Over the years there have been many fine cricketers- yet some are virtually 
forgotten (some?)

We all know the Hobbs, Bradmans etc- even the Ponsfords and Sutcliffe's. I 
am thinking of players who were pretty good performers (loose definition).

What about players like Vernon Ransford?

For England I nominate Cyril Washbrook.

I have used Australian and UK players as an example- all nationalities 
welcome though.

On Jun 9, 3:28 pm, "Cicero"  wrote:
> Over the years there have been many fine cricketers- yet some are virtually
> forgotten (some?)
> We all know the Hobbs, Bradmans etc- even the Ponsfords and Sutcliffe's. I
> am thinking of players who were pretty good performers (loose definition).
> What about players like Vernon Ransford?
> For England I nominate Cyril Washbrook.
> I have used Australian and UK players as an example- all nationalities
> welcome though.

South Africa's Jimmy Sinclair, Herby Taylor, J.J. Kotze, Bernard
Tancred and Dave Nourse have all fallen foul of their country's
historiographical cretinism.  I am yet to speak to anyone who knows
even one of them.

Grumpily,
Rodney Ulyate

On Jun 9, 3:28 pm, "Cicero"  wrote:
> Over the years there have been many fine cricketers- yet some are virtually
> forgotten (some?)
> We all know the Hobbs, Bradmans etc- even the Ponsfords and Sutcliffe's. I
> am thinking of players who were pretty good performers (loose definition).
> What about players like Vernon Ransford?

And Reg Duff and Warren Bardsley.

> For England I nominate Cyril Washbrook.

He was often inexplicably forgotten during his own time as well.

<snip>

Best,
Rodney Ulyate (who, inspired, is off to the local library)

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:28:31 GMT, "Cicero" 
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>Over the years there have been many fine cricketers- yet some are virtually 
>forgotten (some?)
>
>We all know the Hobbs, Bradmans etc- even the Ponsfords and Sutcliffe's. I 
>am thinking of players who were pretty good performers (loose definition).
>
>What about players like Vernon Ransford?
>
>For England I nominate Cyril Washbrook.

The trouble with this is that the enthusiastic historians will simply
wonder what on earth you mean when you say that Washbrook has been
forgotten. In this context, all you're saying is that you hardly ever
think about Washbrook when thinking of good England players, just as I
hardly ever think about Sam Loxton.

What you end up doing is inviting people to demonstrate their level of
ignorance, or at least how quickly they forget. For example, Andrew
Caddick and Darren Gough are still playing county cricket, as is Jason
Gillespie, but if they aren't eligible for this thread now, they will
be in a year or two.


Cheers,

Mike
--

wrote in message 
news:6999f4f4-f08d-4882-a06f-a7a326b8d3df@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 9, 3:28 pm, "Cicero"  wrote:
>> Over the years there have been many fine cricketers- yet some are 
>> virtually
>> forgotten (some?)
>> We all know the Hobbs, Bradmans etc- even the Ponsfords and Sutcliffe's. 
>> I
>> am thinking of players who were pretty good performers (loose 
>> definition).
>> What about players like Vernon Ransford?
>
> And Reg Duff and Warren Bardsley.
>
>> For England I nominate Cyril Washbrook.
>
> He was often inexplicably forgotten during his own time as well.
>
> <snip>
>
> Best,
> Rodney Ulyate (who, inspired, is off to the local library)

What about Phil Sharpe? If memory serves, he had an average in the forties 
and may well have been the best slip fielder of all time, but only played a 
handful of  Tests.
Steve Hague

>
> The trouble with this is that the enthusiastic historians will simply
> wonder what on earth you mean when you say that Washbrook has been
> forgotten. In this context, all you're saying is that you hardly ever
> think about Washbrook when thinking of good England players, just as I
> hardly ever think about Sam Loxton.
>
> What you end up doing is inviting people to demonstrate their level of
> ignorance, or at least how quickly they forget. For example, Andrew
> Caddick and Darren Gough are still playing county cricket, as is Jason
> Gillespie, but if they aren't eligible for this thread now, they will
> be in a year or two.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
> --

Then again it would be good to hear from people who know where and what 
people are doing now - a kind of "where are they now"

"Mike Holmans"  wrote in message 
news:schq4411ttbu52s5hdcpfddil1o5g59f4g@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:28:31 GMT, "Cicero" 
> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>>Over the years there have been many fine cricketers- yet some are 
>>virtually
>>forgotten (some?)
>>
>>We all know the Hobbs, Bradmans etc- even the Ponsfords and Sutcliffe's. I
>>am thinking of players who were pretty good performers (loose definition).
>>
>>What about players like Vernon Ransford?
>>
>>For England I nominate Cyril Washbrook.
>
> The trouble with this is that the enthusiastic historians will simply
> wonder what on earth you mean when you say that Washbrook has been
> forgotten. In this context, all you're saying is that you hardly ever
> think about Washbrook when thinking of good England players, just as I
> hardly ever think about Sam Loxton.
>
> What you end up doing is inviting people to demonstrate their level of
> ignorance, or at least how quickly they forget. For example, Andrew
> Caddick and Darren Gough are still playing county cricket, as is Jason
> Gillespie, but if they aren't eligible for this thread now, they will
> be in a year or two.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
> --


Jason who ?

Did he open the batting for the Poms ?

In message <3ea3k.9212$IK1.8380@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Cicero 
 writes
>Over the years there have been many fine cricketers- yet some are 
>virtually forgotten (some?)
>
>We all know the Hobbs, Bradmans etc- even the Ponsfords and 
>Sutcliffe's. I am thinking of players who were pretty good performers 
>(loose definition).
>
>What about players like Vernon Ransford?
>
>For England I nominate Cyril Washbrook.
>
>I have used Australian and UK players as an example- all nationalities 
>welcome though.

George Lohmann, one of the greatest players who rarely if ever gets a 
mention, Eddie Paynter, Jack Ferris, Bruce Mitchell, Imitiaz Ahmed, VS 
Hazare, LALA Armanath, Ted Arnold, Stewie Dempster,...... rH
.
-- 
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:28:31 GMT, Cicero wrote:


snip sad stuff.


