Talk:India national cricket team

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article India national cricket team was one of the Everyday life good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article...
cricket ball
Cricket Portal
Click here for information about how the WikiProject assesses notability
India national cricket team is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting 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.

Contents

[edit] older entries

Shouldn't we merge this page with Cricket in India as they do sort of overlap, jguk 2 July 2005 13:27 (UTC)

Definitely not. One should put the whole Indian game into context and the other should be a detailed history of the fortunes of the national team. These are clearly different topics. Calsicol 07:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Severe lack of info

Aside from the patchy writing and boring narrative (all good encyclopedia articles are narratives to an extent), this article also suffers from major lacunae. For instance, the major scandals surrounding match-fixing that affected and changed the team and some of its most storied players (Azaruddhin (spllng?) comes to mind) have been neglected. I, hopefully, leave this message for those who can fill in the gaps. --68.173.46.79 20:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What about the women's team

this article talks about the men's team. what about the indian team comprising the opposite sex? Idleguy 09:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    • A section has finally been added on the women's team on this page. GizzaChat © 07:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current Players

Do we really need to edit the current players every time there is a small addition in the team? This article gets modified every time someone is dropped temporarily or a new person is added but does not get chosen for the final 11. I think current players should only reflect the core of the team. E.g. right now, it would be Dravid, Pathan, Tendulkar, Dhoni, Harbhajan, Kumble. People who are more likely to be around in the next series.

[edit] Ongoing Effort

[edit] Records - Tests

All the other pages have them so India should get them too, just hope for a bit of help, feel free to fill in the empty gaps, use Cricinfo Records to help. Nobleeagle 09:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Done seems ready to go onto the page, feel free to add any significant records. Nobleeagle 04:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Team records

[edit] Individual records

[edit] Batting

[edit] Bowling

[edit] Fielding

[edit] Records - ODIs

Just need to do the same for ODIs and we can put them on the page. Nobleeagle 04:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Done and ready...Nobleeagle 23:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Team records

[edit] Individual records

[edit] Batting

[edit] Bowling

[edit] Fielding

[edit] Collaboration

Now that it's Indian Collaboration of the Week. I think the first step is to upgrade it at least to the levels set by the West Indian cricket team, English cricket team and Australian cricket team. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

In terms of structure, the West Indies cricket team is the best to follow. The other two mainly focus on history, whereas West Indies contains many good sections. Also is it really necessary to have a list of the Indian winning XI at the 1983 World Cup. It looks a bit strange. GizzaChat © 07:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
It does, a link to the scorecard on cricinfo should suffice. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The article on West Indian cricket team once went through an FAC process but was rejected because most of it dealt with history alone. The History of the West Indian cricket team was then created by moving most of these contents. Some of the comments there would be useful for us. A comment given in the FAC was to model the article on Arsenal F.C. which deals with everything about the Arsenal.

Currently there is also an article about cricket in India. We can also look at improving the two and starting an additional History of the Indian cricket team article simultaneoulsly. For instance, a section about the crowds/supporters and the influence of the media may be better suited for the Indian cricket team article while one about the money in the game may go to cricket in India. Tintin (talk) 07:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep, Arsenal looks good as a model. Also noticed that New England Patriots were on the Main Page today. Another example as to how we should structure the article? Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that on Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Sport_and_games, Arsenal, New England Patriots and Manchester F.C. are the only sport team articles that are FA. I think the best way to approach this article is to take out all the good stuff from each of the three sport team FAs and merge it into this. GizzaChat © 08:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyediting

When playing one-day cricket, the Indian cricket team have always worn a light blue shirt and pants.

Couple of issues with that line. 'Always' isn't correct because coloured clothing became universally accepted only in the last ten years or so. Atleast in the 1992 world cup, India wore dark blue (though they had used light blue in the WSC earlier in the season). Can't find a pic because I don't know what to look for, but it finds a mention here. There have also been shades like the one used in the 'desert storm' innings which are not the conventional light blue. Tintin (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Changed --GizzaChat © 06:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current Squad list

I know, I know, I'm supposed to be on a Wikibreak but I can't help myself. I voted for this article to be INCOTW & should also be responsible for improving it. The list is taken from the West Indies team page & I have reduced a few columns (the ones of domestic team, tour matches etc). But the effect nevertheless is good (according to me). Anyway if anyone could add a few more columns it would be much appreciated.

Thanks

Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 18:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Players

I have added this section as I saw it in the West Indian cricket team page which I take as a precedent for this article. Now this section can be inflated to a large size considering many people have different opinions about who should & shouldn't be mentioned in this section. Even my judgement in selection can & most probably will be questioned. I have only tried to add the players who have been the most notable. Still if anyone has any players to add (or remove) please do so with some care as this can spark conflicts between users. Still this section is particularly helpful to point ot the great Indian players of the past & present. Feedback will be appreciated.

Thanks

Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 19:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed the Notable cricketers section (I don't know how I missed it. I must be going blind!). Anyway its pretty similar to the famous players section I have created. But I feel both should be kept as one gives detail about the players & the other gives concise info about the players through the decades. Still I think the sections need to be merged somehow. Any ideas?

Thanks Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, Notable Indian Cricketers should be somehow merged with the general history section, with all the names into the Famous Cricketers list. Nobleeagle (Talk) 09:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sachin Tendulkar and Sudeep Biswas

[edit] Stadia

The Stadia section is really good. My thanks to NobleEagle for adding it. In that I have created the Sardar Patel (Gujarat) Stadium article where I have created a new Infobox for cricket stadia. I think this Infobox should be used for all stadia as it gives all the vital stats of the ground at a glance. I would appreciate it if you would look at it & give me some feedback. If you like it I will create them for all the other grounds too.

