Talk:Van Diemen's Land v Port Phillip, 1851

Suggestions

G'day, great work on this article. I wonder if there are some book sources that should be consulted, though, to expand the article's reference base prior to having another run at WP:FAC. A Worldcat search shows a couple of books that might be useful: [1] I used to have a copy of Harte's A History of Australian Cricket, but unfortunately no longer have access. I think @Anotherclown: might, though, and he might be able to offer some suggestions, too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Gday gents. Yes I have Harte so I had a quick look. He does (of course) cover the match, but actually not in as much detail as I might have expected (only half of page 33). There is a little bit about the second innings that could probably be added (specifically the first day's play being called off early by the umpires due to bad light seems relevant, while there is a little about Tabart's big hitting turning the tide for Tasmania on the second day after previously being dropped early on). I also checked 200 Seasons of Australian Cricket which has a little on page 16. Some points that seem pertinent to me include: the expectation before the game that Tasmania would not be able to withstand the Victoria overarm attack; and a large total of 24 extras (inc 11 byes and 8 no balls) helped the Tasmanians get to 104 in their first innings. If you consider any of these points to be relevant I'd be happy to add them, but I'll leave it up to the judgment of others to decide. Anotherclown (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like good info to add, to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi AustralianRupert, thanks for the edits and thanks for the note here. Anotherclown, gday to you too. The information looks good. Would you be able to add it? Would it be much helpful. Thanks so much for chipping in, both of you. Xender Lourdes (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, could you gentlemen please suggest a model template for adding a book as a reference when (a) I have no web reference for the book but have the book in person (b) when I have a web link reference for the page too? I have never edited citations for an FA and so have had very little experience in these things. Xender Lourdes (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

G'day, Xender, the {{cite book}} template is the one I would suggest. I have adjusted a couple of the refs now to display the page numbers also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Rupert. Very helpful. Xender Lourdes (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Xender I've added that information now from the books mentioned above and made a few other amendments / additions - pls see my edits here [2]. By all means pls adjust / change anything as you see fit. Anotherclown (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Anotherclown, thank you. The additions are quite well placed and well done. Plus, the other fixing too. Xender Lourdes (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Midway check: AustralianRupert, I've finished my work on all sections except the first innings, second innings and result. Can you please give a quick look to the article (except the three mentioned sections) and tell me if what is written comes out acceptable on FA standards? I'm now working on the three mentioned sections and will take two days to finish those too. Will ping you then again. thanks for all the suggestions. Xender Lourdes (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • G'day, Xender, looks pretty good to me. I only made a couple of minor tweaks. I'm not an expert on cricket writing (or any writing for that matter), so perhaps you might consider posting a note on the Cricket Project talk page might draw some extra eyes, who might be able to highlight anything that I might have missed? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Sure will do. Once I finish editing the article completely, will leave a note there. Thanks for the look. Xender Lourdes (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you also ping me too? I've promised a review/copyedit, but would prefer to wait until you are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Another run at FAC?

@Lourdes: There are a few things I think we need to do before we try this at FAC again. We probably need a bit more about the background to the game (and there must be something in the books somewhere about this), a bit less on the match itself, and more about the aftermath. It would also be good to have something about when this match was given first-class status (it wouldn't have been until sometime after 1950 that this was decided, I'd imagine) as that was a rather anachronistic concept. The problem we have is that the people in the game would have had no concept that they were playing a first-class game at the time! I'm going to have a little hunt for sources and see what that throws up, then we can take it from there. There are also a few people I can ask who might know some answers. I think this is very achievable! Sarastro1 (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Terrific. I'll check in the libraries where I have access to find out details on when this got first-class status. Will get back before tomorrow morning (or end of day, depending on where you are). Lourdes 01:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Till now, I've been able to find sources for when the term "first-class cricket" was defined. I've not been able to find sources specifically for when this match was given the first-class status. The sources which document how the term first-class cricket came to be defined, are as follows:

• First class cricket definition. This is the 1908 definition of First-Class cricket adopted by New South Wales Cricket Association.
• The Essential Wisden: An Anthology of 150 Years of Wisden Cricketers' Almanack. Page 296. This is the 19 May 1947 official definition of first-class cricket adopted by the Imperial Cricket Conference. Similar source documenting this meeting and definition are listed below.
• Wounded Tiger... Page 22, footnote.
• Firsts, Lasts & Onlys of Cricket: Presenting the most amazing cricket facts. Page 1949.
• A newspaper post documenting the same and giving an idea of the failure of ICC to label earlier matches.
• Social Sciences For Class IX, contains some nuggets of cricketing history.
• Interesting history of New Zealand cricket, from the New Zealand government site.

