Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Team nickname history

In the case of teams which have adopted official nicknames while retaining the continuous link with the original team, I think we should try our best to mention in each article when said nickname was actually adopted. It grates a little that, for example Bill Ponsford apparently played for the Victorian Bushrangers! Loganberry (Talk) 00:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting point. Is Bushrangers, like Phoenix, a team name used in limited overs only or is it used by Victoria when they play in the Sheffield Shield (or whatever daft name that has nowadays)? If they are called Victoria in the Sheffield Shield then I think we should adopt the same method that is in place for the English counties: hence we have an article called Yorkshire County Cricket Club which mentions the Phoenix as a limited overs name only. We could have redirects too, of course. Which would mean moving Victorian Bushrangers to something like Victoria State Cricket Club: is it a club or an association in Australia? --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The commentators still say the nicknames even on the Shield commentary on ABC. But I always pipe it, eg, see Bill Woodfull plays for Victoria.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

When did they first adopt the nickname? The article doesn't say. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Mostly in the mid 1990s. NSW has always been "Blues" (the state is associated with sky blue). QLD is always associated with maroon in all sports, and would usually be called "Maroons" (in all sports) but now Bulls. WA is traditionally yellow and "sandgropers" (in all sports) but now Warriors. SA is traditionally red and "croweaters" (in all sports) but now Redbacks. Victoria is usually historically called "Vics" although I'm not sure about cricket. Tasmania is sometimes called "Apple Islanders" in a general historical sense, but the Vic and Apple Islanders probably aren't as synonymous as the other four. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't comment on Australian cricket but it does seem to me that these articles are wrongly named if I presume to use an "English standard" (e.g., it would be utterly wrong to move Yorkshire CCC to Yorkshire Phoenix). Should Victoria have the old name or the new one? Is Ponsford spinning in his grave after being called a Bushranger!? --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Move to Victorian cricket team I say. I see that for AFL, they are listed at Adelaide Football Club even though everyone in newpapers etc, uses Adelaide Crows and so forth. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support that move and a similar move for all Australian first-class teams. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 06:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I hate those nicknames. Brad Haddin plays for New South Wales, not the 'Speedblitz Blues'. Let's use the proper state names wherever possible. Nick mallory 06:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Though I rarely here cricket fans actually use these "marketing" names, if they are the official club names then they should be used. Of course a prominent sentense can be put in the lead stating the "proper" name. On the other hand, if these are nicknames, by all means sort it out! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 09:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer a move to Victoria state cricket team or something along those lines. Victorian cricket team is a little vague. There are a number of Victorian cricket teams, both in Victoria, Australia but also in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Not to mention the numerous cricket teams from the Victorian era! Andrew nixon 09:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

However long the nicknames (like Blues) have been around, they started being used officially in the 1990s, both for one day and first class cricket, so it is not quite the same as the English situation. More recently, the names based on sponsors' "naming rights" are used officially, which I think is definitely unacceptable as the teams still are actually representative teams of the state cricket associations. This means there is justification for using Victorian state cricket team, but the naming guidelines say to give priority to the common name, which is not so clear. At any rate, whatever name is used, it should be piped to Victoria in articles like Ponsford.

Thanks to Blnguyen for the description of traditionally nicknames. Of course, I would have said the Qld are the "Bananabenders", and finished with Apples Islanders for Tas, and with tongue in cheek, Vic are the "Mexicans" or simply the enemy. I did once see a report from a 19th century match which had old, now forgotten nicknames for NSW and Vic. I can't remember the Vics' one, but NSWelshmen were referred to as "cornstalks". JPD (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Gumsuckers?[1] Cabbage-patchers/gardeners?[2] -- ALoan (Talk) 18:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall that in the State of Origin rugby series the teams (NSW and Queensland?) call each other the Toads and the Cockroaches! Is that right? --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps informally! They are generally referred to the Blues and Maroons respectively. I prefer only redirecting the nicknames and sticking to the XYZ cricket team, unless there is a very famous exception such as All Blacks but I don't know of any in cricket. Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Good input by JPD above especially the point that these nicknames are now used in the Shield games as well as limited overs. I'm really not sure what we should do here. Looking at the oldest English counties we had to make a decision on how to cover their histories before the county clubs were officially formed. We decided to have two articles: e.g., Sussex county cricket teams up to 1839 and Sussex County Cricket Club from 1839 while Sussex Sharks is a mention in the club article (the Sharks is a limited overs entity only).

The Aussie scenario is not the same. I'm not even sure (can anyone help me on this, please?) if the state organisations are clubs as we understand them in England. I believe the Victoria team represents a Victorian state association of some kind rather than a "state club" like Sussex CCC. But if the Bushrangers is an official team name and is used in all forms of cricket then I would guess the article is named correctly after all, although we must be careful to make sure we pipe references correctly if referring to Victoria before 1990.

Would a set of redirects per team be a way around it? So, if I was writing about Bill Ponsford and said he played for the Victoria state cricket team, for example, it would redirect to the Bushrangers. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Statistics and tables in biographical articles.

A couple of comments were made at Peer review regarding the Kevin Pietersen article, that I said I'd raise here to generate more views.

• In the infobox, for sections "5 wickets in a innings" and "10 in a match", it would be better to have "0" rather thatn a dash (unless the dash indicates information that is unknown)

• The achievements section looks messy.

1. In the "Achievements" section, you may integrate the records and awards into a written section rather than dot points.

2. Is it really necessary to have every man of the match performance?

As the infobox affects tons of articles, I was reluctant to change what I thought was 'policy' of "-" in the infobox, although by looking now at a selection of articles I see both forms (0 or -) are used quite a lot. As for the achievement section, I merely copied the format from Paul Collingwood the last contemporary player I can remember getting to FA. I assumed that if it was ok for one FA, it would be for another. Needless to say all of the records etc are mentioned in the full prose anyway.

