Talk:List of Test cricket records

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured list star List of Test cricket records is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.
cricket ball List of Test cricket records 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 List of Test cricket records, or visit the project page for more details.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Size

Added a couple of tables, but this has pushed it over the 30k mark --Paul 17:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heading title

I think it would be better if the heading 'Individual Records (General)' can be changed as 'Individual Records (Other)'. Please give me your opinions. Jam2k 18:38, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

I don't really mind one way or the other. "Other" may be slightly more accurate, so I'd lean that way if pushed. dmmaus 22:20, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Tied tests

I think we should add the extremely rare tied tests to the team records (theres only two or three that I'm aware of). Off to cricinfo to get the details... Lisiate 22:57, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good idea - according to http://www.cricinfo.com/db/STATS/TESTS/RESULTS/TIED_TESTS.html, there are two, both involving Australia: West Indies (453 & 284) v Australia (505 & 232), Brisbane, 1960/61 and Australia (574-7d & 170-5d) v India (397 & 347), Chennai, 1986/87. I've added a link to the cricinfo Test match records database. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:04, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete List?

Is there any reason why this article is in the incomplete list category? MyNameIsNotBob 11:29, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • gone. Ian ≡ talk 7 July 2005 08:30 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy

I've noticed that Pakistan's one wicket victory over Bangladesh at Multan in 2003/4 is missing from the narrowest wins by wickets section. [1] Just wondering where all the other records have come from (so they can be checked). Kind regards, jguk 4 July 2005 06:40 (UTC)

  • I added the test results, wicket keeping and partnership records. There were mistakes in 2 of those 3, so that's not too bad is it? :) The other data was already here and I basically reformatted it and added the links. I'll now go through each table and check for accuracy/updates. - Ian ≡ talk 7 July 2005 08:30 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback

Ian, since you are looking for feedback :

1. There is nothing saying for what date are the records 'correct upto'- when the records were last updated, except for the Test results at the top.

  • Other than the test results, and assuming they're correct, I don't feel that the other tables really need a 'corect up to'. They are after all records and would generally not change all that often.-Ian ≡ talk 7 July 2005 08:30 (UTC)

2. The seasons are wrong in many cases - often instead of 1928/29, we have only 1928. Tintin 4 July 2005 08:59 (UTC)

Also, I thought the next Test to be played was Sri Lanka v West Indies, not England v Australia, jguk 4 July 2005 11:22 (UTC)
Judging by the team West Indies are likely to put out, I doubt it can be called a Test in anyone's minds but the ICC's...Good work on the article, btw. I made a quick scan through it and it looked good (although others have found faults). Sam Vimes 4 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback

Its a great list! Some helpful points:

  • I think a little copyediting is needed to mention what 300/3 etc. means. Its currently too vague.
  • Any chance of you adding colours to the tables? Say as in the List of Indian districts?
  • The headings shouldn't be in title case. Only the first letter of each heading should be capitalised.
  • The references should be formatted according to wikipedia:cite sources.
  • Any records for most series wins/losses?

Best of luck! User:Nichalp/sg July 4, 2005 18:41 (UTC)


  • This is now looking very good indeed with the tables and so forth. Well done all those responsible. Lisiate 02:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wicket keepers

We have records for most catches and stumpings, but there is nothing about the sum of the two. Should catches be changed to dismissals ? Tintin 03:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Need to edit all stats

Earlier today, I updated the top bowling figures for Australia after England's second innings in the Third Test. ALoan correctly reverted my change, pointing out that several other stats needed updating each Test.

Then when I came to update the page again after the match was over, I discovered that some other stats were out of date — for example, Gilchrist's catches, and Fleming's matches as captain.

All this got me thinking. Should we require all stats to be up to date all the time, or should each table have its own "as of" date? I can argue either side. The former is obviously desirable for the page as a whole. But in practice, it makes it more difficult for people to update accurately, and some stats are likely to slip out of date without us noticing.

Thoughts?

