Talk:2007 Cricket World Cup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
cricket ball 2007 Cricket World Cup is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by editing the article 2007 Cricket World Cup, or visit the project page for more details.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Rankings

I was wondering if it might be interesting to put the standing of the ODI rankings in before the Super 8s stage. There will likely be a lot of movement during this time and it would be interesting to note that Australia are losing to South Africa by a thousandth of a decimal point, that only 11 points seperate 3-8 and with India & Pakistan out of the tournament the table is a bit different to that at the beginning of the cup, and a lot more interesting. Tony2Times 15:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Grounds

Could someone please edit the venues and cities so that grounds not being used in the tournament proper (ie, warm-up grounds) are listed separately.

I would also like to see the grounds that were proposed for the cup, like the one in the US, listed as well as the warm ups and group/super 8/smei final and final are.

The name of the stadium in Guyana is stated to be Providence Stadium in this page, but the official site for the 2007 ICC Cricket World Cup states it to be Guyana National Stadium. Will please someone clarify this in my talk page?DragonOfLegend 14:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)DragonOfLegend

[edit] notable event for Canada and a would be notible event for the Indies

"In that same game (New Zealand Vs. Canada), had Canada scored 268 runs instead of 249 (their highest ever in the world cup), it would have been the second time that a ODI match in the west indies had a score of 600 or higher."

I really think that is worth keeping on this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.237.54.62 (talk • contribs).

It didn't actually happen, so why have it on the page? (Besides, they made 229, not 249. So it was actually 39 runs short of happening.) Sam Vimes | Address me 20:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thursday 22 March 2007

New Zealand 363/5 (50 overs) Lou Vincent 101 (107) vs (details) Canada 249/9 (49.2 overs) John Davison 53 (31) New Zealand won by 114 runs Beausejour Stadium, Gros Islet, Saint Lucia

if anything, the 249 is still a very notable event for the Canadian Cricket Team.

[edit] very negative press about world cup in the states

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17728222/ though I should put this here, that way a few more passonite cricket fans like myself can reply to this. I also think it should be put in the page at some point.

What the author forgot to embrace was how much passion cricket generates. And there's a reason why: it's a great, entertaining global sport. Perhaps Mr. Dahlberg should think about why American Football, Baseball and Basketball (College Basketball included) aren't global sports. It saddens me that some United States citizens keep such a narrow mind on sports like cricket and football (yes, football football). I guess that article could get a mention somewhere. --mdmanser 14:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said mate, an I'd like to add that there version of Grin Iron Football is also bad game in comparison to their Canadian counterparts (See CFL, after reading that, I'm sure you will agree). Mind you, Canadian football isn't as know around the world as American football, but is quickly gaining ground thanks to the internet. Just my $1 coin rant on that (and I'm pretty ticked that the Canadian coach didn't mention Canadian football when interviewed (he mentioned ice hockey, basketball (which is mainly popular in Ontario, no very popular in the other provinces), baseball (which is dying sport in Canada, Cricket is on the rise in Ontario I'm happy to say), but did he say something about the sport of the 2nd most popular league in Canada (CFL) after the NHL, no!).

What really bugs me is that he focuses on the neg side of the sport and not the positive of the cup, like it's elite members (Australia, South Africa, Aoatoatoa(sp?) (aka New Zealand), up and coming Ireland, West Indies, and Canada (better luck in 2011), to name a few) only being referred to as "former British territories." well, guess which country the USA declared independence from? The US needs to take a good hard look at themselves and start putting more attention on Cricket IMO, or leave the game alone compiletly. I'd also like to point out how many times the US has made the world cup, zero, until they make it to the cup (which would likely happen only if more non test nations are invited to participate), they should just shut up about it, go back to their baseball (which IMO is a mutant from of cricket, with no limits to fouls being like no limits to no balls in Cricket, which would be stupid), and not have their sports guys (who this guy clearly commentates basketball or even worse baseball) make negative smug opions on a sport they don't clearly understand, especially are an event like the Pakistan coach's murder. Will they report about who won the world cup on the Today show in a mouths time? no, they only will report about neg cricket news, not positive. Kanga-Kucha

[edit] Notable Events

Couple of things. 1. Bangladesh Defeating India is NOT a notable event. It is just one test playing nation defeating another. This event is same as if Zimbabwe was to defeat either Pakistan and / or West Indies. On the otherhand. the IRE-ZIM and IRE-PAK match are significant because it involves a non test playing nation. 2. Teams that have or have not quailifed for Super "Eight" is NOT a notable event. It should be included in the Super "Eight" section, until all teams for the next round are determined. (Anyways the grammer was wrong in that phrase. I corrected the same. It should be "have" and not "had" since the event is still still current and therefore present tense and not past tense.)

[edit] What TV networks show the world cup online?

I'm looking for some but haven't been sucessful.

Williow.tv or dishcricket.com among others, look around there's quite a few around.--Thugchildz 06:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] West Indies

How could anybody be sure W.I. is D2. They could be D1. (20/03/07)

No, the higher seed teams are assigned positions before the world cup, it doesnt matter if they come 1st or 2nd in the group. This is so fans can by tickets to super 8 matches and know if there team will be in it if they survive the group round (only try for the top 8 teams of course). WI is D2 because Pakistan was seeded higher than them. Pakistan should have been D1, but they failed to make it, so the team that takes their place is D1, which is Ireland. Likewise even if Australia loose to south africa, Australia remain A1.--210.49.152.114 11:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


Hey I heard about this great resource for checking information like this. Here's the link...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Cricket_World_Cup. Read the relevant part where it perfectly explains the answer to your question, which would be a fair enough question if the answer to it wasn't on the very page you were just on. Scratchdawg 12:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
There's no need to be an asshole about it, it took me a while to find the relevant section, and the screwy system the ICC has elected to used is very different from anything used by anyone else NTRabbit 2:51 PM, March 20, 2007 (UTC)
Before you insult someone who has more common sense than you, please do make sure that you are grammatically correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.151.21.102 (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] What stadiums applied for the 2007 World cup?