Health Warning: Don't leave it too late in life to retire.




alvey

On Jun 10, 11:14 am, Robert Henderson 
bewailed:
[...]
> George Lohmann, one of the greatest players who rarely if ever gets a
> mention

Surrey scorer Keith Booth recently picked up an award for a Lohmann
biography in which it is suggested, amongst other things, that the
great man was a gay man.  Having not yet read it myself, I cannot say
why.

<snip>

Broadmindedly,
Rodney Ulyate

In message <O3c3k.59497$Bz2.2157@newsfe28.ams2>, Steve Hague 
 writes
>> He was often inexplicably forgotten during his own time as well.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Best,
>> Rodney Ulyate (who, inspired, is off to the local library)
>
>What about Phil Sharpe? If memory serves, he had an average in the 
>forties and may well have been the best slip fielder of all time, but 
>only played a
>handful of  Tests.
>Steve Hague
>

The classic example of  a man with the big match temperament. He should 
have been a regular in the England side of the sixties.  Sharpe at first 
slip and Cowdrey at second would have meant that 95% of  slip chances 
were taken. rH
-- 
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

In message 
, 
rodney.ulyate@gmail.com writes
>On Jun 10, 11:14 am, Robert Henderson 
>bewailed:
>[...]
>> George Lohmann, one of the greatest players who rarely if ever gets a
>> mention
>
>Surrey scorer Keith Booth recently picked up an award for a Lohmann 
>biography in which it is suggested, amongst other things, that the 
>great man was a gay man.


Every other  biography these days of those who are dead claims the 
subject was gay. RH
-- 
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 at 20:39:01, Robert Henderson 
 wrote in uk.sport.cricket :
>>
>>Surrey scorer Keith Booth recently picked up an award for a Lohmann 
>>biography in which it is suggested, amongst other things, that the 
>>great man was a gay man.
>
>Every other  biography these days of those who are dead claims the 
>subject was gay. RH

Well, dead people are far less likely to sue you for libel...
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

In article ,
 Robert Henderson  writes:
>The classic example of  a man with the big match temperament. He should
>have been a regular in the England side of the sixties.

Once Boycott had become a regular in 1964, England could call on
Boycott, Edrich, Dexter, Cowdrey, Barrington and Graveney, with players
like Barber and Milburn waiting in the wings. Which of them would you
have omitted to give Sharpe a regular place?

>  Sharpe at first slip and Cowdrey at second would have meant that 95%
>of  slip chances were taken. rH

That's true.
-- 
John Hall
            "Three o'clock is always too late or too early
             for anything you want to do."
                                           Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980)

In message <w5bqrRCnnAUIFwfu@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid>, John Hall 
 writes
>In article ,
> Robert Henderson  writes:
>>The classic example of  a man with the big match temperament. He should
>>have been a regular in the England side of the sixties.
>
>Once Boycott had become a regular in 1964, England could call on
>Boycott, Edrich, Dexter, Cowdrey, Barrington and Graveney, with players
>like Barber and Milburn waiting in the wings. Which of them would you
>have omitted to give Sharpe a regular place?

Dexter's Test career ended effectively after the NZ 1965 series. Barber 
could count as a the second spinner,  so that a top six of Boycott, 
Barber, Edrich, Cowdrey, Graveney, Barrington could have been played, 
with Parks or Knott as the keeper at seven, plus Allen or Titmus and 
three specialist fast bowlers. RH
>
>>  Sharpe at first slip and Cowdrey at second would have meant that 95%
>>of  slip chances were taken. rH
>
>That's true.

-- 
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

On Jun 10, 9:39 pm, Robert Henderson 
grumbled:
> In message
> ,
> rodney.uly...@gmail.com writes
> >On Jun 10, 11:14 am, Robert Henderson 
> >bewailed:
> >[...]
> >> George Lohmann, one of the greatest players who rarely if ever gets a
> >> mention
> >Surrey scorer Keith Booth recently picked up an award for a Lohmann
> >biography in which it is suggested, amongst other things, that the
> >great man was a gay man.
> Every other  biography these days of those who are dead claims the
> subject was gay. RH

The basis for Booth's surmisal was likely Lohmann's convalescence in
South Africa and, in particular, Maurice Read's accompaniment.  Even
prior to his bio and the reports of its content, that struck me as
odd.  Was either man married?

Best,
Rodney Ulyate

wrote in message 
news:0759abcc-8769-4937-bce1-90161bc7ea9c@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 10, 9:39 pm, Robert Henderson 
> grumbled:
>> In message
>> ,
>> rodney.uly...@gmail.com writes
>> >On Jun 10, 11:14 am, Robert Henderson 
>> >bewailed:
>> >[...]
>> >> George Lohmann, one of the greatest players who rarely if ever gets a
>> >> mention
>> >Surrey scorer Keith Booth recently picked up an award for a Lohmann
>> >biography in which it is suggested, amongst other things, that the
>> >great man was a gay man.
>> Every other  biography these days of those who are dead claims the
>> subject was gay. RH
>
> The basis for Booth's surmisal was likely Lohmann's convalescence in
> South Africa and, in particular, Maurice Read's accompaniment.  Even
> prior to his bio and the reports of its content, that struck me as
> odd.  Was either man married?

Being married is no proof that you aren't homosexual i.e. Rock Hudson

On 11 Jun, 19:10, Robert Henderson 
wrote:
> In message <w5bqrRCnnAUIF...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid>, John Hall
>  writes
>
> >In article ,
> > Robert Henderson  writes:
> >>The classic example of  a man with the big match temperament. He should
> >>have been a regular in the England side of the sixties.
>
> >Once Boycott had become a regular in 1964, England could call on
> >Boycott, Edrich, Dexter, Cowdrey, Barrington and Graveney, with players
> >like Barber and Milburn waiting in the wings. Which of them would you
> >have omitted to give Sharpe a regular place?
>
> Dexter's Test career ended effectively after the NZ 1965 series. Barber
> could count as a the second spinner,  so that a top six of Boycott,
> Barber, Edrich, Cowdrey, Graveney, Barrington could have been played,
> with Parks or Knott as the keeper at seven, plus Allen or Titmus and
> three specialist fast bowlers. RH

So no place for Sharpe, as John suggested...