Stephen Turner 18:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Why not both? Try to keep them as up to date as possible, but adding a date whenever they are updated? Sam Vimes 19:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
This has been worrying bothering me also. I agree with Sam's suggestion, FWIW. -- Ian ≡ talk 00:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Let me restate Sam's proposal just to make sure I've understood it:
  1. There should be an "as of" date at the bottom of each table;
  2. Obviously it's desirable to try and make sure everything is up to date;
  3. But it's permissible for someone to update just (say) the top career bowling figures but not the matches played in career, if both have changed during a match.
Is that an accurate summary? Is this the consensus, or does someone disagree? Stephen Turner 09:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
That's how I understand it. See User:Ianbrown/Sandbox -- Ian ≡ talk 12:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Yep, makes sense. Sam Vimes 14:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Page changed: tables all have a "last updated: x" in footer - Ian ≡ talk 06:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Plenty wanting to update Lara's record mid-match, but he's now had another innings - where are they now? :p --Paul 06:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

As I think I said on WP:FLC, This page is always going to be a pain to keep up to date. I think it makes most sense to try to keep the whole thing up to date, but agree that individual records can be updated provided the relevant table has an "as of" date and ideally a reference.
May I suggest one improvement? I think it would be helpful to add numbers of matches (and, where relevant) innings to the individual records for highest batting average, fielding, and wicket-keeping. -- 11:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More stats

Could the statistics for most wickets and most runs in a calender year be added. The most wickets in a year record was predicted to be broken by Shane Warne this year, but I cant find any current statistics on the net. --AMorris (talk)●(contribs) 00:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

77 so far, [2], two and half Tests to go, looking good. --Paul 02:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Note to people who know about this sort of thing

There have been a number of edits from anon IPs changing names several times in a short period of time to something completely different. I noticed one clear case of vandalism by User:Inba but I can't vouch for the rest. I'll leave you guys to check this out. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 11:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the unprecedented amount of vandalism this morning, and the number of anons and new users doing the vandalism, I have semi-protected for a while. Presumably this is a result of Virender Sehwag and Rahul Dravid being so close to appearing on two of the tables (best opening stand only a few runs away, and highest partnership a bit further away)... -- ALoan (Talk) 12:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear ALone, good that you have 'semi-protected' the page, The current 'table of partnerships' is correct. I have verified it from ICC website. --User:San25872 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the figures - it just seems a bit pointless to state how high a score they made, when a part of the innings was inevitably made outside of the partnership. Sam Vimes 13:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Just updated Murali to 600 wickets —The preceding unsigned comment was added by E munky (talk • contribs) 03:40, 11 March 2006 .

[edit] Players who have scored two centuries in a match most times

According to the television stats guys, in the latest SA vs. AUS test, Ponting became only the 3rd player to have scored two centuries in a match 3 times. Perhaps this record should added? (can't find a ref tho.) Mikker (...) 22:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added this record. 10 players have achieved the feat two or more times; including the players on 2 twin centuries made the table quite large so I elected to include only Ponting and Gavaskar. I can add the others if preferred. --Muchness 00:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Good job... Mikker (...) 00:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should we list every record?

I'm becoming concerned that we're adding too many records to this page. Should we only be adding the most important few, or should we be adding everything that anyone wants to add? I'm just worried that this page will get too long if we add everything — there are surely hundreds of possible records that one could add. Anyone else got an opinion? Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I share your concern. For example, the recently added "Centuries in both innings of a Test" it pretty ephemeral, as is "Most man of the match awards". I can see the justification for all of the others, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree here also. The two mentioned above should go I feel. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I've removed those two. Personally I could happily lose "Most runs in an over" and "Highest proportion of a completed innings total" too. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm new to this article & lists generally, so forgive me if I make any noob mistakes :). I honestly don't think we should get too concerned about length, I mean, the version with both extra stats included was only 39 kilobytes long, which is only 7 kilobytes longer than the "recommended" length at WP:SIZE. Besides, if you look at the justifications for the recommended size (technical + readers tire), the former, rather minor worry, doesn't apply yet and the latter doesn't apply at all to lists. Additionally, it is always possible to split the records up - into, say, List of individual Test records, List of team Test records etc (WP:NOT paper). Lastly, yes, there are hundreds of possible records but I think the two added are indeed quite notable. Most man of the match awards won is indicative of how many times a player has truly excelled in a game - surely a worthwhile thing to note. And scoring test hundreds in both innings is quite a feat. Doing it three times is amazing - again this seems notable. In any case, this is what I think. Mikker (...) 19:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
A nightwatchmen list now. Tintin (talk) 07:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems that every time someone breaks a record, it's added to this page. I've reverted it: Gillespie's feat was excellent, but there would be 100 tables on this page if we had every record as important as that one. Stephen Turner (Talk) 07:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

