Jump to content

Talk:Lord's

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lord's and the first Test

[edit]

Lord's typically hosts the first Test of a rubber, such as The Ashes and the second One-Day match of an English home series.

I think this is not true. For major series, Lord's usually host the second Test. This season is an exception. Tintin 06:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but the india vs england was in lords.

1990: Second Test

1991: Second Test

1992: Second Test

1993: Second Test

1994: Second Test (NZ); First Test (SA)

1995: Second Test

1996: Second Test (India); First Test (Pak)

1997: Second Test

1998: Second Test

1999: Second Test

2000: First Test (Zim); Second Test (WI)

2001: Second Test

2002: First Test (SL); First Test (India)

2003: First Test (Zim); Second Test (SA)

2004: First Test (NZ); First Test (WI)

2005: First Test (Bang); First Test (Aus) PaddyBriggs 13:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's certainly the second test for India's tour this year. Lords usually hosts either the first or the second test of the season, but it is not regular enough to claim that it always hosts the first. I have deleted the claim accordingly. It is true that Lords is the only England cricket ground that hosts two test matches in any season, but there is considerable pressure on the ICC from the both the newly created test venues and the traditional venues to end that arrangement - and it is looking like a distinct possibility at present. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lord's pavilion

[edit]

Not once on this page is mentioned in any detail the famous pavilion and long room, nor is there a photo. This should be covered (especially over details of more modern stands). Oli 12:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MCC won't allow any photography in the pavillion (inc. long room) by the public. Might be difficult to get anon copyrighted image. Epeeist smudge 12:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MCC matches

[edit]

No mention of MCC matches at Lords. And in general there needs to be much more info on the MCC on this page, with reference to the Pavillion, for example, and the Library and Real-Tennis and Squash Court. Some more information abou records at Lords may be of use as well. --Wisden17 21:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't there information on the Lords Pavilion on this site. Im doing an assingment on Lords and its stands and I cant find information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.177.115 (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a small section about the pavilion in the article and it points you to Long Room as a separate article. Admittedly, the article is a long way from full development which is why it has been given a start-class rating above. ---BlackJack | talk page 08:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

The history section is too incomplete. Founder Thomas Lord and the great history of the greatest cricket ground should be mentioned. --16[Sechzehn] 10:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I've added a mention of and link to Thomas Lord, as a minimal quick fix. Incidentally, the Thomas Lord article suggests that it is incorrect to refer to the current ground as the second.

JH 20:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Location

[edit]

Is the cricket ground in St John's Wood or Lisson Grove? Simply south 10:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it's strictly accurate I wouldn't know, but traditionally it has always been thought of as being in St John's Wood. Lisson Grove is rather obscure. I doubt that many non-locals have even heard of it. I certainly hadn't. JH 18:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inasmuch as you can firmly define the borders of any London localities, St John's Wood (and Lord's cricket ground) is north of St John's Wood Road and Lisson Grove is south of it. Russ London 08:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Cricket

[edit]

I've added this article to WikiProject Cricket, hence the template at the top of this talk page. Please refer to the project page, especially the style guide so that we can maintain consistency of style across cricket-related articles. Thanks. Cenobite 14:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

I've replaced the media centre image below with one of much better quality. - Cenobite 14:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also replaced the "Match in progress" picture with a more attractive one - Cenobite 15:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Righto, I've added a few more images as well as mentioning that Lord's is the headquarters of the ECC. I'll get to work on researching more of the ground's history a bit later. Cenobite 18:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the ground

[edit]

The official name of Lord's is actually "Lord's Ground" not "Lord's Cricket Ground". Source: M.C.C. Stephen Parnell 14:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slope

[edit]

What is the source for the 8 ft slope across the ground? I was told by the guide on the tour of the ground that it was 6 feet something. Epeeist smudge 12:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cricket media always say it is 8 foot 8 inches. Timdownie (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honours board

[edit]

From the article - "Personal achievements by cricketers in Test matches at the ground are recognised with the names of century makers and of bowlers taking 5 wickets in an innings, or 10 wickets in a match, being inscribed on the honours boards in the home and away dressing rooms." I hate to state the obvious but you can't take 10 in a match without taking 5 in an innings. So, is the 10 somehow noted differently to a five for? Does the board note the actual score and/or figures or is it just a name and date? I'm not sure this info is needed for the article.... I'd just like to know! --LiamE 01:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Does this help? [[1]] Epeeist smudge 09:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does, thank you. The 10 fors do in fact go up in both sections. --LiamE 11:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never rugby or football out of principle?

[edit]
"Bowls, tennis, archery and several other sports have been played at Lord's in the past, but never rugby or football out of principle."

I think the "principle" here needs some explanation. I imagine that rugby and football would wreck the grass more than the other sports, but a "principle" sounds like a cultural concern rather than a practical one. The statement needs a reference, anyhow. Mtford 04:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

home of cricket

[edit]

I don't think that Lord's deserves this title. If you ask me, it should go to Eden Gardens or the MCG. 28,000 capacity is next to nothing, I can name half a dozen grounds in the subcontinenet (one of the major hubs of cricket) that have a 50,000 + capacity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.156.156 (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but Lords is still the home of cricket as it was one of the earliest grounds, and contains many of the accolades of cricket, such as the actual ashes urn and so on. Remember this is for discussing the article not the topic :) --SGGH speak! 21:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of the 'home of cricket' being in India or Australia is fairly ridiculous, since the game originated in neither. 86.21.225.156 (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea of a "home of cricket" anywhere, not just at Lord's, is just as daft and erroneous as the one about Hambledon being the "cradle of cricket". ---BlackJack | talk page 08:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mnemonic

