Talk:Harold Larwood

Comment
It seems that history has not been kind to Harold Larwood. He has been portrayed as a villain in most articles, though he was only obeying the orders of his captain. He had no other choice if he had to stay in the team. Coming from an improvished background, he was extra-ordinarily talented and was perhaps the only bowler who could restrain the great Sir Don. We should judge him in a more rational manner and he could be a great inspiration for modern quicks.


 * Larwood was a hero in England (as was Jardine). It was only really in Australia that he was the villain - and Sir Don's proof that Larwood was a chucker is kind of interesting:) jguk 16:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I actually interviewed him on the telephone for a year 10 history project in 1988. Nice guy. He broke a bone in his foot at some point which ended his career (or competitiveness, anyway, I can't quite remember). --Surturz 12:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

POV
Sorry - I don't know how to present quotes but:

"By the end of the series in 1932-33, the MCC Lords willfully celebrated the return of the Ashes back to England, but not for an instant did they realise the fury, the fatality and the dangers which it caused (simply because, while sitting in England, they could not see what damage this strategy was causing on the fast pitches of Australia). However, in 1933, Bodyline was used during the West Indies tour of England. There the MCC Lords saw with open eyes, perhaps, for the very first time that 'Fast Leg Theory' or 'Bodyline' as per the Australian Press, was not the same tactic so far very commonly prevalent in English County Cricket, but, rather, an extremely lethal, provocative and indimidating premeditated plan of attack used by one man, Captain Douglas Jardine, to satisfy his personal vendetta and grudge against Australians. Concerned about the souring diplomatic relations between England & Australia as a result of this, the MCC Lords reprimanded him and asked him to sign a Letter of Appology to the Australian Crick Board & Players. He refused, on the basis that he, as a professional cricketer, was obliged to follow the directions of his captain, whose responsibility the tactics were. Larwood never played cricket for England again, returning to Nottinghamshire where he played until 1938."

This is extremely opinionated, using words such as "willfully celebrated", "personal vendetta" etc. Also what exactly is/are MCC Lords? The whole thing could do with copy-editing for style as it's very hard to read and doesn't really make sense. Saintmesmin (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Informal review
This looks really, really good. There are just a few little things I might include, and one or two others, like those I suggested earlier, which you can safely ignore if you prefer. Other than a couple of suggestions below, it does not seem to be missing anything of importance. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead
 * "A right-handed fast bowler who combined speed with great accuracy": I think a fast bowler always would have speed. Maybe emphasise that he was unusually fast?
 * Link bodyline in the lead?
 * "He made an early Test debut in 1926…": Ambiguity over early? I appreciate the need for economy in the lead, but 22 is not particularly young by today's cricket standards and perhaps the meaning may be lost (I assume you mean he made his debut before a bowler would usually have done).
 * The point is not so much his age, but his debut after just 20-odd first class matches, which is quite "early". I will try to clarify this in the text.


 * Perhaps add that the foot injury also curtailed his effectiveness? It was quite a major incident in his career.
 * Well, his figures for the three seasons 1934-36 don't really support a tailing-off in effectiveness (especially 1936 when he took 119 wickets at 12.97). It rather seems as though he recovered his full powers after the injury, though we shall never know how he might have performed in the Test arena.


 * Worth adding anything on his life in Australia? There is little in the lead on what he did there.

Cricket career
 * I've never been quite clear over the mining-cricket connection. Not to dispute the many sources which say it about many bowlers, I wonder how working with pit ponies could have developed Larwood's stamina to the extent that it (probably) did. I'm also a little skeptical as Larwood was hardly robust and muscular when he first played for Nottinghamshire. One of my few Cardus books has a section on Larwood from 1926, titled "A Small Wiry Youth". Yet that "look down a mine" for a fast bowler idea persists even now. But the sources tend to agree, so who are we to argue?
 * I imagine that the work of a pit pony boy was pretty arduous, and that he would have moved on to other work in the pit. It is stamina rather than muscle-power that he got from the mine, as the text indicates. The muscular strength was built up under the regime imposed by Iremonger


 * "his efforts were punished severely": Possibly cricket-speak? May be taken literally!
 * Never too sure on this one, but should it be "fast-bowling standards"?
 * "Larwood had to wait until June 1925 for his next county match, which was against Yorkshire at Bramhall Lane in Sheffield.[9] Although Nottinghamshire lost the game, Larwood bowled well against an exceptionally strong side, and took three wickets. From that point he became a regular member of the county side;[1]": The ref might be in the wrong place here, as ref 1 is to the ODNB which doesn't mention Yorkshire.
 * I have inserted a missing reference that covers his 3 Yorkshire wickets. The ODNB ref covers his winning a permanent place in the side.