I'm just curious, as their was mention of a stadium in Florida that seems to have been edited out now.

[edit] Eh?

"Australia, India, England and West Indies have been placed in separate pools to allow for logistics." Who can explain what this means?

I think it means that since these four teams are expected to have the largest number of fans show up, they were placed separately to allow for the 'logistics' of hotels, restaurants, etc.

I - amazingly - am not playing Tardis Tennis at the moment. 3 July 2005 21:34 (UTC)
There you go. -dmmaus 3 July 2005 23:16 (UTC)
Cheers - that does make sense. -I - amazingly - am not playing Tardis Tennis at the moment. 4 July 2005 11:11 (UTC)

[edit] warm up matches

Group WA Jamaica Trelawny 05 March WI v KEN 06 March IND v NED 08 March KEN v NED 09 March IND v WI

Group WB St. Vincent 05 March ENG v BER 06 March AUS v ZIM 08 March ZIM v BER 09 March AUS v ENG

Group WC Trinidad, Brian Lara 05 March SA v CAN 06 March PAK v IRE 08 March IRE v CAN 09 March PAK v SA

Group WD Barbados, 3W's 05 March SL v SCO 06 March NZ v BAN 08 March SCO v BAN 09 March NZ v SL

What's the funda of the warmup matches? IT's a first, right?! It needs to be included in the main article..
—Karthik.raman 04:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Not a first. Warmup matches have been there for a long time. Tintin (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Are the warm-ups officially accredited ODIs? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
nope--Thugchildz

[edit] Cost of stadium construction and renovation

I have included the cost of stadium construction and renovation wherever possible. I request others to fill in the info for the remaining stadiums

[edit] Freedom of Travel among the host nations

According to the link in the 'see also' section, visitors for this Cricket World Cup will be able to travel freely amongst the host nations and (for those who need it) can use a single visa. Was this ever instituted for any of the previous world cups that had more than one host nation? Perhaps a stub section about this should be included in the main article with a link to the main information in 'CARICOM Visa and Freedom of Travel...'? 72.27.27.9 02:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map

I drew a map which I felt the article needs badly. Unfortunately I'm not too good at this sort of thing so if anyone can improve it, please do so. Regards, —Moondyne 15:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zimbabwe

I noticed that Zimbabwe is listed under ODI & Test status, although from knowledge they voluntarily withdrew from test status due to the political situation & eventual floggings on the field. So the question, should they just be listed as an ODI team. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 11:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

They're still a full member of the ICC and still have Test status. Officially they have been excused from their Test obligations under the Future Tours Program. It has been reported as having their Test status suspended/withdrawn/etc but they could still theoretically play Tests if they wanted to. Andrew nixon 12:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspam

This article has regularly had a variety of links added into the =External Links= section which have generally been reverted fairly promptly per WP:EL. The links remaining are:

all of which I'm fairly happy with. Is there a consensus that these links are all OK and that any additional links should pass through here for discussion before being added? I'd say its highly likely we will be getting lots more added in the next couple of weeks, esp blogs etc. —Moondyne 04:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say those should be the only ones that should be there so yeah--Thugchildz 06:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's a useful link for somepeople. It has photos of many of the new stadia across the Caribbean. Some of them are from when they were in their final stages.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cricket/sets/72157594276519883/

Example: Barbados Kensington Oval: 1 2 3 4 5 6

CaribDigita 18:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fire Scare/Gas Leak

Does anybody think its worth adding the fire scare/gas leak at the Hilton Hotel on March 7, where the SA and Pak teams were staying? Either to this article or 2007 Cricket World Cup warm-up matches - Ozzykhan 21:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, not really...it wasn't a big deal... just gas...--Thugchildz 00:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
If it can be fitted in without having a seperate banner I think it's worth a mention, it's something of note but not a big deal certainly. Tony2Times 15:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

Just an imitation one. Not the original. rohith 19:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warm up matches

Isn't it better to move the Warm up matches section from "Structure" to "Lead Up" ? - Ozzykhan 23:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening Ceremony

Should we add an Opening Ceremony section in the lead up section? We can probably add a couple of pictures as well - Ozzykhan 14:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drawing of lots

I was asked by Batsnumbereleven to explain why the groups weren't drawn. I'll repost this here:

It went as follows:

Australia (1): group A Sri Lanka (2): group B New Zealand (3): group C Pakistan (4): group D.

Now, from the next level (5-8) there were three teams that had to be kept apart from Australia, so South Africa (5) had to go in Australia's group. Normally the eighth-seed would have played Australia, but India and Australia had to be kept apart. Thus, West Indies (6) went in group D, England (7) in C and India (8) in B.

The ECB press release which is cited [1] reads: "If the draw were made using the rankings as they stand at the moment, the groups would be as follows:". This suggests there was no drawing of lots involved whatsoever. Sam Vimes | Address me 09:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scorecards?

I added a scorecard summary to the first of the completed group games, but this was swiftly removed with no more explanation than "this is not the place for scorecards". I notice from the 2003 WC article they were also absent. Can someone explain why this is not considered appropriate, given this is the World Cup, and not just any old(!) ODI series? Surely the scores accumulated at a World Cup can prove particularly significant? - 81.5.170.199 03:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is wikipedia article, and each information we add is supposed to be encyclopedic. It is not supposed to be a database or an archive of information.
Also note that, there are 51 matches in the entire tournament. It is not even possible to imagine, a single page containing scorecards of 51 matches.
For more details, please see what Wikipedia is not. Thanks. - KNM Talk 03:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I see what you mean about having all such data on the same (main) page - it would be very long as an HTML file and pretty unwieldy if not broken down. However, I don't see that something such a scores table violates the WP:NOT nor that it is inherently unencyclopedic. Quite the opposite - tables of data (eg lists of Kings, Presidents and their dates; scores in key sports tournaments; lists of anniversaries, etc) are exactly what you find in encyclopedias, and do not violate any of the principles listed in WP:NOT. If you browse the bold definitions of what WP is not, none of them apply to such tabulated factual data or statistics.
However, as I said, I agree it would be cumbersome to have such data listed completely on the main page of the article, but supplementary page(s) would seem appropriate. Having said that I'm not on any personal crusade about it, so whatever. I just fail to see that a blanket ban on such data (whether it be sports scores or other tabulated data as mentioned above) is at all in keeping with the concept of a proper encyclopaedia nor that it violates anything listed under WP:NOT. - 81.5.170.199 03:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

