Talk:Pakistan national cricket team

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
cricket ball Pakistan national 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 Pakistan national cricket team, or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] current team

Under "current team", changed Abdur Razzaq to Abdul Razzaq, the former was linked to the wiki page referring to the Bangladeshi cricketer. -fkh82

Some guy called Saeed Ahmad is grafftiing this saying himself he is a captain and a bowler as there is no such

It is actually Saeed Ahmed. Am adding him back in the list of captains but not in the list of batsmen as whether to include him in that list would be a matter of opinion. Tintin (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Is anyone here aware of wiki's NPOV policy? The quanity of superlatives employed would make a local Urdu daily proud.

This page is a poor reflection on wiki in general and Pakistan cricket in particular. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.165.146.59 (talk • contribs).

If we're going to use a NPOV flag, can we also follow Wikipedia's flagging criterion, that being to specify what is in fact wrong with it in clear terms rather than saying "it is POV". Thanks. M0RHI | Talk to me 13:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

maru (talk) contribs 04:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ignore this as it's a bug in Maru's bot rather than a link problem. The link works fine. In any case I've changed the link so it won't be picked up again. -- I@n 05:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Englnd vs. Pakistan 4th Test Controversy

I've removed the section on this. althought it was accurate to my knowledge, it's probably best to leave any editing of this until later this evening, when we know more about the situation - 88.105.68.243 17:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and in any case it's too early to start getting hugely worked about it and including it in every article. What we've got in the Pakistani cricket team in England in 2006 article is fine, IMO. Sam Vimes | Address me 17:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I won't argue with that. But now I've got to trudge all the other atricles removing hasty edits :-( - 88.105.68.243 17:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I've put this back in- it can easily be changed if more information comes out, and given that play is ended for the day at least, and the only way the match can resume is by overruling the umpires, it is clearly a significant and notable incident. MartinMcCann 17:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but if we're going to include every single "significant and notable incident" in Pakistani cricketing history, the article would blow out of proportion. At present we've got a tour article, so in my opinion it should be left there until we know just how big this incident is. The article isn't very good at present, but at least it's not overly biased with current issues. Sam Vimes | Address me 17:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
This section is totally POV and should be removed:

"Another point to note was there was no television evidence nor any photographs brought forward that showed that the ball had been tampered with by the Pakistan side. There were 26 sky sports cameras monitoring everything that was going on and if the ball had been scuffed up, then it would have been picked up by the cameras. The umpires also failed to name one certain individual whom they have seen doctoring the condition of the ball. The fact that the ball was hit into the stands a few times, hit the advertising boards, and hit concrete also put the accusation in further doubt as it is becoming more obvious that the umpires just simply assumed that the ball was tampered with." --85.210.81.175 08:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually, the ball was in the posession of the umpires after Cook's dismissal (51.5), and it was inspected again (and deemed to have been tampered with) only a few overs later (55). In the minutes between the two inspections the ball had not been hit in to the stands, and had only gone for a single four. One would assume that the fact the ball had changed so much in such a short time was the reason tampering is suspected. I don't think the fact that it was hit out of the ground a couple of times has anything to do with the condition of the ball, so this POV part should be removed. - Feebtlas 10:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Assuming is not good enough. If you were listening to the commentators, they were always saying that Darrell Hair needs some sort of evidence, Video or Visual, that ball tampering has been done. What if that four you're talking about hit concrete, or hit and advertising board? That can always change the condition of the ball. What also could have happened after Cook's dismissal was that umpires thought that they condition of the ball wasn't the best, but good enough. If you would have looked at the ball in the umpires hand, that was a typical 56 overs old ball. And also the fact that it was hit hard for fours and sixes a few times, does put this accusation in further doubt. This Part of the Article is right should remain there as it speaks the truth.


