Talk:Jack Crawford (cricketer)

message: "I do not know who was responsible for the selection of the second eleven sort of team furnished up for such an important match" Crawford was indulging in some hyperbole there. It looks to me as if Surrey had about eight members of their strongest XI. Apart from Rushby (and Crawford himself), the only major absentee I can see is Jack Hobbs. Also it's rather ironic that Crawford's withdrawal led to Tom Hayward, the senior pro, captaining the side (even though MC Bird, who I believe was an amateur, was in the XI) - worth noting in the article? The side fielded had at least eight professionals and possibly ten (I don't know the status of Goatly and Kirk). That all tends to suggest that Crawford allowed himself to get a bit carried away. Of course he was still only 22, and may have had the rashness of youth. I suspect that if CW Alcock had still been Secretary (he retired in 1907), things would never have been allowed to get so out of hand. No doubt the new Secretary was still rather feeling his way. JH (talk page) 09:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The McKinstry book on Hobbs suggests that it was more deep-seated than that; that's why I added the comments about Alverstone, who really seems to have messed the team up.  I wonder (speculating here!) if Crawford had seen enough and this was the last straw. Apart from Rushby, I think the major absentee was Marshall, who also got himself into trouble that season (something to do with being slightly noisy in a street which Alverstone though was terrible). I'm fairly sure Hobbs was not part of the trouble, but I might just check! I think it is worth adding about Hayward captaining the team, and I'll see if I can find out if any of the others were amateurs. Oddly, though, everyone at the time mentioned that the team was weakened suggesting that they thought Crawford had at least some point. But I think you might be right about him getting carried away, he seems a little headstrong. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've certainly read elsewhere that Alverstone had an ambition that Surrey would one day field an all amateur side. But I think even then most would have recognised that that idea could only be fantasy. The example of Somerset showed how hard it was to be competitive if you relied almost entirely on amateurs. (Somerset were so strapped for cash that they had little choice.) Obviously as President Alverstone had a lot of influence, but he could only get his way if he could persuade the majority of the committee, and I can't see their being in favour of a measure that would clearly drastically weaken the side. Alverstone was in his sixties, and I imagine that his ideas on descipline and on amateurs had been formed half a century before and were rather out of date. However Rushby is supposed to have a poor disciplinary record. Apparently if he didn't feel like playing he had been known to send a telegram reading simply: "Rushby ill. Rushby." JH (talk page) 20:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I've looked up what David Lemmon's The History of Surrey County Cricket Club has to say about the affair. It sheds some additional light on why Marshal was suspended. It seems that it was a bit more than being "slightly noisy in a street". Apparently at Chesterfield during the previous match Marshal and some teammates had headed and kicked a ball about in the street on their way to their hotel. A perhaps rather over-officious constable asked Marshal for his name. However he wouldn't give it, so was taken to the police station, where the others who followed him had their names and addresses taken. They also gave the name of Walter Lees, who had not gone with them at all. The matter was taken to the Chief Constable, but he dismissed it and the case did not reach court. As Alverstoke was Lord Chief Justice at the time, one can understand his being less than impressed. Most of the above Lemmon took from a passage in Hobbs' ghosted autobiography, published in 1935. Hobbs himself was not in Chesterfield, as he was playing for England at the time. So the real offence seems to have not been being rowdy in the street, but Marshal refusing to give his name to the PC. JH (talk page) 09:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Just checked on CricketArchive Jack Hobbs' appearances just prior to the match against the Australians. He appeared in the match against Lancashire that immediately followed the Derbyshire game, but was "absent hurt" in both innings. There were then two Gentlemen v Players matches, one at Lord's and one at The Oval. Interestingly, unlike the Tests, almost no county matches were scheduled to clash with these, and Surrey didn't have a match. You'd expect Hobbs to play in at least one of these G v P matches if fit, but he didn't take part in either, which strongly suggests that he was still injured. Thus he probably wasn't fit for the match against the Australians. One of the books that I looked in mentioned a torn fingernail keeping him out for 10 matches, but I had thought that this was earlier in the season. Modern sympathies naturally tend to lie with Crawford, but the more I look into this the more his stand appears petulant and uncalled for. It doesn't look as though Alverstone's preference for playing amateurs had any material impact on the composition of the side, which even without Hobbs, Marshal, Crawford and Rushby was still a pretty strong one. And I see that Surrey had rather the better of a rain-ruined draw. Interestingly, this was Surrey's second match against the Australians. In the earlier match, in May, Surrey had fielded 9 first choice