 * "he twice took the wicket of Jack Hobbs, England's leading batsman and an influential voice with the national selectors": He was actually a co-opted selector that year, and it wasn't just a title, he did get his hands dirty as a selector. He was party to Carr's sacking.
 * Yes indeed, but that's a bit too much backgound detail for a Larwood article.
 * To be honest, I was meaning more along the lines of he was not an "influential voice", he was an outright selector, making him more influential still. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, Hobbs was co-opted as a selector (along with Rhodes) during the series, but wasn't a selector when he recommended Larwood. Brianboulton (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * A little inconsistency over bowling figures: first mention "8 wickets for 44 runs", second "11 for 41" (but no explanation: it is not obvious to everyone that the second format is the same as the first, as I know from bitter experience), then "3 high profile wickets … 136 runs", "3 wickets for 34" and "4 for 44". Not a big issue, but I think it is better to be consistent after the first mention (when I usually explain the convention in brackets).
 * I may well have been one of your persecutors in this respect, and now justice has rightly overtaken me. I am guided by the dictum that in a sports-related article it is impractical for all the terminology relevant to that sport to be explained, although steps should be taken via links and footnotes to at least help the unaware. I will add a footnote explining the "11 for 41" convention in representing bowling figures; that convention will generally be used thereafter, though I see no harm in the occasional reversion to, say, "3 wickets for 34", just to vary the prose a bit.
 * Ha! No problem either way, and to be honest I think it was a baseballer who pointed this one out to me. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Larwood's occasional tactic of bowling leg theory, that is, in the direction of the batsman's legs rather than at the wicket…": Maybe a bit vague; I think the concentration of leg side fielders is also worth a mention, as that was a key part of leg theory.
 * Well, the link to leg theory is there, to provide more information, but I have slightly reworded.


 * "since Chapman's victorious 1928–29 side was largely intact and on paper looked formidably strong, especially in batting": As this indicates that reality was different, it may be worth briefly suggesting why they lost rather than leave it hanging.
 * I'm not sure anyone is left hanging. England believed they would be the better side, and duly won the first Test. Then Bradman began his incerdible scoring and upset the applecart. Bradman was the reason why England lost the series, not only through his high scoring but because he demoralised the bowlers. But this article is not really about analysing the series result, but in recording Larwood's somewhat meagre role in it.
 * No problem. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "He later claimed that his first ball to Bradman, before the batsman had scored, was a bouncer which touched the edge of the bat and was caught by the wicket-keeper, George Duckworth: "You could hear the snick all over the ground". The umpire, however, gave Bradman not out.": I've never heard that one outside of Larwood; it's a nice item to include, but perhaps indicate that this view is not widespread? Tate also claimed to beat Bradman first ball, but not that he was out.
 * I will add a note to the effect that this is Larwood's tale alone. I am looking to find a source that explicitly states this.
 * Not too sure where you might find that. As I say, I've never heard anyone but Larwood claim this, and it's quite hard to find a source for that. Maybe a Bradman biography, but I suspect these may brush over Larwood a little. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Perry's biography (which I have cited a couple of times) says: "[Larwood] made a spurious claim about hving [Bradman] caught early in the big Leeds innings. But none of the England team, the umpires or the spectators recalled it ... It was pure wishful thinking". I'll refer to that in the footnote.