Will search more in the coming days. Lourdes 04:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'll start to look a little more closely at this in the next day or so, but just a couple of points to begin with. Is there any need to cite anything in the lead? Unless it is a quotation, it is more common not to do this. Also, "The match is considered to be amongst the most significant events in the cricketing history of Australia" is cited to the 150 years of Tasmanian cricket book, but it's not clear (unless I'm being stupid - which is possible!) how we are supporting this statement. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

When was this match considered first-class?

Pinging a few people who might have answers: AustralianRupert, Anotherclown who commented above, BlackJack who is just a nice chap and from the best part of the world (obviously!!), and Lourdes:

Finding out when this game become first-class is a useful point, otherwise it is easy to think that those playing here would have thought "Hello, we're playing a first-class game! Aren't we notable?" BlackJack mentioned that Harte has a bit on this:

• From BlackJack: "As far as I'm aware, the ACS since the 1980s has recognised Port Phillip v Van Diemen's Land, 1851 as the inaugural first-class match in Australia. It was the inaugural intercolonial match too, which seems to be the key factor. According to Chris Harte on page 32 of his History of Australian Cricket, there was no official definition of first-class in Australia until the ICC meeting in 1947 which broadly underlined and globalised the MCC/Counties agreement for Great Britain in 1894. Even then, there was uncertainty about which Australian matches should be first-class retrospectively. Apparently, and I didn't know about this previously, there was another ICC meeting in 1981 at which it was agreed that Australian intercolonial and interstate matches before 1947 should be considered first-class (plus Test matches and colony/state v tourists). Chris Harte himself strongly disagreed with the intercolonial limitation and argues that many matches played by the Melbourne Cricket Club and the East Melbourne Cricket Club were "palpably first-class". Harte says that Melbourne Cricket Club "were stronger than Marylebone" (his opinion, as he acknowledges) and that the EMCC "was the Victorian Cricket Association under another name". He points out that the players involved in the 1851 match were completely aware that it was the first intercolonial match and a historical event."

So we seem to have a combination of 1947 and 1981; my reading of this would be that the definition of first-class in Australia came from 1947, but the retrospective awarding of f-c status dates from 1981. The big(ish) question is whether or not this match was immediately seen as a state match, or if the ACS went back and decided that at a later date. I'm rubbish at first-class status, particularly in early Australian cricket, but I think this is something worth including if we can make it more precise. Failing that, we could outline the 1947/1981 thing. Any thoughts? Or even better, sources? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

There must also have been a reason why this match between Port Phillip and Van Diemen's Land was considered the first first-class cricket match rather than, say, this match between a Victorian team and the Australian team, which took place much before. Also, this 1925 definition of first class cricket by the Board of Control of cricket in Australia is also interesting. So we basically now have three definitions of first-class cricket in Australia. One from 1908, another from 1925, the third from 1947. I'll try and search more for the background to this. Lourdes 03:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

G'day, responding to the ping...sorry, I don't have the answer to this one. Certainly an interesting research question, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello all. The 1908 and 1925 references to first-class status are very interesting and we need to incorporate the information into other articles concerned with the subject so I'll get onto that. I can't find mention of the 1844 match elsewhere so it may be one that has slipped through the net, but I think the reason it has not been rated "first-class" must be the intercolonial aspect. The match in Launceston took place about five months before Victoria formally attained colonial status but the match seems to have been a pre-celebration and, as Harte wrote, the players at the time were aware that the match was "intercolonial". There were no thoughts then about first-class status and, according to Harte on pp. 232–233, not until the 1908 proposal which was raised by Victoria on a point of order about the status of a Fijian team. Interestingly, Tasmania was excluded (as was Queensland) from the 1908 definition. Much remains unclear but I don't think anyone seriously raised the question of retrospective f/c status until after the 1947 ICC directive (which was pretty much what happened in England too). It appears that the 1981 agreement granted retrospective f/c status to intercolonial matches and the 1851 match, having always been proclaimed the first of these (despite its prematurity), then became Australia's inaugural f/c match. I really hope Lourdes can find more in the Australian archives. Well done, all. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jack. Just for your interest, there's another definition of first-class cricket given by Marylebone Cricket Club, probably given some time before the 1947 ruling. And this news from the archives is more interesting, as it says, "Australian cricket reached first-class status in 1856, when the first intercolonial match between Victoria and N.S. Wales took place in Melbourne." Can't make much insights into this, but it's a stepping stone. Lourdes 04:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

