Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 34

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) - missing citations

Hi all. The article's progressing nicely. I think that the addition of career world rating info in the form of a graph provided by the indefatiguable User:The Rambling Man is a great addition and a useful way forward for retired/deceased biogs, especially bowlers, for whom it's difficult to construct meaningful averages performance graphs.

Anyway, we're shortly going to be taking the article to Peer Review, but there are a couple of {{cn}} tags still to deal with. Help gratefully received. --Dweller 15:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we cut down on the citations a little bit. If something is undisputed and/or can be checked very easily, and the addition of it does not add any value for the reader, it may be better to leave them out. Tintin 17:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It does seem that someone is being very picky. There's also a problem when you get a "citation needed" at the end of a sentence such as this: O'Reilly played little state cricket for New South Wales in 1934–35, and none at all the following season when he was selected for the Australian tour to South Africa. There are three statements within that sentence. Which one is the citation required for? Or are citations required for all three? JH (talk page) 17:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Even if the citation is required, I'd have thought all three could be covered by CricketArchive's Batting by Season summary, which shows pretty clearly how little he played in 1934-35 and 1935-36 (his one game in Australia in the latter season was for an Australian XI), and that he went to South Africa. Loganberry (Talk) 22:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I confess, it's me being picky on citations, I opine the more the better. One thing that came out of a peer review of Adam Gilchrist (I think) was that any statistical or POV claims should be cited. I'm happy to let it go slack but would prefer to see citations for claims. Having said that, if an article is adequate (in the eyes of FAC reviewers) to pass without such then so much the better (for the article, not necessarily for WP). Being picky is a key part of getting an article to FA, that's why WP:CRICKET has so few (13), in my opinion. The Rambling Man 22:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Pickiness is a good thing in that regard, I agree, but I think you can go too far with citations: I certainly don't think, for example, that we need to link to the relevant scorecard o CrickatArchive every single time a player's score in some match is mentioned! Loganberry (Talk) 16:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. But I'd rather overcite than undercite. However, once O'Reilly makes peer review and then FAC we'll judge it on the community consensus. One way or another we'll get this article featured! The Rambling Man 16:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that such citation can look excessive; on the other hand, as a cricket geek, I rather like being able to look up any notable score with just one (or perhaps two) clicks. (I have been ignoring this particular article, as instructed.) -- ALoan (Talk) 16:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, maybe you're right. I've been experimenting with "overcitation" in Steve Herzberg and Adam Seymour. It's a lot more work, but at least they're not going to get labelled stubs now! Loganberry (Talk) 01:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The more time I spend here, the more I like what you've called "overcitation". My only criticism of Herzberg is that you should lose the spaces between the full stops and the references! Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there a way of doing that while still allowing the actual citation templates to go on a new line (which makes them far easier to read and edit)? The source looks a horrible mess without those newlines. Loganberry (Talk) 11:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Ah, never mind: I've now had a look at how the Gilchrist article does it, which seems to work while preserving clarity (unlike, say, Minnesota, a current front page article, whose squashed-up source is incredibly hard to read!). Loganberry (Talk) 11:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The output is more important than the source, of course. In one case, I actually saw the reference start a new line.
Anyway, it seems you can just put the <ref> on the previous line, and start the content of the reference on a new line, which is pretty nearly as readable. I've done that in Herzberg.
Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "I actually saw the reference start a new line". If you mean that the footnote number appeared on a different line from the last word of the text, then that still happens: on my own monitor, in Herzberg as it stands now, "English-born Australian cricketer" finishes the first line, and [1] starts the second line. Loganberry (Talk) 12:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant. This seems to be a bug in IE (at least, I think it's the wrong behaviour). In Mozilla they now always stick together. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, well. I was using another computer, running IE, when I wrote my previous comment; now I'm at home on my own (using Firefox) and it all works as you say. I wonder if that's been brought up anywhere on WP. Loganberry (Talk) 23:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate Zimbabwean stats

Judging by this Cricinfo article, we're going to have to take the stats of Zimbabwean cricketers with a pinch of salt now. Not that this surprises me in the least given the state of the game and the country there, but it's depressing nevertheless. Even where scorecards are available, there are inconsistencies all over the place (eg Westerns v Kenya Select XI in April) such as mostly disappeared from first-class scorecards a hundred years ago. Finding reliable and verifiable sources for Zimbabwean cricket seems to be becoming impossible. Loganberry (Talk) 16:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Read that article as well mate, the ICC should strip the Logan Cup of First Class status. Apparently Keith Dabengwa took 7 for 1 in one of the games but I like others question the accuracy of this and thus am wary of putting it on his Wiki page. Crickettragic 23:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
CricketArchive has this as its only record of that game. I can't see we can possibly call that thing a reliable source. Given my username I've always taken a slight interest in the Logan Cup, and had helping to improve its article on a list of things to do, but I don't really have the motivation now. Loganberry (Talk) 15:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
It makes any Zimbabwe Cricket related articles very difficult to write - most written sources have a strong editorial bias and we can't now even rely on the scorecards. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 15:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

A new template for First Class matches - Template:Test match

Okay guys, I gave myself a new project to create a new version of Template:First Class Matches. The current creation, I feel, is pretty horrid and having to resort to substituting it in to pages was a real pain. I got around to reading up on parser functions and have created a new template: Template:Test match, complete with full documentation to be found at Template talk:Test match. I'm quite proud of it, to be honest, even if the usage might be somewhat limited. Any feedback would be most welcome. Thanks. :) AllynJ 22:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks a lot better than the original effort - not sure whether I made it or not, think I might have done (which is the way wikipedia works, of course). Especially like that you can actually ignore one of the fields now, and that it's a lot more flexible.
A suggestion: maybe rename the fields, though? I think "score1x1" would be more easily understood if it were "score-team1-inns1 =" - yeah, it's more typing, but people are going to copy and paste the template anyway. I see that an error did already creep up in the example ('twas Bermuda in their second dig who made 19/2, not Kenya) Sam Vimes | Address me 23:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and a lot of the drawbacks you list (such as lack of standardisation of player names, umpire nationalities, etc.) are actually a requirement of well-working templates. The original One-day International template (which I definitely made *embarrassed*) was too much of a straitjacket. Hopefully this will be easier. Sam Vimes | Address me 23:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks on both accounts, Sam. I wasn't exactly sure how to have the variables named in the first place, and went for the first thing that seemed comprehensible in my mind. :)
Changed the documentation too to note the fact those things are actually good things: I've kept them in the drawbacks though, as that's where readers may see them originally. AllynJ 23:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
How does one handle the situation of more than one player sharing the highest score or best bowling in a single innings? I can't work it out. Loganberry (Talk) 00:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Either use "<br/>" to separate them, or alternatively use "JA Rudolph and GC Smith" (which has the disadvantage of splitting players if they make the column too wide) Sam Vimes | Address me 00:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
"<br/>" is better, because the "and" version necessitates doing the same in the number of balls faced section. Loganberry (Talk) 15:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Just adjust the new one into the old one like it was done to Template:Limited Overs Matches during the world cup, so it works with both the old keys and the new keys. This way we don't have to go through the pain of changing the keys for all the articles with the old key. Also, I don't really like the current key of the new one, just make it simple like score-T1-I1 instead of long score-team1-inns1 which is harder to remember while the former isn't hard to figure out or remember is the user used the template before. We don't need detailed keys.--THUGCHILDz 01:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think score-team1-inns1 is fine - it's hardly long, and you shouldn't be typing it out much anyway, and there's no ambiguity to it.
The coding for merging the two is beyond what I can do currently. Bare in mind I only learnt how to do parser functions today and I think even doing this much is a bit of an accomplishment. :p The Limited overs one's coding is INCREDIBLY messy, to the point where I was struggling to understand anything that was going on with it when taking a look at it. And to be honest I really think it's sufficient as it stands... Not sure. I don't think learning how to merge them is my next priority anyway, really; I've got an idea in mind but I'm not even sure if it's possible so that's what I'm looking in to next. AllynJ 01:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