The umpires do not require to report anyone. Surrey were penalised for ball tampering last season without naming any player by name. Do you mean that if sky cameras did not pick up something, it did not happen ? Tintin (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
You're right, they don't need to report. But in the past, it always has been that the umpires have told the fielding team's captain that he didn't like the condition of the ball and that he doesn't like whats going on or something. Thats just a friendly way of how cricket has been running for years. So according to you, Surrey was penalised without naming.. big deal! There is a difference between County and Test cricket. Also for your last part, if it was not picked on camera, then its VERY HIGHLY LIKELY that it was NOT done. It doesn't mean it wasn't done, but it makes it a lot less unlikely. The cameras are monitoring pretty much whats going on the field. And the number of cameras is not small either. 26 Cameras-- thats quite a lot of cameras.
The law does not need the umpire to provide any sort of "proof" or name any one. The laws are the same whether it is county cricket or Tests. Despite having so many cameras, they still miss runouts and cannot gets the right pics for boundary hits now and then (like in the Dhoni incident), despite knowing where the action was. Silly isn't it ? Tintin (talk) 11:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Obviously it is not required but naming captain for ball-tampering easily suggests that if the umpires only THOUGHT that the ball was tampered with, they don't know who did it. Just because law says this and that, its not always going to be that way. THERE IS PROOF REQUIRED, and the umpire MUST SEE SOMEONE TAMPERING WITH THE BALL. Not everyone goes by law, in fact there are many people critcizing the law. Simple as that -- You NEED some PHYSICAL EVIDENCE and NAME a certain player whom you have SEEN TAMPERING THE BALL from your eyes. And thats how it has been in history. The ball looked in good shape for a ball that would be 56 overs old. And for your last part, how often do they miss run outs? Like seriously. They only miss it when its extremely close, and it only happens rarely. Most of the times, even close one run outs are caught up by the cameras. These two incidents like the Dhoni one, where no one was sure if it was out or if it was runs, and this ball tampering cannot be compared, my friend. If you remember the Afridi incident at Faisalabad, I don't even think Ten sports had that many cameras as Sky sports, and they still caught everything. If you remember when Mike Atherton tampered the ball, it was caught on the camera. Here there is no video or visual evidence. And shall I repeat, you NEED some evidence to covince the fans think that ball-tampering was done. You can just use the laws and convict someone of ball tampering, but the public and the fans will not believe you, especially when you convict the captain. You will only convince yourself by doing that (and ofcourse ICC) that ball tampering was done.
Nothing of that sort. The umpires are experienced enough to know the difference between a damage caused by the ball hitting the bat or advertising boards, and by human nails (or that is the supposition). If the ball shows signs that the seam has been pulled up or whatever, and if that was not done by the batsmen or the umpires themselves, who do you think did it ? Btw, the 26 cameras is very misleading figure. It includes, for example, the four used for tracking runouts, the two inside the stumps etc. In reality, there are probably three or four which focus on the player who has the ball. So it will probably catch it, or it may not. It is not like 26 cameras are focused on a single individual from all sides at any point of time.
Okay, so four or five cameras following the player who has the ball. Thats good enough for me. Obviously not all cameras will follow everything. But if something would have happened, those few cameras would have caught it. In reality, there was no ball tampering done and the umpires simply assumed that it was done.

Tintin (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I've tagged this article for POV. It is very nationalistic. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

I would tend to agree that this article should only discuss the ball tampering controversy when it affects the Pakistani Cricket Team, so Hair's offer to resign doesn't really fit here. Any other thoughts? --Cherry blossom tree 00:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The bits that I removed were also POV and inappropriate, casting aspersions on Darrell Hair. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree also. That information should of course go in the Darrell Hair article, but not here. Andrew nixon 00:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Hair's offer to resign was something that is very important in this controversy. It was one of the reasons why he got fired (even though ICC didn't say that but they realized the true character of Darrell Hair). His offer has a lot to do with this controversy because it also really strengthend Pakistan's case, because the controversy didn't end at the Oval on the 20th of August. A lot happened in this controversy latter on, including this incident Hair offering to resign. It's one of the most integral part of this controversy, and if you're going to mention talk about this controversy anywhere, you must also mention about this Hair's offer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.50.19.195 (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC).
I agree that Hair's offer to resign is important in a discussion of the controversy, but if you look at the article's title, it says Pakistani cricket team. Hence this article should cover the controversy as it relates to the Pakistani team. The Darrell Hair article already includes the resignation offer, as that does belong there. Could you please explain to us how details of Darrell Hair's resignation has anything to do with the Pakistani cricket team? Andrew nixon 19:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Its not just about Pakistan cricket team. Pakistan team was involved in this controversy, but this incident is an integral part of this controversy. I am not listing a while profile of Darrell Hair, but this incident should be mentioned here as this was one of the reasons why he got fired from international games, and at the end of the controversy, that's what PCB and Pakistan wanted to happen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.48.215.171 (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC).
So there is no reply in reply to my post. Does that mean nobody can counter what I said and I should go ahead and put Hair's resignation offer on the main page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.228.73.157 (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
No it means that you still haven't convinced us that is should go on the article. The article is about the Pakistani cricket team, not Darrell Hair. The information is quite welcome on the Darrell Hair page, indeed it is already there. You will notice that you are the only one who actually thinks it belongs. Hardly a consensus. Also, it might help if you registered an account, and also signed your posts like this: ~~~~ Andrew nixon 22:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
You're repeating the same thing over and over again. And I have no choice but to repeat my self as well. If you aren't convinced by this, then nothing is going to convince you. And also, this retirement offer was here earlier a few months ago when I visited this page; Surely it didn't appear there by itself. You will also notice that all the people opposing this are non-Pakistanis, including you. Also many indians are involved in this article, and we know what that can mean. I don't need to talk about that. As for registering, I will register when I have time. ---- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.70.0.37 (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
There's another paragraph. This text: "The series was a controversial one as the Pakistani team got accused of ball tampering, particularly by the English media. Reverse swing soon expanded around the cricket world and more and more bowlers started to master reverse swing, including English bowlers. In the end, it was concluded that the Pakistani bowlers were simply ahead of their team.". Who concluded Pakistani bowlers were ahead? A few months back Afridi said you can't reverse swing it without an element of tampering. Does that suggest Pakistani bowlers have always been better than English bowlers? Someone needs to fix it. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 03:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The person adding the part about Darrell Hair has done it again. I have inserted a comment where he puts the text asking to not insert it again without discussing it first here. If it continues, we may have to look at protecting the page from non-registered users, though I'd rather not have to. Andrew nixon 16:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikinews

70.55.88.134 03:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/k/Talk%7EPakistan_national_cricket_team_e080.html"