Sporting dynasties

[Andy Walker]

The BBC web site has an article:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/47735603

on sporting dynasties [triggered by James, son of Liam, becoming
a professional Rugby player]. The Headleys and the Cowdreys are
featured as having three generations of cricketers. There have,
of course, been many, many examples of relatives playing cricket,
inc some large families of brothers, but three generations of f-c
cricketers is relatively rare. The Chappells had a Test-playing
g'father, but the middle generation had only a grade cricketer,
who was not Vic's son. The Gunns had three generations, but
William was the uncle of George, not the father. The other
example I thought of off-hand was the Hardstaffs, but youngest
Joe played only a little f-c cricket, tho' he's quite well known
as a cricket administrator and for his RAF career.

Others?

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[RH156RH]

J H Parks, J M Parks, RJ Parks

Len Hutton, Richard Hutton, Ben Hutton


RH

[Andy Walker]

On 29/03/2019 11:55, RH156RH wrote:
>> Others?

> J H Parks, J M Parks, RJ Parks
> Len Hutton, Richard Hutton, Ben Hutton

Thanks, Robert.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[John Hall]

In message <q7ktt3$133l$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Walker
<a...@cuboid.co.uk> writes

The Lyttletons. Extract from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Frederick_Lyttelton

"A very large number of Lyttelton's relations played cricket to a high
standard: his grandfather, father, brother, five uncles and a nephew all
made at least one first-class appearance, with one of those uncles,
Alfred Lyttelton, playing four Test matches for England in the 1880s.
Two of his brothers-in-law were also first-class cricketers."
--
John Hall
"Hegel was right when he said that we learn from history
that man can never learn anything from history."
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)

[Andy Walker]

On 29/03/2019 16:37, John Hall wrote:
>>       Others?
> The Lyttletons. [...]

Another good catch; thanks, John.

> "A very large number of Lyttelton's relations played cricket to a
> high standard: his grandfather, father, brother, five uncles and a

> nephew all made at least one first-class appearance, [...].

OK, so that's four generations; thus far, a record! Were
they linearly related, or was there necessarily a side-step? [I
should know, really, but CA requires subscription and CI is a PITA
to navigate.]

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[RH156RH]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V._E._Walker

Vyell Edward Walker (20 April 1837 – 3 January 1906) was an English cricketer and administrator.

Edward Walker was born in Southgate, Middlesex and educated at Harrow School. He was the fifth of seven cricket playing brothers who resided at Arnos Grove. They played a major part in establishing the Middlesex County Cricket Club, which was founded in 1864. Their cricket ground in Southgate is maintained by the Walker Trust to this day.


All 7 of the Foster brothers played FC cricket. RH

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fostershire#The_Foster_brothers

[RH156RH]

*Crawford (initial not known bu see below) who played for gentlemen of England, his son Reverend John Charles Crawford (Kent) who had three sons who played FC cricket three sons JN, VFS and RF

*Crawford made his first-class cricket debut for WG Grace's XI in 1871 against Kent before going on to play 10 times for Kent.[1] He also played for a large number of non-first-class teams, including Leicestershire and Gentlemen's teams in Kent, Hertfordshire and Surrey and for Surrey's Second XI between 1891 and 1894.[1][2] Crawford was a fast bowler and powerful batsman who was "large framed and powerfully built".[2]

He was born in Hastings in Sussex in 1849. His father had played for the Gentlemen of England and his brother, Frank Fairbairn Crawford, also played first-class cricket for Kent as did three of Carwford's sons – Jack for Surrey and England, Reginald for Leicestershire and Vivian for both Surrey and Leicestershire.[1] His Wisden obituary notes that he "loved the game so much that all his children played from an early age" RH

[John Hall]

In message <q7lie3$3fc$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Walker <a...@cuboid.co.uk>
writes

Trawling from link to link on Wikipedia, one could probably work it out,
but that is left as an exercise for the reader. :)

[RH156RH]

The father of JC Crawford was Andrew Crawford, viz:

FF Crawford was part of a cricketing family. His older brother John and three nephews, Jack, Reginald, and Vivian, all played first-class cricket, with Jack playing Test cricket for England.[5] His father, Andrew, had played for the Gentlemen of England ...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Fairbairn_Crawford

[David North]

The source for that is JC Crawford's Wisden obituary, which says "His
father, who lived to the age of 101, played for Gentlemen of England in
the days when cricketers wore top hats."

http://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/228180.html

However, I could not find Andrew Crawford on CricketArchive, so it seems
doubtful that he played in any FC matches. From Ancestry, he was a
teacher, born about 1824 in Bathgate, Scotland.

