Talk:England cricket team

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	England cricket team 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 England cricket team, or visit the project page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Crest 2 Non-English players 3 English or England? 4 Greatest ever matches 5 UK Team 6 Requested move 6.1 Discussion 7 Please Help 8 Templates 9 Current Form and Future Prospects Section 10 Rating 11 Onions & Co. 12 Thoughts of User Cajad 13 Article is hopelessly incomplete

[edit] Crest

Isn't that the ECB logo? England shirts don't have ECB written on them.--Adzz 08:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-English players

PaddyBriggs just wrote:

Whilst most England Test cricketers have been English there have also been players from the other nations which comprise the United Kingdom and further afield. England has been captained by Welshmen (Tony Lewis); Scotsmen (Mike Denness) and South Africans (Tony Greig) and has had many players who were born or born and bred overseas. In recent times Andrew Caddick (New Zealand); Geraint Jones (Papua New Guinea); Andrew Strauss (South Africa) and Kevin Pietersen (South Africa)have, amongst others, become England Test cricketers.

Which is all true and interesting, but it seems to me that there are two different things going on here. Welsh players are entitled to play for England automatically. I don't remember if the same is true of Scots. However, the other players have some sort of family connection which makes them officially partly English. This is of course not specific to England or to cricket — in all sports there are always people who are qualified to play for two countries.

What I'm getting at is that it would be nice to say something more about the qualification rules for being an England cricketer, so that we don't imply that England is somehow a special case. (Although it would also be nice to know whether it's benefited more from these rules than other countries). But I'm not certain enough about the precise rules to add this myself. Anyone want to have a go?

Stephen Turner 09:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] English or England?

Myu view is that the correct title for this entry would be the "England" cricket team not the "English" cricket team; not least beacuse there are (or have been) Welsh, Scottish and Irish players in the side! PaddyBriggs 08:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

We had a long discussion about this a few months ago. I don't remember the reason for using nationalities, and I definitely agree with you in preferring country names, but I'm sure there was a reason for the choice. Stephen Turner 10:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It looks a little odd. it does seem that it was decided that the adjective "English" or "Pakistani" or "Indian" is preferable to the country name. However in cricket parlance we always refer to "England" or "India" or "Pakistan" (etc.) and you will not find the adjective used as the descriptor of the team in any cricket record or reference books. PaddyBriggs 10:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually you do - on tours it's always said "Australians in England", "West Indians in Pakistan", that kinda thing. (However, I believe England is an exception - they used to be MCC and are now England?) Sam Vimes 10:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Sam. You are quite right that in non Test matches the convention is (now) that we refer to the "West Indians" or the "Australians" in matches they play on tours that are not Test matches or One Day Internationals (expect for the England touring team who are always "England"). However in Test matches it is always "West Indies" or "Australia" or "England"...The entries about the national teams are (rightly) all about International matches not at all about the touring sides. So I stick to my view that the correct descriptor of the teams is the "England" or "Australia" (etc.) Cricket team. Another reason is both grammatical and accuracy concerned. Kent (or Surrey or Middlesex) are "English" cricket teams but not of course England cricket teams. The only England cricket team is the one that plays for England! PaddyBriggs 10:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

What I meant was when Wisden, Cricinfo or Cricketarchive write about a team touring another, they put "West Indians in Australia in 2005-06". I agree with you, though, but I think we should go one further and align ourselves with the rest of the sports in Wikipedia - we have England national football team, England national basketball team, England national rugby union team, England national rugby league team, so I don't really see any reason why we shouldn't use the precise England national cricket team Sam Vimes 11:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we should discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket, because it's clearly of wider interest than just the people watching this page. I'll move the conversation so far, and we can carry on the discussion there, OK? Stephen Turner 11:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Why "English" not "England Cricket Team"? I've never heard it referred to as anything but England. Warwickshire or Little Piddington are English cricet teams, but there is only one England cricket team. Chris R 23:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This was already discussed above. Stephen Turner (Talk) 02:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hidden in a discussion about non-English players! Now moved the heading and this thread to make it clear.

It's a nonsense to call it the English cricket team, it's the England cricket team, the same with all the other international teams, eg the Indian cricket team should be the India cricket team.--RMHED 22:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greatest ever matches

This is an arbitrary and subjective selection. I think that it should be removed. What do others think? PaddyBriggs 10:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree. However, if we do remove them, I would like to see more on those matches in the section about each decade (especially Headingley 1981 and Edgbaston 2005, which are part of the folklore of English cricket). Stephen Turner 10:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UK Team

I have reintroduced the statement that England is a "de facto" UK team. Seems obviously true to me, just look at the history. English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish players have all played for England.And they could again. Not an opinion, a fact! PaddyBriggs

Wikipedia:No original research. --Mais oui! 17:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Bollocks! Look at Wisden if you need proof! PaddyBriggs 17:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand how Wikipedia works. If you want to include new information, it is you who must provide the source, not other editors.--Mais oui! 17:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's not get overheated about this! This is not "new information" and I have no need to cite a source. It is included early in the piece because it is, on the face of it, odd that a team with players from across the UK is called "England". But it is a historical oddity that goes back to the earliest days of cricket. I could put together a list of Scots (etc.) who have played for England. Similarly I could point to the strong Scottish, Welsh and Irish support that England (cricket !) always gets. Self-evidently England is a de facto (if not de jure) UK team! PaddyBriggs 18:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"I have no need to cite a source" Indeed? Most remarkable news. Why? Are you in possession of a unique dispensation from Jimbo Wales? You may think that something is "self-evident", but that is merely your personal opinion, and constitutes original research,... unless of course you produce a bona fide source.