In message <w5bqrRCnnAUIFwfu@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid>, John Hall 
 writes
>In article ,
> Robert Henderson  writes:
>>The classic example of  a man with the big match temperament. He should
>>have been a regular in the England side of the sixties.
>
>Once Boycott had become a regular in 1964, England could call on
>Boycott, Edrich, Dexter, Cowdrey, Barrington and Graveney, with players
>like Barber and Milburn waiting in the wings. Which of them would you
>have omitted to give Sharpe a regular place?
>
>>  Sharpe at first slip and Cowdrey at second would have meant that 95%
>>of  slip chances were taken. rH
>
>That's true.

Plus Barrington at third slip and Edrich in the gully, a well nigh 
unbeatable close field. RH
-- 
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

In message 
, 
Andrew B.  writes
>On 11 Jun, 19:10, Robert Henderson 
>wrote:
>> In message <w5bqrRCnnAUIF...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid>, John Hall
>>  writes
>>
>> >In article ,
>> > Robert Henderson  writes:
>> >>The classic example of  a man with the big match temperament. He should
>> >>have been a regular in the England side of the sixties.
>>
>> >Once Boycott had become a regular in 1964, England could call on
>> >Boycott, Edrich, Dexter, Cowdrey, Barrington and Graveney, with players
>> >like Barber and Milburn waiting in the wings. Which of them would you
>> >have omitted to give Sharpe a regular place?
>>
>> Dexter's Test career ended effectively after the NZ 1965 series. Barber
>> could count as a the second spinner,  so that a top six of Boycott,
>> Barber, Edrich, Cowdrey, Graveney, Barrington could have been played,
>> with Parks or Knott as the keeper at seven, plus Allen or Titmus and
>> three specialist fast bowlers. RH
>
>So no place for Sharpe, as John suggested...

Sorry, made a mistake. Sharpe instead of Graveney. RH
-- 
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

In message 
<48503b90$0$12987$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, dechucka 
 writes
>
> wrote in message
>news:0759abcc-8769-4937-bce1-90161bc7ea9c@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jun 10, 9:39 pm, Robert Henderson 
>> grumbled:
>>> In message
>>> ,
>>> rodney.uly...@gmail.com writes
>>> >On Jun 10, 11:14 am, Robert Henderson 
>>> >bewailed:
>>> >[...]
>>> >> George Lohmann, one of the greatest players who rarely if ever gets a
>>> >> mention
>>> >Surrey scorer Keith Booth recently picked up an award for a Lohmann
>>> >biography in which it is suggested, amongst other things, that the
>>> >great man was a gay man.
>>> Every other  biography these days of those who are dead claims the
>>> subject was gay. RH
>>
>> The basis for Booth's surmisal was likely Lohmann's convalescence in
>> South Africa and, in particular, Maurice Read's accompaniment.  Even
>> prior to his bio and the reports of its content, that struck me as
>> odd.  Was either man married?
>
>Being married is no proof that you aren't homosexual i.e. Rock Hudson
>
>

That was a studio marriage. Also, people are bi-sexual but the vast 
majority of the married are not. Ergo, it is a good guide. RH

-- 
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

In message 
, 
rodney.ulyate@gmail.com writes
>On Jun 10, 9:39 pm, Robert Henderson 
>grumbled:
>> In message
>> ,
>> rodney.uly...@gmail.com writes
>> >On Jun 10, 11:14 am, Robert Henderson 
>> >bewailed:
>> >[...]
>> >> George Lohmann, one of the greatest players who rarely if ever gets a
>> >> mention
>> >Surrey scorer Keith Booth recently picked up an award for a Lohmann
>> >biography in which it is suggested, amongst other things, that the
>> >great man was a gay man.
>> Every other  biography these days of those who are dead claims the
>> subject was gay. RH
>
>The basis for Booth's surmisal was likely Lohmann's convalescence in
>South Africa and, in particular, Maurice Read's accompaniment.  Even
>prior to his bio and the reports of its content, that struck me as
>odd.  Was either man married?
>

I am pretty sure both were. Look up the Wisden obituaries. RH

>Best,
>Rodney Ulyate

-- 
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

"Robert Henderson"  wrote in message 
news:DeWHSQEkaKUIFwbB@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> In message <48503b90$0$12987$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, 
> dechucka  writes
>>
>> wrote in message
>>news:0759abcc-8769-4937-bce1-90161bc7ea9c@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Jun 10, 9:39 pm, Robert Henderson 
>>> grumbled:
>>>> In message
>>>> ,
>>>> rodney.uly...@gmail.com writes
>>>> >On Jun 10, 11:14 am, Robert Henderson 
>>>> >bewailed:
>>>> >[...]
>>>> >> George Lohmann, one of the greatest players who rarely if ever gets 
>>>> >> a
>>>> >> mention
>>>> >Surrey scorer Keith Booth recently picked up an award for a Lohmann
>>>> >biography in which it is suggested, amongst other things, that the
>>>> >great man was a gay man.
>>>> Every other  biography these days of those who are dead claims the
>>>> subject was gay. RH
>>>
>>> The basis for Booth's surmisal was likely Lohmann's convalescence in
>>> South Africa and, in particular, Maurice Read's accompaniment.  Even
>>> prior to his bio and the reports of its content, that struck me as
>>> odd.  Was either man married?
>>
>>Being married is no proof that you aren't homosexual i.e. Rock Hudson
>>
>>
>
> That was a studio marriage. Also, people are bi-sexual but the vast 
> majority of the married are not. Ergo, it is a good guide. RH

too true a good guide but not proof

On Jun 11, 10:54 pm, "dechucka"  wrote:
[...]
> Being married is no proof that you aren't homosexual i.e. Rock Hudson

I did not say that it was, but Phyllis's spouse was a special case.
Excepting the exceptions, it is safe to assume as a general rule that
married men are (and, in Victorian times, were) heterosexuals, and
that shirtlifters are (and were) unlikely to marry women.  If Read,
Lohmann or both had wives, we have a strong case against Booth's idea
-- assuming, of course, that it is the idea peddled in this thread.