Thanks

Everyone,

Isn't this wrong -

Sardar Patel Stadium (Gujarat) Naranpura, Ahmedabad ?

It is located in Motera. One in Naranpura is not used for international cricket.

Thanks.


Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 09:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this was discussed before on the WP:CRIC talk page. The main problem is that cricket is not the only sport on most cricket grounds (especially in Australia, England, New Zealand, South Africa). I suppose it can be used for Indian stadiums or any on the subcontinent. GizzaChat © 09:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The lead could do with some polishing. Would it help to put the stadia in a table (perhaps with some additional data) ? Do we include ODI-only grounds ? Should we look at including only the important/active grounds to reduce the length of this section ? Tintin (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Table format would be nice. I reckon only grounds that have hosted one or more test matches should be displayed, otherwise we'll have to go into unnecessary detail, stating names like the Faridabad ground etc. Perhaps List of Indian cricket grounds is the place to put such details. For here, only test grounds I reckon... Nobleeagle (Talk) 10:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


Srikeit, There is a template for the stadiums already. It is Infobox Cricket Ground. Please use that instead of creating a India specific one. - Ganeshk (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
You can see its usage at Sydney Cricket Ground. - Ganeshk (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logo?

The Arsenal and Windies pages have a section on Crest and Flag respectively. The equivalent in for the Indian cricket team would be the BCCI logo. Does anyone think it deserves its own section? GizzaChat © 09:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images?

If anyone has them, three images particularly come to my mind:
1) BCCI Logo
2) Picture from a cricket match containing India, preferably in ODI uniform.
3) Picture of squad that won the World Cup.
Those would be good for a start. Nobleeagle (Talk) 09:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

We already some sort of BCCI logo at Image:3283 320.jpg. Is that the right one? It will be hard to find pictures of players that are usable in Wikipedia, unless someone has taken one themselves. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
That's it thanks :). Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian cricket team records

Please import any Indian cricket team records you know to this page. We particularly need First Class and List A records. Once it fills up a bit, we can just write a summary here and link to the main article. Nobleeagle (Talk) 09:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current squad

I just read through the article and it needs a lot of work in grammar and in tone. Presently it reads like a school essay. There is also a lot of inconsistency in the article. An example is the following sentence.

"The players who took India to great heights over the past 10 years such as Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly and Anil Kumble are growing older and not consistently maintaining form and fitness."

Under the current squad should'nt the title Fast bowlers renamed to Medium Fast bowlers? Instead of using West Indies as a base to design this, 2005/06 Cricket Australia Contracted Players in Australia can be used. A current squad always changes as we speak so a list of players (like Australia) who represented India for the said year looks more presentable.Nivus|(talk)|(desk) 11:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nivus that certain parts of the article need to be improved & be made to confirm to NPOV. In the current squad section you have requested renaming the title Fast Bowlers as Medium Fast Bowlers. Fast bowling is a term used for bowling anything other than spin. The following introduction clarifies this:

Fast bowling, sometimes known as pace bowling, is one of the two approaches to bowling in the sport of cricket. The other is spin bowling.

So Fast bowlers does not mean that they are express pace bowlers, but that they are bowlers who are not spinners. And also I do not see a problem in using a current squad list. The squad I have mentioned is a 16 member team selected for playing against England. It is true that it is subject to change, but those changes can always be made easily. As for adding a contracted players list (like Australia), I think it is a good idea. But it should be added as a separate section not in place of the current squad list as certain contracted players are not currently in the team (eg. Sourav Ganguly).

Thanks

Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 17:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


You are missing my point. The squad you have mentioned was only valid for the first 3 ODIs. Gautam Gambhir has been dropped and Robin Uthappa has been selected instead. Pretty soon when interest has been dropped on this article, you may not find anyone to keep it upto date. My suggestion is to display a list of players who were in the squad 2005/2005 season. So as new players are selected they can be stacked to the bottom of the list. Just my 2 cents!! Nivus|(talk)|(desk) 04:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coaches

Should a section be made on the coaches the team has had in its history? The more info there is on the page, the more likely it is to become a FA! GizzaChat © 05:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  • First, we'll see whether we can get names of everyone. When did the manager become the coach - with Wadekar ? Tintin (talk) 06:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I've added Test captains, have no idea where I can find coaches names though I'm afraid. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparisons with other pages

I believe that with a bit of a layout check, expanding the women's cricket team section and bit and setting up history so that it's a bit neater we could be matching the West Indies article in content by tomorrow. With a few images we could have a better article. Nice work everyone, but there is still a lot of work to be done to make it match real Featured Article Standard. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] India at the World Cup

I think this should warrant its own section. The World Cup is the centrepiece and ultimate aim of playing one day cricket. So I think we should start a section focusing on how India have done in the World Cup - and records, eg, most runs scored in WC by Indian, most wickets, most matches, etc.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll be able to do that and have the sources and info needed. But don't have time today so will undertake the task when I do have the time (probably tomorrow or day after). Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
India at the Cricket World Cup has been created but needs to include the 1983 World Cup final and the summaries of India's performance in the remainder of the world cups. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Indian cricket team

