Talk:Gubby Allen

Cricket Heritage.
Gubby Allen was not Plum Warner's son. He was however, the nephew of Reginald Allen who had played Test Cricket for Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thermosoverfil (talk • contribs) 13:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Other side of the coin
The article currently relies almost entirely on Jim Swanton's biography of Allen and that is the establishment mouthpiece spouting on about the "virtues" of the prime establishment figure. Balance is needed. The readers need to be told the facts about "Sir" and Middlesex players having to stand to attention when "Sir" entered their dressing room. Allen was arrogant and full of his own self-importance. He took advantage of the "gentlemen" versus players hegemony of his time, though he saw the tide finally turn. Allen was an average first-class player who probably wouldn't have played for England if he had been a pro, though he evidently believed he was a great bowler and captain. I'll own that he was an efficient administrator and he certainly cared about MCC, but he was not good for the game as a whole and the article needs much more on this aspect than one sentence saying that he liked to hear "clipped accents". More sources are needed, especially written by the "players". Jack | talk page 19:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

To do
Most of the factual "heavy lifting" is done now. Lots and lots still needed, but I think old Gubby needs a bit of time to bed in now. Remaining tasks, with an initial aim of GA (when I've had a bit of a break from him!):
 * Style and technique
 * Analysis of impact as administrator
 * Opinions, good and bad
 * Amateurs and professionals
 * Serious, serious cutting and copy edit
 * Bring to more reasonable length More cutting needed later
 * Legacy
 * Personality
 * More on personal life
 * Less abrupt ending
 * Genuine amateur, as opposed to shamateur Gone as far as possible given sources
 * More on relationship with Warner, including ups and downs (I've taken quite a bit out about this)?
 * Note on his millions of operations?

Other sources:
 * Social History Nothing worth having
 * Wisden (esp Obituary)
 * Gibson's Cricket Captains
 * Gents and Players (quite a bit here, though some regurgitates Swanton)
 * ''Bent arms and dodgy wickets (time as selector)
 * Cricket at the Crossroads (D'Olly) nothing new not in Oborne/Swanton
 * Anything by Trueman/Close/Anti-establishment
 * Check Frith Bodyline over fast bowling selection for final Test of 1937.

NPOV
I would argue that Allen was not influential. Either way the word "influential" should be removed. 172.56.12.73 (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Same goes for "very successful" 172.56.12.73 (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither your opinion nor mine are the important things hre. The sources agree that he was influential and successful, and that is the only important factor. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes he was influential. So we are disappointed that his decisive and manipulative steering in the D'Oliveira affair ended up this lame in his lede/blurb: "he was deeply involved" (sure he was). I'm glad & proud this wiki had the Affair a TFA in March 2015 in the first place. This Eton-dick has nothing much to be proud of in this, and it's wiki-bad that his article does not show that. -DePiep (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)