Sayonara,
Rodney Ulyate

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 03:07:50 -0700 (PDT), rodney.ulyate@gmail.com
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>On Jun 11, 10:54 pm, "dechucka"  wrote:
>[...]
>> Being married is no proof that you aren't homosexual i.e. Rock Hudson
>
>I did not say that it was, but Phyllis's spouse was a special case.
>Excepting the exceptions, it is safe to assume as a general rule that
>married men are (and, in Victorian times, were) heterosexuals, and
>that shirtlifters are (and were) unlikely to marry women.  

Your gratuitously rude language suggests that you know a great deal
less about this subject than you let on, particularly when it comes to
Victorian mores. It was quite commmon for confirmed bachelors to
marry, usually in a convenient arrangement with a confirmed spinster.
It is, however, fair to say that very few such marriages were cursed
with children and evidence of issue would make it much less likely
that the subject of the discussion was gay.

Cheers,

Mike 


--

On Jun 11, 2:16 am, rodney.uly...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 10, 11:14 am, Robert Henderson 
> bewailed:
> [...]
>
> > George Lohmann, one of the greatest players who rarely if ever gets a
> > mention
>
> Surrey scorer Keith Booth recently picked up an award for a Lohmann
> biography in which it is suggested, amongst other things, that the
> great man was a gay man.  Having not yet read it myself, I cannot say
> why.
>
> <snip>
>
> Broadmindedly,
> Rodney Ulyate

I have read the said book, I though Booth was more thinking out loud,
he pretty much dismissed the idea in the end, in some contemporary
writings they suggested that George was a bit of a ladies man, but in
the end who cares? One of the all time greats, lets talk about his
great bowling, fine batting, and maybe the greatest slipper of all
time, and certainly the first great one

On Jun 12, 12:28 pm, Mike Holmans  wrote:
[...]
> Your gratuitously rude language

I fail to see where I was anything other than tactful.

> suggests that you know a great deal less about this subject than you
> let on, particularly when it comes to Victorian mores. It was quite
> commmon for confirmed bachelors to marry, usually in a convenient
> arrangement with a confirmed spinster. It is, however, fair to say
> that very few such marriages were cursed with children and
> evidence of issue would make it much less likely that the subject of
> the discussion was gay.

That is all very well, but how does it contradict anything that I have
written or prove my knowledge of the subject deficient?

Best,
Rodney Ulyate

wrote in message 
news:e2e70c3b-4e6b-4999-92e9-57f76902bc41@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 12, 12:28 pm, Mike Holmans  wrote:
> [...]
>> Your gratuitously rude language
>
> I fail to see where I was anything other than tactful.
>
>> suggests that you know a great deal less about this subject than you
>> let on, particularly when it comes to Victorian mores. It was quite
>> commmon for confirmed bachelors to marry, usually in a convenient
>> arrangement with a confirmed spinster. It is, however, fair to say
>> that very few such marriages were cursed with children and
>> evidence of issue would make it much less likely that the subject of
>> the discussion was gay.
>
> That is all very well, but how does it contradict anything that I have
> written or prove my knowledge of the subject deficient?
>
> Best,
> Rodney Ulyate

Okay- off topic, but Oscar Wilde was married and had two children. Rodney 
was probably rude to those who wander the Internet wishing to be offended.

I have more issue with calling Lohmann a "great man" rather than "great 
cricketer".

On Jun 12, 1:00 pm, archiemac1...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
> I have read the said book, I though Booth was more thinking out loud,
> he pretty much dismissed the idea in the end, in some contemporary
> writings they suggested that George was a bit of a ladies man,

If that is all that Booth had to go on, his suggestion was as rude and
gratuitous as my language.  I am pleased that he retracted it.

> but in the end who cares?

Me.  Like Robert, I am fed up with posthumous calumny and should like
to know that an author has evidence before he sets about oppugning
sexual orientations.

> One of the all time greats, lets talk about his great bowling, fine batting,
> and maybe the greatest slipper of all time, and certainly the first great
> one

Most contemporary reports place him at "short slip", which research
all but confirms to be an archaism for "first slip".

Yours,
Rodney Ulyate

On Jun 12, 1:34 pm, "Cicero"  wrote:
[...]
> I have more issue with calling Lohmann a "great man" rather than "great
> cricketer".

Conceded.  As a cricket tragic, I tend mistakenly to regard the two as
synonymous.

Sulkily,
Rodney Ulyate

wrote in message 
news:964fa526-1018-4867-813b-4998e4e77cce@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 12, 1:34 pm, "Cicero"  wrote:
> [...]
>> I have more issue with calling Lohmann a "great man" rather than "great
>> cricketer".
>
> Conceded.  As a cricket tragic, I tend mistakenly to regard the two as
> synonymous.
>
> Sulkily,
> Rodney Ulyate

I regard people like Brunel, Einstein and Schindler as great men. (Nitpick)

On Jun 12, 1:55 pm, "Cicero"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
> news:964fa526-1018-4867-813b-4998e4e77cce@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jun 12, 1:34 pm, "Cicero"  wrote:
> > [...]
> >> I have more issue with calling Lohmann a "great man" rather than "great
> >> cricketer".
> > Conceded.  As a cricket tragic, I tend mistakenly to regard the two as
> > synonymous.
> > Sulkily,
> > Rodney Ulyate
> I regard people like Brunel, Einstein and Schindler as great men. (Nitpick)

Out of interest, does your personal pantheon include any cricketers?
I would have no hesitation including Fry, D'Oliveira and Constantine
in mine.

Digressively,
Rodney Ulyate

On Jun 12, 2:19 pm, rodney.uly...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
> Out of interest, does your personal pantheon include any cricketers?
> I would have no hesitation including Fry, D'Oliveira and Constantine
> in mine.