My Page 2007 World Cup Matches too was hotlinked for deletion.True,a page on World Cup matches may seem cumbersome and unnecessary.However,it does make it much easier for contributing articles with statistical data.Ravichandar84 04:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone has added the name and score of the top scorer of the winning team in the India vs Bermuda match as well as the Sri Lanka vs India. It can be seen that it is not necessary and doesn't appear in any other match.DragonOfLegend 13:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)DragonOfLegend
Sorry, I didn't observe that more matches have the top scorer's name. Please fix this.Also, there is not the name of the top-scorer of the losing team, which should have been there, as the winning team's top scorer's name is there. Please delete the names and scores of these top scorers. It is unnecessary.DragonOfLegend 13:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)DragonOfLegend

[edit] Schedule format

I feel that the current schedule for the league matches and Super 8 is too long, making the article somewhat unwieldy. Would it be possible to use a more compact format such as the one shown here? This essentially combines the four league groups into one table, and reorganizes the Super 8 table. Both tables have sufficient space in each cell to write each team's score and the match result. If there are no objections to this, I'll do it in the next few days. -- Brhaspati\talk/contribs 04:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No, because the results of the games will go into those sections and there won't be room with a table like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.144.251.120 (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Match Results

I feel that the match results should be displayed in the main page just as they are at the Warm-up page. Its much more easier to understand the results at a glance, rather than to decipher from the scores. Plz do this. it would be much better. Visuandre 18:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


Pls. elaborate the meaning of TBD that appear in the column of the country name in the table of super8 result.

[edit] score Cards

I know people cite WP:NOT to not have score cards, but look at the soccer world cup pages: like this 2006_FIFA_World_Cup_-_Group_F unbelieveable what they get!--155.144.251.120 21:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing

What other editing does it require - anything about media coverage and stuff ? Wildpixs 13:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flags

I can understand why the West Indies have a custom flag (not actually a nation) - is there some reason why the Irish, out of all the national teams, have a custom flag rather than a national flag used in the scoreboxes? Wouldn't it be better to go one way or the other? 60.226.133.172 15:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's because the Irish team represents both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Hence using the Republic of Ireland flag would be incorrect. Sam Vimes | Address me 15:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't England already cover northern ireland though?
No, no more so than England already covers Scotland or Wales, which have their own teams. Scratchdawg 11:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
England just covers England and Wales. A player born in Northern Ireland or Scotland has to fulfil a residential qualification in the same way anyone outside the UK has to.Andrew nixon 11:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the issue... I suspected there was a good reason; Just couldn't chase it down. (Surprised they can actually cooperate in these sports, but it's a good thing anyways.)60.226.133.172 12:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Score updates"

Are score updates for matches in progress really appropriate here? WP:NOT specifies that "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source.", so I would have thought that score updates would be inappropriate... --Dave. 18:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No, matches should only be updated at the end of the game. Compare with the last football World Cup. Lugnuts 19:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't count score updates as "breaking news", so its fine for me. Visuandre 07:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fall of Wickets & Match Info

Would be nice to see a Fall of Wickets segment too. And i'm also of the opinion that Match info such as Toss & Man of the Match should be put along with umpires, teams etc (just like how it is at the source). The opening segment should only consist a summary of the match. Visuandre 07:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistan

What the Fuck happened? How could they lose to the Irish? You never lose to the Irish in Cricket, No Team is supposed to lose to the Irish! o well, 2010 ICC Cricket World Cup Pakistan all the way!

Why is Pakistan eliminated whilst it could still theoretically get 4 points and beat Ireland's lead? Can someone explain this please. Funkyduncan 10:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

They've already lost against West Indies, so they can only get two points by beating Zimbabwe. Sam Vimes | Address me 10:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
And West Indies Vs Zimbabwe will put either Zimbabwe or West Indies on 3 or more points. Catprog 07:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what is TBD written in the column of country in the table of super 8 result

Pls. see the headline. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.112.218.18 (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

"TBD" means "To Be Decided" - in other words, these will be decided by the results of the group stages. Similar abbreviations you might see in tables/dates can be "TBC" (To Be Confirmed) or "TBA" (To Be Arranged/Agreed) - 82.153.142.82 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


Why have Australia been put there? If they lose their next game, there is still a small chance they can go out right? Jimokay 00:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should we add Bob Woolmer's death?

I want to know if its a good idea to add Bob Woolmer's death in the article.--Blackhole77 19:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think its better to expand it on his article. We should at least wait till the end of the tournament and have a section like legacy of the world cup or something like that. And have the highs of the world cup the lows of the world cup and this sad death.--Thugchildz 19:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be the respectful thing to mention it, as it does overshadow the tournament. Maybe it should wait, until we add a "review" section at the end, when we can mention it in the detail Mr. Woolmer deserves. к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 20:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I notice it is mentioned in the "Events" section, and also in the "See also" section (in a way which would make a Manual-of-Style-nazi like me go crazy, so if you are also a MoSN don't look!). Since it is there, I will fix it up. -- Chuq 06:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I feel this now needs more prominence. I think it should probably be in the lead; after all, it's going to be what this tournament's remembered for. I think the section on his death should be longer and earlier too (although I don't know exactly where). But what do people who've worked on this article think? Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
It should definitely not be in the lead. I agree that some mention of his death is appropriate (for example under a 'notable vents' section as it is now), but to try and focus the article around it (which is what putting it in the introductory section does) just because it has been highly publicised and in the news headlines is just silly and un-encyclopaedic. This is after-all a wikipaedia article, not a wikinews one.
For the same reason, I don't think the text about his death under the "notable events" section should be made particularly longer either, it should instead link to the wiki-news article as that is where detailed information about this event belongs (as well as in the Bob Woolmer article, obviously). Canderra 15:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did Ireland win by Duckworth-Lewis or outright?