--
David North

[David North]

They were linear - GW (the grandfather), then CG, JC and CJ. CF's son,
JA, also appears on CA, having played for Eton and Eton Ramblers, but
did not play FC cricket, although I suppose he might have done but for
WWII - he died from wounds received in action in Italy in 1944, aged 22.

--
David North

[RH156RH]

This is reaching back into the Middle Ages of cricket, David. The concept of first class did not exist. That is why he is unlikely to appear in any FC records. However,a team with "of England" in its title would have been considered an important game at the time it was played. RH

[Indy]

You know sweet FA about crisket,you have NEVER played it.

[RH156RH]

Do stop projecting your own circumstances into a family ng... RH

[David North]

On 31/03/2019 07:52, RH156RH wrote:

No, but it does now for the relevant period.

> That is why he is unlikely to appear in any FC records.

No it isn't. CA lists 53 matches played by G of E in the period
1844-1869 when Crawford (aged from 20 to 45) is most likely to have
played, 45 of which are classified as FC. Crawford does not seem to have
appeared in any of those 53, about half of which were against G of Kent,
but which include matches against Cambridge Town and County, I Zingari,
G of Berks and G of Bucks.

> However,a team with "of England" in its title would have been considered an important game at the time it was played. RH

It depends who they were playing against. Whatever match(es) Crawford
played in was/were apparently not among the 53 most important matches
played by G of E during the period mentioned.

--
David North

[Andy Walker]

On 31/03/2019 07:52, RH156RH wrote:

[DavidN:]

>> However, I could not find Andrew Crawford on CricketArchive, so it seems
>> doubtful that he played in any FC matches. From Ancestry, he was a
>> teacher, born about 1824 in Bathgate, Scotland.
> This is reaching back into the Middle Ages of cricket, David. The
> concept of first class did not exist.

True, at least in the sense you mean.

> That is why he is unlikely to
> appear in any FC records.

False. CA and the other relevant sites/bodies have had to come
to a decision about which early matches deserve the label "first class"
for the purpose of cricket records and statistics. Plenty of early
matches are "in", back to long before Crawford's time. But in any case,
...

> However,a team with "of England" in its
> title would have been considered an important game at the time it
> was played. RH

... Crawford not being mentioned on CA [and I'm not a member, so
can't check, but would trust David] means they have no scorecard [f-c *or
otherwise*] on which he was mentioned. Note, for example, that Lord
Frederick Beauclerk [to pick a random famous name from an even earlier
era] is listed by CI as playing 130 f-c matches from 1791-1825.

Crawford is not on CI; I don't know how much care CA and CI take
to keep their scorecards "in sync", but it at least means that "everyone"
agrees that he didn't play any match regarded as f-c. It probably means
that he doesn't appear in Haygarth, which lists pretty-much everything
known about cricket and cricketers from the mid-18thC onwards.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[RH156RH]

But not all players will be included in modern statistical records with a post hoc classification of first class. Many modern statisticians include famous figures of this period , eg Lord Frederick Beaufort, Fuller Pilch, George Lambert and Alfred Mymn, but ignore lesser lights. Moreover, detailed scorecards for the period are often unavailable. Andrew Crawford may have just played a few games. RH

>
> > However,a team with "of England" in its title would have been considered an important game at the time it was played. RH
>
> It depends who they were playing against. Whatever match(es) Crawford
> played in was/were apparently not among the 53 most important matches
> played by G of E during the period mentioned.