All of whom had profound impacts on the extra-cricketing world.  For
such titans as Bradman, Grace and Barnes, though, on-field
achievements should be enough.

Bestest,
Rodney Ulyate

On Jun 12, 2:19 pm, rodney.uly...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
> Out of interest, does your personal pantheon include any cricketers?
> I would have no hesitation including Fry, D'Oliveira and Constantine
> in mine.

All of whom had profound impacts on the extra-cricketing world.  For
such titans as Bradman, Grace and Barnes, though, on-field
achievements should be enough.

Bestest,
Rodney Ulyate

wrote in message 
news:31e2d99f-d31a-42af-a42b-62ccd0fc6fca@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 12, 1:55 pm, "Cicero"  wrote:
>>  wrote in message
>> news:964fa526-1018-4867-813b-4998e4e77cce@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Jun 12, 1:34 pm, "Cicero"  wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> I have more issue with calling Lohmann a "great man" rather than 
>> >> "great
>> >> cricketer".
>> > Conceded.  As a cricket tragic, I tend mistakenly to regard the two as
>> > synonymous.
>> > Sulkily,
>> > Rodney Ulyate
>> I regard people like Brunel, Einstein and Schindler as great men. 
>> (Nitpick)
>
> Out of interest, does your personal pantheon include any cricketers?
> I would have no hesitation including Fry, D'Oliveira and Constantine
> in mine.
>
> Digressively,
> Rodney Ulyate

No, not really. Of Test cricketers, I can see few who have changed the 
world- apart from sports.

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:55:32 +1000, Cicero  wrote:

>
>  wrote in message  
> news:964fa526-1018-4867-813b-4998e4e77cce@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jun 12, 1:34 pm, "Cicero"  wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I have more issue with calling Lohmann a "great man" rather than "great
>>> cricketer".
>>
>> Conceded.  As a cricket tragic, I tend mistakenly to regard the two as
>> synonymous.
>>
>> Sulkily,
>> Rodney Ulyate
>
> I regard people like Brunel, Einstein and Schindler as great men.  
> (Nitpick)

Add Ken Higgs.

-- 

cheers,
calvin

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:07:50 +1000,  wrote:

> On Jun 11, 10:54 pm, "dechucka"  wrote:
> [...]
>> Being married is no proof that you aren't homosexual i.e. Rock Hudson
>
> Excepting the exceptions, it is safe to assume as a general rule that
> married men are (and, in Victorian times, were) heterosexuals,

I think the most appropriate response to this nonsense is "Bollocks".

-- 

cheers,
calvin

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:19:05 +1000,  wrote:

> On Jun 12, 1:55 pm, "Cicero"  wrote:

>> I regard people like Brunel, Einstein and Schindler as great men.  
>> (Nitpick)
>
> Out of interest, does your personal pantheon include any cricketers?
> I would have no hesitation including Fry, D'Oliveira and Constantine
> in mine.

Worrell
Imran
Lord Hawke

-- 

cheers,
calvin

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 05:19:05 -0700 (PDT), rodney.ulyate@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Jun 12, 1:55 pm, "Cicero"  wrote:
>>  wrote in message
>> news:964fa526-1018-4867-813b-4998e4e77cce@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Jun 12, 1:34 pm, "Cicero"  wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> I have more issue with calling Lohmann a "great man" rather than "great
>> >> cricketer".
>> > Conceded.  As a cricket tragic, I tend mistakenly to regard the two as
>> > synonymous.
>> > Sulkily,
>> > Rodney Ulyate
>> I regard people like Brunel, Einstein and Schindler as great men. (Nitpick)
>
>Out of interest, does your personal pantheon include any cricketers?
>I would have no hesitation including Fry, D'Oliveira and Constantine
>in mine.
>
>Digressively,
>Rodney Ulyate

http://www.cricketinireland.com/review_sindo.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathal_Brugha

Depends on what you mean by great.

max.it

wrote in message 
news:2af1442c-6511-4d96-a250-5df67d9284be@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 11, 10:54 pm, "dechucka"  wrote:
> [...]
>> Being married is no proof that you aren't homosexual i.e. Rock Hudson
>
> I did not say that it was, but Phyllis's spouse was a special case.
> Excepting the exceptions, it is safe to assume as a general rule that
> married men are (and, in Victorian times, were) heterosexuals, and
> that shirtlifters are (and were) unlikely to marry women.  If Read,
> Lohmann or both had wives, we have a strong case against Booth's idea
> -- assuming, of course, that it is the idea peddled in this thread.

using your "logic" than the best way of hiding your homosexuality in 
Victorian times was to get married

In message <O3c3k.59497$Bz2.2157@newsfe28.ams2>, Steve Hague 
 writes
>
> wrote in message
>news:6999f4f4-f08d-4882-a06f-a7a326b8d3df@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jun 9, 3:28 pm, "Cicero"  wrote:
>>> Over the years there have been many fine cricketers- yet some are
>>> virtually
>>> forgotten (some?)
>>> We all know the Hobbs, Bradmans etc- even the Ponsfords and Sutcliffe's.
>>> I
>>> am thinking of players who were pretty good performers (loose
>>> definition).
>>> What about players like Vernon Ransford?
>>
>> And Reg Duff and Warren Bardsley.
>>
>>> For England I nominate Cyril Washbrook.
>>
>> He was often inexplicably forgotten during his own time as well.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Best,
>> Rodney Ulyate (who, inspired, is off to the local library)
>
>What about Phil Sharpe? If memory serves, he had an average in the forties
>and may well have been the best slip fielder of all time, but only played a
>handful of  Tests.
>Steve Hague
>
>
Some of my sources have told me  he made (makes?) an excellent coach 
too.

Don
-- 
Don Miles
For Women's Cricket on the Web : www.webbsoc.demon.co.uk
Last Updated 2008 June 12

"Cicero"  wrote in message 
news:3ea3k.9212$IK1.8380@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Over the years there have been many fine cricketers- yet some are 
> virtually forgotten (some?)
>

The forgotten Waugh?

