Talk:History of English cricket (1726–1750)/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of cricket (1726–40). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/main.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Mr Chambers' XI vs the Duke of Richmond's XI

"An explosive game took place on Monday, 23 August 1731, when Mr Chambers' XI took on the Duke of Richmond's XI..."

Later on "Sussex" and "Surrey" are mentioned. I assume that the Duke of Richmond's XI would bu "Surrey" and the other team would be "Sussex", but it needs to be made clear. JH (talk page) 16:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm still gathering info and haven't got into precise details or structure just yet. The article may end up having to be split. However, the Duke of Richmond's XI was always Sussex and I've clarified that. No one knows who Mr Chambers was or how his team was formed. If not Surrey, he could have been a London or Middlesex patron. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Violence in Cricket

Hi, I've added a section regarding violence in cricket with information from Dominic Malcom's new book Globalizing Cricket. The section in the book was really about violence in first emerging cricket in general, and not specifically 1726-1763; however, it fit best with the timeline of this page than on the history pages for other years. I hope my contribution will improve the coverage of cricket on Wikipedia! Aependleton29 (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It's an interesting topic. I think it's fair to say that life was generally more violent then, so it's not surprising that cricket should reflect that. JH (talk page) 09:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Laws of Cricket

Under the Laws of cricket I added a small section about the incidences of gambling and cricket that led to violence. I just thought it was important to mention those things because there was already a section in place explaining how violence due to gambling was resolved, so I wanted to show what events transpired into violence. This is unrelated but I added some information under Field and Equipment simply because I came across it in the reading and decided to add it to the page. LuigiM227 (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Content dispute

I have not spent enough time familiarizing myself with the grounds of this dispute to have a firm opinion on the merits of the dispute, but it doesn't seem right to me that making five reverts in an edit war would result in the article staying at someone's preferred version. I reverted to a version that is close to what the article read as before the edit war began. Please discuss the issues the article has on this talk page and attempt to reach consensus before making mass changes to the article. Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, for starters this statement is false and misleading: "Articles of Laws from 1727 first prohibited the questioning of umpires decisions and therefore decreed them as the final source on conflict resolution and dispute settlement. One such law decreed that "umpires were to be the judges of all frivolous Delays; of all Hurt, whether real or pretended". See Articles of Agreement (cricket). Secondly, references to events which may or may not have happened in the 1770s are out of scope. And thirdly, although these statements need to be verified using reputable sources written by recognised authorities on the subject, most of the remainder input by the student class is dubious to say the least. Perhaps Jbmurray would like to contribute and explain why the inputs are correct? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

All necessary changes have now been completed. The sections about gambling-fuelled violence are historically useful, though I've combined and copyedited them, and this was a good idea by one of the students. With reference to the established sources, I can see no problem with Malcolm's assessment of the influence of gambling and violence in Georgian society so I've retained his book as main source for this section. It may be that Malcolm is on firm ground when he discusses social issues but less so in terms of cricket fact and theory. The article is nowhere near complete but I'm happy with its current status as a work in progress as it has recovered its veracity and credibility. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 07:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge all cricket season reviews from 1726 to 1863 into the relevant histories. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Propose merger of all relevant season review articles—1726 to 1763—into History of cricket (1726–1763). I think the content of the season reviews will fall within the context of the history and, providing season information is used in summary style without excessive detail, the history article will remain a reasonable size within the terms of WP:LENGTH. There is precedent for this proposal in History of cricket to 1725 as there are no independent reviews before 1726.

Other sports do not commence annual or season reviews until the inauguration of a meaningful national or international competition. I don't see how the early cricket reviews can be justified in the absence of a national competition. Cricket wasn't even a nationwide game for most of the 18th century – it was virtually unknown in the north of England. Looking at the various national competitions around the world, they did not begin until the 1890s. Why, then, does each English season from 1726 have an individual article when there is so very little to be said in most cases? In 1760 English cricket season, the biggest section is the further reading list and the salient point in the single paragraph narrative is: "no details have survived of any eleven-a-side matches between significant teams". The article has an RPS of 257 bytes (42 words) and is surely a permastub. Other reviews have a bit more to say, such as 1744 English cricket season when the earliest known laws were published. But, unless you delve into the details of the 20-odd recorded matches, there probably isn't much scope for expansion and even this article has an RPS of only 4,157 bytes (712 words). The 1744 laws, for example, are already within the scope of the history article (although, curiously, they are barely mentioned there!) and there is no need for reiteration in a season review.