The summary on the Ireland Pakistan match mentions that Ireland won by 3 wickets under the D/L method, however their score was more than the 128 required by D/L and at 133 is greater than Pakistan's 132. Thus Ireland would have won even without the D/L wouldn't they? And if so, then why does the summary say that they won under D/L, is it that once a target has been set under D/L then no matter what happens the win is taken as being by D/L?72.27.85.98 05:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, once the target is re-set per DL method, the final result will always be with "under the D/L method". This is because, it is not only number of runs that matters, but also number of wickets and overs taken to score. - KNM Talk 05:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
They won outright IMO because play was not abandoned at a certain point with the result being decided during a rain delay. Play continued after the rain break to the revised target set of overs and runs which were computed under the DL system and Ireland reached the revised target within the required number of overs. Ansell 06:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Ireland hit a 6 off the last ball when they were 7/127. Because boundaries count completely, it took the score to 7/133. They still won by Duckworth Lewis though, because the revised target was 128 all along. The original score means nothing in my opinion. --mdmanser 07:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Funny Attempt

I think adding AUS as A1 is a funny attempt. May be currently AUS has a nice reputation but still we are wikipedians here, not fortunetellers. I have edited that part. Regards, Niaz bd 17:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

MOTORAL

Even if Australia comes second in Group A under the rules and Regulations set by the ICC they will go into the Super Eight stage as A1. That is why I put Australia as A1 before they met South Africa.

Quite right. Hesperian 23:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
But of course Australia have to qualify first. You can still have 3 teams on 4 points in that group, which would be split by run-rate. - Aheyfromhome 23:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that's right. Having just reverted the assertion that West Indies had qualified, I should ave seen that. Hesperian 23:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

But the Windies have qualified. 2 points for a win remember. - Aheyfromhome 23:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I've reverted so much over-eager shading over the past few days - Australia, Burmuda, Canada (twice), Netherlands - I guess I had a brain explosion. Sorry about that. Hesperian 23:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Isn't west indies D1 not D2?

West Indies MUST be D1 not D2, since they are the highest ranked team to advance. Only pakistan could have made them D2, now they are out so West Indies are D1!! COrrect??

Also sorry about Netherlands and Bermuda and Canada. Both are still possible to make it, 3 teams finish on 1 win each.

No. Please see the latest reference added to the article, that is, this.
West Indies are seeded second to Pakistan in Group D. Pakistan team is out now. So, It is either Zimbabwe or Ireland that takes Pakistan's indicative-place of Group-D top place. Irrespective of who qualifies, West Indies will remain as D2. - KNM Talk 01:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is finally correct. Over eager people shading too much. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/6310307.stm

[edit] How next round results will effect tables

How about we sort this out before hand, please correct any mistakes:

If RSA defeat Scotland:

  • AUS A1, RSA A2. Scot, Neth eliminated.

If Scotland defeats RSA:

  • All places remain undecided (AUS/SA/Scot all possible to finish with 4 pts, and netherlands still possible to advance with 2 pts since SA/Scot still possible to finish on 2 pts.

If New Zealand defeat Kenya:

  • New Zealand advance and Canda are eliminted, as there only hope was NZ 2pts, Kenya 6pts, Canda 2pts.

If Kenya Win: All places still open. No one elminated, no one advanced.

If PAK defeat ZIM:

  • ZIM eliminated, and ireland will advance.

If Zimbabew wins

  • Still undecided.

If Bang Defeats Slk:

  • Bermuda officially out. As india plays Sirlanka, so one of them must get 1 pt going to 3 and bang will be on 4, so bermuda out. Also Bangladesh officiall make the super 8 if they beat Sirlanka, since sirlanka and india will be on 2 points each and will ahve to play off for the last spot. Not only that but we won't know if bangaldesh is seed 1 or 2 spot, because Sirlanka will have to play india to decide it.--155.144.251.120 05:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If SLk defeats Bang:

  • Everything still open. As its possible Srilank win all 3 of their matches and Bermuda win last match making it 2 pts to 3 teams. Likewise sirlanks can still miss out even if they win by India and Bangladesh winning there last matches leaving all 3 on 4pts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dacium (talk • contribs) 01:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
With Sri Lanka heavily defeating Bangladesh, I'd argure that Sri Lanka have already qualified for the Super 8's and Bermuda are now eliminated. In order for Bermuda to overtake both Bangladesh and India, they would have to defeat Bangladesh by an absurd margin and hope that India do the same to Sri Lanka. To do the math, if India defeat Sri Lanka by 300 runs AND Bermuda similarly thrash Bangladesh by 300 runs, Sri Lanka still qualifies and Bermuda is still eliminated (Bermuda then gets a better NRR than Bangladesh, but still is ~ 1.00 behind India). The way it stands now (barring the breaking of high-scoring and winning margin records), Sri Lanka are through, and India will go through if they defeat Sri Lanka in their remainding game - otherwise the Bangas will proceed provided that they defeat Bermuda. --202.154.114.96 03:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it easier just to wait until after each game and work it out then? -- Chuq 03:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that people are adding shading based on the incorrect calculation that a team is mathematically assured of making/missing the next round. Some of us are a bit sick of reverting it. I think Dacium is trying to find a way to stop that from happening. Hesperian 03:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a good idea, but I don't think the (mainly) anonymous editors making the changes are going to read this talk page first. Maybe just a note in capital letters in the article between comment tags, saying not to change it? Maybe semi-protection is an option - although it is not really vandalism, just poorly informed editors. -- Chuq 04:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to semi-protect it. This article might well bring in some helpful newbs. Maybe some hidden text directing to this talk page. Or maybe not... I imagine the crisis will have passed by Thursday. Hesperian 04:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm one of the anons who incorrectly assumed the Netherlands was out (forgetting that if South Africa lost its next two matches - which is still within the realm of possibility if one considers how well the Irish did against them in the warm-ups - then the Dutch would still have a chance). And as all can see, I'm reading the discussion page and learning of my error. Why not just combine both of your ideas, i.e. have notes in capital letters placed in the teams that are frequently being shaded as out within comment tags saying not to change it and to refer to the talk page for the reasons why. Then when its known for sure which teams have qualified then the tags can be removed. On another note, this is a pretty interesting Cup isn't it? Shades of Kenya that Irish team. Hey, has anyone thought about doing the articles on the previous cups in the same style as this one? The 2003 article seems to be missing a match (Netherlands v. Namibia) and from at least the 1996 cup and before, the match details seem more cluttered than the form used in this article (and at least to me, seem harder to read).72.27.85.98 05:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and while I'm asking questions, another anon asked earlier last year (see section on this page about Freedom of travel) about the travel arrangements instituted for this cup and if similar arrangements had ever been made for previous cups. I too had wondered about this, especially for the 1996 Cup (India/Pakistan/Sri Lanka) and the 2003 Cup (South Africa, Zimbabwe and Kenya). Actually since the 1983 World Cup, no subsequent tournament has ever been hosted by just 1 country, so how would differing visa and entry requirements have been handled?72.27.85.98 05:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the Scenario thing that someone put in for group D. To me it looks confusing, unnecessary and ambiguous. Wait till the games are over then put in the outcomes. Encyclopedias dont speculate. Scratchdawg 11:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There was something similar with the soccer world cup Catprog 11:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What about this:


Possible Scenarios

West Indies In

Final Place:
Ireland Unless Zimbabwe and West Indies win and Zimbabwe have a Higher NRR
Zimbabwe If Zimbabwe and West Indies win and Zimbabwe have a Higher NRR


Pakistan Out Catprog 11:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate your effort and interest mate but I don't know or care whether the soccer world cup had something similar. As for your alternative presentation of possible scenarios - see what others think but I don't like it. In a few days it will have all worked itself out. When making an edit try to think about it from the perspective of whether it will still be relevant and true in a week's time. Clearly this type of edit isn't in that category. Also one would have to do it for every single group after each match for consistency's sake. So it's kinda just unnecessary. Scratchdawg 12:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that sort of info should be put in. Many people come here to look at the table and try to figure out what needs to happen for certain teams to advance. The situation will be even more complicated when we get into the Super 8. Can anyone post some links to the world cup soccer had so we can see if anything is appropraite.--Dacium 02:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_FIFA_World_Cup_-_Group_A&oldid=58846695
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_FIFA_World_Cup&oldid=59675762 (Knockout stages:Round of 16 mouse over the flags)
Catprog 01:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flags to the right side for the teams on the left?

Do you think its better to have the games with the teams on the left to have the flags on their right side? Please see: user:dacium page as an example.--Dacium 22:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to be bold and do it anyway because the other world cup pages are like that see World Cup 2006.--Dacium 22:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a good idea, but instead of doing it manually, I believe there are templates which have the flag on the opposite side - and if not for cricket, they should probably be created. Compare
{{AUSf}} = Australia
{{AUSf2}} = Australia
{{AUSc}} = Australia
{{AUSc2}} = Australia <-- non-existent, at least at the time I wrote this done now.
Note that although {{AUSf}} and {{AUSc}} look identical, they link to different teams - "f" for football, "c" for cricket. -- Chuq 02:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought they might exist and someone can change them. Can someone confirm they do not exist, that way I can go ahead and make AUSc2 etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dacium (talk • contribs) 02:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
Here they all are:

Australia Bangladesh Bermuda Canada England India Ireland Kenya Scotland Sri Lanka Zimbabwe Pakistan New Zealand South Africa Netherlands West Indies

Australia Bangladesh Bermuda Canada England India Ireland Kenya Scotland Sri Lanka Zimbabwe Pakistan New Zealand South Africa Netherlands West Indies

-- Chuq 07:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have updated them all to use the c2 templates.--Dacium 07:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh dammit. Look what I just found! Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Team templates (It doesn't fix the left/right hand flag issue though.) -- Chuq 09:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention that there is a standard format for ODI's - see {{Limited_overs_international}} - which doesn't have the left/right problem anyway! -- Chuq 05:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Well we dont need to use the format because there's already a main page for that- group stage article. But can someone be bold enough to change the scorecards so that it the team batting 1st comes 1st?--Thugchildz 05:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the flags for WI and Ireland? They seem to have vanished.KiwiDave 03:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Super 8 Table PCF and other columns.

Why doesn't a group stage win that is carried forward does not count on the table as a Win/Played match. Can some one provide a reference for this please? 121.72.11.182 23:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I will change the table soon to reflect win/played if no reference is provided. As far as I can understand, its as good as a matched played in super 8. Sasank 23:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears they do. I think the confusion is that when you do this the PCF coloumn is essentially useless, why even bother having it?--155.144.251.120 00:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
In the Super 8 table, I think NZ values are appropriate, but I think the 0's for C2 are not. Also 0's for Australia and SA should be removed in my opinion. What's your opinion? Sasank 01:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The values are correct. But should we be putting values for teams we dont know qualified? In that case we might as well start adding Pld column as 1 for all the countries, because they would all have played a match that carried on. I will change the C2 values if you dont object. Sasank 01:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the C2 values should stay because no matter if Eng or Ken get in, those values won't change at all because both these teams have lost to NZ and must go into super 8 with 1 loss and 0 points. Agree about the Aus/Rsa values, they will change before the tournament progresses to Super 8, but C2 values will not, so I think they should stay.--Dacium 02:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It is better to fill the table after the matches from the group stages are over. Why increase one more place to update everytime a match gets over? - Aksi_great (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean all group matches? Basically beacuse it will be like a week between each group ending and people will want to see what points are carried through etc.--155.144.251.120 20:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
No no. I didn't mean all group matches, but the matches in each group to get over. - Aksi_great (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel that points which are carried forward by teams from group stage to the Super8 stage are very crucial and as of now only New Zealand is sure to carry 2 points while the other qualifier C2 is sure to enter pointless in the Super8 stage. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in updating entries for NZ and C2. Other entries can be filled as concerned matches are held (namely, Aus Vs SA and WI Vs Ireland) or the concerned teams are confirmed(As in PoolB).