On Jun 13, 12:04 am, Calvin  wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:07:50 +1000,  wrote:
> > On Jun 11, 10:54 pm, "dechucka"  wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Being married is no proof that you aren't homosexual i.e. Rock Hudson
> > Excepting the exceptions, it is safe to assume as a general rule that
> > married men are (and, in Victorian times, were) heterosexuals,
> I think the most appropriate response to this nonsense is "Bollocks".

Generally, when one waxes as polemic as that, it is a good idea to
elaborate.  Are you suggesting that, generally speaking, most
Victorian husbands nursed homosexual desires?  Or that it was
something of a two-way split?  Or that a cloak-and-dagger band of
conspirative androgynes held sway?  As the possibilities are few, I
should have thought my choice the most reasonable.

Best,
Rodney Ulyate

wrote in message 
news:0d61cb9b-3cf0-4f55-a6ac-120996c9ac15@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 13, 12:04 am, Calvin  wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:07:50 +1000,  wrote:
>> > On Jun 11, 10:54 pm, "dechucka"  wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> Being married is no proof that you aren't homosexual i.e. Rock Hudson
>> > Excepting the exceptions, it is safe to assume as a general rule that
>> > married men are (and, in Victorian times, were) heterosexuals,
>> I think the most appropriate response to this nonsense is "Bollocks".
>
> Generally, when one waxes as polemic as that, it is a good idea to
> elaborate.  Are you suggesting that, generally speaking, most
> Victorian husbands nursed homosexual desires?  Or that it was
> something of a two-way split?  Or that a cloak-and-dagger band of
> conspirative androgynes held sway?  As the possibilities are few, I
> should have thought my choice the most reasonable.
>
> Best,
> Rodney Ulyate

Is English your second language? :) Sheesh- I can't understand what you have 
said-  I think you said you are sorry shirt lifters are shirt lifters. (I am 
not serious).

On Jun 14, 10:53 am, "Cicero"  wrote:
[...]
> Is English your second language? :)

Yes.  I am increasingly given to believe that I am more partial to
Prolixity.

<snip>

Rodney Ulyate

On Jun 14, 10:53 am, "Cicero"  wrote:
[...]
> Is English your second language? :)

Yes.  I am increasingly given to believe that I am more partial to
Prolixity.

<snip>

Rodney Ulyate

On Jun 14, 10:53 am, "Cicero"  wrote:
[...]
> Is English your second language? :)

Yes.  I am increasingly given to believe that I am more partial to
Prolixity.

<snip>

Rodney Ulyate

And repetition.

And repetition.

I am not repeating myself deliberately, by the way; Google Groups is
misbehaving.

On Jun 13, 6:08 am, "dechucka"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
> news:2af1442c-6511-4d96-a250-5df67d9284be@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jun 11, 10:54 pm, "dechucka"  wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Being married is no proof that you aren't homosexual i.e. Rock Hudson
> > I did not say that it was, but Phyllis's spouse was a special case.
> > Excepting the exceptions, it is safe to assume as a general rule that
> > married men are (and, in Victorian times, were) heterosexuals, and
> > that shirtlifters are (and were) unlikely to marry women.  If Read,
> > Lohmann or both had wives, we have a strong case against Booth's idea
> > -- assuming, of course, that it is the idea peddled in this thread.
> using your "logic" than the best way of hiding your homosexuality in
> Victorian times was to get married

While that is not the conclusion that I would have reached -- and it
is hard to see how it came to be yours --, it does raise an
interesting question: can you think of a better way?  Nothing logical
springs to mind, but, as my logic warrants a scare quote, that is not
saying much.

Skoal,
Rodney Ulyate

wrote in message 
news:597e6e74-d778-406d-b6f4-b781aba49fcf@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 14, 10:53 am, "Cicero"  wrote:
> [...]
>> Is English your second language? :)
>
> Yes.  I am increasingly given to believe that I am more partial to
> Prolixity.
>
> <snip>
>
> Rodney Ulyate

The post was less good four times later :)

wrote in message 
news:2bac6a96-4097-42aa-88c7-ff9b91efecbc@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 13, 6:08 am, "dechucka"  wrote:
>>  wrote in message
>> news:2af1442c-6511-4d96-a250-5df67d9284be@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Jun 11, 10:54 pm, "dechucka"  wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> Being married is no proof that you aren't homosexual i.e. Rock Hudson
>> > I did not say that it was, but Phyllis's spouse was a special case.
>> > Excepting the exceptions, it is safe to assume as a general rule that
>> > married men are (and, in Victorian times, were) heterosexuals, and
>> > that shirtlifters are (and were) unlikely to marry women.  If Read,
>> > Lohmann or both had wives, we have a strong case against Booth's idea
>> > -- assuming, of course, that it is the idea peddled in this thread.
>> using your "logic" than the best way of hiding your homosexuality in
>> Victorian times was to get married
>
> While that is not the conclusion that I would have reached -- and it
> is hard to see how it came to be yours --, it does raise an
> interesting question: can you think of a better way?  Nothing logical
> springs to mind, but, as my logic warrants a scare quote, that is not
> saying much.

Hence my original comment "Being married is no proof that you aren't 
homosexual "

On Jun 14, 2:04 pm, "dechucka"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
> news:2bac6a96-4097-42aa-88c7-ff9b91efecbc@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jun 13, 6:08 am, "dechucka"  wrote:
> >>  wrote in message
> >>news:2af1442c-6511-4d96-a250-5df67d9284be@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Jun 11, 10:54 pm, "dechucka"  wrote:
> >> > [...]
> >> >> Being married is no proof that you aren't homosexual i.e. Rock Hudson
> >> > I did not say that it was, but Phyllis's spouse was a special case.
> >> > Excepting the exceptions, it is safe to assume as a general rule that
> >> > married men are (and, in Victorian times, were) heterosexuals, and
> >> > that shirtlifters are (and were) unlikely to marry women.  If Read,
> >> > Lohmann or both had wives, we have a strong case against Booth's idea
> >> > -- assuming, of course, that it is the idea peddled in this thread.
> >> using your "logic" than the best way of hiding your homosexuality in
> >> Victorian times was to get married
> > While that is not the conclusion that I would have reached -- and it
> > is hard to see how it came to be yours --, it does raise an
> > interesting question: can you think of a better way?  Nothing logical
> > springs to mind, but, as my logic warrants a scare quote, that is not
> > saying much.
> Hence my original comment "Being married is no proof that you aren't
> homosexual "

I fail to recall where I cited it as such.  It is simply, to borrow
RH's appraisal, "a good guide".  It would be an exercise in futility
to seek empirical proof in these matters; we can only amass
circumstantial indicants.  Marriage is one such.