I'd appreciate some feedback on these points, and another couple of peer reviews, perhaps from a cricketing POV would be good too.

Cheers, –MDCollins (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Collingwood should have a zero rather than a dash there, since he has bowled in Tests. For players who haven't bowled, I'm never quite sure. Obviously their bowling average box gets a dash rather than a zero, but 5/10w? I don't know. Loganberry (Talk) 23:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that's sound advice actually. If there was potential for it to occur, ie someone who has bowled but didn't take 5 wickets, a 0 is appropriate. If in effect it is n/a, – is probably better. Same also goes to stumpings, WK who haven't stumped should have a 0, fielders an –. –MDCollins (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Another related point is that 10 wickets in a match for ODIs always seems to be n/a in the infobox. It is actually possible though, right? So surely 0 is the correct entry.–MDCollins (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's possible, but I dont think its something that statisticians keep a record of (because it doesn't happen), therefore we leave it out too. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 10:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

CCOTM - 2003 Cricket World Cup

Hi., since June is already under way, moved 2003 Cricket World Cup as CCOTM based on max. number of votes. Letz get started on it and i shall try and see if i can match efforts on both 2003 and 2007 to make them FA level at the same time. However, as the 2 articles stand as of now, it needs a lot of photos. Can someone who attended these events volunteer for some snaps. Kalyan 14:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Bob Woolmer was not murdered

Cricinfo, Foxsports and BBC news and so can someone please update the news in all the related article please?--THUGCHILDz 11:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"There has been no confirmation of the report." - Wikipedia shouldn't speculate, this shouldn't be changed anywhere just yet, except on the Bob Woolmer murder investigation where it should be noted today was when this information was released.

I am hoping it's true and as much as it is still a sad event I am very pleased to hear it did not occur in the circumstances originally believed. AllynJ 12:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's be honest, if the Sunday Papers revealed he'd been captured by Aliens nobody would be surprised at this point. It's all speculation and none of us knows what's going on. Nick mallory 14:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure BBC is a reliable source.--THUGCHILDz 19:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

But the BBC are just reporting what the Daily Mail has claimed in a report that has not been confirmed. That's not reliable in my book. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 20:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

And it was the BBC's Panorama programme that alleged he'd been poisoned as well as strangled. Johnlp 20:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

n/a in ODI

Why on the cricket infoboxes is it 'not applicable' in the 10 wickets in a match - ODI box? Isn't possible to dismiss all ten batsman with one bowler in a One Day International match? I'm sure you're right I was just hoping someone could fill me in! :) SGGH ^speak! 17:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

For consistency with first-class cricket. Each side has two innings in a first-class match (including Test matches) and the "10 wickets in match" box refers to the number of times a bowler has dismissed 10 batsmen in a single match, not in a single innings. Since in List A cricket (including ODIs) there is only one innings a side, the stats would not be directly comparable, so it makes sense to leave it as N/A.

As you say, it is theoretically possible for one bowler to dismiss all ten batsmen in a single List A game, but it would take some doing, and the current world record is eight. That's the other reason: that every single player would have to have "0" in that box, which would make it rather useless in practice! Loganberry (Talk) 00:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

How about this for an aggressive declaration?

([3]) How many English captains would do that? --Dweller 11:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Desperate is the word I'd have used. Unless water seeped under the covers and it's an old fashioned sticky wicket which he wants to bowl on before it dries out it looks like an attempt to change the story from 'Abject Somerset Batting Collapse' to 'Plucky Declaration Turns Tables at Lord's'. Steffan Jones had batted twenty minutes without scoring so there weren't many runs being added anyway. Compton and the Boy Wonder seem to be doing fine in response at the moment. Nick mallory 11:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/35/35822.html Tintin 12:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Great example. Exactly the same first-innings score (50/8d) and they won. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It reminded me of this bizarre Test match. But that never happens in these days of covered pitches. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Gosh - declaring to set a target of 73! Brave. By far the lowest target reached in this list. Has any side managed to win a Test by declaring to set a target under 100, say? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Lowest score set with a third-innings declaration and successfully defended? Interesting question. I haven't found any very low ones, but here's another amusing match. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There are none under 150^[4]. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

On a similar vein (rain-affected wickets) I recall a story about Len Hutton that he regarded his finest batting performance as being a low score made in the Windies on a Sticky dog. Anyone know what match that was? I think he spoke about lying in bed hearing the heavy rain on the corrugated iron roof, knowing he had to bat in the morning. Possibly in Guyana? --Dweller 14:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably Brisbane 1950-51. It rained after Australia completed their first innings and the other three innings were played on a sticky. If ever a toss won a Test match it was this. Tintin 14:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That's the only one I can find under 200. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Only one example of a side declaring to set a target of less than 200 and going on to win? That is remarkable.

The list mentioned mentions two occasions when a side has declared to set a target of less than 200 and lost - the 1934-5 West Indies/England match mentioned above, and the 5th Test during England's tour to South Africa in 1948-9. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Going back to the original game, Somerset conceded a first innings lead of 200 then lost both openers for 0 so a turnaround is looking unlikely. Nick mallory 06:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Could be famous last words? Somerset in the second innings have recovered from 50-5 to 323-7 and their lead is 121 as I write (Tea on day three of four). Something for the bowlers to bowl at! --Dweller 15:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As it turns out...no. This [5] was a good one by the master captain himself. Nick mallory 09:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

KP (again)

Just thought I'd let you all know that thanks to substantial work from Trebor and myself, Kevin Pietersen has been nominated for FA. Can some of you take a look and review it please?