I don't have the knowledge to create such a section but if anyone has the time to create and maintain it, it would be brilliant. I think the history section and a few things here and there are the only things that keep us just lower than Arsenal F.C., a featured article. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Indian cricket history will be probably be the toughest one to write among all the cricket playing countries. It will be a monumental task to write a really good article. I am a bit apprehensive of taking it up but if anyone is willing I can provide a lot of reading material. Tintin (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Although most of the info is not controversial, they will still be needed. It is one of the final steps we have to take before the article undertake Peer Review, and then a Feautured Article Candidate. GizzaChat © 10:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian captain list

"Note that some of the time periods overlap due to the fact that a captain may have simply been filling in. As is the case of Rahul Dravid's captaincy in 2003." I do not agree with including filling roles in this list. In my opinion, it makes the list confusing and also decreases its utility. For example, if xyz was captain as a fill in role for couple of times in 1993 and then later promoted to full time captaincy in 1997 to 2001, it is grossly misleading to say he was captain from 1993-2001. --Blacksun 01:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point, but it should be discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Cricket. I suggest this discussion is moved there. GizzaChat © 07:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
This article is expanding nicely, but, I have a few comments. On the captains, it seems a bit pointless to essentially repeat the more informative list in Indian national cricket captains, with much of the information taken out. Surely the section should instead contain some prose, discussing the most important Indian cricket captains, their performances, influence, etc? A similar comment could be made about the stadia - they are already listed in chronological order at List of Test cricket grounds#India, so this list should add something else - say, listed by number of matches, and discussing the pros and cons of the stadia. Also, what about ODI venues? (I am also unsure that the venues really belong in an article about the team, rather than, say, in Cricket in India.)
More generally, several sections are too "listy" and need "prosifying" - specifically, "Tournament History", "Stadia", "Test Match Captains", "Famous players". -- ALoan (Talk) 11:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
For the stadia section, rather than have a list, it would be better just to mention the famous few but then discuss Indian cricket grounds in general. An example is that traditionally the international cricket grounds in India are batsman and spin friendly. GizzaChat © 11:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed: that would help to explain India's traditional strengths in spin and batting, and the problems that visiting teams often have in dealing with the conditions, when their swing and seam bowlers often fail to perform. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, apart from History this article is pretty much even with the West Indian cricket team article. Now we have to do what it takes to get up to Featured Article Status. Famous Players is similar to Arsenal F.C., so I reckon it is alright, as is the Captains list which is similar to the Arsenal F.C. managers list. Tournament History may need some changing and I agree with DaGizza on the Stadia topic. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table Alignment

We need to maintain some consistency. I suggest we left align the current squad table. Comments? Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ODI venues

An anon feels that mentions of ODI venues are also necessary

And Jawaharlal Nehru International Stadium,Cochin is the second largest stadium. which is only using for One day Internationals.

ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 05:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FAC

This is coming together very nicely. I have done a first-pass copyedit, and added a few questions as inline comments. There are a few areas that still need expanding (see my comments) but this is looking very good. The lead section could also do with a little expansion, to set the scene a bit better for non-cricketers (thinking of the American reviewers on FAC). WP:PR first?-- ALoan (Talk) 14:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Definitely a good idea to peer review first. I feel that the article has too many embedded lists at the moment, though I don't quite know what to do about it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I made the same comment a couple of sections above, but the article is getting better. I think the lists should be summarised as prose, with links to main acticle containing the actuals lists:
  • Indian national cricket captains exists already, so there is no need for that list here. The contributions of the more prominent captains and more notable events under their leadership should be mentioned in a section of prose, or mentioned in the history section;
  • The list of Test grounds could be moved to List of Test cricket grounds in India or similar (or perhaps an article with the ODI grounds too) - the related paragraph of text looks quite good;
  • Famous players seems a bit superfluous - they should be mentioned, and their contribution explained, in the history section.
  • Similarly, the tournaments should be explained in prose, probably in the history section, although the list could be moved to a sub-article.
  • However, I think we need current squad, unless this also goes to a sub-article, and the table is the most concise way to present the information.
-- ALoan (Talk) 15:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I've had a go at the captains - see what I mean? Should we add the women's and U-19 captains? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
My idea of solutions in response to ALoan:
  • Well done with the cricket captains paragraph, it looks pretty good, I created the table because it was on the West Indies page.
  • I don't see too much of a problem with this. But I think List of cricket grounds in India would be better, and we could seperate Test from ODI, it would keep everyone happy. Then elaborate in the prose summary so that it's not a section stub.
  • I think famous players have already been pretty much mentioned in Recent Performance and History, no need for them, I'm removing unless anyone has strong views against my doing so.
  • Not sure what to do about this, once again I don't mind too much with how it's done at the moment.
  • On the Current Squad point I agree, this is the best way to set it out as long as it is updated regularly.
Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I have nominated it as a Good Article, which I believe will definitely succeed as. Step by step, this will become a FA! GizzaChat © 09:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Hope you are sure about this, still a bit of work may be required...Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I've answered all of ALoan's inline comments. Feel free to add any more whenever you see some inadequency. Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Article does not have a single GFDL, PD, CC etc. images. It has two images, both are considered as fair use. To be featured article we need at least an image which should be considered above mentioned license. Thanks Shyam (T/C) 21:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in many FAC, but the criteria says that images are not prerequisites for an FA. Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAC Criteria

This is my biased opinion, but I think it meets everything pretty well apart from 3a. The lead-in might need a bit of work. Then again, that's my opinon. Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it meets 4 because although it states images are not necessary, it says that if there images appropriate to the article, then FAs should have those appropirte images. It is possible to have images for the Indian cricket team but we don't have any, which makes the article incomplete. A couple of more points would also need referencing. These issues will be brought up again in more detail when we do a Peer Review. GizzaChat © 06:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
If an inline comment is left at every inadequency in this article, I will try and fix it up. I personally don't have any images for the article, so I guess Criteria 4 may be a problem for us yet. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:PINSAC