After a rethink, I'm going to do a U-turn here and ask what does it matter? Wikipedia is not paper and as long as it's a record which isn't going to be broken every week and is not too obtuse, where's the harm? If it's verifiable (cricinfo etc.) and someone has gone to the effort of formatting a table, there's every chance someone else will want to read it. As Mikkerpikker said, we can always split the article if needs be, but we're a long way from that just yet. I'd like to hear a really strong argument why not have the three or so mentioned above. -- I@n ≡ talk 08:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the page is less useful if it accumulates dozens of "trivia" records, which someone just happens to have broken recently. I also think the maintenance burden is too high. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Highest batting averages

At the end of the test Michael Hussey is likely to be inserted into the list of highest batting averages at number 2, given that he is in the middle of his 20th innings (finally!) and currently as of last night has an average of 80.13 (a figure which will change as the test goes on but is unlikely to drop off the bottom :) Ansell 22:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

We'll list him, sure, but, to go off topic a bit, he aint all that. Won't last long in the top 5 IMO. Maybe that's just SA bias speaking, I donno... Mikker (...) 21:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
He seems to be one of the more focused cricketers that I have seen. IMO, he looks better than Ricky Ponting did when he first started, although, the comparison is not really valid, as Ponting started playing for Australia at a much earlier age. Of course, from a QLD bias, I should say Hayden for PM (or some such silly comment, but its clearly wrong ;-) ) Ansell 09:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I have no doubt he's a good player but I'm not sure yet whether he's a great player (that deserves to be in the top 5 averages of all time). He'll be figured out soon enough, how he reacts to that will be a good indicator... Mikker (...) 16:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source for List_of_Test_cricket_records#Best_figures_in_an_innings_-_progression_of_record

I note there is no source listed for the section List_of_Test_cricket_records#Best_figures_in_an_innings_-_progression_of_record, did we get this info from a reliable source or is it original research? Mikker (...) 21:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That list was created by me (Paul - remember me?), so I guess it might count as OR - but I'm an reliable source :p
I remember (I think). Can you please give us a link so we can add a source to the table with "Compiled from [source]"? Mikker (...) 18:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
It may well be original research, in a really strict sense of the word, but the data is all available from one source, for example [3], you just have to do sorting. I don't think we should be pedantic about making sure that someone else has actually compiled the list before. Being able to verify that the list is correct by checking well compiled lists of every instance of "7 for.. and up" is more than enough. Also, WP:RS is currently not in the best shape, constantly evolving/devolving and all, so using it in an authoritative sense isn't going to be overly effective. Ansell 22:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I've got it in a book from the 70s. This can be used as a source reference, I think. Sam Vimes | Address me 22:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, I accept that argument (I was just wondering). I would be worried about the difficultly of maintaining a list that has to be compiled from other general bowling statistics, but I suspect it will change only very rarely so I guess there's no need to worry. Nonetheless, can we add a ref? I.e. add a link to the list this was created from and have something like "Compiled from [1]"? Mikker (...) 22:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
If Sam has the list in a book it would be handy, otherwise I think it should be sufficient to put down a list of top scores, preferably one with dates as I have above, to justify the list. Its handy a guy for 7- in the first test as all of the scores are guaranteed to be in such a list. Ansell 22:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_Test_cricket_records_095d.html"