[edit]

The stands at Lord's. Someone in the pavilion has WGGRACE on his left and ATM on his right, tradition on one hand and cash on the other. The stands going round on the left are the WarnerGGRAndstandComptonEdrich, on the right Allen, Tavern, Mound. Jagdfeld (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nursery Ground

[edit]

Noting this here before I forget to do so again! There isn't a single mention of the Nursery Ground in this article, which surprises me somewhat. Of course, as it's hosted one first class match in its own right (MCC v Yorks, 1903) in theory it qualifies for its own WP article anyway! I do think it should be mentioned somewhere, though. Loganberry (Talk) 14:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London wiki

[edit]

Would someone oblige and create an article on Lord's Cricket Ground on the above wiki - www.london.wikia.org . 23:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Only venue to allow spectators to bring own alcohol into ground?

[edit]

I have removed the following text from the article and deposited it here:

"Unlike other international cricket venues, Lord's permits patrons to bring limited quantities of beer or wine into the ground for personal consumption.[1]"

Quite apart from the fact that it did not belong in the section on the Tavern stand, it is not true. Although Lords does allow spectators to bring in alcohol (which the reference supports), it is not the only venue to allow this (which the reference did not support). Quote from the South London KIA Oval ground regulations (reproduced on the back of every ticket sold).[2]

"Under the ground regulations a maximum of four 500ml cans of beer/lager or a 750ml plastic bottle of wine per person may be brought into the ground."

References

  1. ^ General Ground Regulations at official website. Retrieved 5 January 2004.
  2. ^ Any ticket sold
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lord's Cricket Ground. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 October 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 06:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– Lord's is the WP:COMMONNAME, and the current title is redundant, as "Lord's" doesn't refer to anything else and currently redirects here. The official website of the ground simply uses "Lord's", as does its logo. On Google News in the past year:

For the BBC (with no time restriction):

For ESPNcricinfo, probably the leading cricket news website (with no time restriction):

In the above search strings, I've added "at" as a way to distinguish "Lord's" (the ground) from "lord's" (belonging to a lord). IgnorantArmies (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason the other articles can't remain where they are if this one is renamed. Lord's is the common name of the current ground. Spike 'em (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Lord's" is the common name in both my experience and (more importantly) according to the evidence provided in the Request. No disambiguation is needed. Someone who types "Lord's" with the apostrophe into Wikipedia, including the comma, wants Lord's and nothing else. Ands Lord's redirects here anyway MrStoofer (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
further to the above, to do my bit, on theguardian.com 42000 for "at Lord's" and 558 for "Lord's cricket ground" Spike 'em (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even searching google for wikipedia, Lord's is used more than Lord's Cricket Ground.
site:en.wikipedia.org "Lord's Cricket Ground" = 1280
site:en.wikipedia.org "at Lord's Cricket Ground" = 519
site:en.wikipedia.org "at Lord's" -"at Lord's Cricket" -"at Lord's middle" = 2880
Many of the links I've found here to Lord's Cricket Ground are listed as [[Lord's Cricket Ground|Lord's]] (though I can't figure out how to search for this to get a count) Spike 'em (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change of vote from oppose to neutral (see above). I do have a technical question, which is how easy will it be to alter all the hundreds of Lord's Cricket Ground links throughout the cricket project's portfolio? Thanks. Bahnhof St Gallen (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Someone with WP:AWB can correct the links, if needed. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 13:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Totally unnecessary as moving the page will automatically create a redirect so that the existing links will correctly redirect to the moved page. --Elektrik Fanne 17:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Citation style

[edit]

Please note that citations in this article are done using the shortened footnote template method. I find this preferable to {{cite book}} (only one citation needed reformat). If that is a problem for you, please say so here.

Note that webpage citations are still done using {{cite web}} notation. Thanks. Omrw510 (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Lord's. 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:

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) 22:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect and inappropriate use of American English in article

[edit]

In the 'stands at Lord's' diagram the media centre is labelled as 'media center'. This is completely incorrect (the article itself makes reference to the Media Centre). Please change it to the correct spelling. RichYPE (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lord's. 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:

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) 10:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lord's. 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:

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) 04:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Capacity

[edit]

Does anyone have a reliable source that clearly states the current capacity of Lord's? Someone tried amending from 28,000 to 30,00 but was reverted as lacking a source.

I've tried trawling through Lords.org and any references to capacity are only in terms of increases, not an absolute figure. The most recent redevelopment of the Warner stand added about 100 (it went from approx 2,800 to 2,900) and proposed redevelopments to Edrich and Compton will add 2,000.

The Mail reckons this will take capacity to 32,500, but The Telegraph thinks it will take it to "over 30,000". Last year The Standard had Lord's at 28,500 and The Times had it at around 29,000.

All very confusing! Spike 'em (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Australia these things are covered by occupational health and safety regulations. I would imagine something similar would apply in London/England/The UK. Ground management would have a precise attendance number they could not legally exceed. Somebody there must know. HiLo48 (talk) 09:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is certainly another avenue to explore, I'll see if I can find anything from the local authority in terms of a safety certificate (no luck as of yet).
I managed to find This from 2013 on Lord's site which says redevelopments will increase capacity by 2,700 to 32,000, which suggests it was about 29,300 back then. This construction article actually has some precise-looking figures (not sure how reliable it is), which suggests a capacity of 29,448 Spike 'em (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lord%27s&oldid=1224564021"