While we are waiting for the Good Article results to come in, do you think it's worthwile to get some info from the people at Portal:India by nominating it as a selected article? Or is it still a bit too early for that. Selected Article, after all, looks good on your resume for FA status. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I was bold enough to do it. There's no harm in nominating it even if it doesn't meet the criteria. The main purpose of nominating it is to receive contructive criticism on how the article can be improved and head in the right direction. Whether or not it is selected, it will be closer to becoming a FA, our ultimate aim. GizzaChat © 00:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I need to work on that being bold stuff :)... 07:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Tournaments

Would anyone mind if I converted international tournaments to prose and merged the section on the World Cup with the International Tournaments?? Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, the World Cup section ties in better with the tournaments sections rather than the history section, which should be a brief overview of the Indian cricket team in general. GizzaChat © 23:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Done but the prose isn't billiant. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Promotion!

User:Dwaipayanc has promoted our page to Good Article status on WP:GAC. He unlisted Indian cricket team from the page some time ago but didn't change the tags or anything. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

OOps. Sorry for the mistake. Will not happen again ;). regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review

I'm going to be bold and nominate this for Peer Review in order to get it to FA Status as soon as possible. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Right here are the concerns we need to deal with before FAC:

  • Infobox needs to be made more appealing Thank-you Saravask
  • Possibly win/loss graphs on performance
  • Cricketers' photos if possible
  • A map of the venues if possible
  • Add Selection Procedure somewhere
  • Add info on Coach, manager, physio etc.
  • Add specialty to players (eg. Leg spinner)

Let's get working... Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Peer review/Virender Sehwag/archive1

A bit of a diversion for some shameless self-promotion. I feel that we need to get a solid base on the bios of the current players before they play too many matches and it gets way out of control. It took me four hours to do up the Sehwag page, but it has taken about 7 hours and not even half done at User:Blnguyen/Rahul Dravid - I'm sure the production costs are worse than linear (Dravid has played twice as many games as Sehwag, but probably will take 3-4 times as long), so probably although I should be on wikibreak, things like Irfan Pathan, Mahendra Singh Dhoni, Mohammad Kaif, Rudra Pratap Singh, Ajit Agarkar, Vikram Singh, Dinesh Karthik etc. Luckily Yuvraj Singh, Harbhajan Singh, Shanthakumaran Sreesanth and Suresh Raina have been renovated recently. It's just that if you let things slide into the past it becomes hard to remember what happened and the writing process becomes a bit of a mess. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
BTW, perhaps we should remove the sentence about Pathan's pace bowling...............Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

I think that this article is too focussed on presenting the good things only. We need some info about Azharuddin and Jadeja being involved in match-fixing. Also I think it should mention the Kolkata riot in WC96, another in 99 when there was an empty stadium and also the Bengali protests after Ganguly was dropped. The protests claiming racism after Sehwag was suspended in RSA 2001 and the whole team was fined is also important. What about the controversies about the zonal selection policy and alleged skulduggery of Dalmiya and Pawar. This may be tied into the regionalism issue with the Bengalis cheering RSA last year against India after Ganguly was dropped and Chappell gave the Bengalis the finger.

The comment "from strength to strenght" re the 1990s isn't a fair descriptor IMHO as India's victory 2-1 over Pakistan in 2004 was the first away series victory in 20 odd years. India did not even beat Zimbabwe in the 1990s in Zimbabwe. Also there should be more about the article gives me the impression that India has had a decent fast bowling line-up. Apart from Srinath were there any pacers who averaged less than 30? It is normal that pacers have lower averages than spinners (it is harder to be a qualtiy spinner) and IIRC Kumble's average ~28 is the best for an Indian. Just now you can see that Ambrose, Donald, Pollock, McGrath, Waqar, Wasim Akram, Garner, in recent years averaged 20-22. Mihir Bose in "History of Indian cricket" feels that Venkatesh Prasad and Srinath were India's best two pace bowlers and best combo - yet Prasad averaged 35. Looking at Zaheer, Agarkar, Nehra etc they all averaged 35+ which is not good at all. If you exclude Pathan's slaughter against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, his bowling average is high 30s, and RP Singh, Munaf Patel and Sreesanth are only starting.

Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, I will put most of the stuff on riots in the section on Fans, along with burning Effigees etc. The match fixing scandal should go in the history section and I'll research on quick bowlers. The Dalmiya Pawar and internal BCCI political affairs might deserve a bit of a say here but would be better off in the BCCI article itself. Thanks. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

A quick comment : After slow beginnings, the Parsi's were eventually invited by the Europeans to play a match in 1877. [5]

Not sure whether this is important because it never happened. But some mention could be made of Parsis tour of England in 1886 and 1888. There must be a reference to the India's first official tour of England in 1911. Tintin (talk) 05:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The picture is of Wankhede but is it the Indian team ? The comment in Image:Wankhede-1.JPG reads "Asish Sarkar (Middle) fielding at short third-man during the Al Rushaid Challenge Trophy on Friday 23rd June 2006." Tintin (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you might've got conned by an anon vandal. I knew I'd seen the image before 23rd June so I checked the history and it turns out it was uploaded March 27 and an anon added the text you read on June 27. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Right I'll just make a list for my own benefit:
  • Match-fixing in History section
  • Rioting (inc. empty stadium, Ganguly protests, crowd cheering South Africa, crowd booing Tendulkar, protests against Sehwag's ban etc.) in Fan Following section
  • Create an entire section on Governing Body, detail how the BCCI works and the selection policies etc.
  • Fix inline comments
  • Do a major rewrite, especially on the history section
I'm not sure about the decent fast-bowling lineup, India's always been known for its weakness in that area...but I'll go through Stats Guru and see if I can find anything. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

the article needs to be updated for eg the article says that Sehwag has a highest score of 309 which in fact was succeeded by him with a score of 317Vgautham 91 (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not update it yourself then? Andrew nixon (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Failure in Big ODI matches and failure in crisis situation