On this subject, I've always found the idea of listing the one best batsman in the innings and the one best bowler (not zero or two) rather restrictive. That's not what the press do, I think. If a team is bowled out for 70, with two bowlers taking five-fors, they'll list two bowlers and no batsmen. If a team scores 700 for 2 declared, they might list three batsmen who scored centuries and no bowlers — listing a bowler who took 1 for 120 just because the other wicket taker conceded 150 is silly. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It does have the advantage of being objective, though. I suppose we could list all centuries and all four-fors or better - as mentioned, it's not a problem with the new template Sam Vimes | Address me 10:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Rating Articles "A" for quality

Can any individual rate an article as an "A"? I thought that for a "GA" rating there was a process that had to be gone through, and therefore that "A", being a higher rating, would also have to go through a similar process. The reason I ask is because Australian cricket team in England in 1902 has just been given an "A". I agree that the article merits it, BTW. JH (talk page) 15:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no process like there is for GA or FA, but I suppose by rating an article as "A" you are implying that it would pass GA if it was put forward. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 15:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging articles

How does one go about the above? I'm a bit new to all this semi-bureaucratic stuff. Found Mehrab Hossain Junior and Mehrab Hossain Jnr - same person (as opposed to Mehrab Hossain who is a different person), two seperate articles, bit unnecessary. Combine all the information in to one and then replace the other with a redirect? I'm not sure. Thanks. AllynJ 21:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, in the immortal words of Mr Punch, that's the way to do it! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 21:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Plus points for the reference, and thank you. :) AllynJ 21:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Did Armstrong really ever bowling fast-mediums?

The reference to him bowling with both a legspin and fast-medium action may be erroneous. Can anyone cite an instance of the Big Ship bowling anything other than legspin? Robertson-Glasgow 07:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A very quick look didn't come up with anything. What was clear was that in his early career, at least in Tests, he was primarily a middle-order batsman who didn't bowl very much. When he did get on, he was normally the fifth bowler used. A notable exception was at Headingley in 1905, when he opened the bowling. But spinners sometimes did do that back then, so it doesn't really tell us anything about his method. JH (talk page) 09:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Who's Who of Cricketers says: "originally fast medium right-arm, but by 1905 leg-break, bowler" Nigej 10:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly (cricketer)

Mostly another collaboration between Dweller and me. I've been bold and moved Bill O'Reilly over to featured article candidate. I'd love to have the support (or further comments) of the project, you can add words here. Thanks! The Rambling Man 11:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

WP Cricket template

It's a bit late now to suggest it, but it would be very useful if the WP Cricket template had a "current" parameter which could be set to "yes" for current players, with an appropriate associated category. Then one would be able to see at a glance which players' articles needed updating to reflect their recent achievements. JH (talk page) 18:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Obvious question: how do you define "current"? Loganberry (Talk) 22:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
There's an "attention" variable, which is used in similar circumstances to what you're suggesting (eg: Talk:West Indian cricket team in England in 2007). Not sure on whether anything more is really necessary, to be honest. I appreciate the category may also be used for articles that are just in a bad state but I don't think that mixing the two is such a bad idea that splitting them is a necessity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AllynJ (talk • contribs) 22:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
By "current", I whosetheir articles will need updating periodically. I don't think that "attention" will quite do what I had in mind, which wasn't to flag articles for immediate action but to act as a reminder that periodic updating will be necessary. Obviously once a player retires, the "current" parameter would need to be removed or set to "no". JH (talk page) 09:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but how do we decide when a player has retired? Take Graham Gooch, for example: he played his last first-class game, for MCC, three years after his penultimate match. Admittedly the change in format for the Friends Provident Trophy has eliminated perhaps the most common potential problem here - where a player retired from first-class county cricket, went to play for a minor county, and then appeared for said minor county at List A level in the NatWest/C&G Trophy. But I can easily imagine a fringe player making a handful of appearances with a year or more between. Loganberry (Talk) 14:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Even a retired player will need their article updating periodically if they go on to other things (coaching, media work, writing...) - you might as well make it living rather than active. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 17:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Good point. JH (talk page) 18:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the {{CricketWatch}} thing in the template? If not, should it be in the template because not all cricket articles have (though incorrectly) have the cricket categories but may have the WP Cricket template.--THUGCHILDz 00:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Watchlistbot will work like that. Also, I think there are more article in categories without the banner than there are articles with banners but no categories. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 17:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Changing of Test/ODI/T20 Lists - discussion.