players, plus two in Curwen and Spring whom I've never even heard of. Crawford had captained in that match too, and Surrey had won. Apart from the unavoidable absence of Hobbs in the second match, if Crawford had played in it the side would have been little if at all weaker than in the first match. So why was he willing to lead in one match but not in the other? JH (talk page) 19:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Re Hobbs; he practically ripped off his fingernail in the Lancashire match and missed five weeks from the beginning of July: this is in Wisden for 1909. I wonder what else was going on. History between Crawford and Alverstone or Leveson-Gower? A check of the Times reveals that Bird and Kirk were the amateurs in the team, but nothing is mentioned in terms of a weak Surrey side except Crawford and Hobbs being missing. Crawford's Times obituary speculates that there was more going on than revealed at the time, but the Wisden summary for Surrey in 1909 (I only have access to this through the anthology for 1900-1940) mentions "Surrey had trouble with some of their professionals". I wonder if this was somehow the root of it, rather than the actual team for the game, and Crawford just lost it when he realised Rushby was missing? Again, Wisden says "but [Crawford] refused to [captain], his reason being that the committee had left out essential players, among others Rushby..." I think you may be right that Crawford, maybe accustomed to everything going his way, just threw his toys out of the pram. But, there is no smoke without a fire? The McKinstry book on Hobbs mentions the poisonous atmosphere in the team in 1909, and also says (you may know better here) that Alverstone's policy was at least partially responsible for the decline of Surrey in the early 1900s due to the lack of stability in the team. But even if this was the case, it would have nothing to do with Crawford, who was at school and ironically would have benefitted from it had he not been quite as good as he was. Hmmm. I'm just not sure what was really going on. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: One other view: Birley's "Social History" (although I doubt he is any more informed than us on the details of the case) claims that Crawford was unhappy that two players "charged with insubordination" were left out. Presumably Rushby and Marshal. No mention of a weak team; if this was the real reason, maybe the weak team protest was just a smokescreen that these two players should not have been dropped. McKinstry says that Marshal was a close friend of Hobbs, which makes him unlikely to be too much of a rebel. Also from McKinstry: Marshal refused to give his name and he and the others (for moral support) went to the station, but when the Derbyshire chief constable heard about it, he ordered no further action to be taken. McKinstry also gives the reason Marshal did not give his name: he did not feel a crime had been committed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What McKinstry says about what happened at Chesterfield agrees with what Lemmon quotes from Hobbs' autobiogrtaphy. I'd guess that that was McKinstry's source too, I hadn't know that Marshal and Hobbs were particular friends. I suppose that the two of them were probably the youngest professionals in the side, and so it wouldn't be that surprising that they became friends. It's interesting to speculate on what might have happened had Hobbs not been away playing for England when the match at Chesterfield was played. Would Marshal have got Hobbs into trouble, or would Hobbs have kept Marshal out of it? I'd imagine that Hayward wasn't walking with the group who got into trouble. He was highly respected as the senior pro, and I don't think would have permitted anything that he saw as misbehaviour. It's interesting, given that Alverstone was still President in 1914, that when the then club captain CTA Wilkinson was away on business Hayward captained the side on a number of occasions in August in preference to any of the young amateurs (who by then I think included Percy Fender). And Surrey won the Championship. JH (talk page) 20:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: McKinstry rather suggests that Hobbs would have joined in: it was the sort of practical joking for which he was notorious! I wonder what may have happened then? I doubt the committee would have been quite as friendly towards Hobbs as they were later. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think even then Hobbs was well-liked, which might have helped. Ronald Mason quotes the note that Leweson-Gower (chairman of the Test selectors as well as official Surrey captain) wrote to Hobbs on his selection earlier that season for the first Test, saying how pleased he was and how much Hobbs deserved it. It was very warm and friendly. As for Surrey's struggles during the first decade of the 20th century, I suspect that a decline was inevitable as a lot of their great players (Abel, Richardson, Lockwood) aged. They did have one or two duds as captain, but of course the officially appointed captain had to be an amateur then, so I don't know how much of that can be laid at Alverstone's door if there was a lack of anyone suitable. And there was a revival under Lord Dalmeny, captain from 1905-7. Alcock's retirement as Secretary in 1907 probably didn't help the club. Lweson-Gower was the nominal captain from 1908-10, but it looks as though he wasn't available much in 1909. (He had at least one other job, as chairman of the England Test selectors, of course.) JH (talk page) 21:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Surrey side for that 1909 match against the Australians 