 * Also, I'm pretty sure that Larwood was not fully fit for the Leeds match, and this was widely known.
 * I can't find any reference to Larwood's unfitness. Larwood doesn't mention i, it, nor can I find anything in Hamilton - though the book is so badly organised that he might have inserted it somewhere.
 * Actually, not as straightforward as I thought. Hammond wrote that Larwood was "still obviously unwell and could not send them down with the old familiar hiss" in Cricket My Destiny. Although I have the book (somewhere), I'm not sure of the page number, and I've taken this quote from Christopher Hilton's Bradman and the Summer that Changed Cricket', p. 136. (If you want the reference it is in the bibliography of Percy Fender's article) But this is less definitive than I thought, and while I'm sure I've seen it elsewhere (Cardus, maybe), I'm not sure you would think it important enough to include. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Webber not included in the sources.
 * "The cricket statistician Roy Webber summarised the situation…": Webber, presumably writing long after the event, seems a strange choice to make this point. Others made the same suggestion at the time, including (I think) Fender and Warner.
 * I don't have Warner's books, or Foster's if he wrote any.Webber puts the matter in a convenient nutshell; if you have something better from a more contemporary source, I'm happy to change it.
 * Not exactly from a contemporary source, but Frith quotes Fender "I feel that something new will have to be introduced to curb Bradman, and that the best way of selecting that something new is to seek it along the lines of theory", which he wrote in the Observer. (Frith, p. 40) Frith also quotes Warner in the Morning Post: "England must evolve a new type o bowler and develop fresh ideas and strange tactics to curb his almost uncanny skill". (Frith, p. 41) Both were writing in 1930. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * These are definitely better than Webber, and I'll adjust accordingly.


 * I can't remember which, off the top of my head, but in either 1931 or 1932, it was incredibly wet, and it was something of a sensation that a fast bowler was able to top the bowling averages. Not really that important, but interesting!
 * "but had formed a cordial dislike": I think cordial is stretching it! To quote the man himself, "it's f***ing mutual".
 * "Cordial dislike" is a politer way of putting it!


 * Minor point, but Jardine had other sources which said Bradman didn't like pace, not just the Oval incident. And I think the "flinch" was pretty widely discussed in England even before Jardine was appointed.
 * Yes, I've reworded to clarify tht it wasn't just Duckworth's opinion.


 * "would give a catch to one of the [leg-side] fieldsman": Just checking this quote: fieldsman or fieldsmen?
 * My typo - "fieldsmen" is correct.


 * "spectators, including the future cricket writer and commentator John Arlott, were puzzled by the ineffectiveness of the bowling": Although they possibly, and Arlott certainly, recognised the hostile, dangerous intent.
 * Arlott (who also watched the esex match) was definitely baffled at the time. Recognition of the intent came later.


 * Another minor, not really relevant point; I'm not too sure Bowes bowled bodyline as much as bowled short at the Oval. It was the short bowling against which Hobbs protested.
 * Prose adjusted accordingly.


 * "on Woodfull's resumption, to the crowd's amazed hostility, Jardine switched to the leg theory attack": Actually, Larwood said it was Jardine's idea but Jardine said Larwood requested it.
 * Yes, perhaps worth a footnote, though most non-involved commentators (e.g. Swanton) make Jardine responsible for the move.


 * "He was handicapped by injuries to his feet, the legacy of much bowling on hard, unyielding pitches. In the Australian second innings he could not bowl…": I think he was fine for most of the match, but it wasn't just a handicap. He actually broke his foot in his delivery stride. And pedantically, he did bowl in the second innings, just not very much. And, I think foot, rather than feet.
 * Prose revised to accord better with the facts as you state them.


 * "with 33 wickets, av. 19.52. As a batsman he had scored 145 runs, av. 24.16.": av.? I've never seen that one used.
 * "The state of Larwood's feet…": Again, I think half of them were fine!
 * "No such apology had been requested from Jardine…": Actually, one theory is the such a request was the reason for his sudden retirement.
 * Never heard that one, not even from Douglas's biog of Jardine


 * I think the point should be made that after his injury, he was never as fast and therefore less effective, although still too good for most county batsmen. And I think some of his falling-off in form came from a lack of interest and something of "burn-out".
 * As I said earlier, his actual figures in 1934-36 do not suggest any lack of effectiveness. The burnout is evident from 1937. I have added a bit about his decline, cartilage problem etc.


 * Perhaps his Test statistics should be included somewhere in the text, as well as his first-class ones.
 * Good idea; done

Retirement
 * "Similarly, four years later, Larwood was kept out of the dressing room by Trevor Bailey, the 1954–55 team's vice captain—though Bailey denied that this ever happened": Seems a bit definite. Presumably, this is Larwood's version of events.
 * I've used Hamilton's version actually; I had omitted the reference. Larwood tells a similar story, omitting Bailey's denial that it ever happened.


 * "overated": overrated?