It seems that the Super Eight Table has not been updated for quite a few days.DragonOfLegend 12:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)DragonOfLegend

What do you mean? NZ have gone up to second place and WI to fifth. And the points (second column) and runs have all changed. Sam Vimes | Address me 12:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elimination Colour

Should it be dark grey or red? I like the red because dark gray merges badly with the blue link color.--Dacium 02:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please just remember we have disabled users on this wiki. See Wikipedia:Accessibility and Wikipedia:Colours. Mikker (...) 14:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

can we add bangladesh to the super 8? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:71.251.39.41 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] NRR and Official points table

Can anyone please point me to the "Offcial World Cup Points Table". This NRR thing is getting quite confusing and different sites have different values. And cricinfo hasn't updated yet. Sasank 22:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the official site. It isn't updated yet either, mind...
For the record, the reason I think Pakistan has +0.09 and Zimbabwe −0.89:
Pakistan:
  • vs West Indies: 187 from 50 overs (all out) vs 241 from 50 (actual)
  • vs Ireland: 127 from 47 overs (adjusted) vs 133 from 41.4 (chased)
  • vs Zimbabwe: 192 from 20 overs (adjusted) vs 99 from 20 (all out)
  • Total: 506 from 117 overs vs 473 from 111.4 overs. 506/117 - 473/111.666 = 4.324 - 4.235 = 0.089, which rounds off to 0.09.
Zimbabwe:
  • vs Ireland: 221 from 50 (all out) vs 221 from 50 (actual)
  • vs West Indies: 202 from 50 (actual) vs 204 from 47.5 (chased)
  • vs Pakistan: 99 from 20 (all out) vs 192 from 20 (adjusted)
  • Total: 522 from 120 overs vs 617 from 117.5 overs. 522/120 - 617/117.833 = 4.35 - 5.236 = -0.886, which rounds off to −0.89. Sam Vimes | Address me 22:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Most people don't unstand how to calculat it. There are two rules to consider, firstly all out means they still achieved the score over the full amount of overs. And 2ndly if a target is adjusted for DL, so are the runs scored. For example Bangladesh: against: 191 in 50 overs (since india all out in 50 over match), and 310 in 46 overs from SRI since this was the DL adjusted target scored again them. And they scored: 192 in 48 and 1/2 overs, and 112 all out from a possible 46 overs. Making NRR = ((192+112)/(48+46.5)) - ((191+310)/(50+46)) = -2.001818783--155.144.251.120 01:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it worth putting a wikilink to the helpful page Net Run Rate? 60.226.133.172 13:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Century makers and 5 W/I takers - match templates

Regarding these edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Cricket_World_Cup&diff=116944485&oldid=116943186 - I can see why some would want them to be added but it reminded me that there was a template field for this. Oh having a look, Template:Limited_overs_international exists but is not used at all on this article (despite being used on the previous World Cup articles). IMO this page should be converted over to the existing format. I'll have a go when I have more time, but it will be a big job so anyone who wants to make a start feel free! -- Chuq 03:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The Limited overs international template (or the result of it) is used on 2007 Cricket World Cup group stage, though. IMO the article will just grow huge if we include the details of all 51 matches here. Sam Vimes | Address me 09:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm the one who added the 100run/5wicketers. Personally I feel the sections already waste to much space and need to be re-made from scratch. Specificall the space wasted on the date and seperator bar and in repeading the tempate for flag and name of the winning team. The normal ODI template is even worse, look how much room it takes up. It allocates 35% span just for the name of the teams which on most peoples displays won't be more than about 20%. I will look at coming up with a more concise template.--155.144.251.120 02:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I have been looking at this two. From what I understand there is no standard for the width of a page, but the 'concensus' is generally that it should fit 1024x768 without scrolling, and 800x600 with minimal scrolling. The current ODI template is like a big inflated balloon, look at all the blue empty space!--Dacium 03:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Lanka have not yet qualified (22 Mar)

As I type this (the morning of 22/05/07 UTC), Sri Lanka is being shown in green, indicating they've qualified for the next round. I think that's incorrect. SL can still miss out. If India beats Sri Lanka soundly, and Bangladesh beats Bermuda soundly, Sri Lanka can miss out on NRR basis.

Ordinary Person 06:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct, it was made by an editor who appears to not be aware of Wikipedia's speculation policy - It is very unlikely for SL to not qualify, I think both games must be won by >300 runs, but they have definitely not already qualified. -- Chuq 06:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irish flag

Why is the Irish flag not used but instead the flag of the cricket team? WI doesn't have a national flag but IRE does. IRE flag needs to be used unless we intend to use the cricket flags/logos of the other countries —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grumpygrumpy (talk • contribs) 07:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

See the "Flags" section further up the page. Basically, the Ireland team represents the whole of the island of Ireland, so using the flag of the Republic of Ireland, would be inappropriate. Same thing happens in rugby, btw. Sam Vimes | Address me 09:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canada game

I have noticed that for the Canda game as Dhaniram retired hurt and then chose not to return the final score is listed as 249/9 with a note that Dhaniram was hurt. If this is the case for consistency a similar note should be placed for the Scotland Australia game were a Scottish player did not even take the field (Blain I believe) to bat as he was injured and they lost only 9 wickets. However, I have looked at cricinfo's scorecard and in both cases they consider the "all out"tag appropriate and I do beleive this is the norm for when a player retires and chooses not to return and the remaning wickets all fall. 71.194.89.197 06:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no official designation of "retired hurt".