Such teams would have normally have played on an even basis: 11 v 11 rather
XI v XXII or with the odds favouring their opponents.RH

[RH156RH]

On Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 12:57:20 PM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 31/03/2019 07:52, RH156RH wrote:
> [DavidN:]
> >> However, I could not find Andrew Crawford on CricketArchive, so it seems
> >> doubtful that he played in any FC matches. From Ancestry, he was a
> >> teacher, born about 1824 in Bathgate, Scotland.
> > This is reaching back into the Middle Ages of cricket, David. The
> > concept of first class did not exist.
>
> True, at least in the sense you mean.
>
> > That is why he is unlikely to
> > appear in any FC records.
>
> False. CA and the other relevant sites/bodies have had to come
> to a decision about which early matches deserve the label "first class"
> for the purpose of cricket records and statistics. Plenty of early
> matches are "in", back to long before Crawford's time. But in any case,

- show quoted text -

But not all players will be included in modern statistical records with a post hoc classification of first class. Many modern statisticians include famous figures of this period , eg Lord Frederick Beaufort, Fuller Pilch, George Lambert and Alfred Mymn, but ignore lesser lights. Moreover, detailed scorecards for the period are often unavailable. Andrew Crawford may have just played a few games. RH

>

> > However,a team with "of England" in its
> > title would have been considered an important game at the time it
> > was played. RH
>
> ... Crawford not being mentioned on CA [and I'm not a member, so
> can't check, but would trust David] means they have no scorecard [f-c *or
> otherwise*] on which he was mentioned. Note, for example, that Lord
> Frederick Beauclerk [to pick a random famous name from an even earlier
> era] is listed by CI as playing 130 f-c matches from 1791-1825.
>
> Crawford is not on CI; I don't know how much care CA and CI take
> to keep their scorecards "in sync", but it at least means that "everyone"
> agrees that he didn't play any match regarded as f-c. It probably means
> that he doesn't appear in Haygarth, which lists pretty-much everything
> known about cricket and cricketers from the mid-18thC onwards.
>

[David North]

Everyone who is named as a player on any of the 53 scorecards has his
own page on CA, and is searchable. I checked quite a few of the
scorecards and did not find any missing names.

> Moreover, detailed scorecards for the period are often unavailable. Andrew Crawford may have just played a few games. RH

Well, whatever matches he played (for G of E, at least) don't seem to be
on CA, and if he had appeared in many, they would surely include some
that are present. I wasn't suggesting that CA has every match that G of
E played, or that Wisden was wrong about Crawford having played for them
at all.

CA has the scorecards for both G of E v G of K* matches (Lord's and
Canterbury) for every season from 1842 to 1859, so it seems to be pretty
reliable for that fixture at least.

*Includes G of K & Surrey in 1855, and G of K & Sussex in 1856 and 1857.

>>> However,a team with "of England" in its title would have been considered an important game at the time it was played. RH
>>
>> It depends who they were playing against. Whatever match(es) Crawford
>> played in was/were apparently not among the 53 most important matches
>> played by G of E during the period mentioned.
>
> Such teams would have normally have played on an even basis: 11 v 11 rather
> XI v XXII or with the odds favouring their opponents.RH

That certainly seems to be the case for the G of E matches of the period
that are on CA. For those matches that are not on CA, including those
that Crawford played, how would we know?

--
David North

[Andy Walker]

On 31/03/2019 14:09, RH156RH wrote:
> But not all players will be included in modern statistical records
> with a post hoc classification of first class. Many modern
> statisticians include famous figures of this period , eg Lord
> Frederick Beaufort, Fuller Pilch, George Lambert and Alfred Mymn, but
> ignore lesser lights.

No, if a player played even a single game anywhere, at any level,
for which CA [etc] has a scorecard, then he [or she!] will have an entry
with whatever is known. No "lesser lights" are ignored simply because
they aren't famous, and no match because it is [now] not considered f-c.
It's a computer database -- it would be harder to exclude lesser lights
than just to include everyone and let the standard search facilities
find them.

> Moreover, detailed scorecards for the period
> are often unavailable. Andrew Crawford may have just played a few
> games. RH

He may, but the conclusion we can draw is that not even one had
a scorecard [detailed or otherwise] known to CA, and in all probability
therefore not even one known to Haygarth. As far as cricket goes, that
pretty much means that the trail is dead.

> Such teams would have normally have played on an even basis: 11 v 11
> rather XI v XXII or with the odds favouring their opponents.RH

Doesn't matter. Both Haygarth and [therefore] CA [etc] include
lots of matches at odds. Lots of players of much less interest than
Crawford managed to play at least one match somewhere for "XVII of
Borchester vs XI Gentlemen of Loamshire" and are therefore recorded in
CA [etc].

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[Ojas Save]

Lala Amarnath (Test)
Mohinder and Surinder Amarnath (Test)
Digvijay Amarnath (FC)

[RH156RH]

OK, I think we have taken this as far as it will go... RH