(Almost consistent) Failure at Big OID matches should find place in a (new) criticism section. Also after Kapil Dev no one from the team including very big names being able to bail out the team in dificult situation (last notable being years old NatWest series which is repeatedly shown on Sports channel) should be mentioned there.
My POV: All other teams regularly have/had some players who bailed out their team in difficult situation and won the game for them (Steve Waugh, Brian Lara, Inzamam, Fleming, Abdul Razzak etc) and without such gritty and strong willed players in Team, I am reminded of a dialoge from Sholay. Vjdchauhan 06:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC).

Firstly please see my reply at Talk:Sachin Tendulkar. To elaborate my point mentioned there, I think Dhoni has very recently shown that he can perform in crisis situations. In their recent ODI series against England when chasing scores of about 250/260, India sometimes slumped to 4 or 5 wickets for 100. Then Dhoni with another batman (usually Pathan, Yuvraj or Dravid) would help India eventually chase down the target. Also don't you remember Dravid and Laxman's second partership against Austrlia in Adelaide that lead to India's first Test win in Australia after a very long time (I admit however that was awhile ago).
Despite what I have said, note that any assertions made have to be supported by reliable sources and have to be verifiable. Thanks GizzaChat © 08:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
See, another feather (loss to South Africa in 2'nd ODI on 22-Nov-2006) in long series of failure in difficult situation. Vjdchauhan 21:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC).
Repeat (dismal) performance in 3'rd, 4'th (South Africa, 29-Nov-2006) and 5'th ODI (South Africa, 03-Dec-2006) as well. Vjdchauhan 05:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC).
How about we start a section about fans with overhyped expectations? ;) Sam Vimes | Address me 12:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
That was a shocking series. Full Stop. Someone else can write about that series in the article. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 04:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't get carried away by success in Test match as its quite different game format and Indian team as of now is a very weak ODI team and may be a good to very good test team but again it cannot chase big target in second innings successfully since there is more pressure then and also if there is another ODI series with South Africa the results will not be much different, it can only win ODI matches if opening pair (frankly a less pressure job as compared to middle order) performs well and ease off pressure for the rest of the inning ;-) Vjdchauhan 15:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC).
Now there a respectable total (> 300) to chase to win the second test against South Africa, any takers for our extremely gritty Indian Team esp fans for Sehwag, Tendualkar, and Dravid (Dravid according to me can at max convert can it to a respectable loss / draw). All the best. Vjdchauhan 12:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

So title of this section still holds true. Vjdchauhan 15:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Until you can define "success" and "failure" in NPOV and with sources... --Dave. 16:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weak bowling

I think the article is too flowery. Tintin once pointed out to me that reading the article, you do not get the impression that one is talking about a team which has won 22% (?) of its Test matches. I looked up the Australian and Indian all time bowling averages ( [1] [2]), and it can be seen that the best Indian average Bishen Singh Bedi, would slot in at #46 in Australia. The article mentions that India holds many bowling records, but I think this is not an accurate reflection of the reality. Kapil Dev is also the only fast bowler to average under 30. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I took a quick look, it seems like mentioning all those names and saying that these players improved India's batting lineup or that they were star players and then going on to say India did not win any in all 33 tests it played in this decade. The star players stuff sort of overshadows the grim mood of not winning. The article doesn't tell the reader that the team was going through a really bleak period and players were dropped and they just couldn't work out how to win. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 05:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and on the stats, India's won 49% of their ODIs to date and have won 22% of tests, drawn 46% of tests and lost 33% of tests (88 wins, 129 losses, 182 draws). However, if you exclude the 50s and 40s, which were the years when Indian cricket was just getting started, the percentages for wins and draws go up (82 wins, 101 losses, 152 draws). Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 05:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

So too hagiographic? or not? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It is too hagiographic but I think the reason is more on the way the text is written as opposed to it missing criticism (although India's recent batting weakness on seaming pitches and India's bowling conundrums in history don't get enough mention), I may be to blame for that because as an Indian I do possess some bias. A complete rewrite is needed. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 05:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you should ask Vjdchauhan to add some of his opinions (see above) :) He has plenty to criticise but maybe after India's first Test win in South Africa, he would have softened his stance a little. GizzaChat © 10:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I will still stick to what I have said, failure in BIG ODI and failure in crisis situation, for tests this applies to second innings chase of a respectable total to score a win. Pls note Test Cricket is very different format than ODI which is again quite different from 20-20 and I think if we have another series of ODI games against South Africa the results will not be much different. Indian team as of now is a very weak ODI team and may be a good to very good test team. Vjdchauhan 15:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

India is a very weak ODI team outside India. The reason they lost the Champions Trophy was because of the long break they had from competitive cricket, but before that (inside the subcontinent) they beat Sri Lanka 6-1, England 5-1 and Pakistan 4-1, thanks to guys like Dhoni, Yuvraj and Tendulkar who were consistent in those series's. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 22:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