"Let's not get overheated about this" Eh, it is you who has used an expletive. Calm down and try to be a bit more professional.--Mais oui! 18:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It's still not clear to me whether all Scots and Northern Irish are automatically eligible to play for England, or whether they have to qualify by ancestry or residence in exactly the same way as (say) a South African or a Papua New Guinean. I think if we resolve that point, the paragraph will fall into place. Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The player eligibility rules are at http://www.icc-cricket.com/rules/player_eligibility.pdf (PDF). I don't see anything that treats Scots or Northern Irish as more privileged to play for England than any other national. So the opening paragraphs seem misleading to me. I think I'll try rewriting them. Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten it, and also made it less prominent. I have removed the claim that Scots and Northern Irish are somehow more privileged than other nationalities. If this is in error, please correct it, with a source. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Any citizen of the United Kingdom is eligible to play cricket for England. Thus the England team is a de facto UK team and always has been. Qualification (of course) does not apply for those who are already British nationals! Anyone with British nationality can play for England. This is not as the absurd and provocative Scot "Mais oui!" Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. seems to think my opinion but a very obvious fact! To suggest that Mike Denness needed to qualify by residence to play for England is ignorant and ridiculous ! Nothing has chnages since Denness's day. There is no such thing as a Scottish passport! PaddyBriggs 09:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember Gavin Hamilton had to qualify through residence; he certainly had to when he wanted to return to Scotland... Sam Vimes 10:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC). Scratch that. Sam Vimes 10:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I support the excellent, intelligent edit made by Stephen Turner, and have thus reverted the unsourced personal opinion of the unprofessional PaddyBriggs. I have requested that he desist from making personal attacks on his Talk page. If an administrator is reading this, I would appreciate some input, otherwise I will request it elsewhere.--Mais oui! 13:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that my remarks constituted a personal attack and I am sorry that you so perceived them. Sorry if I offended, that was not my intent. Regards.PaddyBriggs 13:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Paddy wrote: Stephen, Any citizen of the United Kingdom is eligible to play cricket for England.

Could you cite a source for that, Paddy? My reading of the ICC regulations is that they seem to say the opposite. I may be "ignorant and ridiculous" but it's still not "very obvious" to me that those players didn't qualify through some English ancestry. Thank you.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well I've googled and found this [1], on the ECB website which says

"Subject to the overriding discretion of the ECB, acting with the consent of the International Cricket Council, a Cricketer will only be qualified to play for England in a Test Match or in a One Day International Match if: (a) he is either a British citizen or an Irish citizen; and either (i) he was born within England and Wales; or (ii) he has been resident in England and Wales for the immediately preceding four consecutive years; and (b) he has not during the immediately preceding four consecutive years either (i) played cricket for any Full Member Country except England at under 17 level or above, or (ii) played First Class Cricket in any Full Member Country outside England and Wales, except as an overseas cricketer under local rules similar to Regulation 3 above or in any other circumtances approved by the ECB; and (c) he makes, whenever requested by the ECB, a declaration in the form set out in the Annex to this Regulation; and (d) he is also qualified for England pursuant to the provisions laid down from time to time by ICC. .

I found this easily enough on google (putting 'ECB Regulations Qualification for England' into Google seemed obvious to me, anyway) Average Earthman 16:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That is fine Googling, and certainly ought to be included in the article.--Mais oui! 17:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The above does imply that Scottish and Northern Irish players are not automatically eligible to play for England, so maybe it should be made clear in the article. If anyone else has the 2005 Wisden Almanack, on page 808, in Yorkshire's squad, it gives John Blain's country as Scotland only, whereas in the Warwickshire squad on page 779 in gives Dougie Brown's country as England/Scotland, thus implying that as of publication, John Blain was NOT eligible for England selection, whereas Dougie Brown was eligible for both England and Scotland. Thoughts anyone? User:Andrew nixon 23:18, 12th March 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the section on player eligiblity refers to players qualifying throught parentage. This is not actually possible these days. Kevin Pietersen has an English parent and had to qualify through residence. It also describes Monty Panesar as being from the Indian subcontinent. Panesar was born in Luton, which last time I looked at a map, wasn't anywhere near the Indian subcontinent. Andrew nixon 11:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this makes it quite clear that Scots are not automatically eligible to play for England; they must qualify by birth or residence. I've rewritten the section again, citing both the ICC and ECB regulations this time. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Help

Could someone please tell me the full england cricket team list including subs..everyone. Its for a school project? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.190.232 (talk • contribs) .