Rodney Ulyate

"Robert Henderson"  wrote in message 
news:$fUYysDsZKUIFw8G@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> In message 
> , 
> rodney.ulyate@gmail.com writes
>>On Jun 10, 9:39 pm, Robert Henderson 
>>grumbled:
>>> In message
>>> ,
>>> rodney.uly...@gmail.com writes
>>> >On Jun 10, 11:14 am, Robert Henderson 
>>> >bewailed:
>>> >[...]
>>> >> George Lohmann, one of the greatest players who rarely if ever gets a
>>> >> mention
>>> >Surrey scorer Keith Booth recently picked up an award for a Lohmann
>>> >biography in which it is suggested, amongst other things, that the
>>> >great man was a gay man.
>>> Every other  biography these days of those who are dead claims the
>>> subject was gay. RH
>>
>>The basis for Booth's surmisal was likely Lohmann's convalescence in
>>South Africa and, in particular, Maurice Read's accompaniment.  Even
>>prior to his bio and the reports of its content, that struck me as
>>odd.  Was either man married?
>>
>
> I am pretty sure both were. Look up the Wisden obituaries. RH

No mention in either. Lohmann is listed as single in the 1891 Census, as is 
Read in the 1901 Census (where he is appears as John). However, it appears 
that Read married Lydia Burke, the widow of his former landlord, in early 
1914, when he was 54 or 55.
-- 
David North

"David North"  wrote in message 
news:6bk8njF3ck5kpU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Robert Henderson"  wrote in message 
> news:$fUYysDsZKUIFw8G@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>> In message 
>> , 
>> rodney.ulyate@gmail.com writes
>>>On Jun 10, 9:39 pm, Robert Henderson 
>>>grumbled:
>>>> In message
>>>> ,
>>>> rodney.uly...@gmail.com writes
>>>> >On Jun 10, 11:14 am, Robert Henderson 
>>>> >bewailed:
>>>> >[...]
>>>> >> George Lohmann, one of the greatest players who rarely if ever gets 
>>>> >> a
>>>> >> mention
>>>> >Surrey scorer Keith Booth recently picked up an award for a Lohmann
>>>> >biography in which it is suggested, amongst other things, that the
>>>> >great man was a gay man.
>>>> Every other  biography these days of those who are dead claims the
>>>> subject was gay. RH
>>>
>>>The basis for Booth's surmisal was likely Lohmann's convalescence in
>>>South Africa and, in particular, Maurice Read's accompaniment.  Even
>>>prior to his bio and the reports of its content, that struck me as
>>>odd.  Was either man married?
>>>
>>
>> I am pretty sure both were. Look up the Wisden obituaries. RH
>
> No mention in either. Lohmann is listed as single in the 1891 Census, as 
> is Read in the 1901 Census (where he is appears as John). However, it 
> appears that Read married Lydia Burke, the widow of his former landlord, 
> in early 1914, when he was 54 or 55.
> -- 


I suppose it matters little. However they are public figures and their lives 
are under scrutiny- even a century later. I couldn't give a rats about their 
inclinations (as I assume most here don't).  Nevertheless it will be under 
scrutiny.

Thanks David.

In message , David North 
 writes
>>
>>
>> I am pretty sure both were. Look up the Wisden obituaries. RH
>
>No mention in either. Lohmann is listed as single in the 1891 Census,

Lohmann died when he was only 36 and he had been ill with TB  for nearly 
ten years before then. Just in terms of  the risk of infection, marriage 
would have been difficult. After he contracted TBRH

> as is Read in the 1901 Census (where he is appears as John). However, 
>it appears that Read married Lydia Burke, the widow of his former 
>landlord, in early 1914, when he was 54 or 55.

Could have had a long term affair with the widow before she became a 
widow, or it might simply have been a marriage of companionship after 
knowing him for a very long time. RH
-- 
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:52:53 +1000,  wrote:

> On Jun 13, 12:04 am, Calvin  wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:07:50 +1000,  wrote:
>> > On Jun 11, 10:54 pm, "dechucka"  wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> Being married is no proof that you aren't homosexual i.e. Rock Hudson
>> > Excepting the exceptions, it is safe to assume as a general rule that
>> > married men are (and, in Victorian times, were) heterosexuals,
>> I think the most appropriate response to this nonsense is "Bollocks".
>
> Generally, when one waxes as polemic as that, it is a good idea to
> elaborate.  Are you suggesting that, generally speaking, most
> Victorian husbands nursed homosexual desires?

Of course not, but assuming in a general sense is not in the least useful,  
since one is only interested in particular instances.  So you can't except  
the exceptions!

-- 

cheers,
calvin

On Jun 15, 12:20 pm, "David North"
 wrote:
> "Robert Henderson"  wrote in message
> news:$fUYysDsZKUIFw8G@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> > In message
> > ,
> > rodney.uly...@gmail.com writes
> >>On Jun 10, 9:39 pm, Robert Henderson 
> >>grumbled:
> >>> In message
> >>> ,
> >>> rodney.uly...@gmail.com writes
> >>> >On Jun 10, 11:14 am, Robert Henderson 
> >>> >bewailed:
> >>> >[...]
> >>> >> George Lohmann, one of the greatest players who rarely if ever gets a
> >>> >> mention
> >>> >Surrey scorer Keith Booth recently picked up an award for a Lohmann
> >>> >biography in which it is suggested, amongst other things, that the
> >>> >great man was a gay man.
> >>> Every other  biography these days of those who are dead claims the
> >>> subject was gay. RH
> >>The basis for Booth's surmisal was likely Lohmann's convalescence in
> >>South Africa and, in particular, Maurice Read's accompaniment.  Even
> >>prior to his bio and the reports of its content, that struck me as
> >>odd.  Was either man married?
> > I am pretty sure both were. Look up the Wisden obituaries. RH
> No mention in either. Lohmann is listed as single in the 1891 Census, as is
> Read in the 1901 Census (where he is appears as John).