A few years back, India was stronger in ODIs than in Test overseas. Remember the NatWest final? It changes far too often. There is no point in writing about current form in too much detail because it changes too much. GizzaChat © 00:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Can we find a source for labelling it the most unpredictable team in cricket? :) Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 00:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
No, that would be Pakistan. In any case in 2000-01 Australia were undefeated in ODI, the next year, they missed the CUB finals and the Waugh brothers were axed.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
This is becoming off-topic now. In fact, much of the discussion of India's recent performances is silghtly off-topic since we are not even writing about it in the article. GizzaChat © 02:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Well OK, I put Irfan Pathan up for WP:GAC - somewhat related to India's bowling difficulties at the moment. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I know that Wiki is not a forum but I must comment that India isn't bowling that badly in either form. It is the top-order batting which is letting down the team. GizzaChat © 05:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avoid one-sentence paragraphs

A general rule when writing FAs. Two sentenes isn't much either. I found a few in the article. See User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a: exercises in textual flow. GizzaChat © 23:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback

I am looking through the place for imbalances in coverage factual info at the moment.

  • Governing body
    • Not sure if it would be particularly relevant, but there has often been debates as to how big the BCCI is in influencing the ICC - allegations false or otherwise that the BCCI is the leading Asian nation in terms of getting rid of Darrell Hair, sticking up for Murali, etc, and trying to change the Future Tours Program. I'm not sure where this fits in, but if the BCCI is the richest sports body in the world, then the fact that the wages seem to be a rip-off - A C Grade contract is a base of 2million rupees = 44k USD [3] and A grade [4] is 8million = 180k. The Australian team pays A$200k= 150k USD to all the top 25 players, whereas the Indian contracts only cover about 15 people. Have there ever been any bits and pieces about BCCI corruption and largesse on the part of the officials, because it is very clear that the Indian players are paid very poorly in terms of the % revenue which they get. The lead also says the Indian cricket team is the highest paid in the world, which seems either wrong or misleading, the salaries can't be greater than Real Madrid, Chelsea, Ferrari, NY Yankees, etc. Do we need to discuss general circket infrastructure, MRF pace acdemy etc here?, and things like the various domestic tournaments? Also India and the subcontintent teams have a very strong bias towards playing lots of ODIs and not many Tests which need to be pointed out.
  • Captaincy
    • Needs to point out that Tendulkar took over after 96WC, resigned, then Azhar got reappointed and sacked after WC99 and then Tendulkar did another stint. Seems a bit lopsided towards recentism, but we're probably both in our early twenties so we don't remember before the 1990s (need Tintin).
Please don't make it sound as if I am three score years and ten. I am hardly ten years older than Blnguyen :-) Tintin (talk) 06:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I have added this although it has unbalanced the history section again. :( Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Coaches
    • Do we need a bit of history of coaches. I remember people saying Chappell would do well because he is a foreigner and would not be tied down my factional zonal politics etc. Is he the first non-native coach? Is there interesting history on the coaches?
Added the bit about Wright being the first foreign coach.
  • Fan following
    • I have some info about Bengalis repeatedly giving Gavaskar a bad time at Eden Gardens which I can add. IIRC there was another Calcutta riot in 99 after SRT crashed into Shoaib Akhtar and was run out and the crowd was evicted?
Did this. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Team colours
    • IIRC the GoI made a new law banning sportspeople from wearing the national flag. Should this be mentioned?
  • History
    • An obvious recentism problem with half of this being on the last 10 years and 25% on the last two years. I guess the earlier part needs to be fattened up, and then we could choose the information balance. I don't really know much at all about the team in detail pre 1995 even, but I have this book about the top 25 cricketers of all time with me, and I can glean a bit from the 1970s and 1980s from the entries it has for Gavaskar and Kapil Dev. They exchanged the captaincy several times. It mainly mentions personal stuff, but India went 32 Tests (home as well as away) with only 1 win and 28 consecutive without a win when the crowd at Eden Gardens rioted in 1983. Another random fact is that the 2-0 home win over Pakistan in 1979 was the first series win against Pakistan since 1952. Apprarently Kapil and Gavaskar fought a lot. Also pretty sure that in 1980 when Kapil got his 100th Test wicket, it would have been the first pacer from India to do this (baiscally India's first fast bowler). It's mainly lack of stuff on team results, I think, it describes that India had some great players, but the team also did not win a lot so the results probably need to be pointed out some more. Again, ask Tintin to add stuff I think. I'm not sure where but there must also be an article somewhere where it notes that Indian players are not renowned for good fielding and running between the wickets.
Added some of these, but it bloated the history in some sections. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as POV language/adjectives goes and prose, I'm sure it can be fixed later. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We need to avoid too much length in the history section as well. Extra information would do best in History of the Indian cricket team and this should just be a summary. The recent performances used to be a different section altogether, which is why it is really long, I'll try cutting that down to make way for more information on the past. For the other things, could you please just attach sources to each of the facts. Most are worthy for the article but would need sources for non-cricket interested people etc. There are four paragraphs about the 2000s, I aim to cut that down to 2. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 22:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Aren't we supposed to source everything? I do, when I submit FAs and GAs, every fact and expert opinion is sourced. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I know, but yours asking me to add those things without presenting sources for the opinions and facts you presented sort of confused me. Of course I can search through and look for sources myself when I add them. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 03:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