Okay, so the basic story: I brought the List of Dutch ODI cricketers up to par with the other Featured Lists and nominated it two days~ ago. Nom here. At first I was a little put off by the idea off by the idea of changing the entire structure of the lists as outlined by the 2nd comment reply and the 1st oppose but now having thought about it it makes sense, and I do think we should change the lists. I'd be happy to go through doing them, but I'd like to see two things:
1) If the WP agrees with the changing of the system. I think the reasons outlined on the nomination are pretty clear and have a firm reasoning behind them. I definitely think this needs to be changed and I would hope there are no objections (although I would possibly expect some possible disappointment in those who worked on the lists originally as the standard they set up was certainly good), but if you do please voice as such.
2) A new template to use for them all. This shouldn't be too much work I don't think, and I do think that some of the stats should be kept (Batting average/bowling average for sure, definite possibility of total runs and wickets, slight possibility of high score/best bowling figures? The rest of it can almost certainly go). Something like the following, based on the opening of the Dutch ODI list, would probably suffice, say:

Dutch ODI cricketers Batting Bowling
Cap Name Player type Debut Final match Mat Runs HS Avg Wkt Best Avg
1 Gerald Aponso All-rounder v New Zealand 1996 v South Africa 1996 5 120 58 30.00 2 1/57 128.50

Thoughts, opinions? Personally I definitely think we should be definitely be changing the idea behind these: as it stands anyone can find the figures that are essentially copied directly from Cricinfo/Howstat/Cricketarchive. We should be trying to offer something different: outline who the players were, what they did for the team, their main stats (only), etc etc. AllynJ 18:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea - it's better to offer something a little different to the stats sites, especially when they do the job so well. I do think it would we worth adding a 50/100 column in the batting section, and a 5I/10M column under the bowling, as these are fairly "important" numbers. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 21:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the proposal is nice as well: after all, all international cricketers have an infobox on their personal bio pages, wherein more detailed stats (catches, bowling style etc) can be found. Two points come to mind, though. Firstly, "Player type" is not going to be clear-cut for everyone: how do we decide who qualifies as an all-rounder, for example. And secondly, are we going to use calendar years for the debut/final dates? If so, then 1996 is fine, but in cricketing season terms that World Cup was 1995-96, not 1996. Loganberry (Talk) 22:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I was going for exact years, probably extending to full dates, personally. It was just a 5 minute prototype, and is certainly something that should be discussed. :) I do think the full date would be better, though. Re: All-rounders... Yeah, I'm not sure, especially on players I'm not particularly familiar (somewhat appropriately, Aponso is a potential all-rounder who I'm not familiar with). I'm not sure where to draw the line, really... It's hard to set standards, especially in the case of the Dutch. For example: I know he bats up the order and is definitely at least a part-time spin bowler, but I don't know anything about his bowling other than that. Judging by how many overs he bowled is a bit out of the question because often they won't be bowling 50 overs - if the opponents are chasing they would generally finish in at most 30~: the general idea of which puts defining strict numbers to each case out of the question. If anyone can think of a decent method I'm all ears. AllynJ 22:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Full dates would be excellent: presumably that would mean using the final day they were on the field, not the first day of their final match. (Mostly, though not exclusively, relevant to Tests.)
As far as roles go, another point to consider is that there are a large number of cricketers whose role has evolved over their career. Loganberry (Talk) 23:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: the first point, I would think the day they actually made their debut and the day they actually played their last match wuold be most relevent, eg the first day of the first test and the last day of their last test (for debut and final match respectively). Fair point for the other part... To be fair, I don't know of anyone who has gone from batsman to bowler over their career, rather from batsman to all-rounder: in which case they should be classed as an all-rounder. AllynJ 23:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not at all common, granted, but I do remember writing an article for a Worcestershire player from long ago (not an international) who didn't bowl at all in his first few seasons but by the end of his career was a specialist bowler with little success at batting. Annoyingly, I can't for the life of me recall who it was. Loganberry (Talk) 15:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think putting their roles is a bad idea. When we had categories for roles, everyone wanted to imply that their favourite players were all rounders. There are no clear boundaries. (Is Tendulkar an all-rounder, for example? What about Gillespie??). Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have batting type and bowling type (eg RHB | SLA) instead? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 11:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've made an updated table. Have removed the player type column and replaced it with Batting style/Bowling style (although I think the name of the batting style column could be changed, really... right and left handed batting aren't really styles, after all). There are notes for Mat, HS, 50, 100, 5I, 10M that would be linked in a {{reflist}} at the bottom of the page to clear up any ambiguity (we're aiming to educate those who may or may not know much of anything about the game after all). Looks good if you ask me.

One question: should bowling style for spinners be LB and OB or LS and OS? Ie Leg Break and Off break vs Leg spin and Off spin. I'm leaning towards the first, since it's the style they actually delivered, but I'm not sure. This is also the method generally used on the player's infobox on their page. Also, worth distinguishing between RM, RMF, RFM, RF bowlers in their row? Ie Shane Bond would be RF, Jon Lewis would be RM, Corey Collymore RMF, etc etc.

Dutch ODI cricketers Batting Bowling
Cap Name Batting style Bowling style Debut Final match Mat [1] Runs HS [2] Avg 50 [3] 100 [4] Wkt Best Avg 5I [5] 10M [6]
1 Gerald Aponso RHB OB v New Zealand - February 17, 1996 v South Africa - March 5, 1996 5 120 58 30.00 1 0 2 1/57 128.50 0 0

Any further thoughts? Hoping to go forward with changing the Dutch list in the next day or so if not. :) AllynJ 15:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I really, really don't like the use of "LB", etc. Leg spin bowlers, for example, bowl many more deliveries than leg breaks! JPD (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would put the 50/100 and 5I/10M in the same column as below (it saves a bit of space and I think its a bit more conventional) but thats just a minor thing.

Dutch ODI cricketers Batting Bowling
Cap Name Batting style Bowling style Debut Final match Mat [7] Runs HS [8] Avg 50 / 100 [9] Wkt Best Avg 5I / 10M [10]
1 Gerald Aponso RHB OB v New Zealand - February 17, 1996 v South Africa - March 5, 1996 5 120 58 30.00 1 / 0 2 1/57 128.50 0 / 0

I don't see any problem with the use of "LB" etc, you could just as well argue that RF doesn't do justice to the bouncers, yorkers, swing, seam, etc that a fast bowler produces. Other than that, looks good to me! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 21:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

But that's the point! Why use a very general "RF" as the description for fast bowlers, but specify a particular type of delivery as the description for a leggie? Fast bowlers may bowl swing, seam, bouncers, yorkers; leg spin bowlers may bowl leg breaks, googlies, etc, but a "leg break bowler" would be nearly as rare as a "bouncer bowler". JPD (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the summaries in the Playfair Cricket Annual use LBG (leg-break/googly); they do not use "LS"! Loganberry (Talk) 11:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that you don't need "10 wickets in match" for ODI lists. :-) Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Would an "overs" field, or an "overs per match" field be helpful? I know it doesn't sound all that important, but I think it might be advantageous for those people who want to see what kind of player this was at a glance. Sam Vimes | Address me 23:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: I have finished updating List of Dutch ODI cricketers to the new style. I changed a few things (ie adding background colour for those who have retired/aren't playing for the national team anymore, with a specific criteria for when people should be greyed out). Basic template I am now recommending to be used for ODI matches is as follows:

Dutch ODI cricketers Batting Bowling
Cap Name Batting style Bowling style [11] Debut Final match [12] Mat [13] Runs HS [14] Avg 50 / 100 [15] Wkt Best Avg 5I [16]
1 Gerald Aponso RHB OB v New Zealand - February 17, 1996 v South Africa - March 5, 1996 5 120 58 30.00 1/0 2 1/57 128.50 0
11 Bastiaan Zuiderent RHB RM v New Zealand - February 17, 1996 v Scotland - March 22, 2007 29 548 77* 21.92 4/0 - - - -

(Abridged to show background colour changes.) Added a few different notes within ref tags from the older versions. A Test match list should look like:

Dutch Test cricketers Batting Bowling
Cap Name Batting style Bowling style [17] Debut Final match [18] Mat [19] Runs HS [20] Avg 50 / 100 [21] Wkt Best Avg 5I/10M [22]
1 Gerald Aponso RHB OB v New Zealand - February 17, 1996 v South Africa - March 5, 1996 5 120 58 30.00 1/0 2 1/57 128.50 0/0
11 Bastiaan Zuiderent RHB RM v New Zealand - February 17, 1996 v Scotland - March 22, 2007 29 548 77* 21.92 4/0 - - - -/-

(Note: data isn't accurate, is just copied over from ODI list for continuity to see how it changes.)

I've left out Sam's suggestion of Overs/Game for now... The table's a bit wide what with the two date columns being a lot more accurate than before, I'm not sure it's particularly wise to put anything else in. Other than that it looks great. Thanks guys. :) AllynJ 07:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I would propose something more like this:
Cap Name Debut Matches Final Specialty
1 Charles Bannerman[23] March 15, 1877
Australia v England
Melbourne Cricket Ground
 3 January 4, 1879
Australia v England
Melbourne Cricket Ground
 Batsman

What do people think of that. (I have a feeling I am going to have a hard time convincing people we don't need the stats). I think we definately need to identify that someone is an batsman/bowler/wicket keeper/all rounder - I can appreciate that people will have different views about how this could be interpreted by differnent people, different ways. I do not think it is necessary to say that Ricky Ponting is a RHM bowler, just like in this type of list is unnessary to say that Monty Panesar is a LH batter. I would also like to see an image for batsman/bowler/wicket keeper/all rounder like they do on the Television, rather than the word. Todd661 09:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I can only repeat what I said earlier — if you do this, all the fan clubs will turn their favourite players into all-rounders. We've been through this with the categories, and it really didn't work. The stats give a much clearer impression not only whether someone was primarily a batsman or a bowler but also how good they were, and they're completely objective.
I do agree that we don't need to know whether someone bats left- or right-handed. I can't decide whether bowler types are useful or whether they're best left for the articles.
Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Nearly every article I read about a cricket says in the first paragraph "so&so was a specialist {specialty}" see here, here, here, here and here. Why not put that information here - negating the need for all the statistics - that are vulnerable to vandalism and constantly need updating. Todd661 10:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

External links in Twenty20

An IP editor has just replaced[1] all of the cricinfo.com links in the List of Men's Twenty20 International games table with links to www.thetwenty20cup.co.uk. Two comparative links are old and new. The the new link does have more advertising (and cricinfo does have some). There has been a strong tradition at WP:CRIC of using cricinfo, but is that an argument for continuing to do so? Are we opening a can of worms in allowing (comparatively) advertising heavy sites in place of others with less so? What do others think? —Moondyne 09:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on a closer look, the new one appears to be a straight copy of cricinfo. —Moondyne 09:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
As long as they work, the site gives the right information, and there's no edit wars, I don't really see any point in favouring one site over another. Makes people think we're not trusting Cricinfo on everything, either. :) Sam Vimes | Address me 23:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Cricinfo is more useful to the reader in this case because the new site does not have any links to the player page from scorecards. Tintin 09:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review Request

Hi., i created a List page - List of ODI Awards for Sachin Tendulkar. I request that peer review is done on the article so that it can be submitted for FL candidature. Link: 1. Kalyan 16:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see that you've put a lot of work into this, and it's a very polished piece of work. But I confess that I'm a little uneasy at the idea of having lists for achievements of individual cricketers. Whilst accepting that Tendulkar probably has more ODI awards than any other cricketer, if we start down that road then where is it going to end? JH (talk page) 16:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
i appreciate your concern. i originally had these lists in the main page of Sachin Tendulkar thus bloating the size of the page to over 60 KB. At that time, i moved the list of ODI awards to a seperate page. If i see a lot of people requesting a merge with Tendulkar's wiki page, i will do the same.
As per your question, valid one at that - i think we can set the min. no of awards (lets say 25 for kickstarting a discussion) for having a seperate LIST page. Thus we might have around 5-10 cricketers who will have a list page. The benefit with the list page is that it will reduce the size of the main page. Would welcome your comments.
Kalyan 17:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with JH, I don't think it's a good idea of having separate lists/articles for individual cricketers. Wouldn't it be possible to merge into Sachin Tendulkar's article? I see that you put good work into it but if you're interested it would be possible to try get his main article into an FA instead of the list. Good work though!--THUGCHILDz 17:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
For the first part, see response above.
On taking Tendulkar to FA level, i have already worked in adding quite a bit esp on areas like business interests etc. I am hesitant to touch his international career section as it needs quite a bit of effort to summarize his 18 year career. give me a month to bring the content in his international career section to FA level material or better still we can have a collaboration on it.Kalyan 18:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
You've made some good points. With regard to the length of the main Twndulkar article, I appreciate that there is pressure to keep articles as short as possible, but ideally their lengths should be governed by the importance of the subject and by the amount of information that needs to be put across, rather than by an artificial limit. JH (talk page) 18:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Well I don't think it's a good idea to have achievement separate articles/lists, which the MOM and MOS award pages would be. Instead of going into detail about the matches where he got the awards we could simply put that he won 13 MOS and 53 MOM in his career, 8 in world cup matches, 5 in tournament finals and 5 in games that India lost. So I don't think it's a good idea to have trivia articles/lists.--THUGCHILDz 19:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that the list of MoS and MoM awards are trivia material. i think they are accomplishments and needs to be added the same way. i refered the article of Adam Gilchrist and found that the FA article does have a detailed list of MoM & MoS awards of both test and ODI cricket. As i stated earlier, i am OK with moving it to the main page of Sachin Tendulkar if that is the overall agreement in the forum. Kalyan 19:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't mean trivia as in unimportant material but as in giving credit to the achievements etc,(I just cant think of the word I'm intending and trivia was the wrong word).--THUGCHILDz 19:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, problem noted, with so many MOTM and MOTS awards, the Tendulkar article would become massive. On its own, a list article would be a dangerous precedent. Tendulkar should be pushed to FA, regardless of the outcome of this discussion (he's more than worthy), but how we handle all the awards is difficult. I would suggest pushing Sachin to FA, keep the award list but don't try to make it an FL. The Rambling Man 19:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Makes me wonder how we should handle the list of centuries of Tendulkar in ODI (41) and tests (35)? That is going to wreak havoc to the size of the article. Kalyan 10:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we need to list each individual centuy he has made. You can easily sum up the number (and perhaps some interesting statistics) and link to a page on Cricinfo / CricketArchive that does the job just as well. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 17:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Just set a link to statsguru with the filter set to scores over 100. Tintin 17:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I somehow am not comfortable with that as most of the other batsmen would have it. For eg., Adam Gilchrist has all his centuries listed and so have quite a few other FA articles. That was my reasoning to spin-off these large stats data into seperate list pages. Kalyan 09:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

