Talk:Tony Greig

Runs

What was the "unsporting run out" mentioned? Seems silly to make mention of something but provide no details! --Plattopus 19:06, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Helping Kerry Packer establish World Series Cricket was a lot more daring than a run out! jguk 19:33, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, but since it's deemed important enough to warrant a mention on the page, I think it might be a good idea to actually explain it. I would do it, but I have no idea what the run out in question actually is! --Plattopus 12:00, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

It's before my time too. There is this, which states:

In 1973/4 Tony Greig toured the West Indies with England and showed the entire cricket world what he was capable of. His sensational record of 430 runs and 24 wickets in 5 tests contained a string of breathtaking performances.

His first contribution to the series, however, was to spark a controversy that set the tone for this volatile all-rounder. Greig bowled the last ball of the day to Julien who played it back down the pitch. Alvin Kallicharan, the non-striker saw Greig field the ball and walked off towards the dressing room. Impetuously Greig threw the ball at the stumps and appealed for a run out. The appeal was upheld and the uproar started. After many hurried conversations England withdrew the appeal, much to Greig's annoyance.

I don't have much time at the immediate present, but something along these lines ought to be added, jguk 12:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I added a section on this, mostly gleaned from the account in Rae's book. I'm not sure I wrote it very well, but I think all the facts are there. --Deville 14:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a statement (or link) to avoid confusion, especially for non-Commonwealth readers?

Both Greig and Denness were actually Scottish (O the irony...). Possibly something in the text should briefly mention the unusual qualification arrangements in international cricket to avoid confusion for readers not familiar with the system?Badgerpatrol 09:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC) Tony Grieg does not like the Austrailai team,. I belive that he is byast to the South Africans and the Engllish when he commentates.

Near death from Greig's bowling

Could somebody please supply details of the incident in, I am sure it was, New Zealand where Greig was bowling and the ball unexpectedly rose very steeply and hit the batsman in the throat, nearly killing him. This incident had a great bearing on Greig's later work promoting the use of batsmen's helmets and, especially the addition of face and throat guards. Also mention should be made of batsman Greig's appearance at the wicket wearing a motorcycle helmet (and, even, perhaps, Bishan Bedi's turban at the World XI match at the M.C.G.). It would seem that the Greig and safety gear aspect is an important issue relating to Greig and his career that should be completed and included by someone with a good knowledge of such things.Lindsay658 06:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you thinking about Graeme Watson in a match for Rest of the World in 1971-72. A beamer by Greig hit Watson on the nose. He lost a large amount of blood and had to undergo transfusion. Tintin 10:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not the incident I was thinking of -- in fact, I was at the M.C.G. for each magnificent day of the match you refer to, so I can be very certain that what I am referring to was at some other time and some other location (and, moreover, I have not confused it with the incident where Rick McCosker has his jaw broken, also at the M.C.G.). As I remember the incident (which I saw on TV, rather than in person), Tony Greig was bowling and, from his enormous height he had delivered a rather fast ball to somewhere near the batsman's feet and, for some extraordinary reason, the ball came off the pitch almost vertically and struck the batsman in the windpipe. I can't remember whether it was during his time with "official" cricket or his time with "Packer" cricket, nor can I remember whether it was one-day cricket or "longer" cricket, but I do have a strong feeling that the batsman was Kiwi, and I am fairly certain that Greig was the bowler.Lindsay658 00:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

1st Test NZ v England Auckland 1974-75. Batsman was Ewan Chatfield (a specialist no 11) who was struck by a bouncer from Peter Lever. Chatfield swallowed his tongue and was revived by the England physio Bernie Thomas as his heart stopped for a moment and he couldn't breath. See: [1]. BTW, Grieg started the bouncer war in the 1974-75 series when he let Dennis Lillee have one in the 1st Test at Brisbane.Phanto282 15:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Qualified to play for England because of his Scottish father?

I think this needs more explanation. From England cricket team#Eligibility of players:

• The England cricket team represents England and Wales. However, under ICC regulations[2], players can qualify to play for a country by nationality, place of birth or residence, so (as with any national sports team) some people are eligible to play for more than one team. ECB regulations[3] state that to play for England, a player must be a British or Irish citizen, and have either been born in England or Wales, or have lived in England or Wales for the last four years.