As well he should have done; Maurice was his second name.

<snip>

Anagrammatically,
Tourney Delay

On Jun 16, 12:14 am, Calvin  wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:52:53 +1000,  wrote:
> > On Jun 13, 12:04 am, Calvin  wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:07:50 +1000,  wrote:
> >> > On Jun 11, 10:54 pm, "dechucka"  wrote:
> >> > [...]
> >> >> Being married is no proof that you aren't homosexual i.e. Rock Hudson
> >> > Excepting the exceptions, it is safe to assume as a general rule that
> >> > married men are (and, in Victorian times, were) heterosexuals,
> >> I think the most appropriate response to this nonsense is "Bollocks".
> > Generally, when one waxes as polemic as that, it is a good idea to
> > elaborate.  Are you suggesting that, generally speaking, most
> > Victorian husbands nursed homosexual desires?
> Of course not, but assuming in a general sense is not in the least useful,
> since one is only interested in particular instances.  So you can't except
> the exceptions!

Generalisations are applied to particular instances all the time.  If
Colonel Mustard's semen is found in Dr Black's clay, his fingerprints
on the candlestick used to kill him, his footprints in the billiard
room in which he died and his blood on his toggery, it is generally
safe to assume, excepting the exceptions (which is, after all, the
cornerstone of generalising), that it was Colonel Mustard in the
billiard room with the candlestick.

Anagrammatically,
Eye to Laundry

In message 
, 
rodney.ulyate@gmail.com writes
>> >>odd.  Was either man married?
>> > I am pretty sure both were. Look up the Wisden obituaries. RH
>> No mention in either. Lohmann is listed as single in the 1891 Census, as is
>> Read in the 1901 Census (where he is appears as John).
>
>As well he should have done; Maurice was his second name.
>

Like Colin Cowdrey he always used his second name. RH

><snip>

-- 
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

wrote in message 
news:1cb1542d-6e63-45de-8f3f-8127bf94d7f2@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 15, 12:20 pm, "David North"
>  wrote:
>> "Robert Henderson"  wrote in message
>> news:$fUYysDsZKUIFw8G@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>> > In message
>> > ,
>> > rodney.uly...@gmail.com writes
>> >>On Jun 10, 9:39 pm, Robert Henderson 
>> >>grumbled:
>> >>> In message
>> >>> ,
>> >>> rodney.uly...@gmail.com writes
>> >>> >On Jun 10, 11:14 am, Robert Henderson 
>> >>> >bewailed:
>> >>> >[...]
>> >>> >> George Lohmann, one of the greatest players who rarely if ever 
>> >>> >> gets a
>> >>> >> mention
>> >>> >Surrey scorer Keith Booth recently picked up an award for a Lohmann
>> >>> >biography in which it is suggested, amongst other things, that the
>> >>> >great man was a gay man.
>> >>> Every other  biography these days of those who are dead claims the
>> >>> subject was gay. RH
>> >>The basis for Booth's surmisal was likely Lohmann's convalescence in
>> >>South Africa and, in particular, Maurice Read's accompaniment.  Even
>> >>prior to his bio and the reports of its content, that struck me as
>> >>odd.  Was either man married?
>> > I am pretty sure both were. Look up the Wisden obituaries. RH
>> No mention in either. Lohmann is listed as single in the 1891 Census, as 
>> is
>> Read in the 1901 Census (where he is appears as John).
>
> As well he should have done; Maurice was his second name.

Sure, I only mentioned it for the record. There was no set pattern in the 
censuses, as the original forms were filled in by the householder (assuming 
that they were literate), and merely asked for "name and surname", so 
results varied.
-- 
David North

On Jun 19, 3:06 pm, "David North" 
wrote:
>  wrote in message
> news:1cb1542d-6e63-45de-8f3f-8127bf94d7f2@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jun 15, 12:20 pm, "David North"
> >  wrote:
> >> "Robert Henderson"  wrote in message
> >>news:$fUYysDsZKUIFw8G@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> >> > In message
> >> > ,
> >> > rodney.uly...@gmail.com writes
> >> >>On Jun 10, 9:39 pm, Robert Henderson 
> >> >>grumbled:
> >> >>> In message
> >> >>> ,
> >> >>> rodney.uly...@gmail.com writes
> >> >>> >On Jun 10, 11:14 am, Robert Henderson 
> >> >>> >bewailed:
> >> >>> >[...]
> >> >>> >> George Lohmann, one of the greatest players who rarely if ever
> >> >>> >> gets a
> >> >>> >> mention
> >> >>> >Surrey scorer Keith Booth recently picked up an award for a Lohmann
> >> >>> >biography in which it is suggested, amongst other things, that the
> >> >>> >great man was a gay man.
> >> >>> Every other  biography these days of those who are dead claims the
> >> >>> subject was gay. RH
> >> >>The basis for Booth's surmisal was likely Lohmann's convalescence in
> >> >>South Africa and, in particular, Maurice Read's accompaniment.  Even
> >> >>prior to his bio and the reports of its content, that struck me as
> >> >>odd.  Was either man married?
> >> > I am pretty sure both were. Look up the Wisden obituaries. RH
> >> No mention in either. Lohmann is listed as single in the 1891 Census, as
> >> is
> >> Read in the 1901 Census (where he is appears as John).
> > As well he should have done; Maurice was his second name.
> Sure, I only mentioned it for the record. There was no set pattern in the
> censuses, as the original forms were filled in by the householder (assuming
> that they were literate), and merely asked for "name and surname", so
> results varied.

Thanks for posting them.

Best,
Rodney Ulyate