First Class Cricketer up for Deletion

Someone's nominated Derbyshire batsman Michael Bentley for deletion. He only played one first class match but he's a bona fide cricketer. Deletion debate here [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nick mallory (talk • contribs) 11:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

The nominator withdrew it. Nick mallory 11:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Rezwan Koddus

Can someone speedy this, please. Tintin 15:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

See also Hall Cricket Tintin 15:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Not that again! I've AfD'ed it as the author has already removed a prod. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hasn't something similar already been to Afd? If so, it can be speedied as repost. --Dweller 16:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corridor cricket. I'll speedy tag it. --Dweller 16:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Swanton.jpg and book-cover images in general

This book-cover image is used in the E. W. Swanton article, but I'm not entirely happy with it. When I first saw it, there was no editorial comment at all relating to the book specifically rather than just its subject, and it's clear that fair use can't be claimed unless there is. So, I notified the uploader (User:PaddyBriggs) that this was necessary. He then added a few words about the book at the end of the article. However, he did not add a detailed fair use rationale to the image page itself. The {{no rationale}} template is not, as I first thought, appropriate here as the image was uploaded before 4 May 2006. Nevertheless it seems unsatisfactory to have such an image with no detailed explanation at all. This would also apply to other book-cover images uploaded before that date. Can they just be left, in spite of not really satisfying the "detailed rationale" request? Loganberry (Talk) 16:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

West Indies Cricket to 1918

Below is some discussion on the articles were have (or could have) relating to West Indies cricket up to about 1918. I'm interested at the moment in the structure rather than importance/current content. Nigej 08:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

We have West Indies cricket team which has little history but links to History of the West Indian cricket team which does have more on this period. The names of these articles implies that they are about the West Indian team rather than West Indian cricket in general. The articles on individual teams like Barbados national cricket team have a limited amount on early cricket. Nigej 08:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There is also an article History of West Indian cricket to 1864 which appears on Template:West Indian cricket seasons. Should we have an article History of West Indian Cricket which would be 'above' this and articles on specific later periods (see below for 1865 to 1890) or perhaps the History of the West Indian cricket team could cover all aspects of West Indies cricket history. Nigej 08:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

We have a number of articles which are designed to cover a single season. Currently these normally have a brief outline of the first class cricket played but ideally would include other inter-island cricket and club cricket in the various cricketing nations in the West Indies. Nigej 08:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

We have a single article 1864-65 to 1890-91 West Indian cricket seasons. This is because there was little first class cricket in these seasons and we are not likely to have much in the near future. In the near term this page is likely to be a general history at best. We could call this History of West Indian cricket from 1865 to 1890. Nigej 08:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In Template:West Indian cricket seasons we have room for a 1905 West Indian cricket season which has not yet been created. This is because CricketArchive has the Jamaica v Trinidad matches in August 1905 as in the 1905 season. There is no real logic in this, it's simply because they were played in August not September. The ACS always treats these as in the 1905-06 season. I would prefer to remove 1905 from the template. (I know we've only just had a general discussion on this topic) Nigej 08:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

1914-15 West Indian cricket season to 1917-18 West Indian cricket season are combined into a single article. I can't really see the logic here. There was no first class cricket in these seasons but there was presumably plenty of club cricket. I would prefer individual seasons here. Nigej 08:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The 8 first-class tours to the West Indies are accessable through Template:International cricket tours of the West Indies. The 2 tours to England are accessable through Template:West Indies cricket tours of England. Nigej 08:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There were two earlier tours of interest: West Indian Gentlemen tour to Canada and the United States 1886 and Gentlemen of the U.S.A. tour 1887-88. Currently these are part of 1864-65 to 1890-91 West Indian cricket seasons. Neither tour was first class but they are of interest, in particular showing the relative strength of the West Indies and North American teams. Should they be separate articles. Nigej 08:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

On the 1905 thing, I was under the impression that Cricket Archive was associated with the ACS and hence counting them as the 1905 season is correct. Andrew nixon 08:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I was the person who initiated the recent discussion on "English-summer" West Indian seasons, though in my case I was more concerned with 1958 than 1905. The thing is, though, that since CricketArchive uses "1905" (etc), we definitely have a solid source for that usage. If there is an equally good and verifiable source - an actual ACS publication would be fine - for putting the August 1905 games in "1905-06" then it does indeed come down to a matter of personal judgement, but there does need to be that source, I think. Loganberry (Talk) 17:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Aha! Cricinfo puts the Jamaican games in 1905-05. So, we seem to have one solid source for each usage. All I can say is that I wouldn't personally object at all to using 1905-06, but if we did that then anyone using CricketArchive for seasonal statistics would have to bear in mind that their figures wouldn't tally with Cricinfo's. Loganberry (Talk) 17:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd be tempted to stick with Cricket Archive's usage. Check out Basil D'Oliveria's stats on each of them for an example of inaccurate stats on cricinfo. Andrew nixon 17:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I've recently started using CA rather than Cricinfo for my "source" link on bio page infoboxes, since I was encountering a lot of discrepancies. Loganberry (Talk) 23:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

CricketArchive or Cricinfo?

Most people (including me) have tended to link to the Cricinfo player page when filling in the "source" link on a cricketer's infobox, but recently I've decided to switch to using CricketArchive instead. I was prompted by the subjects of three successive bios I wrote (Herbert Gordon, William Adshead and Percival Corbett) having discrepancies between the two: career catches in the case of Gordon and Adshead, and career balls bowled in the case of Corbett.