Style and influence
 * "was described by Cardus": I think we need to say who he was.
 * As well as the various fractures, maybe worth adding that he did occasionally try, along with Voce, to hit batsmen, and sometimes joked about it. (It's in Frith's Bodyline Autopsy somewhere)
 * Yes, I was dissatisfied with the way I'd glossed over this, and have added a bit more beef.

General
 * A shame there are no PD photographs of him bowling.
 * Well, if we can't establish that the cigarette card image is PD in the US (see Wehwalt, below), and have to go for fair use of a non-free image, then perhaps one of him bowling would be a better bet?


 * Perhaps something is needed about the idea that "I was only following orders". Some sources take this view, that he was just a "paid assassin", whereas others suggest that he revelled in it, played a large part in the strategy, and despite his slightly disingenuous claim to the contrary, he could have said no without too much risk of being sent home, given his stature in the team.
 * He certainly didn't object to the strategy, followed it with enthusiasm, and was unrepentant afterwards. He believed that it was a fair tactic, perfectly within the rules and only objected to because of his speed. He used the "under orders" argument as his main reasoning for not apologising. Much of this is in the text already, but I'll look to see if I can strengthen this area a little.


 * I just wonder if the descriptions of bodyline make enough of the short-pitched nature of the attack? And the intimidatory aspect? Australian sources are usually very big on this one. Perhaps it currently just looks a bit too much like bowling down the leg side. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think, here, that enough is probably enough; the intimidatory aspects of bodyline are mentioned more than once, an we have the "akin to a stoning" comment. As far as is possible with such an inflammatory subject, I'd like to keep the general tone neutral.
 * Anything that you don't feel is necessary, just ignore me, as I have a habit (as you may have occasionally noticed!) of including a little too much detail! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been a great review, for which much thanks. If I have not commented you can assume I have made any minor adjustment necessary, otherwise you can see my responses and proposed actions. I will add a few footnotes as indicated, but I'll probably wait until I have dealt with Wehwalt's comments, below, before doing this. Brianboulton (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Another review