Law 2 states:

A batsman may retire at any time during his innings. The umpires, before allowing play to proceed, shall be informed of the reason for a batsman retiring.

(a) If a batsman retires because of illness, injury or any other unavoidable cause, he is entitled to resume his innings subject to (c) below. If for any reason he does not do so, his innings is to be recorded as -Retired 'not out'.

(b) If a batsman retires for any reason other than as in (a) above, he may only resume his innings with the consent of the opposing captain. If for any reason he does not resume his innings it is to be recorded as -Retired 'out'.

(c) If after retiring a batsman resumes his innings, it shall be only at the fall of a wicket or the retirement of another batsman.

--Dave. 08:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The anonymous editor is correct. If a man is retired hurt and the rest of the side is all out and the injured man can't resume, the score is recorded as "all out" not "for 9". I've changed it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no way the game can end with official score of for 9 with balls remaining. He is retired out, key word being OUT and it counts as wicket on the score to be all out.--Dacium 10:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Except he wasn't 'retired out', he was 'retired hurt/retired not out'. I refer you to law 2 section 9a, also quoted above. As such it doesn't count as a wicket. You can look at reputable sources like the BBC or the official World Cup website if you want confirmation of this. (By the way, one other simple way of ending a game without 10 wickets is to declare) - Aheyfromhome 18:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The World Cup site also lists Kenya as finishing at 177/10 in their match vs England today. [2].
To me, 249/9 (49.2 overs) indicates some kind of interruption of the innings - that rain or riots curtailed the game - but the innings ended because they didn't have any more batsmen, so they were "all out". Sam Vimes | Address me 21:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Law 12.3 defines five cases in which an innings is considered to be complete - (a) all out; (b) if, at the fall of a wicket, further balls remain to be bowled, but no further batsman is available to come in; (c) declaration; (d) forfeiture ofinnings; & (e) time or overs have run out. Since there is a specific distinction between (a) and (b), and (b) does not have an apellation of "all out", logic dictates that the cases we are discussing above are not considered to be "all out". --Dave. 23:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok based on what you have posted I tend to agree with you that it should be for 9 (especially if the official world cup website which is just as valid if not more so than cricinfo posts it as such). However then can we at least be consistent, [3] has the Scotland game shown with for 9 instead of all out which is how we have it on wikipedia. Also for some reason the South Africa - Netherlands game is listed as for 9 all out, which doesn't make any sense at all. I do agree with the conclusion you have reached, just want it to be consistent. Thanks. 71.194.89.197 03:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] England Flag

Noticed someone changed england flag to england + wales. While they do represent wales I think we must defiantly only allow 1 flag per team. Ireland and west indies have their own flags. If the ECB is to lazy to make a fair flag that isn't for us to decide. Maybe we can use ECB flag of 3 blue dragon/lion things, but AFAIK ECB support use of flag of england.--Dacium 11:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There should only be one flag for the English team, and that is the English team. Irrespective of whether their cricket board is called the England and Wales Cricket Board and whether Welsh players have/are representing them, there should only be the one flag. I've never seen both flags used in any news article/ICC document etc. --mdmanser 11:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. England flag only. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that. I'll also mention here - I reverted a change to the NZ template which replaced the NZ flag with a 'silver fern' flag. Although I agree the silver fern looks better, I restored it to the NZ flag as it is a NZ national team. -- Chuq 13:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 Cricket World Cup statistics Naming conventions

Hi. On this article, some players are listed with their full name, but some are by initials. Personally, I think full names are better to use, and save a good deal of "multi-linking", but I wanted to get a consensus here first, so, any thoughts? Cheers к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 18:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, using initials are a convention for cricket players - and always in the form RT Ponting - never R Ponting, R.T. Ponting, Ricky T. Ponting. I guess the best think is to use the style [[Ricky Ponting|RT Ponting]]. -- Chuq 22:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what's happened to the page?

15 repetitions of pool a and b??

[edit] Super 8 table legend

Can we please get a legend for what all the acronyms in the Super 8 table mean? With a bit of thinking it's possible to figure it all out, but a legend would still be good. Mikker (...) 13:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've put one below the table. Acceptable? Sam Vimes | Address me 14:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's great, thanks. Mikker (...) 09:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cricketbox

I've come up with a proposal of a new match template, similar to the one used on the football World Cup pages. The reason for a change is so that the page can be compressed vertically but at the same time showing more information about each game (umpires, man of the match and bowling figures). I also think that it would be sensible to do so in a template form so that any further formatting changes can be done with relative ease (a change to the templatespace will change all uses of it across Wikipedia). I've just let everyone know here just in case they feel that they want to make a few adjustments to the new template. Cheers, --mdmanser 07:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to add the Vs thing but eh. My only concern with it is the % widths need more work. The date seems to take up far to much room which causes the MotM/Umpire part to sometimes take up to lines.--Dacium 21:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Also what is the system for deciding who is the best bowler. Is it simply most wickets, then least runs, then least overs? Or somehow combine these? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Dacium (talk • contribs) 21:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC).
Most wickets, then economy, IMO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Sam Vimes (talk • contribs) 21:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC).
I also think the date width needs to be narrowed down a few percent. Maybe also narrow down the space for each team. Sam Vimes | Address me 21:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

what's wrong with using the one that already exists- Template:Limited overs international?--Thugchildz 01:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the new template the one being used for the Group A summary? Isn't that the same template (or almost the same template) as the one used in the 2007 Cricket World Cup group stage page? If it is, then you should all consider using it carefully, since it would mean that the main page on the event would have a rather weighty summary of each match (which seems to be the purpose of the group stages article in addition to providing additional info about the matches not found in the summaries). Also, could the template be fixed or could we use the old format until someone has worked out all the bugs (probably in a sandbox or something like that), for e.g. having all the matches in group A occurring within a couple days (march 14 and 16)?.72.27.175.32 04:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