Cheers, –MDCollins (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

did someone notice this earlier?

i was reviewing the Sydney Riot of 1879 when i went to the profile of one of the officials involved and found to my surpise that an article citing WIKIPEDIA work was present there. Check for yourselves by clicking here - the reference to wikipedia is right at the bottom, in the biblography section. Didn't know if someone had noted it earlier. If it was noted and discussed earlier, apologies for bring it back again. Kalyan 18:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-April/044783.html The reference to CI's Edmund Barton article in Sydney_Riot_of_1879#Notes is unacceptable. Tintin 00:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. removed Edmund Barton article from notes/references section. Kalyan 18:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sticky dog / Sticky wicket

Trying to establish consensus for preferred article name. Please contribute at Talk:Sticky dog. Thanks. --Dweller 09:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Bangladeshi Cricketers

Can someone help our friend User:02blythed and me out with some of these cricketers? Particularly in aligning the prose and the box and putting them in a category? He's going faster than I can at the moment! Nick mallory 13:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Al_amin

Al_Wadud

Anisul_Hakim

Arafat_Salahuddin

Anisul Islam

Helping out; though I'll leave the prose up to others as it's far from my strong point. Two things:

• I've categorised the first 3 (as I type this), but can't think of any extra cats to add them to. Are there any others that should generally be added?
• Is there a reason these pages have "custom made" infoboxes as opposed to some of the templates, such as {{Cricketer Infobox}} or {{Infobox Cricketer (Career)}}? Ta. AllynJ 13:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not doing the boxes, User:02blythed is! He's just asked me how to do the flag, I've told him but I think he'd appreciate a bit of help from one of you guys. Nick mallory 14:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

For active players, including the number of matches played in the lead is not an advisable practice. Tintin 13:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello I understand about including the number of matches played by someone is a problem for a player that has not retired but I will record which players I have done infoboxes for who have not retired and update ever so often myself. I find the infoboxes you reconmend confusing and very long winded. People that use this site will probably only want to see there first class, List A record and international career and not nessasarily want to know there batting style for example and if they did then the source that I give will give them all that information. 02blythed 14:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Below are articles that I have created with infoboxes and if possible could someone write the prose for the articles as my english is not the best and I know I will only mess it up Thanks.02blythed 15:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariful_Haque

User User Talk:Finngall has just deleted all of the articles that are just infoboxes before seeing the arrangment with this project and nick mallory in particular. I have written to his talk page outlining its notablity and the agrrement that prose will be written by other people. I am really angry because he has just deleted hours and hours of work. I would like to know people' view on this negative or positive. 02blythed 16:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Finngall here: For the record, I'm not an administrator and did not delete the articles--I merely tagged them for speedy deletion per criteria A1 and A3 for empty articles lacking both content and context. Please note that I am not disputing their notability. --Finngall ^talk 16:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If other people were lined up to write the prose, it is indeed a bit annoying, but the deletions were quite fair by Wikipedia rules, and can be undone by any admin if there is some text ready to put in the articles as well. The first criterion for immediately deleting an article, is if there is no context given in the article. To avoid this I woudl suggest putting at least one sentence along with the infobox - something like "Xyz Vwx is a Bangladeshi cricketer, who has plays for Sylhet Division." The article can then stay until someone else expands the text. Don't be scared of writing the prose yourself - it is quite ok to make mistakes, and have them fixed up by others - that's how Wikipedia works! Hope this helps, JPD (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Cricketers that I have created infobox and sentance for

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikash_Sharma

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biplab_Sarkar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debashish_Barua

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deen_Mohammad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delwar_Hossain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhiman_Ghosh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dippajjal_Day

Thanks for your help 02blythed 11:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are more cricketers that I have created infoboxes and a sentance for

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faizul_Islam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farhad_Hossain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farid_Hossain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fariduddin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fazle_Mahmud

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazi_Alamgir

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazi_Salahuddin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golam_Mabud

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golam_Mawla

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golam_Mortaza

Thanks 02blythed 12:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I please suggest that you check all of the articles you have created with wikitables and convert them to the project suggested infobox? I just tried to tidy one up for you before realising it was a table. Also the correct spelling is Bangladesh...

Query raised in list article FLC review

I am reproducing feedback from non-cricket reviewer on Indian captains FLC - "I think it would be a bit more user friendly if the "Number Name Year Opposition Location Played Won Lost Drawn" row was inserted every 10 captains or so. Buc 14:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)". I invite reaction from this forum. Kalyan 17:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Presumably, they mean the header row, so that as you scroll down, you know what's what. It's not a bad idea, as (personally) I assumed the order would be WDL, not WLD (I guess that's what I'm used to seeing in British league tables of various sports). Perhaps make the breaks by decade, so it's logical and consistent. --Dweller 14:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, as above. See List of Australian ODI cricketers, where it's done every 50th player. 50 is too many on a captains' list as most players are going to have more than one row, in which case after every 10th captain or so would probably be best. By decade may work also, and in fact could well be better as the number of rows isn't going to change hugely per decade; it'll just have less captains listed in that time. AllynJ 15:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have just noticed that the article is to my mind inconsistent in its dealing with the ordering of won/lost/drawn and won/tied/lost. I would think that however you treat drawn (and I suggest that between won and lost works better for most English speakers) you should treat tied the same. Of course, I know draws and ties are not the same thing, but they're similar in that neither side won! --Dweller 12:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Technically drawn and tied are the same (the team shares points - 0.5 each) and hence what you allude makes sense. I looked at Cricinfo stats page and they follow the won/lost/tied format as well for the ODIs. Just a question here, would we change it for all the teams because England seem to have the same format. I don't mind changing the India page alone (because it is in FLC while England is not), but wanted to get a confirmation of the go-ahead before i do that. Let me know. --Kalyan 11:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. I know technically they're very similar... so they should be treated similarly. Put them in the same order. W/DorT/L or W/L/DorT. When I last looked, you had W/L/D and W/T/L, which is inconsistent. --Dweller 20:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you check now? I changed the Indian captains to W/L/D or T format. Please revert. Kalyan 05:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. All consistent. What happened with the suggestion of repeating the header row as each list goes down? --Dweller 09:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Done now, though i should add reluctantly, as i am not a big fan of the idea. But group decision rules and hence i added header rows for all except women's ODI (just 10 rows). Kalyan 10:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Afro-Asia Cup