 * Lede
 * File:Harold Larwood Cigarette Card.jpg How do we know this image was taken in Australia?
 * Just to jump in here; on a "balance of probabilities", I think it was almost certainly taken in Australia. It is one of a series (see here or browse through the images from this page) taken of cricketers who were expected to take part or who took part in matches in 1932-33 (although not all played in the series, including one who died during it), and published in Australia (see the rear of the cards). For what it's worth, this is my reasoning (I'm afraid it's quite long!), as I've wondered about these images myself:
 * In addition to English players, there are Australians, some of whom never played in England, so at least those photos were taken in Australia, and I suspect the whole series was taken in the same place, if not quite at the same time. All the photographs have a similar background, and the English ones are of a similar "style" in terms of posing and facial expression (the Australian ones are more cheerful pictures, but also share a similar style).
 * To add some OR, the style is not really what was current in England at the time for cigarette cards. Head-and-shoulder shots like this seem to have been reserved for Australian newspapers. On other tours by English teams, similar photographs seem to have been included in something approaching a "press pack" and sent to various regional newspapers for publication during the matches (in lieu of action shots of the matches).
 * Of the English players, some are included who were last minute choices in the team, and being realistic, there was no motivation to have their photo taken before this point (unless taken to illustrate their county team, but this was not really practice at the time; photographs were taken of individuals for specific reasons) and no time to take it after they were chosen: one player had to get on a boat a matter of days after being picked.
 * There is one fly in the ointment; this player was chosen in the team, but never made it to Australia as he was critically ill. But I think we are still OK; other players chosen who also dropped out are not included in the cards, but all the "replacements" photographs are part of the series. I think the explanation is that the player in question had toured Australia with a team a few years before (when his photograph could have been taken), and was a sufficient "celebrity" from a cricketing sense to be included in this set of pictures.
 * The alternative explanation is that all the players, many from different teams, had very similar photographs taken in England over a period of time, and these were sent to Australia for the cigarette cards, including some men who were unknown in Australia and were last minute choices. This strikes me as unlikely, and to reiterate, there was a matter of days between the final members of the team being selected, and leaving on the boat. And I cannot see a small selection of the players selected earlier having their pictures taken in England, and others having theirs taken in Australia.
 * Last thing: I think it is enough to accept at face value the back of the cards saying that they were published in Melbourne. Perhaps any other information about where the photographs were taken would have been included. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I agree that the balance of probabilities, which I think we should rely on in photograph cases, seems to me that the Australian origin is accurate.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain if "exponent" is the best term. But I don't have a better one.
 * Could be "executant", but that's an ugly word.
 * I would link "tour of Australia" to the appropriate article on that Ashes series. Also the 1930 series, mentioned.
 * Early life
 * "From the age of five". I suggest mentioning Larwood's birth date when you mention his birth to make such calculations easier.  At least the year.
 * "These were William "Dodge" Whysall, Sam Staples, Bill Voce and Joe Hardstaff junior." I believe that sentence starting with "These were" or similar phrases slow the flow of text.  I would incorporate in the previous sentence, though you might have to split it.
 * I would mention either the age at which he left school, or the age at which he became employed (the same of course). Just to make it stand out how young he was.
 * "hardened adults" I'm not sure I like this adjective.  Perhaps "experienced adult cricketers"?
 * "when not required to play" Perhaps "when not playing"?
 * "he had acquired considerable upper body strength from his years in the mines." This seems very similar to the description of how he acquired his stamina, suggest consolidation.
 * Can something be said about reaction to Larwood's performance at The Oval? Surely playing such a large role in taking the Ashes after so long (I realise the war interfered) made him immediately a national hero.
 * He was one of several heroes from the match (Hobbs and Sutcliffe both scored centuries, and the successful recall of Rhodes was a focus of media romanticism), and calling him a "national hero" may be a bit of an overstatement. However, I have added brief details of what the press set, including Warner's vaguely prescient remark.
 * Australian tour '28 - '29
 * "an automatic choice" Was he then entitled by some qualification to a place on the team without worrying about the caprice of selectors?
 * It's sportswriter's jargon for any established player whose place in the side is not likely to be questioned. I have reworded, to avoid the implication of statutory right.
 * " (to be rapidly reinstated for the third)" I see no reason for the parens, perhaps bridge it with "only to be rapidly ..."
 * It is unclear if there were two matches (or more) against Victoria during the interval between the fourth and fifth Tests, or if the first might have chanced to be played earlier.
 * Clarified: only one match against Victoria took place betw. the 4th and 5th Tests.
 * Bradman
 * "before the batsman had scored," Possibly redundant. I'm not Ask the Umpire and cannot say with certainty that no batsman can score before the first ball played to him, but it seems intuitive.
 * It was Larwood's first ball to Bradman, but before then he had faced several balls from another bowler (in cricket, bowlers operate in pairs).
 * Prelude
 * Consider mentioning Jardine during the section on the Australian tour to save some of the exposition later.
 * "he could threaten the apparent Australian supremacy" I would simply say "he could threaten Australian supremacy" They won the Ashes and looked good to keep going for a bit.  I think it's justified.
 * "over here would look quite different over there." I am not certain you should use "here".
 * Reworded (I was paraphrasing Arlott)
 * 32 to 33 tour
 * I would include the article on the tour in the hatnote.
 * "The English tactics in the game, and the one that followed," Based on Evatt's reaction, I gather that there was an additional game before the Tests commenced?  I'd make that clearer, so as not to imply that "ones that followed" (i.e., the Tests) is meant.
 * Why wouldn't the image of the bodyline fielders be PD as taken in Australia before 1955?
 * "Blythe observed that, to the crowd, it appeared as if "Bradman and his colleagues were to be reduced to mortal remains" rather than mortal limits." I'm not sure that this is as clear as you would like.
 * Removed, regretfully. I would have liked to have preserved Blythes's mordantly humorous comment, but not by having to include clunk explanations.
 * Why did Larwood not complete the tour?
 * Aftermath
 * " this stance was weakened" Whose?
 * The MCC's. I've changed "weakened" to modified: "MCC's initial response was to declare this law impractical, but as the events of the season unfolded they modified their stance.
 * Is it clear if the Wisden comments were referring to the Sunday Express or the book?
 * I think they referred to both, which had the same belligerent tone.
 * Was Larwood not selected or did he withdraw from consideration?
 * He was not selected - but essentially he sealed his own fate by not apologising and publishing his own version of events. Professional cricketers who crossed the MCC in those days quickly became persona non grata (amateurs could get away with it).
 * Final years and death
 * Are the deaths of Larwood's contemporaries essential?
 * No. I've removed them (having added quite a bit in the course of these two reviews)
 * Style and influence
 * I suggest widening the quote box.
 * The poem is nice, but I'm not certain the many colons to format it is the best way. I'm inserting in a hidden comment (feel free to remove) following this comment the formatting from the ending poem in William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896 in case you would like to use it.
 * I've adopted your format - presumably this has advantages in the form of easier loading in some displays. I'd prefer the poem to be centred, but it's not a major issue.
 * General
 * I looked at all the images and saw no problems except as noted.
 * I feel that I did not have a feeling for Larwood as a person until quite late in the article. If at all possible, try to find a bit or two that can be placed in the career part of the article which illustrate him as a man.
 * To tell you the truth, after all my reading I am inclined to the view that, his fast bowling apart, Larwood was rather a colourless figure, not much real personality or charm, but a handy bearer of grudges. That's of course my personal impression; but it does make it hard to bring him to life outside the cricket context. We know he was a heavy drinker, at least in his playing days... I'll see what I can do'
 * That's all I have. Top quality, as always.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and for the very valid points. I shall be working on the article for several more days before taking it anywhere. Brianboulton (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