Well, there's not really subs in cricket. Oh, and please don't delete what other people have said just to get attention to your own question. Currently, the eleven is:

1. Marcus Trescothick
2. Andrew Strauss
3. Alastair Cook
4. Kevin Pietersen
5. Paul Collingwood
6. Andrew Flintoff
7. Geraint Jones
8. Liam Plunkett
9. Jon Lewis
10. Matthew Hoggard
11. Monty Panesar

Some players who would normally play in the team are injured, though. Sam Vimes 13:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

I've removed {{English cricket seasons from 1890}} from the bottom because that seems more pertinent to Cricket in England, and it's not clear why only this limited number of seasons (with some very nice articles, incidentally) is there. TheGrappler 00:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it was added when the template covered all seasons from 1890 to 2005. There's been some reorganisation now and I had just forgotten it was there any more. No complaints for me. (and thanks for the compliment on the articles. ;)) Sam Vimes 10:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The main template in the top right appears to have an error. "Test matches - this year" is "3", but for "Wins/Losses - this year" is "2/2", implying 4 matches. Which is it?

[edit] Current Form and Future Prospects Section

Ginandtonic 13:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and I added this section without first checking all the rules and regs and the discussion page. Now I realise that perhaps I shouldn't have waded in so quickly, but I thought rather than just removing it, it would be better to leave it for other editors to improve as they see fit. I certainly think that some sort of summary of the team's form and prospects would be good to have, but perhaps you think it's too subjective? I also added the bits for some of the injured players about 'future career prospects uncertain', as I thought that describing eg Simon Jones as a current player, when he hasn't actually played for England for a year, seemed a bit misleading. The current players list does need a bit of cleanup and elaboration; I think it would be good to list each player's county, and to make the descriptions conform to the Wisden standards.

I agree with most of what you've written there: there ought to be a small section on current form, but not too big (we don't want to be too biased towards the present), and speculation such as the last bit on World Cup performance is right out (although you can say that "BBC commentator Jonathan Agnew has suggested that England will struggle at the World Cup", if you can find a source for him saying that). I'll try to get something done about it. Sam Vimes | Address me 11:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rating

Things this article needs to do to get improved (I think it's B-class at present):

• Rework the long list of records (maybe split off into different lists)
• History between 1900 and 1981, Bodyline excepted, needs to be expanded
• Similarly, history in the 1990s and 2000s needs to be split into separate articles
• Some information on the stadiums (that England have had five Test grounds since about 1903, with some reference to the minor Cardiff controversy for 2009)
• Ought to have a section on the Barmy Army
• The relative prestige of Tests and ODIs (if references can be found for England caring more about Tests)

Sam Vimes 10:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Onions & Co.

I don't really think Graham Onions should be included on the players list, as he didn't actually play a game for England. Arguably Glenn Chapple and Tim Bresnan should be, though, although it's fairly evident they won't be involved anymore. HornetMike 23:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts of User Cajad

I have just joined Wikipedia. I think that the section on the 2000s gives rather a wrong perspective of the current England team. In particular, I think that the 2005 Ashes series, which was universally hailed as one of the greatest ever, does not have its importance or excitement fully stressed.

Also, under the 'Recent Form and Future Prospects' section, it is an exaggeration to say that 'several' England players seem unlikely to play again. Currently, only Michael Vaughan and Simon Jones have no comeback date set, and given that they have both been awarded central contracts it would seem that their medical team would not even agree with the prediction that they may not play again. Other than those two I can think of no-one who seems unlikely to play again, and even if you think those two won't play again, 'several' is too strong a word. I have therefore changed it to the current version.

In the same section, whilst a detailed record of England's current one-day form was provided, it left out the most recent one-day series against Pakistan, which is also not mentioned in the 2000s section. I have added it to the 'Recent Form' section and linked to the page on the series. I have kept in the section about England being unlikely to win the World Cup, but is it Wikipedia's job to speculate on this? Would it not be more factual to say that the team's official ICC ranking suggests they are outsiders for the World Cup?

I put this in it's own section, as it's a different query. HornetMike 14:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article is hopelessly incomplete

I presume a B rating for "quality" is supposed to be "good" and if so I think the person who made the award needs to learn something about cricket because England did play cricket during 1900-1932 and from 1933 to the inevitable year of 1981. Furthermore, for nearly all of those years, we actually had a very good team, unlike the disappointing one of the 1980s and the absolutely shambolic one of the 1990s.

Instead of diligently writing up the doings of Botham & Co., as per usual, how about some attention to the full scope of the article? --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have started to try and get a decent chronological synopsis of England's international history with a section on the 1900s and intend to follow this with similar length/style entries for the other decades. I would welcome comments from all on my first effort (the 1900s) - is this on the right track? PaddyBriggs 10:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)