One note for Sarastro1. Ray Webster, who was named the 1997 Statistician of the Year by the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians, has written many volumes on Australian first class cricket history. In one of the volumes covering 1850-1851, he writes: "First class cricket in Australia is generally acknowledged to have commenced at 11.00am on February 11, 1851 at the Launceston Racecourse in Northern Tasmania with the fixture between an XI of Van Diemen's Land and Port Phillip." You can see this page of his book here. Go to page 7 for reference. He too doesn't refer to any specific ruling, but just uses the term "generally acknowledged". Thanks. Lourdes 05:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Lourdes. I would hazard a guess that the argument about two-day games was because of the ill-judged decision to hold the 1919 County Championship on a two-day match basis (supposedly to "facilitate" the sport's post-war recovery). It created season-long controversy and the scheme was abandoned ahead of the 1920 season, when they reverted to three days. Many of the games played by the Australian Imperial Services team in 1919 had to be over two days too. I think, reading the 1856 report, that the writer has chosen to either ignore Tasmania or has taken the possibly pedantic view that the match in February 1851 was five months before Victoria formally seceded from NSW and so was not intercolonial. It's all really interesting stuff, this. Keep up the good work. That Trove archive is well-named . All the best, Jack | ^{talk page} 14:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Possible sources

• This book might be useful, and answer a few questions, but I suspect it will be impossible to get hold of. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• True. They allow copying of pages though. But I'll have to physically go there to check first which pages to copy, which isn't possible. Lourdes 01:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• This looks useful. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

More queries

• Do we know why the MCC invited Launceston to play a game? What was the connection, and why not another team? I'm assuming proximity, but it would be nice to have a source. There are bits and pieces about transport between Melbourne and Launceston here but nothing that we can really use. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• I am VERY reluctant to use "Cricket Country" as a source. It may be a respectable organisation, but the author is hardly an authoritative cricket writer to the best of my knowledge, and sometimes is a little too reliant on this website as a source. I think most of that article is based on a simple reading of the scorecard. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

First about cricketcounty. The writer is the Chief Editor of CricketCountry.com; so I would expect him to be careful about what he writes; nevertheless, I'll go by your call on whether to keep the source or not. About your first query, I really don't know. I've searched the entire trove of newspapers at that time to my best effort and haven't been able to find out the reason. I have come across this news report of Sep 1850, which mentions: "At a special general meeting of the Melbourne Cricket Club, held at their Rooms on Friday last, it was unanimously agreed to send a challenge to play the Port Phillip and Van Diemen's Land a match in the early part of Feb. next, at Launceston." I have also come across a couple of pages on the MCC official website which mentions: "Port Phillip team had played Van Diemen's Land at Launceston [...] to celebrate the separation of the Port Phillip District from New South Wales and the creation of the Colony of Victoria."[3][4] Interestingly, just some time before the year of the cricket match, gold had been discovered in Victoria, which led to a large scale migration of Tasmanians to Victoria. This may have played some part in the choice of Tasmania. But there're no sources to back this inference.