Small question here, planning on making the T20 equivalent of List of African XI ODI cricketers, but I'm unsure of one thing: did today's match actually have T20 status? Cricket Archive is listing it as being "misc" and Cricinfo doesn't clarify, though it does say "Only T20" which would suggest it is; though it has yet to update the stats on its pages (see Loots Bosman, for instance). Thankee. AllynJ 19:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I e-mailed Cricket Archive a couple of weeks ago about this, and they said that it isn't an official Twenty20 International. Same for the women's match. Andrew nixon 19:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm presuming there's T20 equivalent of List A, then... Quite surprising; I would've thought in this day and age of T20's growing popularity that domestic associations would be looking to integrate it with a name to encompass it, too. Thanks anyway, Andrew; shan't make those lists then. :) AllynJ 19:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a Twenty20 equivalent of List A, currently given the imaginative name of Twenty20. This match doesn't even get put in that list though. Andrew nixon 20:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well looking at cricinfo, the domestic games of twenty20 is twenty20 while the international twenty20s are given twenty20 Internationals. But why is not given twenty20I status but the one-days are given ODI's, is it because the ACCs didn't ask the ICC for the status before hand?--THUGCHILDz 20:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Basically, when the contracts were signed for the Afro-Asia Cup were signed, there was no official definition of Twenty20 International, hence the Twenty20 match is not an official T20I. The guy at Cricket Archive also informed me that it's unlikely that the Afro-Asia Cup will have official ODI status once the third has taken place. Andrew nixon 06:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre, truly bizarre. Why would these ones not have ODI status when previous ones did? Ugh. Bureaucracy at it's silliest. AllynJ 10:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt that they're ODIs. See [6], for example. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(Back to the left!) I never said they weren't official ODIs. Andrew nixon 13:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

And it could yet be the heaviest defeat in any ODI. Africa 35/5, 282 behind. Record victory is 257. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it so much anymore, but they're still pretty much doomed unless Pollock beats Saeed Anwar's record. Complete mismatch, though the fact that there's one African making his ODI debut and at least another who has yet to play a single Test (excluding Kenyans) does kind of scream that it's not being taken too seriously... AllynJ 15:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Dale Steyn made his ODI debut in the 2005 event. I think this would be a lot better if they had continental sides made up of non-test players, as with the MCC v Europe match at Lord's tomorrow. Andrew nixon 15:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten that the purpose is to raise money. So they need the big names. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I haven't forgotten that! I just think that the cricket on offer would be more competitive and interesting without the "big names"! Andrew nixon 16:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well a easy solution would be to have quotas on how many players each team could have from the test teams and the rest coming from the leading associates, after all the money is being raised for them and the exposure will also help them.--THUGCHILDz 18:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, what on earth is going on here? 1st ODI from 2 years ago. Note the comments at the bottom:

• Africa XI replacement JM Kemp for TM Odoyo (Africa XI innings, 39.5 ov)
• Asia XI replacement Mohammad Ashraful for M Muralitharan (Asia XI innings, 0.0 ov)

CricketArchive's scorecard of the game agrees. Seems as if Odoyo was listed as being in the squad even beyond Africa XI going in to bat; Odoyo was the next man in to bat after Boje, but Kemp came in instead. Kemp also went on to bowl. So Odoyo really *didn't* take any part in the match - or certainly didn't bat or bowl, he may have fielded.
I can't find any overall African XI stats on CricketArchive, but Cricinfo says Odoyo has played in all 5 matches (including today's match), which is where the potential error lies. Odoyo, surely, should not have been given a cap for the first ODI - was he just a substitute fielder? If so, that shouldn't grant a cap, should it?
This occurs again in the 2nd ODI & 3rd ODIs of the same series: the 2nd ODI saying Tikolo did not bowl or field, but batted in place of one of the bowlers (Zondeki). Odoyo was involved in a similar incident again for the African XI in the 3rd ODI, having fielded and (presumably) he would have bowled had the match not been rained out, but he didn't bat.
This seems incredibly bizarre given that these matches had official ODI status... Is it simply a major oversight on the part of all those reporting on it? Or was there some bizarre change in the rules, whilst not dropping ODI status? Anyone got any clue? Ta. AllynJ 15:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That was the supersub rule in place at the time. All ODIs had it. Odoyo does get a cap, as he was in the starting XI. Andrew nixon 15:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, excellent, thank you. AllynJ 15:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Cricinfo or CricketArchive?