message: Returning to England for the 1906 season, Crawford completed the double of 1,000 runs and 100 wickets in first-class cricket, the youngest player at the time to accomplish this feat. I'd be very surprised if it had been beaten since, but I don't know how to check. JH (talk page) 17:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd guess Brian Close, but I'm not too sure where to check either. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Close, born 24 February 1931, was 18 years and 6-and-a-bit months old at the end of the 1949 season. Crawford,  born 1 December 1886, was 19 years and 9 months old at the end of the 1906 season. Dates easily confirmed in Wisden, Cricinfo etc. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doing the Double 

message: (Copied from talk page here)
I've now looked at your latest additions. Reading what Hart has to say, I can't help seeing parallels to the KP affair. He seems to have been a similar sort of character. I suppose Leweson Gower is the equivalent of Cook, and Lord Alverstoke of Paul Downton, though I don't see a parallel for Andy Flower! A couple of thoughts follow. There may be more once I've had a chance to reread the whole article:
There was some controversy over his eligibility to play; New South Wales initially protested, but Victoria had previously decided to ignore a rule which required a three-month qualification period, and the New South Wales Cricket Association (NSWCA) Executive Committee accepted this, to the displeasure of the full NSWCA. That's slightly confusingly worded. Does it mean: There was some controversy over his eligibility to play; New South Wales initially protested, but Victoria had previously decided to ignore a rule which required a three-month qualification period, and the New South Wales Cricket Association (NSWCA) Executive Committee had accepted this, to the displeasure of the full NSWCA, thus setting a precedent.? (Suggested added words in bold. I'm assuming that the displeasure of the full NSWCA was regarding the Victoria occasion that had set the precedent, rather than about the Crawford case.)
It is unclear what his role was at this time; he seems to have had no official cricketing role and it is possible he worked as a teacher simply to maintain his amateur status. Not clear what is meant by "role" here.
JH (talk page) 09:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, either Alverstoke was not as powerful as he has generally been portrayed or else he was less reactionary regarding the place of professionals. I've just looked up on CricketArchive the matches in which Tom Hayward captained Surrey and there were a surprising number: 2 in 1905, 2 in 1909 (including that match against the Australians), 2 in 1913, and as many as 9 in 1914. I don't think that either Rhodes or Sutcliffe was ever named as captain of Yorkshire when the regular captain was unavailable, were they, even though they were comparable in experience and the respect in which they were held to Hayward? JH (talk page) 10:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thing. In his book Cricketers of My Times A. A. Thomson mentions that he was present at the Oval on the day in 1919 when Crawford and Hobbs had their famous opening partnership against the clock. I'm undecided whether it's worth quoting in the article some of what he says about it. He mentions "a steamy drizzle and horrid light" (which could well have handicapped the bowlers (wet ball) and fielders more than the batsman, I guess). He writes: "...there was no swiping, no thrashing about. The hitting was as deadly and as precise as machine-gun fire; the placing might have been the work of two snooker players of world class. There seemed to be nothing that the fielders could do." That's from p122. JH (talk page) 17:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Review comments