In the meanwhile, I've come across a few nuggets that might interest you:

April 1850: How the Launceston players rushed to meet the MCC guys on boat but were disappointed to find them absent; and proceeded to play the Derwent club.[5] Used

June 1850: His Excellency Sir William Denison allows the use of the Launceston Racecourse for the Launceston Cricket Club;[6] and later comments that he did that to promote an "excellent and interesting game".[7]

October 1850: The MCC secretary received the official notice from the secretary to the Launceston Cricket Club, accepting the challenge.[8] Unnecessary

Feb 1851: Details of Port Phillip team selection in local newspapers.[9] Used

Feb 1851: How only 10 members could be selected till the very end, with the hope that the 11th would be selected before the ship sailed.[10] Used

Feb 1851: The officers of the French corvette L'Alemene stand up in honor of the Victorian team.[11] Not needed

Feb 1851: Bets being offered on the Victorians "getting licked".[12]

Feb 1851: A full description of the ball that took place in celebration of the Victorians.[13] Already included

Feb 1851: Victorians after returning confirm being "well beaten and well entertained".[14]

March 1851 (news dated Feb 1851): Victorians, after this match, went to Hobart Town and Bishopsbourne to play collegians.[15]

Sep 1851: Letter received from MCC asking when the Launceston cricketers would like to play the return match.[16]

Oct 1851: Launceston cricketers practice for the upcoming return match.[17]

Nov 1851: Launceston Cricket Club communicating to MCC that they would not prefer going to Victoria.[18]

Nov 1851: Launceston cricketers deciding to proceed to Melbourne after "circumstances having arisen" preventing Victorian cricketers from coming over again.[19]

Feb 2001: The 150th year anniversary commemoration of the first first class match.[20]

Hope this helps. Thanks. Lourdes 06:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hospitality Sarastro1 (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• I've taken out the cricket country refs (I think I see where he got most of his information, so it is easy enough to switch for a better source) and replaced them for the moment with citation needed tags. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Sarastro1 asked me to look in again. Some comments:

• "Port Phillip from New South Wales in 1851 as the colony of Victoria." was it Port Philip in particular or the whole present-day Victoria?

• I've hopefully clarified this; I believe it was the area around Port Phillip, and so I've reworded it as "The Port Phillip District", which is the present-day Victoria. (I believe) Sarastro1 (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• "there were no fours or sixes as there was no boundary to hit the ball over." Couldn't there still be fours or sixes run for? The lack of a boundary would not prevent that.

• Clarified I hope. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• "was in later years retrospectively given first-class status, the first such game in Australia." This fact is mentioned twice in the lede.

• Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• "first fleet" I would cap and link

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• "The distances between the colonies restricted the ability of early cricketers to compete across states," there being no states at the time, I might say, "The distances between settlements prevented intercolonial matches" or similar.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• "Cricket was less well-established in Tasmania, then known as Van Diemen's Land.[7][3]" cites should be in numerical order

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not clear why Port Philip is linked in "Build-up"

• That is the first mention of it in the main body. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• " the steamer delivering mail" This may be an engvar thing, but I would say "transporting" mail.

• Not engvar, just clumsy phrasing on my part. Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• " The fixture came to be considered as the first first-class cricket match in Australia and also became the first intercolonial cricket match in Australia.[12][5]" as it became the first intercolonial match before it became the first first-class match, I would say the intercolonial first. Also, the refs are backward again.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• "three players came from Hobart, five from Launceston and three players from other individual clubs." Hobart and Launceston are clubs?

• The source is vague. It could be read as the town or the club: "the Tasmanian's eleven (consisting of three from Hobart Town, one from each of Perth, Longford, and Westbury clubs, with five of Launceston)". Rather than try to clarify something about which I could be wrong, I'd rather cut this or make it a vaguer "from all over the island" or similar. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Here are the rest.

• Did Melmoth Hall make any runs to carry off with his bat?
• I see another instance of footnotes in the wrong order in the paragraph on the Tasmanian first innings.
• "continued into the very early morning before the visitors were instructed to leave" Instructed to leave? Had they done something wrong? Possibly this could be phrased more clearly.
• "the match between Victorian and New South Wales in at Melbourne in 1856 " some issues here.
• The sentences dealing with first-class status regarding the events of 1947 seem to wander around the point considerably.

I don't see any major problems. Someone should go through and make sure the footnotes are in the right order. The descriptions of play tend to get a little repetitive but there's not much you can do about that. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Got these, much obliged. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Van Diemen's Land v Port Phillip, 1851. 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/20160308053246/http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/546090.html to http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/546090.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Van Diemen's Land v Port Phillip, 1851 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)