Talk:History of English amateur cricket

Purpose of this article

There was a suggestion many months ago on WT:CRIC that an article about schools cricket should be created, but it didn't happen. There is a lot of information in the main sources about schools cricket so I've decided to make a start but so far I've only gone up to 1700.

The main significance of schools cricket is in the 19th century because of its impact on the universities and thence of the "Gentlemen", who were vital to cricket's continued development until Test matches and the County Championship began and were established.

This article is therefore one that will grow and obviously any additional ideas and contributions are very welcome. --The Ghost | ^séance 07:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

New scope

As can be seen, the scope of the article has been found to be about amateur cricket in England but with an emphasis on the special part played by the schools and universities in the development of amateur first-class players. The article has been retitled accordingly. I expect that it will have to be serialised because of size. --The Ghost | ^séance 13:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger

The scope of this article is very broad and I intend to expand the article in the coming months. Amateur and professional cricketers was created in December 2004 by an editor who has left the site and it has not changed substantially since his initiative. I have already drawn on his first section and I think his last section will form a useful basis for an epilogue I have in mind to close this article: i.e., important developments in the professional sphere since 1962.

I want to merge the two articles to ensure proper attribution as the older article is basically a good piece of work. Its problem, realistically, is that it will not be developed of itself and therefore it will be better for the encyclopedia to remove the overlap per WP:MERGE. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm against merging Amateur and professional cricketers into History of English amateur cricket, because the coverage of the former does not wholly fall within the scope of the latter. Amateurism and professionalpsm have meaning in other countries' cricket besides that of England, even if without the class overtones or rigid segregation that they had in English cricket. JH (talk page) 09:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean but the article at present only talks about other countries in terms of professionalism since 1962. In fact the segregation elsewhere was stricter because of the racial aspect and, in India, the caste system.

There is nothing in the article about amateurism outside England although I know that much could be said, especially about India (the Raj and caste) and the West Indies (CLR James is an invaluable source). Australia had its own curious form of shamateurism although that was mostly due to an incorrect English interpretation (i.e., Mr Spofforth, Mr Bannerman, etc.).

I think the title Amateur and professional cricketers is woolly and so broad that it is actually misleading. It needs to be tailored to the actual scope of the article which has not really been defined. It might be an idea to redefine the article along the lines of History of English amateur cricket but for the rest of the world. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

"There is nothing in the article about amateurism outside England..." In that case the proposed merger is fair enough. I should have reread the article first, but naively assumed that its title would reflect its content. JH (talk page) 18:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Serialisation

I think there is little doubt that this will have to be serialised. I'm not sure yet what the cutoff dates should be but I propose to go beyond 1863 in this initial phase, perhaps up to the start of the so-called "Golden Age" in about 1890. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

New lead

I created a lead that was previously missing. This was reverted for reasons I don't understand. Bhny (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added it back again and added some wiki links. It still needs improvement, but at least it is better than the strange single sentence that was there before Bhny (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

previous editor arrived at compromise. all is good Bhny (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of English amateur cricket. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/main.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Gentlemen of England

Gentlemen of England redirects here but is only mentioned once, in passing, and never introduced or defined. This leaves the reader who arrives here via a link (such as that in the lede of A. J. Raffles (character)) confused, and the hypothetical reader who searches for the phrase looking for something like British nobility even more so. Can a mention that defines the phrase be added, or should the redirect be retargeted or deleted? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)