One more

 * "The Australians described the method as "unsportsmanlike", and during subsequent efforts to heal the breach" - "the breach" isn't explicit here; you have the Aussies complaining a little but nothing on the English reaction.
 * Rephrased for clarity


 * "In April 1923, with oversized kit acquired for this purpose,..." - c'mon lad, let's get you some oversized kit, you won't impress the county selectors wearing kit that fits.
 * Yes, it reads slightly oddly. I've removed it.


 * "Iremonger's regime of diet and exercise he gained weight and a few inches in height" - really? Did Iremonger rack him?
 * I wouldn't be surprised; Iremonger was apparently a ferocious old git. But it was probably just the exercises.


 * "The Lord's Test was drawn, with neither side coming near to winning" - odd phrasing
 * Not really, though perhaps a bit informal. A draw in cricket might mean that one side came within a run or two of winning, but was denied. Or it may be one of those tedious matches where neither side can claim the advantage and, as they say, honours were even. But that's an even worse sporting cliché.


 * "One of his victims in the match was Bill Ponsford, the Australian Test opening batsman, who let slip his opinion that Larwood was "not really fast". This, according to Ponsford's future Test team-mate Jack Fingleton, was a serious misjudgement." - this sounds like Larwood was then out for revenge. Is the serious misjudgement letting his opinion be known or the assessment of Larwood's speed?
 * According to Fingelton, Ponsford was targetted for making known his opinion that Larwood wasn't really fast. I have rephrased to make this clear.


 * His omission from international cricket in 1930-1 seems a bit odd when he's top of the bowling averages and otherwise playing well and there's no explanation. Is this all down to the performance against Bradman in 1930?
 * The sources don't specify why Larwood wasn't chosen for the 1930–31 tour, but one can surmise. He had been battered by Bradman; he wasn't fully fit (he missed one 1930 Test through illness); in those days, Tests against South Africa were not thought of primary importance and leading players were often rested. I suspect there were elements of all these reasons in the decision not to pick him for South Africa.


 * The "Prelude to bodyline" and "Australian tour, 1932–33" sections drift away from Larwood a little in places - it's colourful but I'm not sure all the detail belongs here. On the other hand it does flow nicely through these two sections.
 * I think it is necessary, especially for the uninformed reader, to have background information on the prelude and on the tour itself, otherwise there is no clear context for understanding Larwood's bowling and the reactions it caused. I'll look again, but I'm not sure that I can, or should, pare it down much.


 * " In 1982, the 50th anniversary of the bodyline series was celebrated with much publicity" - is celebrated the right word? Commemorated, maybe?
 * That's a much better word.


 * "Timing technology was primitive in his day, but various tests indicated speeds of between 90 and 100 mph (140 to 160 km/ph)" - some comparison to other fast bowlers would be helpful here. Is that fast?
 * I'll add a footnote based on speed measurements using electronic technology. 90 mph is very fast, 100 mph exceptionally so; there have been very few reliable measurements of bowling at this speed.