So, which part of this rule did Grieg qualify under? He wasn't born in England or Wales, and he hadn't lived there for 4 years prior to selection. It must be that he had British citizenship as well as South African. The fact (if it is a fact) that it was via his father's Scottishness is not the essential information. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody seems to have any idea after 4 years, and my assumption that Greig was a British citizen was wrong, we're back to square 1. He seems to have been ineligible to play for England, but play he most certainly did. What rule permitted this? All the obvious answers seem not to fit.

I've also asked this question at Talk:England cricket team. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This article attributes his eligibility to "having obtained a British passport" (presumably on the basis of his parents' Scottish/Britishness). WWGB (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Right, thanks. So, does having a British passport mean that you're a British citizen? I believe that's not necessarily the case. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Did Tony Greig smoke?

Whenever I hear of someone having lung cancer I think, well, if they smoked, it's their own bloody fault. Our Lung cancer article says "Smoking accounts for 80–90% of lung cancer cases". So if we're not told that Greig didn't smoke, can one assume that he did? If he didn't smoke, we would be being nice to him if we said so. HiLo48 (talk) 09:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I suppose his epilepsy was caused by smoking too??? What would mentioning his smoking do for his article? — ^Wylie_Coyote 10:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

That's an unfortunate response. I've given some reasons in my post. Please consider them. HiLo48 (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Just because the lung cancer article states those high figures doesn't mean he smoked. Don't forget that years before Governments cracked down on indoor smoking, that venues were filled with second and third-hand smoke, which is just as bad as smoking, if not worse (wish I could find an Aus Gov report). To the topic, it shouldn't be added as stating that it was caused by him smoking without a reliable source is complete OR and also fails BLP (even though he isn't alive). Bidgee (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

We can't assume. However, whether or not a person smoked is relevant to their lives. Most smokers suffer significant health issues because of their habit, and about 50% of smokers die as a result of diseases caused by their smoking. Although lung cancer causes far more deaths than any other type of cancer, only about 1% of non-smokers contract lung cancer. Hence it is relevant and should be stated in the article whether or not he was a smoker, provided it can be reliably sourced. Jim Michael (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No Jim. "Nonsmokers account for 10–15% of lung cancer cases,[3]" - See lung cancer. There seems to be a bit of a panic that he may not have smoked, but still died at a young age from lung cancer. If you don't smoke, you will probably die anyway. - Cablehorn (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

He didn't die from any form of cancer. He died of a heart attack. He was receiving treatment for lung cancer at the time of his death, but that was not what killed him. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there an official statement from an appropriate authority stating that? --Falcadore (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Most people finally die of 'cardiac arrest', and most death certificates will say that. I think even putting 'heart attack"/"cardiac arrest" is a bit of a furphy. IMHO he died from complications of lung cancer. = Cablehorn (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

To make things a bit clearer. The cause of death (at 47 yo) of one my grandparents (on the death certificate) says : 1. Cholecystectomy 2. Septicaemia 3. Cardiac arrest You be the detective. - Cablehorn (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make things clearer at all. With the greatest respect to your grandparent, his or her medical circumstances are irrelevant to Tony Greig's. All the news reports I've seen, e.g. this, say he had a heart attack and was rushed to hospital where he was worked on by a cardiac team, to no avail. Maybe his cancer contributed to some weakness in his heart, who knows. All we do know is what reliable sources have reported = heart attack. You're entitled to your humble opinion that he died from "complications from cancer", but I sincerely hope and trust that that opinion never makes it into our article, unless it can be corroborated by a reliable source. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"...had a heart attack and was rushed to hospital where he was worked on by a cardiac team, to no avail." -- The same will happen if you get run over by a bus. - Cablehorn (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

