Talk:Yorkshire captaincy affair of 1927

Hill's Book
The article is basically what Hill said which was poorly recieved at time. Suggest you read Woodhouse, Gents v Players, Cricketer of those years, Hodgson's book on Yorkshire. Also RC Robertson-Glasgow who briefed against Sutcliffe. Swanton is unreliable. To write an article on a contentious subject requires primary sources - Letters and Committee stuff at YCCC. Yorkshire Post. Local Press. You simply cannot speculate and use conditional language if you do not know. Sutcliffe would have become Amateur but if you read widely you will see that the Grimshaw poll had little effect on the committee who were under pressure from supporters of Rhodes, themselves because of Sutcliffe's constant acting above his station, pressure from other counties viz-a-vie precedent, a lot of briefing against HS by prominent amateurs. It was a complex issue - like the sacking of Close. Incidentally, Sellars was no long term appointment. NWD Yardley or Gibb would have replaced him in 39 had he not taken a grip and been very good at it - despite unpopularity with Verity, Bowes and Hutton. (He mellowed after the war)See Bowes, See Bowen.See Birley See press. See articles in Wisden Cricketwer in 70's and 80's A Tillmann
 * Alan Hill's book won The Cricket Society's Literary Award so they must have received it well enough and it is an excellent source for this article, which is itself very well written. Please read WP:NPOV and make sure you present opinions that are balanced and can be verified. Not for the first time, you are making a WP:POINT and it really is about time you learned to respect site guidelines.
 * The site does not allow information to be taken direct from primary sources like contemporary newspapers. All information must be drawn from a secondary source such as a book like Wisden, a website like CricketArchive or a magazine like The Cricketer.  It is in order ro mention that the information was originally in the Yorkshire Post but your source must be a secondary one who might have got the information from the paper.  A good example is G B Buckley who quotes his primary sources: I might say that a match was reported in the Daily Advertiser but I must cite Buckley as my source for all of the information given.  The reason for using a secondary source is that its author is deemed to have verified the original data by publishing it anew.  After all, we can't believe everything we read in the papers, can we?
 * Turning to yourself, if I may. You have been asked before to contribute to the site by writing and editing articles.  Since you clearly have so much knowledge about this subject, and evidently have several sources at your disposal, would you care to contribute to this article?  Contributing to the site means editing articles.  No one takes much notice of talk page stuff (I doubt if anyone is reading what I've written here either).
 * In addition, you have been told before to sign your talk page posts using the four tildes (i.e., at the end of a talk page post, enter ~ four times and the system will convert it into a legitimate signature). Please do this in future so that your edits can be properly logged per site conventions.  Better still, seeing as you like to use the name Tillmann, join the site as a member (it's free; and simple to set up) under that name.  Jack | talk page 12:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Another possible source
Alan Gibson's book, The Cricket Captains of England, has a good, if brief, piece about the affair - the pretext being that had Sutcliffe become captain of Yorkshire then he might in due course have become captain of England. A few years latter, Walter Hammond changed from professional to amateur because he wanted to be able to captain his country. JH (talk page) 09:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

MCC or M.C.C.
I think it's quite common in British English to omit the full stops in sets of initials, though in American English they usually seem to be included them. I think that the form without the full stops looks much nicer, and it's what Wisden - for one - uses. (I've just checked in the 2011 edition.) JH (talk page) 09:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

No wiki-link to cricket
Doesn't it seem odd that this entire page does not contain a single link to cricket? As an ignorant American curious about this sport, I first looked for such a link. Not finding it, I figured I could do it in two links; my first attempt took me to 1927 English cricket season, which itself contained no link to cricket. Finally I manually typed it in the search box. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 00:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

A Surfeit of Cricket
The article is well illustrated and written, and all kudos to the writing team, but I'm afraid someone needs to state the obvious:

1  There are too many featured articles about cricket.

2  This is an encyclopedia, not a history. Huge articles on a single captain controversy is not core encyclopedic content.

Observers of human culture from distant galaxies must think we spend all our time sinking each other's dreadnoughts, when we aren't playing cricket. Those of us who weren't on the 1923 Michigan Wolverines, that is.

Sorry, I have nothing against cricket, but in a year there are only 365 featured articles, and we need to cast a wider net.

Peace and Love. Billyshiverstick (talk) 03:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think something needs to be "core encyclopedic content" to be a featured article. After all, one of the areas Wikipedia shines is excellent articles about peripheral subjects. I can't say I've noticed that many cricket-related featured articles, either. On the whole, this is a well-written article on a ridiculously obscure subject. It's the former quality that counts. Knight of Truth (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Billy - So fix it! Go and edit some non-cricket articles and bring them up to FA standard, instead of bitching.  Lugnuts  (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yorkshire captaincy affair of 1927. 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/20170930180207/http://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/152404.html to http://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/152404.html

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) 19:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)