|Brian Close is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 12, 2005.|
|Current status: Former featured article|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
|Version 0.5 (Rated start-Class)|
|This Everydaylife article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated start-Class on the assessment scale (comments).|
|Wikipedia CD Selection|
Gentlemen and players
What a great article. I think that the relationship between gentlemen and players ('Close replied with "Thank you, Billy". Yet in those days, that was a mistake') needs a brief explanation here. --Theo (Talk) 23:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. I've added some words of explanation of Players and Gentlemen - though there's a whole article itself on that subject if anyone wants to give it a bash, jguk 10:59, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wow ! Brilliant stuff.
You may also find this interesting . It would also be nice to add the story that is referred there, of Close's reaction when someone was caught off Close's head.
Tintin April 15, 2005
Richie Benaud at Old Trafford, 1961
The Close article contains this passage :
- Then Ted Dexter and Peter May got out in quick succession to Benaud, who was pitching his leg spin googlies in the rough outside the right handers' off stump (that is, the part of the wicket furthest away from where the batsman is standing). This brought Close to the crease. It was the last day of the Test, and the captain, May, was still asking his players to go for the runs. The rough into which Benaud was pitching was on Close's legside, Close being a left-hander.
I am not sure about Close's case, but in the case of Dexter and May, Benaud was bowling from around the wicket and pitching the ball outside the leg stump. May was bowled round the legs trying to sweep one that pitched a long way outside the leg. Trueman received cricticism for 'creating' the rough patches that Benaud exploited.
Did Benaud use the roughs outside both the stumps or is this an oversight ?
There is a mention in the section about Close's captaincy that his 7/6/1/0 record is the best by someone who captained in more than two Tests. Lord Hawke has a perfect win record in the four Tests that he captained. That needs to be modified.
Tintin1107 20:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- I may have misremembered the details of Close's dismissal against Benaud and the events before it (which was written shortly after I read Close's comments on it in his autobiography). Please feel free to correct it as appropriate. On your second point, I think played 7 won 6 drawn 1 is better than played 4 won 4 - though I accept some may disagree, jguk 19:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. But first we may have to confirm the specifics of Close's dismissal.
Re. captaincy, agree that it is a matter of opinion. My complaint was about the specific phrase "the best record of any England captain who has captained in more than 2 Tests." The two Tests looked like a reference to Walter Read's captaincy (2 matches, 2 wins) as was mentioned in 'History of Test Cricket 1890-1900)'. Maybe it is better to leave it slightly vague like 'arguably the finest captaincy record' or something, instead of qualifying with 'more than 2 tests'.
Tintin1107 20:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- mmm, thinking about it, I was probably forgetting about Lord Hawke when I wrote that bit. Also the Indian and Pakistani sides were pretty weak at the time - anything other than a comprehensive victory would have been bad - but they still needed beating, jguk 11:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Got a couple of references to Dexter/May dismissals, courtesy a messageboard :
"Suddenly the position changed completely. Benaud, bowling round the wicket and pitching into the rough of Trueman’s footholds, brought such a collapse that in twenty minutes to tea England virtually lost the game. After getting Dexter caught at the wicket, Benaud bowled May round his legs, had Close, following one drive for 6, caught at backward square leg and bowled the solid Subba Row." - Wisden 1962.
"Brian took a real hammering from the press, who accused him of throwing away his wicket and the Ashes along with it. Again, it showed how suspect their understanding of the game was. What they should have done was condemn Peter May who, when Benaud was bowling leg spinners round the wicket, played down the offside and was bowled round his backside. The ball hit his leg stump and Peter was so amazed that he just stood there, rooted to the spot......Brian Close was dropped for the next Test, and so was I. They held me responsible for causing the rough patches which Benaud used to get some life out of the plumb wicket. I hadn't even bowled from that end - it was Ted Dexter and Jack Flavell. But any excuse would do." - Ball of Fire, FS Trueman.
Tintin1107 20:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- This one is my fault, I am afraid, from my copyedit here. I was trying to make sense of "Dexter and May got out in quick succession to Benaud, who was pitching in the rough" and "The rough into which Benaud was pitching was on Close's legside, Close being a left-hander". My mistake. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
The age is buried
The interesting fact about him being the youngest is claimed at the openning but the facts are burried way down the body of information.
I recommend that this fact should detailed with prominence and not buried as a passing fact in the lower portion of this document.
As my journalism lecturer at University once said to me - "If it is good enough to get a mention at the top then it also deserves to be followed up at the top too".
- Please feel free to edit the article in the way you suggest. Kind regards, jguk 18:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Decent grammar would put it that he WAS the youngest etc. Who do give a poo?
- He IS still the youngest to play for England, jguk 11:48, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
There needs to be a section devoted to his professional football career to ensure that Close isn't just remembered for Cricket only.
I'm not doing it - I don't know much about football!
--One Salient Oversight 11:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- Close's professional football career did not last long and he played just a handful of first team games. That's why it's not mentioned in too much detail. Kind regards, jguk 18:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Close had a very dimented childhood He had a what?
UPDATE - Sentence added at top of story to include his age
I have just tagged two of the images in this article. Image:Brian Close.jpg is certainly not a promotional photo according to the definitions on Template:Promophoto and Wikipedia:Publicity photos, so I've marked it "No license". Image:Brian Close - Small pic.jpg is also probably not a promotional photo, but I couldn't find the source for it, so I marked it "No source". Both of these photos are now liable to be deleted in one week, unless someone can come up with a valid source and copyright for them.
I recall my father, an avid cricket fan, telling me when I was a kid that Brian Close could bat left and right handed and that as a golfer he played left handed, got his handicap down to scratch, then played right handed and got down to scratch that way too. Any of this verifiable? --ukexpat 18:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Two bits of trivia
Close has the highest first-class runs aggregate of anyone who never scored a double century. He is the only man with a career highest score of 198. I don't know if these are worth putting in the article.Brianboulton (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Close played only a handful of league games as a footballer. He was signed by Arsenal but according to the Rothams Book, did not appear for the first team.JimBakken (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
What a pity - From featured article to (fact) tag ruined
I see that the article was a former featured article on 12 May 2005  yet in its current revision it is full to the brim with (fact) tags, which totally ruins the article. Can we do our best to put in a concerted effort to get rid of the (fact) tags? Add in references, verify that everything is right, and get it back to featured article status? The subject is obviously important enough to warrant such an effort. Myrrideon (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I notice that the article's display was totally ruined during this edit  by User:SGGH on 27 May 2008, who didn't even stop to make a comment in the talk page. Is there any reason why we should think that this article really does need the citations? It got to featured article status without them. I notice that the same user also added in notes at the top to make it look doubly ugly .
If the article was considered to be good enough to be a featured article, and stayed as a featured article for 3 years, why would we think that one person's addition of fact tags with no comment attached as to why they need it should be taken seriously? Can we not simply remove the fact tags and carry on? Myrrideon (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I can compare its original application (successfully) to FA  with its review and demotion . I can't say that I agree with User:SGGH's attack on this article, and I'd like to know why he/she chose to destroy what was a perfectly good article. But I will leave this with others. Myrrideon (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- It might not look pretty, but unfortunately the standards have changed since Brian Close first made FAC. It's now the norm for inline citations and all is needed is to replace those fact tags with some citations. Peanut4 (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- This article is an utter disgrace. Some of the statements needs sourcing, undoubtedly, but demanding sources for facts such as the score by which England won a test match is ludicrous. There was even a fact tag on a statement that is explained in the next sentence (and which is itself sourced). Jimmy Pitt talk 14:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)