The more I thought about it, the more I felt that CricketArchive was generally the better source, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it tends to have more detailed summary statistics than Cricinfo, especially for older players (CA usually includes total balls bowled and half-centuries; Cricinfo sometimes does not) and secondly, there is the facility which Cricinfo mostly lacks to check individual scorecards, season-by-season summaries etc. On top of this, the infobox "debut" and "last match" lines expect specific dates, something not checkable on Cricinfo which gives only first and last seasons. Loganberry (Talk) 23:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you on this, as I mentioned above. For example, a bunch of South African matches from the 70s and 80s (mainly the non-white league) have recently been promoted to first-class status, and cricinfo have not updated their database to reflect this, leaving players as high profile as Basil D'Oliveria and Omar Henry with inaccurate stats on cricinfo. Henry's FC career started four years before cricinfo says it did. Andrew nixon 06:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I suspect Cricinfo data will get more and more out of date. Philip Bailey has moved onto CricketArchive, so I would always go with CA for the "state of the art" stats. Obviously there will always be uncertainty (for example where one scorebook has X taking a certain catch and the other scorebook has Y) and those who prefer 'traditional' figures (eg for Grace,Hobbs) will be disappointed. Nigej 08:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
We do in fact have an article, which I believe you created, entitled Traditional career totals which discusses this exact point, and a quick check at Jack Hobbs shows that it's mentioned in that article as well. For disputed stats of that significance, I think that's the best way: to pick one (say CA) for the states but to discuss any other major sources in the text. Loganberry (Talk) 15:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest linking to both. Cricinfo has the advantage of a potted bio, and easy access to news articles and Wisden write-ups. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
No problem linking to cricinfo for biographical details and such, I think the question is whether we should use it for stats or not. For stats, we should use the most accurate source, which has to be Cricket Archive. Andrew nixon 09:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I always put both in the "External links" section at the bottom of an article, quite apart from specific references, so I agree that both sites can be useful. Cricinfo is considerably better for articles, and has some very useful stuff there, but is considerably worse for stats; as was mentioned here not so long ago, many of Cricinfo's records lists are five years out of date and show no sign of being updated. But for the specific link in the infobox, CricketArchive is better - if only because Cricinfo does not include specific dates for start/end of career, so if we link to that our dates on the infobox are not properly verifiable. (In any case, when you get a player like Kingsmill Key, who captained Surrey in the 1890s, but who Cricinfo claims ended his career in 1887, it does tend to colour your opinions!) Loganberry (Talk) 15:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Graham Dilley

Since a comment from Blnguyen at my editor review, I've been occasionally dropping into cricket bios and editing for POV etc. Today, I encountered Graham Dilley which has been the subject of a lot of work, but has stunning contradictions and is full of awful English. Anyone wishing to help gratefully welcomed. --Dweller 15:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, for a start those photos have seriously unconvincing {{PD-self}} tags. "I scanned this photo myself, not found anywhere on Internet." - yes, and "scanning them yourself" makes them PD, does it? Sadly it looks as though they'll all have to go. Loganberry (Talk) 15:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated the photos with no other info for deletion, though I'd forgotten what a fiddly process that was so I hope I got it right! I did leave un-nominated a couple of pics which the uploader said were taken by his (now dead) uncle, as I wasn't sure about those, but I've nevertheless taken them off the Dilley article to be safe. Loganberry (Talk) 15:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems Dilley's got his own back on me... see here Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Watchlist_craziness! --Dweller 15:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I had a go at editing the article, it is written like a fan page with all his performances being 'sensatenal (sic)'. Apart from all the NPOV violations the tense is all wrong and there are capital letters everywhere mid sentence. So even though I have been through most of the article I have no doubt that alot more work is required Crickettragic 04:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Cricket/Redesign

Apologies to anyone reading this twice - I'm copying this here for greater exposure:

Back in 2005, Portal:Cricket was the very first portal in the Portal: namespace, and one of the first featured portals. Things have since gone a bit stale, and I think that now it's time for an update. To that end I have been working on Portal:Cricket/Redesign. It's by no means a finished work, but it gives the gist of what I am aiming for.

With your approval, I'd like to merge the redesigned page into the main space. I plan on moving the content that is currently on the portal page and not in the redesign onto a subpage which will be prominently linked - in a similar manner to Portal:Australia for example. I'm also planning on implementing automatic methods of keeping content fresh where possible, and keeping the rest updated myself (any help of course appreciated!). It will be easier to implement the rest once the main portal page is updated.

I hope this is too everyone's liking, but please do leave your comments and criticisms at Portal talk:Cricket#Redesign (or just go and improve it yourself!). If there's no opposition, I'll go ahead and merge into the main portal page. Cheers, →Ollie (talk • contribs) 01:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea. We have User:jguk to thank for the existing portal, but fresh ideas are always welcome. I have commented at Portal talk:Cricket/Redesign. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Eoin Morgan

According to Cricinfo, he's just been named as one of England's 12th "men" for this Test, in between appointments with Ireland. That's nice and quirky. --Dweller 10:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hope he has nothing do with User:Eionmorgan who I have been reverting recently ! Tintin 10:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Happened before, Frederik Klokker fielded for England a few years back. Andrew nixon 11:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
And Trevor Penney Nick mallory 11:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request - MS Dhoni

I made major clean-ups to the article of Mahendra Singh Dhoni and submitted a peer review (click here to access it). please provide me your comments as i would like to take it to FAC soon. Kalyan 08:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

ICC or The ICC

I've heard/seen more and more people refering to ICC rather than the ICC. I've always said "The ICC", and that sounds much more gramatically correct. Which should we be using? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 13:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the context. "Many people criticised the ICC" (example), I definitely wouldn't capitalise the t. I can't really think of any situation where not putting the in front makes grammatical sense, though. AllynJ 13:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the question is about capitalisation, but about omitting the article altogether. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
"The ICC", definitely. Omitting the definite article sounds very unnatural to me. Are the people doing that native English speakers? Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
When talking about the ICC, it should be "the ICC". Of course, that doesn't every occurrence of ICC needs the definite article - you could speak of "ICC CEO Malcolm Speed", "an ICC tournament", or something like that. JPD (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was the question of the definite article, I just didn't know the proper way of saying that! I've heard quite a few 'native' speakers use just ICC - I'm wondering if it's some kind of corporate branding issue. Anyway, I'm glad we seem to be agreed on using proper English! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 14:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely "the ICC", though as mentioned above, "the" should not be capitalised in the middle of a sentence. (Some newspapers have been doing this recently - things like "another match against The Blues today" - and to my eyes it looks illiterate.) However, this is not so clear-cut when it comes to (the) MCC. I was brought up to omit "the" before MCC, and have continued to do so in Wikipedia articles I've written, and Cricinfo overwhelmingly uses that form (1,020 Google hits to four for "match against [the] MCC"!) Other publications do put "the" in, though. Loganberry (Talk) 22:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Prior (cricketer)

Might be worth keeping an eye on Prior's article. As it stands, a single innings (as yet uncompleted as England have not declared at the time of writing) accounts for no fewer than three paragraphs. Certainly it was a notable innings, but I can't help feeling that this level of detail might be overkill! Some of it's editorialising anyway. Loganberry (Talk) 22:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's one factual paragraph now. Nick mallory 01:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; that's much better. Loganberry (Talk) 14:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Most foreign born players in a county side?

