Talk:John Frame (cricketer)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Frame (cricketer). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1746.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312080617/http://www.cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Players/77/77404/77404.html to http://www.cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Players/77/77404/77404.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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

What DO the sources actually say?

Blue Square Thing. In this malicious edit summary, you accuse me of making shit up, and claiming I don't read sources correctly. First, that is a direct attack on me which breaches WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Not only that, as I was blocked at the time, it constitutes a breach of WP:CTBE, one of many.

My original version was a mere start, which I suppose I would have revisited if I hadn't gone my own merry way in December 2017. Anyway, the article was still, for all intents and purposes, my version in January 2020. I used only four sources, all of them briefly: Nyren, FSAC, FLTL, and S&B. Two are online, two are books.

Comparing your lead with mine, Frame's dates are the same, and you agree he was born in Warlingham and died in Dartford. You also agree with the 1749–1774 career span. The only other thing in my lead was: and arguably the first great fast bowler in the game's history. Your version of the lead doesn't mention "fast", but you quoted FSAC lower down saying he was a "fine fast bowler". In your lead, you cite Pycroft saying "great renown", which is fair enough as an extra source, assuming Pycroft did use those two words as you have quoted them. Before that, though, you cite Haygarth saying Frame was one of the most famous bowler[s] of his day. Haygarth DOES NOT say that. His text goes: "He (with Lumpy) was the most famous bowler of his day". If you are going to directly quote a source, do it right.

Stepping aside for a moment, you really do need to learn the difference between him and his, otherwise your sentence does not FLOW. Another one is By this time he was living at Dartford in Kent and played in a single wicket match in 1754 in London. Again, in...in...in...in... does not FLOW.

Moving on, we seem to be in agreement that Frame was sixteen when he played in his earliest-known big match, which was England v Surrey on Dartford Brent in 1749. Three points arise here:

• In your lead, you said Frame "played during the second half of the 18th century". I don't like being pedantic–puts me in mind of things like infoboxes, CITEVAR, and external links which some people regard as sacrosanct—but 1749 was in the first half of the century. That is pedantic, yes, but it's the sort of thing which makes the readers (remember them?) raise their eyes and shake their heads.
• Frame was not playing for "a Surrey side", he was playing for Surrey, as ALL sources including your beloved databases completely agree. Your contention that it was not the actual county team is WP:OR.
• You deleted the result of that match, which is a breach of WP:PRESERVE. Reputable sources (i.e., not databases) agree Surrey won by 2 wickets. That is valid, relevant, and useful information for the reader, and it should NOT have been removed.

Next is 1750. I said he played for Surrey in three matches against Kent, and his brother (first name unknown) was in the same team each time. You said pretty much the same thing except that "Kent sides" is another WP:OR. You were also contradictory in saying he played for Surrey (the county team) against these "Kent sides".

I then said Frame was still young when he relocated and afterwards played for Dartford and Kent. You apparently agree with me because you say he was in Dartford "by this time", the context of which means in 1750. You added that he played the single wicket match in 1754, which is fair enough. But, according to you, he was already in Dartford when he played for Surrey against Kent in 1750? Again, the readers have lost the FLOW, and are asking what you are talking about. We don't know exactly when Frame moved to Dartford, but he played for Kent in 1751 so perhaps then, when he was about 18, and so "still young".

My original piece finishes with Frame's last-known match in 1774. The source is Haygarth, pp. 17–18 (page nos weren't in the original because we didn't have inline citations when this article was created, so that was pending). You agreed that Frame played until 1774, but you deleted the information about the final match, which is another breach of WP:PRESERVE. Anyway, my summary of that match—dates, teams, Lumpy, Frame, the Vine, and the result—was all in order, just as Haygarth has it. So, still no shit someone made up.

Which leaves us with John Nyren.

I said: He was described by John Nyren as one of the Hambledon Club's greatest opponents and as "the other principal with Lumpy". Nyren says he remembers little of Frame, except that he was an unusually stout man for a cricketer.

You said: John Nyren, writing in the 1830s, considered him as one of the Hambledon Club's usual opponents, describing him as "an unusually stout man for a cricketer", although he also wrote that "I recollect very little of him, and nothing worthy of a formal record".

Nyren said:

Frame was the other principal with Lumpy ; a fast bowler, and an unusually stout man for a cricketer. I recollect very little of him, and nothing worthy of a formal record.

The shit someone made up is "usual opponents". Not for the first time, you have failed to recognise context within a source, and you have put false information into an article. Also not for the first time, instead of a polite edit summary like "copyediting", you have announced that another editor is wrong, inferring as always that you are the expert, and you cannot ever be wrong (rather like Ghoulstone, actually).

Please read Nyren's text from the foot of page 68 to the end of page 70. He starts by saying:

Having now described the best of my native [i.e., Hampshire] players, I proceed to their opponents; and the foremost man of all must stand the well-known bowler Lumpy.

Nyren's whole work covers a period of over twenty years from about 1770 (or a bit earlier) to the early 1790s. That was, roughly speaking, the timespan of the so-called "Hambledon Era". It may be fair to call Lumpy a "usual opponent" because his career spanned virtually the whole of that period. John Frame, on the other hand, was only an opponent until 1774. Nyren does NOT say that Lumpy, Frame, White, and Wood were Hampshire's "usual" opponents. His CONTEXT is quite clear. He is talking about their BEST (or greatest) opponents.

There isn't too much more in the sources about John Frame, so I think the article is just about complete. I could do a bit more with Haygarth, probably. The best news is that, for the first time since July 2020, the sources verify everything the article says. Jack (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2026 (UTC)