Very easy read for a cricket article on a cricketer who doesn't seem to have much going on outside of cricket - all the tedious statistics and obscure jargon is worked in nicely without disrupting the flow. Yomangani talk 23:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this review and for the helpful copyedits which are much appreciated Brianboulton (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Further review
I was asked on my talk page for a review here, and it appears that I'm not alone. While I'm only part of the way through reading the article, it is a compelling read so far. I will try to come back here to review the rest, but I am running busy and don't know when I'l be able to make it back here.
 * Not a major point, but MCC in the first paragraph of the lead should probably be spelled out. That's far more likely to cause confusion than MBE, which is spelled out fully.
 * Test cricketer: Typo in "who predicted a big future or the young bowler".
 * In the third paragraph of this subsection, the unspaced en dashes are a MoS breach, if they haven't changed that section lately. Maybe make them spaced?
 * Also, Wisden should probably be in italics as a printed publication, even when in the award name.
 * I remember seeing somewhere that sentences shouldn't start with numbers such as years. Perhaps "1927 saw the first appearance of..." could have its ordering changed to avoid this, if it is a problem.
 * Bradman in 1930: "Lords" → "Lord's"? Giants2008  ( Talk ) 02:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these comments, all fixed now. Any more will, of course, be gratefully received, though I appreciate that you are busy elsewhere. Brianboulton (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Prelude to bodyline: I'm thinking the second word of "as also was Voce" can be removed; "also" is usually unneeded in prose, and it's redundant in this context.
 * Aftermath: Very minor, but there appears to be an excess space after the second sentence of the sub-section.
 * I'm not wild about having two semi-colons in a sentence, as is done at the end of the section. Changing the part after the second one to "and as a batsman" might be a sufficient fix.
 * Also, a period is needed at the end of the section.
 * Obscurity in England: Is Blackpool Cricket Club the League team that he played for in Blackpool? If so, I think a link to the team's article would be more appropriate than one to the city itself.
 * Emigration to Australia: Name typo in "and Fingelton had to act as an interpreter."
 * Style and influence: Since there's a link to Ray Lindwall a few sections up, I doubt that another is needed in this section.
 * In the last sentence, should "feeling" be plural? Giants2008  ( Talk ) 02:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for these remaining points, all fixed now. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Which vs That
A trivial point, but there is inconsistency in the use of a proceeding comma before the use of "which". In some cases an alternative "that" might be better. I often get confused over restrictive and non-restrictive clauses and don't want to edit the article in case I introduce any errors in meaning. Graham Colm (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Strangely, I often raise the "Which vs That" point when reviewing others' articles, while forgetting it applies to my own. I think the use of a preceding comma is a matter of context, and I can't see anything questionable in this respect within the article. Often, "that" and "which" are a matter of the writer's choice, although there are clear cases when one or the other is preferable, and as a result I have turned about eight "whiches" into "thats". Brianboulton (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Belatedly, on this topic I find the following advice helpful.
 * If you can delete the clause beginning with which/that from the sentence without loss, use which.
 * If you can’t delete the clause beginning with which/that from the sentence and still say what you mean, use that.
 * Examples
 * The investigation that was conducted by the the Board of Examinations found a number of problems. (The clause identifies which Commission is being discussed and cannot be deleted).
 * The investigation, which was completed in December 2000, made a number of recommendations. (The ‘which’ clause adds relevant but non-essential information).


 * Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Larwood statue image
This was added to the article before its appearance as Today's Featured Article on 14 November. Unfortunately the image does not comply with the public domain criteria as expressed in WP:PD. The relevant policy reads as follows:

Photographic reproductions, as a form of derivative work, may inherit the copyright of the original work. If that artwork is in the public domain, then so is the photograph. If, however, the depicted work is copyright protected, then, although there is no independent copyright on the photo itself, it cannot be considered to be in the public domain as the original rights holder still has the authority to control how reproductions of his work, including photographs, are made and distributed. The same applies to digitized images.

The statue is a recent work, and its copyright belongs to its creator, Neil Andrew. Furthermore, although the image page includes the information "Author tagged this as PD-Self" there is no evidence that either the sculptor or the photographer, Andy Gilmour, has had any imput into the page, which was uploaded and tagged by an editor only identified as "Steinsky".

When preparing this article in 2012 I wanted to include this image, but regretfully desisted because of the copyright implications. Equally regretfully I am removing it now. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harold Larwood. 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/20160311005822/http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/averages/batting_bowling_by_team.html?id=52%3Bteam%3D1%3Btype%3Dseries to http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/averages/batting_bowling_by_team.html?id=52%3Bteam%3D1%3Btype%3Dseries

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) 14:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)