When there's conflicting stats etc, what should we go by? I'm bringing this up is because of the conflicting run rate of the '87 cwc - cricinfo vs cricketarchive. Yeah not much of a big deal but this will serve as a precedent for future conflicting stats.--THUGCHILDz 17:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed a while ago. Consensus seemed to be to go with CA. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 18:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed -- I would assume that the difference is simply how many overs the team faced. CA explicitly states that it expands the overs faced to 50 if bowled out within the 50 overs (which is now standard practice in NRR calculations), whereas Cricinfo doesn't; and whilst I haven't checked the legitimacy of CA's claims, I would assume theirs is more accurate. AllynJ 18:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I originally raised this point but on further investigation found that Cricinfo actual disagrees with it's very own Wisden Almanack section I think that says it all. --Jpeeling 19:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning in a footnote when a major source has incorrect data. Look at note 1 in Ravi Bopara or note 1 in Will Jefferson for examples of where I've done this. Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In the Bopara case though, 134 is probably not needed because the Cricinfo report is almost certainly wrong. See the other reports at [7] . Jefferson is a good example. Tintin 13:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I know the 134 is wrong, but that's exactly my point. A reliable source (or what should be a reliable source and which other people are likely to regard as a reliable source) has got it wrong. I think it's valuable to the reader to document that. It explains why I chose the number I did, and why it may not agree with the report they're reading. Remember, our primary job is not to write essays but to document the reliable sources. Where they're wrong, we should still document what the reliable sources say, and explain why they're wrong. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This Cricinfo link says that Davidson took 12/123 at Kanpur 1957/58. He actually took 12/124 at Kanpur 1959/60[8]. So if you see something like this in Cricinfo, will you still add it as a note in the article ? Tintin 00:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If I were talking about that match already, yes, I would. Stephen Turner (Talk) 06:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting as you are talking about statistics. I have long held that Cricinfo is unreliable as a historical reference because it does not use the verified sources and there is a conspicuous lack of editing throughout its material, which contains some real howlers. I refuse to consult it. It seems from the above that it is equally inaccurate for statistics and that doesn't surprise me. CricketArchive is generally accurate except that it still has "first-class cricket" commencing in the year 1801 and needs to get its early cricket records in order. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Cricinfo also doesn't update it's stats to reflect recent decisions. The non-white South African competitions from the 70s/80s were recently upgraded to first-class status, and cricinfo haven't updated their stats to reflect this. I've probably mentioned this before. Just look at the stats for players as high profile as Basil D'Oliveria (Cricinfo, CA) and Omar Henry (Cricinfo, CA) on the two sites. Andrew nixon 21:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Also a lot of its world records for first-class matches seem not to have been updated since they were created as rec.sport.cricket posts years ago. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I've found the biggest inaccuracy on cricinfo. Vincent Barnes, a South African player. 323 wickets at the incredible average of 11.95 on Cricket Archive [9] and just 19 wickets at 25.21 on cricinfo.[10] Can anyone beat that? Andrew nixon 10:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Classic example. I decided to create poor old Mike Taylor (cricketer) who has been hanging around on the to-do page for weeks, it seems. As it happens, his twin is Derek Taylor (cricketer) and he had an article created recently with cricinfo references both in terms of stats and his place of birth. Cricinfo says the twins were born in South Africa when in fact they were born in Buckinghamshire. And the stats were inaccurate too. Absolute rubbish!

Can I please ask everyone NOT to use cricinfo as a source. It is utterly unreliable. For historical material, if you want to quote a reliable reference depending on the period, use Wisden or S&B or whatever from an existing historical article of the same period. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well Blackjack, someone at Cricinfo must be reading, since now Derek was born in Bucks. He's another South African player with mising matches. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 03:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I shall simply refer everyone to the strange case of Kingsmill Key: according to Cricinfo's profile, he managed to play 368 first-class matches between 1882 and 1887. I know they played more games per season in those days, but this is a bit much! (In fact his last game was in 1909.) Loganberry (Talk) 00:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

yeah ok, cricinfo isn't the best source for statistics but I think saying it's utterly unreliable is going a little to far, don't you think?--THUGCHILDz 01:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Relatively unreliable than CA for stats, and generally doesn't respond if you report errors or fix them, but it is not as erroneous or bad as it is being made out to be. Tintin 04:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Much of its historical material is misleading because it does not edit content properly and does not use verifiable sources. I try to write historical stuff and I gave up on cricinfo ages since because of all the errors and "garden paths" I was finding, including some of the sport's notorious "myths". Evidently the statistical records are equally unreliable. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

New stub sorting discussion

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2007/June#Cricket templates and stubs. I'm sure comments would be welcome there. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks as if Stephen and I have got our point across here already but if anyone else can weigh in, it would help. The point is that they do not split the West Indian player stub category by West Indian states (which would be like splitting English players by county). --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Greatest Opening Batsman?

Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton, Geoffrey, Gavaskar, Greenidge? They're the names that usually get trotted out and yesterday it cropped up in conversation yet again.

Someone asked me who I would have in an all-time XI and that was easy to answer because I've maintained and updated a team for years and it's on my userpage here. So I scribbled it down in batting order and gave it to him. He agreed it's a formidable line-up but raised a few predictable alternatives.

Then he asked: "Is this in batting order or have you put the captain first?" "No, batting order." "Oh, well I think you should move him back into the middle and have a specialist opener to go in with Hobbs."

Specialist opener? Move him "back" into the middle?

I am constantly amazed that there are lots of people who know a lot about cricket but who nevertheless assume that because WG was an all-rounder he must have batted at number six or thereabouts like Gary Sobers did. Does anyone seriously believe that WG would ever go in anywhere but first? He was always number one in any batting order and, as such, he was a specialist opener as well as a supreme all-rounder. Indeed, he was the greatest opener just as he was the greatest cricketer, especially when you consider the state of the pitches he had to bat on. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've always had Hobbs and Grace opening in my all-time World XI. Andrew nixon 08:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Hobbs and Grace are the obvious openers. I'm amazed that Steve "anything for a not out" Waugh is at number 5 in your world XI though blackjack. Ahead of Graeme Pollock or Viv Richards, Barry Richards or Victor Trumper? Denis Compton, Wally Hammond or Peter May? And does Sir Geoffrey know he's not in your all time Yorkshire team? Nick mallory 08:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Steve Waugh is admittedly the most fragile member of my team, Nick. I chose him (in place of Hammond, actually) as my "insurance" in case of an England style collapse or in case the other lot start bowling leg theory! I thought that Waugh would be the dependable one when things go pear-shaped: I could have picked Sir Geoff of course but he would not like going in at number five. Same with Yorkshire really: he is right up there with Sutcliffe and Hutton but not quite in their class when it is time to get a move on and, above all, put the team first.