Browsing the county scores while listening to the Test (go Monty!) I notice that Northamptonshire are fielding more foreign born players than players born in England. Jacobs, Van der Wath and Klusner are South African, Wessels and Crook were born in Australia and even former England test player Usman Afzaal was born in Pakistan. In these days of kolpak madness has a county ever fielded even more foreign born players than this? Nick mallory 14:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

ISTR that there was one season in the 1970s when Warwickshire had five West Indians in their side. JH (talk page) 14:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Northamptonshire's opponents Durham might give them a run for their money if this criteria decided the game. Garry Park was born in South Africa, Ottis Gibson in Barbados, Breese in Jamaica, Coetzer in Scotland, Benkenstein in Zimbabwe and Di Venuto in Australia Crickettragic 14:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Warwickshire's team today feature's Trott, Steyn and Groenewald (South Africa), Streak (Zimbabwe), Ambrose (Australia) and Sangakkara (Sri Lanka). Nick mallory 17:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Jack Russell (cricketer and artist)

Another very poor article. --Dweller 12:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I've found one to top them all: Stuart MacGill. HUGE amounts of NPOV content. No sources. Poorly written in the first place. Completely irrelevant information throughout the article ("His post-victory predilection for wine puts him at odds with the rest of his (beer-inclined) teammates."? What on earth...). This could be improved by being changed to:
"Stuart Charles Glyndwr MacGill (born February 25, 1971 in Mount Lawley, Perth) is an Australian cricketer who specialises in bowling Leg Spin." And that's saying a lot. Anyone fancy tackling it? I've never seen the guy play and know absolutely nothing about him, wouldn't have a clue what to write. AllynJ 20:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I've had a crack at MacGill. Not a great article still, but much better. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 21:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, though his marriage Rachel Friend is probably notable enough (at least in Aus) to be mentioned: Friend has been on the cover of TV Week, so she's hardly obscure. Loganberry (Talk) 23:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I think Ive thrown the baby out with the bathwater there. I'll put her back in. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 23:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Much better, good job Ollie. AllynJ 07:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

List of List A cricket records

I created this page yesterday to accompany record lists we already have for first class/ODI/Test cricket. Used CricketArchive but although they were up to date they did lack alot of stats such as 'fastest ton'. Such records are available on Cricinfo but according to the pages their List A data has not been updated since 2002. As a result I am reluctant to add them to the list. Does anyone know of any other sites that might be usefull? Cheers Crickettragic 01:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Howstat is great, but they only do Tests and ODIs. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

One for those with time on their hands!

England now have three men in the same side (Strauss, Cook and Prior) who scored a century on Test debut. When, if ever, did this last happen? Loganberry (Talk) 22:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Never for England - the most is two (Grace and Ranji in the 1890s, Warner and Foster in 1903 after Foster made 287 on debut, Bryan Valentine and Paul Gibb in 1938, and so forth...) Australia have done it at least twice after WWWII: Greg Chappell, Doug Walters and Gary Cosier featured together for six Tests during the 1976–77 season, and Dirk Wellham, Kepler Wessels and Wayne B. Phillips for the final match of the 1985 Ashes.
However, the most recent is probably Pakistan - they featured a number of such sides at the end of the 1990s, boosted by the First Test of Pakistan vs South Africa in 1997-98, when Azhar Mahmood and Ali Naqvi both made debut tons. Combinations included Mohammad Wasim, Azhar, Naqvi (in a couple of Tests against South Africa, as well as against Zimbabwe in March 98); Saleem Malik, Wasim, Azhar (first Test against Australia in October 98); and what I think should be the final one, Mohammad Wasim's last Test, including Wasim, Azhar and Younis Khan against Sri Lanka at Galle in June 2000. [3]
Others: I'm guessing Rowe, Kallicharran and Greenidge played together at some point, but as Rowe's final Test was in 1980 it can't be closer than the 85 Ashes, and NZ have never played Vincent, Sinclair and Styris in the same game. Sam Vimes | Address me 23:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • When did five different England batsman last score a century in the same test? Nick mallory 17:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Never happened before for England mate, it's a first Crickettragic 12:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Magher

Just discovered this page when looking through Category:American cricketers. It mentions that he is captain of the Queensland Bulls so it seems that it is a simple case of the author mixing him up with Jimmy Maher. What is puzzeling however is the fact that he is listed as an American cricketer. Crickettragic 09:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The history suggest it really is a simple misspelling, with another mistake by the person adding the category. I have redirected the article to Jimmy Maher. JPD (talk) 09:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