How do we go about the history part. Do you want to cut it down more? I think that it is hard to explain anything at the moment if there are two sentences on the 1950s nothing in the 1970s and two sentences on the 1970s about the spin quartet and Gavaskar. If we made it consistent with this to reduce, it would be hard to understand the evolution of the team, as we can't explain the ups and downs. Even with a the section on the 1980s and 1990s an expansion would be necessary on the rest. Personally, I don't mind having a 100kb FA at all - Ian Thorpe - Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a small expansion would actually do well, not 100k type of course, but although we've got History of the Indian cricket team, it's, as you said, important that readers can understand the evolution of the team. You can't present 70 years of evolution that easily and briefly. However...the section is large right now, I was thinking maybe we can remove the specific results. In the matches relating to recent years, you can steadily see more and more numbers. I think generalized statements would be better in this case, leaving numbers to go into the main History article. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 05:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:PR/WP:FAC

I can hardly believe that I last looked at this properly in the middle of last year!

Is it worth going for a second peer review before taking this to FAC? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah go for a PR before making it a FAC. Always best to do that if it hasn't had a PR in a while. Buc 17:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

I am new to this article (and the Cricket project), so I'll apologize in advance if these question have been addressed before: Is the subject of the article "Indian Cricket Team", or "Cricket in India" ? I assume "team" is included in the title, because this article does not aim to cover domestic and non-competitive cricket. However if that is the case and the team is the focus, why are sections such as "Test cricket grounds" relevant to this article ? Abecedare 08:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that there is an article on Cricket in India (although it is not in as good a shape). Doesn't the "Test cricket grounds" section logically belong to that article - after all the Indian cricket team is not tied to Indian grounds, playing only 50% of its matches at home I am sure someone will correct me on this :-)  ? Abecedare 08:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
You are probably right that the grounds should not be in an article on the team. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Team India plays for BCCI, not Govt

I am new to Wikipedia. I see that the title of the article is inappropriate as CRICKET TEAM IN INDIA is not called 'INDIA NATIONAL CRICKET TEAM', but 'TEAM INDIA'. During the court case in supreme court, the BCCI counsel and senior advocate, Mr K.K. Venugopal, admitted 'Team India plays for BCCI, not Govt'. Since then every newspaper, advertisement and any campaign is made in the name of 'TEAM INDIA' not 'INDIAN TEAM'. Here are the references

http://www.blonnet.com/2004/10/01/stories/2004100103330400.htm
http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=36740
http://cricket.indiatimes.com/Sections/News/Indian_Cricket/Flag_fallout_Goverment_corners_BCCI/articleshow/msid-1027990,curpg-1.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Some_good_things_happened_in_Windies/articleshow/1804312.cms

I don't understand as how it could amount to vandalism! Partha 03:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong, the team is the India national cricket team. Team India is an alternative name. Andrew nixon 23:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The national cricket team plays for the people, not the government, even if it is directed by either govt or cricket board. --Dave. 23:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Dave and Andrew Nixon, I am sorry but denials are not just sufficient. I wonder if you even bothered to go through the references I've provided. Anyway, here's another reference that is as unequivocal and explicit as it can get. Let me quote verbatim ..
The Indian team does not belong to the nation. The players are employees of a private society registered as an association under Tamil Nadu's Society Registration Act of 1860.
This association, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), is affiliated to a limited company registered in the British Virgin Islands called the International Cricket Council (ICC). Cricket is a private enterprise.
As you can see, Indian cricket players are employees of BCCI which is as private as an enterprise can get. Neither does BCCI report to the sports ministry nor do the players. BCCI is in many ways a membership-only club as are its affiliate bodies like the State Cricket Associations (the cricket governing bodies at the state level). And, the so called Indian national team is just a team fielded by this private club called BCCI. That it is anything more than that is quite simply myth and not fact.
I would appreciate anybody replying to this comment, please go through the all four references above, first. Partha 03:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
On facts, I agree whole-heartedly with Partha. On the proposed suggestion, not completely. Changing the title of this page alone is definitely not an option. There are national teams from dozens of countries. I am not sure about all, but many of them are private and limited organisations like the BCCI. But the trouble is that not all have an alternate (and technically correct) name. Indian team is known as "Team India" but the Pakistani team is not known as "Team Pakistan". In fact, with teams like Australia, the test and one-day teams are known by different names, the one-day team being known as "Commonwealth Bank one-day international team". To comply with all technicalities, it would require splitting the Australian teams page into two separate ones. The current naming convention at least provides a common framework of team names, and is not misleading until a nation decides to field two teams in same form of the game. These issues apart, I would strongly recommend adding the fact mentioned above to the article, as the issue raised is valid and the readers should know the facts. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm against the word national as national usually brings up something to do with the 'government'. But I see nothing wrong with Indian cricket team. India=yes; cricket=yes; team=yes. So what's wrong with that even if they play for BCCI? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I feel that User:Parthakr has a valid point. Going by the references he has given, I think it is a fair demand that the article be moved to "Team India". Unlike Australia(which Ambuj points out) I think the Indian team is called Team India whether it is one day cricket or test cricket. So there shouldnt be any confusion on that count. As for the other teams also, I think they should be examined and changes should be made if there are compelling arguments like the ones that Partha has presented here.
"Indian Cricket Team", I'm afraid goes as much against the points that Partha has made as "Indian National cricket team". Because, the point being made here is that the team is not 'Indian ' even though they have a "India" in their name. In other words, Team India does NOT represent the country. They represent BCCI. I think "Team India" would be a fair move and "Indian cricket team", "Indian national cricket team" etc., can be redirects at best. Sarvagnya 17:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Although I don't see any immediate need to move the page to "Team India", we might soon want to create seperate articles and name them accordingly. But as of now there is only one team representing India in international arena and it sure possess every right to be called "India Cricket Team". "National" - I'm not sure enough. Gnanapiti 21:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
...there is only one team representing India in international arena...
That is precisely the myth that these references here by Parthakr seek to refute. The players are NOT representing India. They are representing the BCCI. The fact that maybe all of them were born in India and hold Indian passports is just coincidence. "Team India" is the brand name which they represent and that is what the article should read as. imo.

