I believe it was the case that not all members were consulted, just a selection. Took out the 7,000 and left the result of the poll. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll put the article on hold and pass when the issues are fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

With regard to your second point, the English class system at the time made the idea of a professional captain almost unthinkable to the sort of people who were on the committees of the various counties. They thought that a professional captain would not be sufficiently respected by his colleagues and would be unable to impose the necessary discipline. Until a recent revision the first appearance of the word "amateur" in the article was linked to History of English amateur cricket, which gave some background on the class system as it affected English cricket, but I see that someone has removed the link as "unnecessary". Perhaps it shoould be restored. Your first point is related, in that the parenthesised text was intended to highlight how radical appointing a professional captain would have been at this time, and to provide a relevant citation. JH (talk page) 09:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry! Forgot that people won't know about the whole amateur-professional thing. Replaced link and made it more specific. Moved the Astill bit to the end. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the amateur/professional gap makes a lot more sense now, thanks. I see why they wanted amateurs. The other points are fixed up very well also, so I am passing this article as a result. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

MCC or M.C.C.

I think it's quite common in British English to omit the full stops in sets of initials, though in American English they usually seem to be included them. I think that the form without the full stops looks much nicer, and it's what Wisden - for one - uses. (I've just checked in the 2011 edition.) JH (talk page) 09:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

No wiki-link to cricket

Doesn't it seem odd that this entire page does not contain a single link to cricket? As an ignorant American curious about this sport, I first looked for such a link. Not finding it, I figured I could do it in two links; my first attempt took me to 1927 English cricket season, which itself contained no link to cricket. Finally I manually typed it in the search box. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 00:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

A Surfeit of Cricket

The article is well illustrated and written, and all kudos to the writing team, but I'm afraid someone needs to state the obvious:

1 There are too many featured articles about cricket.

2 This is an encyclopedia, not a history. Huge articles on a single captain controversy is not core encyclopedic content.

Observers of human culture from distant galaxies must think we spend all our time sinking each other's dreadnoughts, when we aren't playing cricket. Those of us who weren't on the 1923 Michigan Wolverines, that is.

Sorry, I have nothing against cricket, but in a year there are only 365 featured articles, and we need to cast a wider net.

Peace and Love. Billyshiverstick (talk) 03:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think something needs to be "core encyclopedic content" to be a featured article. After all, one of the areas Wikipedia shines is excellent articles about peripheral subjects. I can't say I've noticed that many cricket-related featured articles, either. On the whole, this is a well-written article on a ridiculously obscure subject. It's the former quality that counts. Knight of Truth (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Billy - So fix it! Go and edit some non-cricket articles and bring them up to FA standard, instead of bitching. Lugnuts (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yorkshire captaincy affair of 1927. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170930180207/http://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/152404.html to http://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/152404.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)