New FC Template

I realise there are many pluses about the new template, mostly being when there is no fourth innings or other such information doesn't need to be put in. Though I am sad to see the old one go, I think it was nicer but obviously impractical, this new one seems to be encouraging people to be incredibly biased in the way it is deployed. The first Eng WI Test, for example, features 4 batsmen scores for the first innings and not even a WI bowler. The standard for Test cricket is four lines of bat and bowl, normally deployed as one per innings apart from when some innings are incomplete. Even as an Englishmen proud of this four century innings I think it looks ludicrous to have all those batting figures in and not have an even amount of bowling. It needs to be kept to a strict one bat, one bowl figure - any more outstanding notes can be made in prose underneath; the template is a scorecard. Tony2Times 03:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think any centuries or five wicket performances should be noted. The reason no WI bowler was mentioned was surely because there was no outstanding WI bowling performance. If two batsman score double hundreds in an innings would you really only mention one of them in the template? Nick mallory 06:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with Tony2Times. When four batsmen score centuries and no-one bowls with any great success, surely the summary score should reflect that. JH (talk page) 08:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I also disagree with Tony2Times. Any Test centurion certainly deserve a mention. Perhaps the best West Indian first innings bowling performance (Powell's 2/113) should be mentioned too, although, as that figure demonstrates, none stands out. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I said above that we should be more flexible in whom we list, and that we should list four batsmen and no bowlers if appropriate. However, Tony has one valid point, in that it would be nice if we could define an objective rule as to who gets included. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
If the rule of one batsman one bowler is good enough for cricketing scorecards (and call me crazy, but I believe these templates are scorecards) then I don't see why we think we can overrule them with this sloppy, un-uniformed version. It's incredibly biased to list four batsman and no bowlers as I said before; furthermore, what happens if no batsman scores a Century and there are no five wicket hauls? Do we leave it blank? And if you read what I said, I didn't at all suggest not leaving out the other centuries, all previous coverage of cricket has prose underneath either briefly commentating or pointing out notes of interest, it is here you could point out other noteable scores. But seeing as you're going to ignore me I'd like to at least suggest that Stephen is listened to - there needs to be an objective rule. Tony2Times 12:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where you've seen a rule of one batsman and one bowler for scorecards. I think I've always seen all notable performances listed. Listing a poor performance just because it happens to be better than the rest of the team — or not listing a good one just because someone else on the team has done even better — seems quite wrong to me. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't see how you can reasonably claim that showing all 4 centurions with good batting figures and deciding not to show any poor bowling figures is biased - it is simply illogical to just show on centurion and one bowling figure, especially now we have the flexibility within the templates to do so.
For an extremely over-exaggerated example, say team 1 posts 200 all out, with no batsman getting a half-century and one bowler getting a 6-for and another a 4-for. Should it really just list a man who got 30 and the bowler with 6? That's bizarre. It doesn't give an accurate showing of what's happened in the match at all. And in reply, if the two openers both got in the 90s (say one on 99 and one on 91, the rest was scored by extras), and they reached their target without losing a wicket - should it really show the man on 99 and a bowler who didn't get a single wicket? I say no - absolutely not. It's not biased, it's showing what happened in that match. If West Indies had had 4 batsmen get centuries we would list all 4 of those too - again, not bias, common sense.
I do think we need perhaps should considering having some general idea of what to list but the problem is it varies considering what the team scored. I put both batsmen in the West Indies 2nd innings in because no wickets fell, even though they weren't particularly high scores: leaving that side of the scorecard blank would just be odd. I also listed all 3 half centuries in the West Indies innings because in terms of how the match was played they were all vitally important innings - plus with 4 names listed on the other side of that row it didn't stretch the scorecard any more. The problem lies in the fact that the variables within the game don't really allow for us to put stringent rules on exactly what can be put down (although this isn't always the case).
And if we do decide on specific parameters for who/what to list they should definitely be different from those employed on ODI scorecards - say if we decided on all centurions listed on Test match scorecards, then all half-centurions should be listed on ODI scorecards; simply because of how uncommon centuries are in ODIs compared to Test matches.
Sorry if this is a bit rambly, but I couldn't think of any shorter way to put it. :p AllynJ 13:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If we need rules, I would suggest:

  • All centuries should be listed.
  • All 5-fors should be listed.
  • In the absence of a century or a 5-for, the best one (or two) batting and bowling performances in each innings should usually be listed, up to a maximum of, say, four per innings; subject to a general rule that the scorecard should try to give a picture of the innings, so there is no need to provide figures for a batsman or a bowler if the bat dominated the ball or the ball dominated the bat, and extra figures can be given if they assist to put the match in context.

IMHO, there are too many individual scores listed in the summary at West_Indian_cricket_team_in_England_in_2007#Test_series. I would list all four centuries in the first innings (leaving out the West Indian bowlers, as none is worth mentioning), and Panesar's bowling must be mentioned, but I would limit the West Indian scores in their first innings to Chanderpaul's 74. I would mention Pietersen's century, but leave out Cook's 65, and the two 3-fors. Finally, I would list both West Indian openers as a special case, for balance.

I rather liked the rather restrained listings in West Indian cricket team in England in 1988, a featured article; I have just bulked them out a little, and I think I prefer the before to the after.-- ALoan (Talk) 16:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all your points about the most recent Test, except I'm not sure I would mention either of the batsmen in the fourth innings. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
In the Infoboxes, we mention individuals' 100s and 50s and their 5-wicket-innings and 10-wicket-matches. Those would seem to me to be the sensible cut-off points. Many (most?) important matches will also have a report in which other noteworthy but statistically lesser deeds can be mentioned. There will always be notable deeds that don't qualify: Jimmy Matthews' double hat-trick, for one. But 100s, 50s, 5-w-is and 10-w-ms are stats that are already collected. Johnlp 22:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with having the best batsman and the best bowler? That's how it was done in the 2007 cwc article. If scores/wickets are the same than we could look at the strike rate/economy etc.--THUGCHILDz 03:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps some further examples would help. It seems a bit rough to me to list only one of a trio of triple, double and single centurions in favour of listing a bowler who sent down 2/53, say (although that was considerably better than the next bowler's 1/195).[4] And 3/178 is all very well, but the highlights for me are the 364, 187 and 169* (and the 5-for and 4-for in the replies).[5]
Perhaps a less unusual match - I would mention all four centuries (and the 99, I think), but neither 2-for, and then the 80 and the 99, all four 4-fors.[6] -- ALoan (Talk) 09:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Answering an earlier question, I have seen the rule used of one batsman/one bowler (or slightly more depending on how many innings are done) on Sky Sports, Channel 4 and some import TV from other nations, I think South Africa's coverage of the Aus/RSA tour of late 05. The summary has always been presented like this on TV and the reason for why is that it's simple, there is no argument between what should and shouldn't be included and it looks nice and neat. With this new rule of "lets include a centurion, oh and didn't he do well let's put him in there too" we could end up with however many batsman and no bowlers or vice-versa - these outstanding figures are why there is a prose commentary section below.
You're forgetting that you don't just show the scores to show how amazingly one side did, if the side did terrible then their best bowler, in doing poorly, is a benchmark for how badly the team as a whole did. I can find no definite rule given for this new system except a rational one provided a few posts before this, however even that still can't decide "well, if there's no centuries or five-fors then we'll put in the best one (or two)" - which is it? Wikipedia is annoying enough with everybody changing eachother's articles over the time, with the given rule that all TV coverage I've seen uses, I don't think I've seen a summary used in other mediums, you have the definite rule people won't argue between - four batsmen, four bowlers to be divided equally amongst the innings, only omitted when a figure isn't gained (ie if no wicket is broken, no bowler shall be listed.) As someone said earlier, there are too many individual scores listed - it's a brief scorecard, if people want to know lots then let them read a commentary underneath. Tony2Times 10:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
You're right that showing the best bowler gives some idea of the bowling figures, and that the scorecard should be reasonably brief, but the real point of the summary is to give some highlights from the innings. These sorts of summaries have been around a lot longer than any rules you have recently observed in some tv coverage. I remember more about summaries in newspapers than the ever-changing tv standards, and am most used to seeing three players per innings, usually two batsmen and a bowler, but with flexibility, so that 2 bowlers and a batsman is common, and 3 batsmen (or more?) would be understandable in the recent match. There's no reason to stick with the recent rubbish imposed on us by tv. JPD (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
You can't have hard and fast rules. Any century or 'michelle' fivefor should be noted, but circumstances can vary so much in what else should be there. Glamorgan got bowled out for just 60 on the first day against Middlesex, I don't see batsman and bowlers getting equal billing on that scorecard. I agree that the scorecards currently used by one TV station shouldn't dictate what we do here. I really don't see what the problem is here. Nick mallory 12:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)