Incidentally, I've accepted contemporary views when it comes to picking Hobbs ahead of Sutcliffe or Hutton. If you look at stats, especially Sutcliffe's Test average, you might think Hobbs is a contentious choice, but it was almost universally agreed by his contemporaries that he was the best there was. Final confirmation comes from Wilfred, who told Neville Cardus that: "Jack's t'best since t'Doctor!"  ;-) --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone would agree Hobbs is a dead certainty as opening batsman. Can't agree with you about Steve Waugh though. If you look at his career he averaged the same as (much more talented) brother Mark in runs per innings if you ignore the not outs and he only survived fast bowling, rather than dominated it a la Ted Dexter. If you want a rock what about Ken Barrington or even Alan Border? I'd still rather have the pure class of Pollock or either Richards myself! I'd have Boycs opening with Sutcliffe and Hutton at 3 in my Yorkshire team. Excellent as Boof is we're talking Yorkshire here. I bet you're the only person to have John Small in your all time England team and Bob Taylor as wicket keeper (Ames, Knott, Stewart?) but it's always an interesting discussion anyway. You know a lot more about it than me and the beauty about this place is that I learn a new thing every day. Nick mallory 06:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

These discussions are always fun, and of course, riddled with particularism and subjectivity. I was delighted to see Sydney Barnes in your all-time England XI, Blackjack. I've always loved this character for his nonconformity, if nothing else. --Dweller 11:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

KP - FA status

Kevin Pieterson has received FA status. Congrats to MDCollins for his work on the article. Kalyan 17:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Uhm. It has? Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kevin Pietersen says nothing about it, nor the talk page of the aricle. I fully expect it to (as it deserves it), but it hasn't yet, surely? AllynJ 18:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Odd. It has been removed from the FAC page, by Raul himself no less, yet the page hasn't been updated to reflect it - just a delay? My apologies for reverting your edit on the project page if this is the case, Kalyan. AllynJ 18:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess it takes sometime before the bot updates the talk page. FA page was where i found that KP's article made it. Kalyan 18:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake, sorry.

Congrats MDCollins, great work. *thumbs up* :) AllynJ 19:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Trebor deserves some credit for work in the improvement drive. –MDCollins (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well done chaps. Nick mallory 11:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Player Importance rating

I went through the Importance scale section and it is very vague on the assessment for player bios. How do we assign importance wrt players. i am hoping we can have a discussion on the topic. If i take a stab at measurable parameters

• Top - Test Players with 125 tests or 9000+ runs or 350+ wickets (post-1970). Players with 75 tests or 6000 runs or 250+ wickets(pre-1970). ODI players: 300 ODIs or 9000 ODI+ runs or 350+ wickets
• High - Test Players with 75 tests or 7000+ runs or 250+ wickets (post-1970). Players with 50 tests or 4000 runs or 200+ wickets(pre-1970). ODI players: 200 ODIs or 7000 ODI+ runs or 250+ wickets
• Medium - International test and ODI players
• Low - First class players

This can just be guideline and exceptions can de discussed in the group.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vimalkalyan (talk • contribs)

This is quite difficult due to the fact that before WWI, most teams played only once every two years maybe? 5 Tests in 2 years, so a player before WWI needs to play for 30 years to get to the top. And even if you take in the 1950s, there was series, maybe on average 1.5 per year, so some player like Alan Davidson played for 10 years, was the best fast bowler in the world for five years, and was regarded as one of the 2-3 best allrounders of his era only qualifies as medium. (He played 44 Tests, 186 wickets at 20.5, 1300 runs at 24.5) He also has the third lowest bowling average of post WW2players. So he would be medium, whereas some player can play for a long time now like Harbhajan Singh and Brett Lee and almost be at 250 Test wickets but are usually rated at about #15-20 in the world. Also if measures people for batsman or bowler only, so Gary Sobers is only high, while Mark Waugh is top. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the info. as i said, we can tinker with the stats required. we can also have 3 buckets - Pre-WWII, WWII - 1980 (post packer era) and 1980 onwards and define criteria for each era. Of the 43 players with 100+test caps, more than 30 earned their caps in 10 years. If you take 125 as the cut-off for modern cricket (caps), the list is Steve & Mark Waugh, Border, Warne, Tendulkar, Stewart, Walsh, Kapil Dev, Gavaskar and Lara (10). I think everyone in that list is worth the consideration. Kalyan 07:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It is very difficult. There will always be an element of subjectivity. Statistics at best can be only a very rough guide. There was a discussion here several months ago, wherein BlackJack suggested IIRC that only Grace and Bradman should be rated as "top". He also introduced a new "bottom" rating, as four grades is rather limiting for the whole spread of players from Bradman to someone who has played only a single first-class fixture. If you want to assess a lot of articles, then I'd suggest joining the assessors' group. JH (talk page) 08:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't judge someone;s importance and standing in the game just on the numbers. Victor Trumper and Learie Constantineare all time greats in anyone's book yet the aggregate numbers suggest they'd be inferior to many players today, simply because they played fewer tests in different times. Looking at England for an example, Tich Freeman took incredible numbers of first class wickets yet did little in tests, is he really going to be judged by history as inferior to Liam Plunkett? George Hirst didn't play as many times as Ashley Giles for England but who would you pick in a side? Stats are important in cricket but not the be all and end all. Is Tom Hayward less of a batsman than Paul Collingwood? It has to be something that's agreed by debate and which evolves through discussion, it can't be imposed by a bot like statistic test. The assessors group is the best forum for this debate, it's not something that can be automatically bestowed by automatic examination of the numbers. Nick mallory 08:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not asking you to club various eras of players. see my comments above to differentiate bowlers of various eras. Also, exceptions will be allowed where a case is made. My point was atleast 90% of the cases can be assessed using stats benchmark that we can arrive at. For the remaining 10%, we can def. have their cases examined and 'upgrade' as per consensus. Kalyan 09:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I think going by each era would be the best way to go, but instead of going by Tests and ODI's how about we go by first class and List A since both of the formers fall into the latter.--THUGCHILDz 10:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I just don't think you can do it with numbers. The importance of a player to the game and Wikipedia isn't a function of their statistics. Think about the test records of Graham Pollock or Mike Proctor for instance compared to their (huge) stature in the game. There'd be so many exceptions to this proposed scheme that it'd be more confusing than a more ad hoc approach. There are so many players who didn't play 75 tests or score 6,000 runs before 1970 that it becomes a nonsense. George Headley is absolutely one of the greatest ever batsmen for instance as is Ranji and yet neither of them would count. You can only know who the great players were by reading up on the history of the game, not through running the stats through a computer. It's an art not a science. Nick mallory 12:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The importance is not to do with how significant / prolific the player is, it's a measure of the importance of the article to Wikipedia / this project. You can't judge that with numbers. In fact, have you actually read that page? There are some good arguments against what you are suggesting! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 11:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right, Ollie. So are Nick and JH and Blnguyen. The thing is that Kalyan is a statistician and not a historian so he takes a statistical view, which is fair enough in statistical terms. But to present a study of cricket on an encyclopeadia we have to take the historical view because statistics per se are unencyclopaedic and we have to present the subject in comprehensive descriptive terms. It is true that statistics can support an encyclopaedic article and provide an illustration of the subject, as can graphics and pictures, but statistics in this sphere are not an end in themselves and so cannot be used as any kind of a benchmark when evaluating, as Ollie says, "a measure of the importance of the article to Wikipedia / this project".

