I find this post exceedingly petty.

It's ok to praise club members for their performances - absolutely nothing wrong with that and BHCC certainly do that with their juniors. Good on them for encouraging their members.

However to then go on to a thread about another club's activities and criticise that other club's officer for failing to note the alternate memberships of successful club members smack of parochialism and possessiveness.

As far as I am concerned this is a thread about the MCC and the players praised are MCC members. End of. The facts that two are also members elsewhere is totally irrelevant to the thread.

What next? Will BHCC note that quite a few of its successful junior members (Schon, Cheng, Matheson, etc) are also members of Noble Park CC? Do you want the MCC to note the contribution of Noble Park and Elwood CCs in the contribution to James Morris' chess development? Should we be forever noting the contribution of Heidelberg CC to the development of Australia's first homegrown over the board GM, Ian Rogers?