Sarvagnya 22:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that User:Parthakr has provided enough refrences to make a valid point. The article should be moved to Team India, and the Indian national cricket team and all other names should be redirected to it. --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 23:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Irrespective of those sources, Parthakr still has to mention why the team wears "India" on their shirts, and the score cards read India and not BCCI. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
What Nichalp says is true. The Board of Control for Cricket in India is India's national cricket board. The fact that they pay the players does not remove the fact that the players represent their nation. No-one says that the players are the ambassadors for the BCCI, they instead say that the players are the ambassadors for India. I understand Parthakr's point and sources. I must point out that India and the government of India are not synonymous, the Indian cricket team does not play for the government and the government has no jurisdiction on the team, but they play for the people of India who are represented by the government but who arent the government. But I think it would be better if it was moved back to "Indian cricket team". As Nichalp pointed out, Indian cricket team implies three things:
  • They are Indian. Yes, every player on the team has to be Indian and comes from various parts of India. Yes, everyone in India regards this as the team which represents India.
  • They play cricket. Sometimes I wondered what they were trying to play during the match against Sri Lanka but officially they try to play cricket.
  • They are a team. There could be arguments against the teamwork but in general they are considered a team.
In addition to this. Indian cricket team seems better than India national cricket team in just the sense of the flowing of the words. Also I'm not sure whether this has been mentioned above but renaming the article to Team India doesn't suggest that the team play cricket, for all we know the Indian Chess team could call themselves Team India, then should we have a disambig page redirecting people to Team India (cricket), Team India (chess), Team India (kabaddi). This page should be moved back to Indian cricket team, as THAT is the best choice anyone can make. -- 211.26.235.50 07:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. I don't think any of the national teams in the world represent their government: they all represent their various cricket boards. That doesn't stop them being national teams.
  2. We usually don't use the current marketing name or sponsor's name for sports teams, stadiums etc. because they change too rapidly. Of course, a redirect from the marketing name is appropriate, but the main article is usually at the long-term name.
  3. Most other international team sports use the "national" in their name. For example, India national football team (which also doesn't represent the government but the All India Football Federation).

Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The Indian team is only national in the sense thats its players are all Indian nationals. (Even this requirement is recent. Many Indian nationals have played for UAE cricket teams etc. That really doesn't change a thing actually. In many sports people play for foreign based teams.) It doesn't represent Indian Govt directly & by implication doesn't represent Indian nation directly. The only time that the Indian cricket team actually played as the Indian national cricket team in the legal sense was during the 1998_Commonwealth_Games. Technically only this team which played as amateurs played for the nation of the Republic of India. (The current team plays as professionals). Many teams such as Scotland, England, World XI, Asia XI, West Indies don't represent any nation. There have been international matches between Australia & Australia 'A'. Which nation is playing which in those cases? One more thing, the football team does play for Govt of India whenever it plays Asian Games, Olympics etc. Cheers. --Shahab 20:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I left a note in WP:Cric message board - "The Indian cricket team is an international cricket team representing India.' is the first statement in the wikiarticle Indian national cricket team. I think this representation is incorrect. The Indian crickte team does not represent India but represents only BCCI, a private trust (there was a Madras High court case sometime back). The only team that represented India was at the 1998 Asian Games in KL. Also, the BCCI is completely independent of Govt of India action - the Sports ministry has no authority over BCCI.. Was there any conclusion for this discussion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vimalkalyan (talk • contribs)
My best advice would be to move the page to Indian Cricket team and make redirects to the new page from India National Cricket Team.Blackhole77 talk | contrib 13:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

.

Which goes completely against consensus as agreed at the cricket project. According to the consensus, this pages stays at India national cricket team. Not Indian Cricket Team, not India National Cricket Team and certainly not Team India. Andrew nixon 13:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA removed

As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps and a review of the cricket GA cohort, I have removed this article from GA. This was the version when this article was passed for GA about 16 months ago. The main problems were

  • Major recentism in the history section
  • Lack of information about administrative governance controversy
  • Lack of sources
  • Some POV in that the article does not reflect India's performance at Test level (about 23% win rate) and it mainly focuses on star players.
  • Some parts seeming to be OR, eg "The remainder of the Test stadiums are considered lesser compared to these major stadiums"
  • The lack of sources is exacerbated by tendency to use terms like "lost badly" and "strong" which are hard to put a finger on

As Nobleeagle is no longer around to improve the article, and the article has not really been loooked after since India were KOed from CWC07 I have gone ahead and done a bold delisting. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fixtures

Wikipedia is not a fixture list - rather, it's an encyclopedia. Please get consensus before readding it to this specific article, as general policy (which should only be ignored with consensus in specific cases) is against the addition. Daniel 07:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Test Cricket grounds

Surely this section should go into the Cricket in India article and not one about the actual team. Nomadtales (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] DY PATIL STADIUM

ADD DY Patil Stadium 2008 IPL Final Venue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.41.134 (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:BCCI logo.svg

Image:BCCI logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)