What is the biggest single argument against statistics in cricket terms? What we call "first-class cricket", or "major cricket" as many people increasingly prefer (so as to include ListA), has a history of over 300 years. For more than half of that time, the statistics are non-existent, incomplete or unreliable. If a Test statistics benchmark is used instead of a historical view, then Shane Warne is automatically the greatest bowler of all time and the great bowlers of the past such as Stevens, Harris, Jackson, Spofforth and the rest are relegated to the mids and lows because we don't have complete statistical records, never mind the absence of Test cricket. But if we take first-class statistics as the yardstick, the greatest bowler is Wilfred and Shane is nowhere to be seen. It just doesn't work.

An excellent point made earlier is re Mark Waugh, who was certainly a good player. But as good as Bradman and greater than Grace? Another problem which statistics cannot resolve is pitch conditions. If WG was playing for England in the 1990s would he have been a disaster like the Atherton-led rabble or would he have loved the flat tracks and sent Warne scurrying for cover? What sort of first-class record would these "flat track bullies" have had if they had been born a century or two earlier and had to play on uneven pitches that cracked up in a matter of hours, assuming they were ever prepared in the first place?

The point of the historical view is that you assess each player in terms of his own time. Hence, while I entirely agree that Glenn McGrath is a high importance cricketer, so is Robert Colchin, who was a Georgian gangster. Colchin was also a significant entrepreneur (a crooked one to be sure) and is in fact much more important to the history and development of the sport (and hence to this project). Without Colchin, would cricket have become the major sport it is today? McGrath is just another outstanding Aussie fast bowler to follow Spofforth, Gregory, Lindwall, Miller, Davidson, Lillee, Thomson and Co. Statistics about Robert Colchin are depressingly few, but there is no doubt from the contemporary reports that he was one hell of a player and his influence on the sport in his own day was immense.

Taking the statistical view of a modern player. Averages. Ian Botham's career averages are modest. Fact. So, was he a low importance player? Given that this whole statistical view is inevitably leading towards glorification of "modern heroes" that fact seems to go right against the grain. And please don't miss the point here!

The only way to make an evaluation is to do what we are already doing by taking a balance between current notability (popularity if you like) and historical notability (not just players). This process is working very well and we have hundreds if not thousands of satisfactorily rated cricket articles. If it ain't broke....... --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen many importance ratings that I've violently disagreed with. I've come across a few, though. For instance Wes Hall and Sonny Ramadhin were both rated as "low", which I changed to "high". JH (talk page) 20:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I hold my hand up about those, JH. They are a legacy of my "experiment" a few months ago and there are still possibly a few around who were not re-reviewed. They will all be in the low class if they are still there. Sorry you had to do the necessary. I agree they are both high. I remember watching Big Wes back in '63. What a personality! --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"The thing is that Kalyan is a statistician and not a historian... " Wish i could say that! On a more serious note, i think people are mixing 2 seperate issues. The importance scale is not to assess their importance to the game of cricket but assess it's importance to Wikipedia (how many people access the article). So either you change the text on the assessment page or agree that modern players will be given higher importance than the game's legends from yesteryears. Kalyan 20:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we even know how many people access an article? And does that really measure its importance to Wikipedia? I expect that more people access articles on pop music than on classical music. Does that mean that they are more important? Also it's a WP Cricket rather than a Wikipedia rating. As cricket is a minority interest in terms of a worldwide encyclopaedia, you could argue that a pan-Wikipedia rating would be low for all cricket articles. In fcr I think it would be quitew reasonable for WG to get a "low" rating from WP Biography but a "top" from WP Cricket. It's all a question of the criteria being used. JH (talk page) 21:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if there is such a thing as importance to Wikipedia, statistics do not provide a benchmark. And if we take JH's point about pop versus classical to the extreme, then Pietersen is "top" and WG is "low"! A ridiculous scenario resulting in zero credibility. As Wikipedia is an academic exercise, I would not be too sure that WG doesn't get more "hits" than Pietersen.

You have to bear in mind that we are producing an encyclopaedic study of cricket in terms of the entire subject which means 347 years of major cricket and not the 27 years since Packer as you suggested above (a bucket for pre-WWII covers 285 years!). The importance ratings used in this project are geared towards the subject whereas in another project the criteria might very well be who actually did something ten hours ago (therefore Ian Bell is tops).

Given that the WP cricket material must have low access levels, we cannot do it any other way. Even so, the guidelines still allow for current notability as with the recent World Cup and the present tours of England. I fail to understand your problem unless you are trying to prove that recent players are better than the old timers because they have played so much Test cricket and that is frankly absurd as per the examples quoted above. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of triggering one more huge response, i think most of you missed my point. I have no dis-respect for the great men of the ol'. but can any of you justify as to how KAPIL DEV can be a mid-importance when even from even an encyclopedic content. that and the importance for a few other cricketers was the source of my original coment.