message: *Odd how none of the images seem to have him in glasses
:*As above, he is wearing glasses in the lead image. Not too sure about the action shot. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Removed one. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *Removed. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *He also wrote about cricket. I've reworded to make it clearer we're not just referring to a random musician! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *A kind person fixed this. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *Cut this back a bit. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *Sorry, I passed out for a moment after I read that. I'm fine now. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *Tweaked. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *Tweaked a bit. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *Nothing known: explained a bit. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *Yup. Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *Not really. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *Tweaked. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *Now mentioned earlier and linked. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *Only what is given here. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *Not that would mean much. Even I've never heard of them. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *It was, but the source I've used is basically a half-arsed job which was never finished properly. The person who wrote it died before completing his research and his writing partner didn't bother to do much except tidy it up. They could not find much about his marriage, and this is all they found. He may have divorced her but the details are not available. To be honest, bigamy was illegal, but that doesn't mean it didn't go on. If his wife was in Australia, no-one in England would even know, I'd imagine. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Crisco comments

message: Infobox and lead
*Don't think we need to wikilink Surrey and England repeatedly
:*This is a function of the infobox, I think, and there isn't much we can do. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *Fair enough. Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *Hmm. Took out the "highly regarded" part as it's a bit weak. Left the rest unchanged as I think it works OK as it is. Feel free to argue! Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *For me, that would be a little too much detail for this article, but not sure what  thinks. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't have a strong feeling either way. JH (talk page) 18:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *Less so then than now. Perhaps uncommon but not surprising. I've no source which says so, but his impact seems to have been more unusual than his selection, and I could source plenty of schoolboy cricketers in this period if required. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *I moved it to the text per a request above, and I think I prefer it there. However, added the Hart part. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *I don't think it is really relevant for Crawford's article (and doesn't apply in women's cricket!) Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *No, Close beat it in 1949. Added this now, having found a source. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *Yup, added. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *Because he was an arse, basically. It was C. B. Fry, and it's a long story. Too long to include here, I think. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *Split. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *Much obliged. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *Added. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *Err... I have no idea. I have no idea, and I have no idea! It all seems quite vague and woolly, see my above answer to BB. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *None whatsoever unfortunately. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *Wellington (the place) is mentioned just before and this is to avoid confusion. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *No prob. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *No prob. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Much obliged, as ever. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

text: *OK, done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Cliftonian thoughts

message: A couple of photos have been added, but I don't think that the one of The Oval taken in 2008 (was it?) is relevant enough to be worth including. If a photo of the ground from during Crawford's playing career could be found it would be much better. I'm also a little uncertain whether it's worth having a photo of the Adelaide Oval from almost a decade before Crawford played on the ground. JH (talk page) 16:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not too bothered either way; maybe an older photo would be better of the Oval, if one exists. I'll have a look. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I added both of these pictures. I know the one of The Oval is very new but I don't think it really matters that much—the Gas holders were there much the same in Crawford's time and the players wore the same all-white kit then as they do now, so I think in the absence of a more contemporary picture it is better than nothing (the reader will probably understand implicitly the advertising hoardings, seats etc would have been less prominent in Crawford's day). The Adelaide Oval picture I think adds nicely to the article tone. Admittedly I am not an expert but I don't imagine it would have changed much in the eight years between the photograph and Crawford's arrival. In my opinion it adds more than it takes away. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The photos

message: *Overall, the comments already posted have clearly had a positive effect. The article reads smoothly to me for the most part, and is mostly there already. I did see a few points to be improved here and there, though.
**Early life and career: Considering that Crawford is being labeled as "the best ever schoolboy cricketer", I feel like there might be a thing or two more to say about this aspect of his career. Is there anything in particular that made him have a great impact or "create chaos", other than his pure skill.
***Not really, I think he was just that good. The sources don't elaborate. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  More comments 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jack Crawford (cricketer). 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/20130607222859/http://www.lords.org/history/mcc-heritage/mcc-history/ to http://www.lords.org/history/mcc-heritage/mcc-history/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jack Crawford (cricketer). 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/20121002225611/http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/10866.html?class=1%3Btemplate%3Dresults%3Btype%3Dbatting%3Bview%3Dinnings to http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/10866.html?class=1%3Btemplate%3Dresults%3Btype%3Dbatting%3Bview%3Dinnings
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121002225627/http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/10866.html?class=1%3Btemplate%3Dresults%3Btype%3Dbowling%3Bview%3Dinnings to http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/10866.html?class=1%3Btemplate%3Dresults%3Btype%3Dbowling%3Bview%3Dinnings
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified