Talk:Surrey County Cricket Club

message: :In 1955, Surrey won 23 of their 28 county matches, a record that stands to date.
Given that there are now only 16 first-class county matches a season, this record will never be broken in raw numerical terms. As a percentage, a county would have to win 14 out of 16 games to eclipse it. I'm not sure which was meant, though, so I haven't edited. Loganberry (Talk) 15:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The history section of this article says Jim Laker was the finest bowler of his type "of all time".  As it happens, I don't disagree, but it is POV nonetheless.  What really concerns me is that several members of the appalling England team of the 1990s are singled out for praise in this section and there is no mention of Jack Hobbs.  Or of several other great Surrey players of the past such as Lohmann, Richardson, Barrington, Edrich, May, Bedser, Hayward or Abel.  If you picked an all-time Surrey XI it would not include anyone from the 1990s.  The references to Bicknell and Brown are also POV.  --BlackJack | talk page 20:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the History section could do with further work, though even so it's better than that for some other counties, in that at least it doesn't only start within the last 30 years or so. Also there's the list of Famous Players, though some of the inclusions (Tom Barling, Darren Bicknell) are a little dubious. (You could argue that such a list by its nature is inevitably POV, but I think it adds to the value of the article.) There are a few Surrey players from the 1990s for whom a case could be made for an all-time XI: Waqar Younis (in competition with Richardson), Saqlain Mushtaq (in competition with Laker) and Alec Stewart as wicketkeeper-batsman. But I'm drifting off-topic. JH 21:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The paragraph about the successes in the 1950s mention only Lock n' Laker. Bedser took more wickets than Laker in the championship years. Tintin (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to resolve my own issue as I was working on the Surrey cricket team article in any case.  Well spotted by Tintin re Alec Bedser, who was always underrated and who did not benefit from the notoriously helpful (to Lock and Laker) Oval pitches of the time.  John is quite right about some other county articles that are very much post-Botham, as I would wearily expect.  They all need attention.  I think a list of notable players is fair enough as long as it is a historical list, which this one is, although a few more names should be included: the problem is when you start seeing loads of recent players.  I don't think Stewart would make an alltime Surrey XI when the county has had top-class specialist keepers like Lockyer, Strudwick, McIntyre and Swetman.  Waqar is a contender, of course.  Off the top of my head, I think an all-time Surrey XI might be Hobbs, Edrich, Barrington, Abel, May, Caffyn, Lohmann, Laker, Strudwick, Bedser, Waqar.  --BlackJack | talk page 15:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The strength of Surrey cricket is illustrated by the fact that only Hobbs and May are automatic choices. The batting is hard to choose and the bowling even harder. I reckon that Stewart's batting gains you more than is lost by his keeping, which in any case was a lot better than many gave his credit for. Someone once wrote that Barrington was a more essential part of the England side than he was of Surrey - the tempo of Test cricket seemed to suit him better - but it would be hard to leave him out. My XI, recognising that I could choose a 2nd XI very little inferior, might be: Hobbs, Hayward, Edrich, May, Barrington, Stewart (w), Fender (c), Bedser, Laker, Waqar, Richardson. I haven't chosen Lock because his action in the 1950s was suspect. JH 18:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  I've restored Martin Bicknell to the Notable Players list. With over 1000 f-c wickets for the county, I think he deserves his place. JH 18:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  I've now read through the revised History section. I like it. The only thing I would query is: "The club captain for most of this period was Percy Fender, whose closest colleague was the England captain of Bodyline fame (or infamy), Douglas Jardine." My memory, possibly incorrect, from reading the excellent biography of Fender by Richard Streeton is that those two didn't see eye to eye. Fender was dumped as captain for the 1932 season by Surrey against his will, as MCC wanted Jardine to get some f-c captaincy experience prior to taking the side to Australia that winter. So "closest colleague" isn't really the right term. JH 18:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think I must have misremembered, as looking ad David Lemmon's history of the county relations between the two men seem to have beem cordial enough, even if they weren't exactly bosom buddies. JH 09:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit POV and where is Jack Hobbs? 

message: I've been checking, and the following long list of Surrey players who amassed more than 10,000 runs, 500 wickets or 200 wicketkeeping dismissals for the county don't seem to have an article - or if they do, it doesn't include the "Surrey cricketers" category: Bob Gregory, Stan Squires, Tom Shepherd, Bernie Constable, Jack Parker, David Fletcher, Grahame Clinton, Tom Clark, Mike Edwards, Stewart Storey, Fred Holland, Walter Lees, Tom Rushby, Alan Peach, Eddie Watts, Ted Barratt, David Gibson, George Griffith, James Street, Ted Brooks, Arnold Long, Ted Pooley, Fred Stedman, Tom Lockyer. As and when time permits, I hope to start putting this right, but of course if anyone would like to assist they would be very welcome. JH 20:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It turned out that Walter Lees did have an article after all, but it didn't have a "Surrey cricketers" Category attached. I've put that right, and have gone through all the Test players who played for Surrey to check if there were any more. I found a couple: Frank Druce and Joey Benjamin. JH 10:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: All the players in that list now have articles. My next two projects will be to ensure that all appointed Surrey CCC captains have articles, and then that all players with 100 or more f-c games for the county have articles. JH (talk page) 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surrey Players without Wiki Articles 

message: I've attempted to update this to reflect the players contracted for 2007, but there may be some omissions, so please feel free to correct it. I've deleted Kumble, Miller, Tim Murtagh and Thompson, who I believe have all gone, and added Matthew Nicholson and Chris Schofield. I have an idea Surrey have signed a reserve keeper, but I can't recall who it is. JH 22:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reserve wicketkeeper is a lad called Gary Wilson. I've added him, and restored Miller and Thompson, as the BBC website shows them as still part of the squad. JH 18:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surrey Squad 

message: :Image:Kentcricket.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 23:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Kentcricket.gif

message: :Image:Surreycricket.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Surreycricket.gif

message: * Ground history (Durham)
* Separate List A and first-class records pages (Durham)
* Internationals (Essex)
* List(s!) of players (Hampshire)
* Finances (Lancs, Yorks)
* Badge and colours (Yorks)
* Support and rivalries (Yorks)
:I think that any detailed ground history would fit better into the ground's own article rather than this one. I agree that having separate records pages would be a good idea. I've been meaning to do something about the section containing the list of notable players for some time, as it's open to challenge as lacking any objective standard for inclusion. Replacing it with a list of international players might be a solution. Because Surrey have had far more international players than Essex, to keep the length in bounds it might be necessary to restrict it to, say, players with 10 or more caps. (Or perhaps make the list a separate article?) I would also restrict it to those who won caps when actually with Surrey. The Essex article includes players such as Alex Tudor who only played for Essex well after their England days. The list would be more useful if it included the number of caps won, though for current players that would make a lot of updating necessary. However you would still be left with players like William Caffyn, who were notable in the days before Test cricket, and Stuart Surridge, notable for his captaincy (though arguably his notability would be covered in the history section). Of course many Surrey notables will appear in the records section (or records article) anyway. JH (talk page) 18:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the ground history, I agree. My (overly) brief notes merely meant that this article should have a replica of Durham's ground history. Surrey's version, created today, could perhaps do with a bit of text to flesh it out, but it represents an improvement, I think. As for the notable players section, I agree it seems a bit subjective and I like the idea of a page of Surrey players who've represented their country, although I accept the possibility of notable players missing out on those criteria. The ultimate goal would be to replicate this and do away with any sort of notability judgement altogether, but that frankly seems a thankless task.  Omg †  osh  23:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Things that may need adding

message: With the exception of the required clean-up of the notable players section, what changes do you think might be required to elevate the article to B-class or, even better, a Good Article?  Omg †  osh  17:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's probably scope for further improvement of the History section. Possibly the inclusion in the non-playing staff section of a list of Head Groundsmen? There have been some famous names, including "Bosser" Martin between the wars and HC Lock post-WW2. More recently there have been Harry Brind and Bill Gordon. And there are probably a few things that should really have citations that don't yet have them. JH (talk page) 17:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response. I agree that references need to be brought up to standard. Any chance you might have a full list of groundsmen, secretaries or scorers, or know where to find one? I was trying to think of a criterion for the notable players section and have concluded that perhaps a minimum number of appearances in all forms of the game (200? 300?) might be the answer. Inclusion on the basis of international honours doesn't seem right, as their contribution to the subject of the article is going to be minimal. For example, I'm not convinced Kevin Pietersen really warrants much attention in this article. Looks as though we're teeing off at Edgbaston!  Omg †  osh  16:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, perhaps number of games might be the way to go. As for secretaries, groundsmen, etc, the 1980 yearbook has a full list to that point. I'm not sure if it covered scorers. I do have the lists of secretaries, chairmen, chief executives and head groundsmen in a document on my PC. JH (talk page) 18:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article quality

message: I wonder if we should ditch this section? After all, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper or an almanac. And Surrey now change their squad so frequently, that trying to keep up to date is becoming rather tedious. Incidentally, I put Dilshan in the btstmen section, as I assumed that would be his primary role for Surrey, given that they have Batty to bowl off-spin and (in the T20) Robin Peterson. But the scorecard in tonight's T20 match suggests that I might have been wrong. JH (talk page) 17:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And now, according to Surrey's own website, Dilshan has returned to Sri Lanka to play in their upcoming three match ODI Series against South Africa. I wonder if he (or possibly Amla) will be back later in the season. And Kevin O’Brien has played his final T20 game for Surrey, as he'd headed off to the West Indies to play in the Caribbean Premier League. (And presumably the same will apply to Pietersen.) The whole thing is getting rather ridiculous. Dilshan can't have played more than three or four games. I haven't as yet made any more changes to the squad in the article. With such a state of flux there seems little point. JH (talk page) 18:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current squad 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Surrey County Cricket Club. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/histories/matches.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Abuse_filter&diff=prev&oldid=722988704   — Jeff G. ツ 04:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little surprised by this. Could you clarify which bits you think are problematic, so that I can see if I can modify or delete them? JH (talk page) 08:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The controversial edits by  have been quickly reverted and those that stand do not appear to be problematic per WP:NPOV. I will therefore remove the COI tag. 81.145.206.46 (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Thanks JH, any update? I can't see anything controversial in my updates.  Mark at Surrey Cricket (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI tag (January 2023) 

message: Weirdly, CricketArchive says Moriarty was born on the 2nd December while ESPNCricinfo says he was born on 12th Feb. Obviously one of them has mixed up 2/12 with 12/2, but which site has it correct? Since CA is behind a paywall, I guess we should go with Cricinfo for now. JH (talk page) 15:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: So that is the source of the confusion!! Most of the sources that I've found online seem to support the 12th Feb date, but they could simply have copied the (potentially incorrect) info from ESPNCricinfo.  are you able to point us in the right direction please? 86.141.148.206 (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: (This isn't working) According to Surrey on Twitter it's Feb 12th  Spike 'em (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice catch  :) 86.141.148.206 (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, yep, can confirm 12th February. Mark at Surrey Cricket (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi  Would you (or one of your colleagues) be able to pass on the correction to CricketArchive please? Thanks 86.141.148.206 (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dan Moriarty's dob