Can you please make sure you sign your entries. If you think Kapil is a high then promote him: I for one have no problem with Kapil, who was a great player and very important to Indian cricket. As for the comment which you suppressed, George Herbert Hirst performed a feat that is unique in first-class cricket and was one of the most influential professionals ever to play the game, as well as having a magnificent career record. There is no doubt whatsoever that he is of high importance to the project, as is Kapil Dev. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 16:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to use statistics as a rule of thumb (for anybody's usage, official or unofficial in doing their markings), one should look at, eg, List of Australian Test cricketers etc, and compare them to the stats of those players in the same era in the list. Since eg, Victor Trumper only averaged about 40 but that was the highest average in his era, whereas if you look at players since the start of the 21st century, Dravid, Ponting, Kallis, Yousuf etc are all averaging about 70-75, and I doubt many people would simply say that they are better than Trumper.... or that Ganguly, Michael Clarke, or Graeme Smith are better than Victor Trumper. One of the issues with simply using aggregates is if a player's career was interrupted by freak events like apartheid ban, boycotts, world wars, car crashes and illnesses, non-selection for political and other non-merit issues, their value will be diminished.....and another thing is that Asian countries play lots and lots of ODIs, and Australia/England lots of Tests.....By the end of their careers, I would not be surprised if Michael Clarke had more Test runs than Rahul Dravid, and Rahul Dravid had more ODI runs than Clarke. But simply going by aggregates, you would think that Dravid was a scintillating dasher who was not so technically correct but had a lot of shots, and that Clarke was a supreme technician who was conservative and didn't score much in ODIs. So averages rather than aggregates should be used, when looking for a rule of thumb.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hatches in the pitch

[11] - really? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 11:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I wonder.–MDCollins (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I saw it on TV once... still needs a reference though. Andrew nixon 11:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the Brumbrella was similarly stored in hatches in the field (not the pitch!!! God forbid!!!!) Does the Brumbrella still exist? We need an article on it. --Dweller 12:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hatches on the edge of the square were pretty common on first class grounds a few years ago, often used for helmets. A club side I played for a couple of years ago had one as well. A bigger mystery is why Chanderpaul's taking a single off the first ball of an over when he's batting with the tail for the game? Nick mallory 12:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; it made little sense to move at all, if it had gone for 4 they'd have been safe, else they ... would've been safe. Just a rush of blood to the head, I guess. Brilliant match, though. AllynJ 13:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, excellent to see the Windies make a fight of it and Harmison find a bit of life when they'd all been written off. Monty's got to calm down the appealing though, much as everyone likes him, that's too much. I wish he'd toss it up a bit too. Plunkett will be biting his nails though. Nick mallory 17:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Monty needs to take a leaf out of Vettori's book and learn how to vary the flight and pace a bit more. He's far from a one trick pony but if he can learn how to do so it'd still add a huge amount to his game.

Plunkett's been dropped (unsurprisingly), Anderson to come in next Test match if Hoggard isn't fit to play.[12] Not convinced Anderson's in form enough to be picked, personally, but well, Mahmood's a definite no and who else is there? Short of finding someone to do what Sidebottom did. Windies were great today, hope we can see some good fight in the final Test, should be a great game. AllynJ 18:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's hope Hoggard's fit, but if he's not I'm sure Richardson, Shreck or Silverwood would take more wickets than Anderson at Durham and bowl straighter too. Anderson was really quick and swung it miles when i first saw him for Lancashire against Somerset at Blackpool a few years ago but he's suffered so much from injuries and too much coaching and too little play. Strauss needs a hundred there or he's out, there's no way they're picking him for the one day stuff and if Shah or Bopara does well in the one days they'll take his place with Vaughn moving back up to open. Nick mallory 03:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

List of cricketers finalisation

Okay, so a month or so ago we had some discussion on changing the Lists of cricketers (see: here). We never came up with a proper answer as to how to do it, so I've gone and implemented it over at List of African XI ODI cricketers, complete with a fair bit of prose (especially considering they've only played 6 games). I was wondering if anyone had some final thoughts for changing these lists? I know one user had a real desire to remove the stats, but I personally strongly oppose such a move; and beyond that, it's just finalisation of the whole batting style/bowling style columns, and whether they should be replaced with "Speciality" or not. I'm thinking we should; it shouldn't be too hard to come up with a general style. I'm not even particularly familiar with some of the names on the African XI list and can instantly pick out all but 2 players where I could label them as either a batsman, bowler or all-rounder - I don't think it would be that NPOV-bait-ish. Of course there is the potential for vandalism, but I don't think it's so great that it's going be a real problem. Anyway, I'd like to take the list to FLC in the next few days pending your guys' thoughts & general approval, so thanks for any input people can give. AllynJ 19:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks great. I think it is FL class. The only comment that i had was that you need to modify '5I' to '4I/5I'. That way, you will have some info. Thanks to Gavaskar and the wise men of ICC tech committee, bowlers are fast becoming a rare species. Kalyan 19:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You know what's somewhat bizarre? If I changed it to 4I/5I for bowling figures, it'd still say 0/0 for ever player... Pollock's 3/32 in the 1st ODI are the best bowling figures for an African XI player. Silly or what? :) AllynJ 19:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

i know but i had the asian XI list in mind when i made the suggestion (rafique is one 4I guy!), because that article needs a lot of work to bring it to the same level as the Africa XI and that article is a FL. mine was just a suggestion. you are welcome to ignore it. --Kalyan 20:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it sounds like a good idea; it'd certainly be a lot more effective on a list with more than 25~ players on it. Not to be on Test lists, since 5I/10M are already implemented in the basic idea for those (I think we decided on that, anyway). AllynJ 20:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)