WP:FOOTY's approach to early English football is to have decade reviews until 1860s in association football – the first single year review is 1870 in association football when international football began, followed by 1871 in association football when the first FA Cup tournament opened. I think cricket should follow suit and develop period histories until the beginning of Test cricket in 1877 and then commence its seasonal or annual reviews.

Per WP:MERGECLOSE, I'll start implementing this merger after seven days if there is no consensus to retain the season reviews. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing, DadaNeem, Jhall1, and Störm: Hello, all. I am pinging you as you have contributed to this article within the last couple of years and may have an interest in the merger proposal. Apologies for bothering you if not. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that a better approach would be to delete every season article until some point in the later 19th century - possibly 1890 I suppose. If there's anything useful in any of the season articles then by all means copy them somewhere, but I don't think there is really. I might consider merging this article and the one before it to History of Cricket as well - and cutting massively the amount of detail which is really rather unnecessary. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

In addition to 1890 English cricket season, there are Australian cricket team in England in 1890 and 1890 County Championship. The 1890 season review is a short intro followed by statistics only so it probably breaches WP:NOTSTATS. It seems that the 1890 tour and championship articles would add value if developed (they are stubs) but not the review. It may be as well to eventually merge all season reviews into period histories and focus reviewing upon international tours and domestic championships.

Not sure if I agree about merging history articles into one because eventually that would almost certainly become too large. It is normal to split histories into designated periods to avoid WP:LENGTH issues. If there is unnecessary detail, it can be edited out in accordance with the principles of GACR#3b but, with a history, I think the priority is to ensure that the article fully addresses the subject's scope as per GACR#3a. That must of course be done as a summary not a detailed account – WP isn't a textbook, ha!

Reading History of cricket (1726–1763), I think editing is needed – the "Gambling and violence" section should be reduced per WP:UNDUE while "Concept of a champion county" is completely unsourced and may contain WP:OR.

Certainly food for thought with all this. It looks as if the season reviews were an early project initiative that became outdated. I certainly think historical summaries should be the norm for an encyclopaedia. That's what Britannica does, after all. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Merging seems like a sensible idea, though I would be a little less radical and start having individual seasonal articles from maybe 1864, as that season, 1865, 1871 and 1873 were all significant in the game's development for one reason or another. (1864: overarm bowling legalised and the first Wisden published; 1865: WG plays his first f-c match and has immediate success; 1871: WG scores a scarcely believable 2700+ runs given the pitches of the time; 1873: the first qualification rules introduced, preventing any player from playing for more than one county during a season, when previously some players had played for two or even more counties.) If you merged all that plus the other seasons in that period you might finish with something pretty long. JH (talk page) 18:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Jhall1, and I think it's a good suggestion to retain any season that is notable. I agree 1864 is a standout with overarm and Wisden both starting. Maybe we keep any significant season as is and otherwise merge into tour/championship/both as appropriate. The 19th century, however, is for another proposal as this one is about 1726 to 1763 because of the existing history article. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

1864 is fine by me - I just wasn't sure where to draw the line really. I don't see anything particularly of value in many of the rest that either isn't or shouldn't be in the main article. The list of matches pre-1726 should go as well I imagine. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, well, I was only a century out! It looks as if we have a way forward but I'll leave it till Sunday as MERGECLOSE does recommend seven days and someone else might wish to comment. While there is History of cricket (1726–1763), I can't find a history article for any part of the period 1764 to 1815 so I'll tentatively create one for the whole span – data in the season reviews will be useful for that. After 1815, there is Overview of English cricket (1816–1863) which is part history, part chronology. I understand cricket went global in the first half of the 19th century and the overview lists articles for its history in other countries, so specification of the overview as English seems appropriate. Thanks for your help, guys. All the best and stay safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Time is up so I'll do a formal closure of the merger proposal later on today when I have more time. We have an agreement that all season reviews from 1726 to 1863 (not 1763) shall be merged into a corresponding period history, although some seasons may be considered notable enough (as per 1864 onwards) to justify an individual review. These exceptions, if any, can be actioned in due course; page histories are retained post-redirect. The period histories, then, shall be History of cricket (1726–1763), History of cricket (1764–1815), and History of English cricket (1816–1863) – the last one a rename for consistency. The last one will specify "English" in the title because histories of other countries begin in the first half of the 19th century. I'm happy to do the actual work but it will take a long time so there won't be a glut of redirects in a matter of hours, or even in a matter of weeks. My biggest problem will be sourcing but there are many citations in the reviews and I'm sure I can get help when needed. So, if that's okay, I'll do the closure and then look to make a start. Thanks again. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.