But he wasn't run over by a bus. As I hope you're well aware, we report what reliable sources say, not what you or I or anyone thinks they meant. If his heart condition was related to his lung cancer, why has no source come out and said so? Why? Because it was NOT related, would be my take on it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The sources say he had lung cancer. Usually, the last thing that happens to us all is cardiac arrest - usually preceded by the non-medical term "heart-attack". Keep calm and carry on, I'm not changing anything. Cablehorn (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The sources have been saying for a couple of months that he had lung cancer. But in relation to his death, the sources are all in agreement that he died of a heart attack or cardiac arrest and are not attributing it to his cancer. The official statement from the hospital spokesman said simply "cardiac arrest". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Best to remove that YouTube link per WP:COPYLINK. Bidgee (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This has gone off somewhat on a branch line. In my initial post I wasn't talking about Greig's death. I was talking about his lung cancer, which may or may not have been related to his death. We certainly don't know that it was at this stage, and I wasn't making any suggestions about that. I was interested in whether he smoked. For what it's worth, smoking is seen as a pretty negative habit in Australia these days. Statistically, on the basis of what proportion of lung cancer cases are caused by smoking, one could be justified in thinking that he probably did. (I certainly won't be the only person to make that connection. Many readers of the article will.) Since that presumption would be a somewhat negative one for his image, if he didn't smoke it would be good to record that fact. So, did he or didn't he? It can hardly be a complete secret. HiLo48 (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This and few other similar sites say he was a (heavy) smoker, but they’re hardly what you'd call reliable sources, just anonymous anecdata. I see a lot of people asking the question online, but no good answers forthcoming, not even a denial he was a smoker. Maybe the lack of denial says it all. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"Tony Greig is a 6 ft. 7 in. tall, pipe-smoking South African" [2] So there! WWGB (talk) 07:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, he was in 1971. That was rather a long time ago. He may have given up in 1972, for all we know. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk]

Never lost the urge ..... [3]. WWGB (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

?? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I would be more surprised if he wasn't a smoker, most men in the 1970s would have been. The question really is did he give up smoking in the 80s, 90s or not at all? And unless his family decides to make a big deal of the smoking, we'll probably never know for sure. The obit by Ian Chappell in one if the papers mentions having wine and cigars, but that isn't real evidence of being a regular smoker.The-Pope (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting to compare his public image with that of Doug Walters. His smoking was a very public thing. When he quit three years ago it was big news. HiLo48 (talk) 11:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

He died at around 1.45

This is normal English where I come from—London, England—but another user doesn't like it. Could it be a variant problem? Well, Greig played his cricket for England. Rothorpe (talk) 11:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

My view is that the time is irrelevant anyway. Have a think about what readers will be interested in in ten years time. When you read about the deaths of other people over the ages you only ever get the date, sometime only the year. I'd simply drop the argument and remove the time completely. HiLo48 (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite right, so I've removed the sentence. Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

In the section heading, "around" is acting as an adjective, meaning the same as "he died at approximately 1.45". Using "at around" is acceptable, "at" referring to time and "around" referring to degree of accuracy. WWGB (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Indenting

Can folk generally make a New Year's resolution to learn to use colons to indent appropriately, please?

I sort of get that Rothorpe's "Quite right" is a response to HiLo48, in which case it should have had 2 colons - but I had to figure that out from the context.

WWGB's comment seems just isolated from everything else. If it's meant to be a response to Rothorpe's original post, it should be one colon in from it, i.e. at the same level as HiLo's post.

It's pretty simple, really. Let's make life easier for each other. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Personal life

Shouldn't there be a section on Tony's personal life? Marriages and children etc? Seems remiss to focus purely on his career - surely his family is important to any discussion of his life. 220.233.43.155 (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tony Greig. 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20121221064915/http://cricket.org.pk/Blogs/index.php/tony-greig-slams-bcci-at-mcc-lecture/ to http://cricket.org.pk/Blogs/index.php/tony-greig-slams-bcci-at-mcc-lecture/

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) 15:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Editorializing

The section "Controversy and triumph in the Caribbean" seems to me to contain some inappropriate editorializing. The very section tittle does not seem to me appropriate, conveying an opnion. Who said this was a triumph? Then we have The incident was controversial – some believing it a black stain on his character, others prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. Who are ther "some" and "others" these are unsourced, and so are classic weasel words. A bit later we have It was a measure of his resolve and determination as a cricketer that he dominated the remainder of the series. That this was a measure ofd his determination is an unsourced opinion. This is the sort of writing that a primary or secondary source might use, but in my view that should not be in a Wikipedia article. i have tagged both sentences inline. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

In a later section, the sentence Greig was well-known among colleagues as a man who wanted to take commercial advantage of his profile as a leading sportsman also seems to me to be unsourced opinion. Who were these colleagues, and what source sayhs that they knew this about Greig? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)