thats using the one that we already had-Template:Limited overs international.--Thugchildz 06:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
What must be done here is to fix the current template. its rediculous that the top batter is listed for each team and nothing about the bowling is mentioned. Originally I added only batsmen who scored 100 runs and bowlers who scored 5 wickets. There are no bowlers to have achieved 5 wickets yet, and I believe some teams fans didn't have any 100 run scorers yet wanted names also. The only solution I can see is to remove the names completely. Also the dates should be moved into the tables as well to shrink the sizes down.--155.144.251.120 05:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that you take that out because thats not fair for the bowlers.--Thugchildz 06:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I had noticed that there was/still is a bias towards the top run scorer, yet there is no mention of bowlers. The new World Cup game template basically includes both of them for each team. We can't manually select a single standout player (not always the top scorer) from each team because that could be considered NPOV. The teamplate is based on the FIFA World Cup one - it looks good and it keeps things detailed without making the page too long. --mdmanser 08:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the template in Group A now looks more like the old format (which was easier on my eyes at least) although it now seems a bit crowded. One thing I noticed though is that whenever a score includes "all out", e.g. 130 all out (40.5 overs) the alignment/spacing changes and the flag (and the score) of the team with that score no longer aligns perfectly with the other team's flag (and score). The might be because there are too many words being used. Perhaps the template should be edited to include an overs section, so you have "team1", "score1", "overs1" and then "team2" etc. so that few words are used in the score slot. It may not work, but its just a thought so that the page can continue to look good.72.27.175.32 04:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note Cricketbox is now redudant. I have included its variables into the Template:Limited overs international. Do not use the cricketbox template. You can use the limited overs international either with the cricketbox's variables, or the limited overs international variables. Both now give the same appearance.--Dacium 06:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Super 8 country selection

I am trying to keep track of which games are playing in any one country for the super eight. Every other day there is a game in a particular country. Could you therefore add a background colour to every other day - one colour is good enough - so all in Guyana will have a background while all in Antigua and Barbuda will remain as they are. Then all in Barbados will have a background while all in Greneda will be without. Rlatchana 14:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] left-right in match summaries

Hi. Here's one vote for rearranging the match summaries to reflect innings order rather than seeding. The first few summaries I read all (accidentally) had the team batting first on the left, and when I first came to one that wasn't it threw me for a loop temporarily. Innings order makes it much easier for the reader to grasp, in my view, since we're used to reading from left to right; seeding on the other hand isn't that important (and won't even be noticed by the reader unless he/she has read the note which explains why we've positioned things as we have). Doops | talk 17:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should read left to right depending on the team batting 1st.--Thugchildz 04:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Any other views? Doops | talk 04:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Well you can change them if you want. But change ALL of them. Sick of people only changing for their team. The left was the higher seeded team so that the left and right din't have to be swapped after the game began (look at super 8, you would have to swap them once the game starts). I don't care which way it goes, but be consistant and do them all if you want to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dacium (talk • contribs) 08:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
I strongly felt that if we are chosing the ordering of the teams depending on whose batting first, we must write the bowler's performance just below the innings total in which he actually bowled and not with his team. Therefore, I have swapped the positions of bowling performances in all the matches.Vaibhav.iitg 18:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Net Run rate in Super 8

according to cricinfo:

Qualification for the semi-finals The top four sides after the Super Eights go through to the semi-finals. First plays fourth in St Lucia on April 25 and second plays third in Jamaica on April 24.

If there is a tie for positions, then they are separated as follows:

The team with the most wins goes through; if the number of wins are the same, net run-rate - including all matches played in the competition - comes into play; if - and it is very unlikely - NRR is the same then the team with the most wickets taken per balls bowled goes through.

so should the NNR for the whole comp be shown in the Super 8's table, not just the NNR for the games against the teams in the Super 8? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nzdoofus (talk • contribs) 04:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Good point, but lets wait and see what the world cup site does.--Thugchildz 04:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The official playing conditions say that it's only net run rate against the other Super Eight nations. playing conditions (PDF) (Can't remember what page it's on, I'd guess around 25 somewhere?) Sam Vimes | Address me 12:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. However, games between nations who have made it to the Super Eight (which were all group games) are also included (eg. the New Zealand vs. England group game) Permarbor0 10:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this Super 8 sequnce correct ?

West Indies playing 2 games in 3 days? Now that the Australian vs West Indies game is delayed until tomorrow, they now play both tomorrow and a full game the next day! 8 teams in the super 8 and they are made to play in 2 of the opening 3 games? Rediculous!--155.144.251.120 20:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I know! I think the organisers should have done a better job of scheduling the Super 8 matches. Given that there will be several rest days during the Super Eight stage of the competition, it would have been prudent to have one rest day after each team had played one game, then after they'd played two...etc. Ah well! As an England supporter, I hope that all the West Indians are highly fatigued when they face us! Permarbor0 10:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malinga's double and circumstances

IMO, the circumstances of the double hat-trick are almost as notable as the event itself. Consider: there's a side who'd probably be given 1/10000th of a chance to win, then all of those wickets fall and it was pretty much anyone's guess! Probably one of the strangest conclusions to an ODI in the history of the game. Sam Vimes | Address me 22:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely... I remember when Bond from NZ got a hat trick recently in australia. I believe the aussies were somethinglike 6/330 with a 1 over remaining and trying to slog everything... hardly an impressive hat trick, but that didn't stop them going nuts-so over it.--Dacium 20:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please note Template:Cricketbox is now redudant

I have included its variables into the Template:Limited overs international. Do not use the cricketbox template. You can use the limited overs international either with the cricketbox's variables, or the limited overs international variables. Both now give the same appearance. Cricketbox will soon be deleted.--Dacium 06:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/0/0/Talk%7E2007_Cricket_World_Cup_e9a2.html"