Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 43

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

India / Aus controversy

I've just created a little stub on Bollyline. I have plenty of material to add to it, all from just one RS so far (including the name), especially a juicy quote from Steve Waugh who is apparently concerned about the damage this could do to the relations between the two countries.

Please feel free to join in.

Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Two RS's added. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I'm a bit skeptical about all this. It feels to me like one of those stories that everyone gets very excited about for a few days and then it dies down. I think this article should be redirected to Indian cricket team in Australia in 2007-08, Second Test (although I'm not even convinced that that shouldn't be merged into Indian cricket team in Australia in 2007-08). In a year's time, I doubt we'll want a whole article on this, and certainly not two. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The articles should fulfil different functions. One to discuss the match. One to discuss the furore. If it turns out to be a storm in a teacup, they can be merged. --Dweller (talk) 10:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The Indian cricket team in Australia in 2007-08, Second Test article has been listed at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. If this article is kept, then perhaps this nomination should be changed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Listing at in the news was a good idea. Well done. --Dweller (talk) 11:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not a big fan of the name. While it is pithy, it appears to be a neologism without any widespread currency (in Australia at least). However, I don't want to see some boring long winded name either but I don't see much alternative. I partially agree with Stephen; the article is probably best merged with Indian cricket team in Australia in 2007-08, Second Test and re-split if necessary. However, I think the Test article is already of a size where it too large to comfortably fit in the tour article. If Bollyline is kept, then much of the content from the Test article should be moved to the new article. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the freshest and most neo of neologisms, but it's a notable one. Already I find Aussie sources 1 2 3 and a NZ one! --Dweller (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A few journo's tossing around a new word they've made up means little. IMO the match deserves one article at the very most, and certainly not under that name. —Moondyne 13:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Moving on

There's been some excellent work done at the match article. Stephen's argument is persuasive, but I'm unconvinced. This is getting much bigger than the context of one match, which is the implication of one article. Steve Waugh, not known for hysterical pronouncements, is on record as saying this "now has the potential to affect relations between the countries".

The options, as I see them:

  1. Merge Bollyline to the match article and leave as redirect
  2. Merge much of the content from the match article to Bollyline, but retain the detail of the cricketing issues and summarise the political/controversial, pointing to Bollyline as a main article

Could be I've missed alternatives. I'd welcome further comment and hope for consensus to develop. --Dweller (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

After some reflection, I think I would move everything into the match article, with a redirect from Bollyline. I tend to have a bias against reporting news in the encyclopaedia, except for the most important events, because everything is overhyped at first and it's hard to assess its true importance at the time. However, in this case there seems to be enough to say about the match and its later ramifications that it's worth writing an article — but not two, because I don't think we want to split up the match itself from its consequences.
The question then is which title to use, and I prefer the boring one because Bollyline sounds to me like a transient phrase — it makes a good headline, but it may not be remembered in a year.
My view on all these questions may change if the tour is ultimately cancelled.
Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else have a view on this? As Dweller says, it would be nice to get a consensus. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Given how quiet the WikiProject is, I think it's silly waiting longer. Also, given the relative sizes of the articles, the community has clearly spoken. I'll merge Bollyline to the match article. --Dweller (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
My replacement of Bollyline as a redirect has been reverted by someone previously uninvolved in the article. I won't edit war. Someone else can deal. --Dweller (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Cricket controversies

Bollyline definitely desreves an article to itself but it belongs in category:Cricket controversies, to which I've moved it.

I reckon the Turbanator does not read Terry Pratchett. If he did, he'd know the librarian goes ape whenever anyone says the M-word.  :-) --The Ghost | séance 20:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sid Barnes FAC

I'm delighted that Barnes's article has passed FA. Thank you to all those who collaborated on the article. I'm particularly glad to say that there were so many of you that it's easier to point you all to view the article history than to list them.

Another step toward our FT, which is terrific.

While I'm at it, here's a little reminder that Keith Miller is the current collaboration... things have been a little quiet recently there, nudge nudge! :-) --Dweller (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Keith Miller

This is the current opening sentence of his article: "Keith Ross Miller, MBE (28 November 1919-11 October 2004), was a famous Australian Test cricketer and Second World War pilot."

Do you think that's a good summary? I have a raised eyebrow over the last few words. --Dweller (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good summary. His wartime experience seem to have had a lot to do with convincing him that in comparison cricket was not a matter of life and death and should always remain fun. I would add "a" before "Second World War", though, to make it clear that the "famous" does not apply to that part. JH (talk page) 17:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with John. I think anyone who was a WWI or a WWII anything deserves WP:BIO for that alone. My father-in-law was at Arnhem and then at Fallingbostel (Stalag X-whatever) after fighting against the Waffen-SS. My uncle was captured at Anzio after fighting his way there all the way from El Alamein. These people are truly "notable": cricketers just play a game. --The Ghost | séance 20:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure we all have great respect for those who fought in WWII etc, but I'm afraid that's not how Wikipedia defines notability. --Dweller (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I still struggle to understand how the one-sentence-summary of Miller's life and achievements can possibly find room to mention his war record. Sure, it should be covered in depth in the article, but it's not like his war achievements would have had any notability in their own right. To my mind, if we're continuing the sentence any further than "Australian Test cricketer", it should be to make a claim of greatest Aussie all-rounder, or to talk about his massive contemporary popularity, or the Australian in excelsis comment. To my mind, it's like mentioning Margaret Thatcher's chemistry career in a one sentence summary about her. I'd welcome further comment. --Dweller (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, playing 50 games of VFL/AFL would confer notability on Miller for that reason alone, but that's not in the sentence either. The sentence as written doesn't exist in isolation and if the prose that follows it flows correctly and engages the reader, why is it a problem? BTW, are there any refs that mention how many missions he flew, what type of aircraft, etc.?

Phanto282 (talk) 11:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd have less problem with mentioning his AFL career in the opening sentence. Blnguyen seems to have good paper sources on Miller. --Dweller (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We have a long lead on that article, so the fighter pilot thing could easily go later in the lead. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Further: the word "famous' in the sentence is redundant and could be removed. There are many sources on Miller, however the challenge is not to fall into hagiography. Miller was the kind of player (and personality) that most aspiring cricketers wanted to be and he inspired much hero-worship in those who wrote about him. His war experiences are essential for many reasons; he left Melbourne as no more than a promising batsman and was better known as a footballer but he discovered bowling while playing for the RAAF in England. On another unresolved point, my recollection of going to the Long Room in the early 90s was that the only Australian portraits were Miller and Bradman (who was next to Jardine...lol), which I remembered vividly because I slipped into the Lords Tavern afterwards and Miller was there, drinking scotch and water, it looked like. Too bad we didn’t have camera phones back then :) Old bloke from the MCC who took me through mentioned Miller depositing one into the pavilion during his famous inns for the Dominions: reckons he saw it. As he looked like they built the pavilion around him, I think he might just have been telling the truth.
To return to the lead. Why not leave writing this until last? I thought that the Barnes article was a good collaboration, but that the lead suffered from being chopped and changed during the writing of the body of the article. Once the body of the Miller article is written, get one editor to go back and write the lead so that it will succinctly cover what are the agreed major points with a more flowing prose than if various editors jump in and add and subtract as the article evolves?

Phanto282 (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion; I'll leave it. There's some confusion over the portraits... Miller's obituaries cite Trumper and Bradman. By the time of Warne's painting moving in, the RS don't mention Trumper. I've mentioned this in a footnote, but left out my OR speculation that the Trumper painting may have been moved to the museum at some point. --Dweller (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Name style in match summaries

Is it more customary to use Initials or Full names in match summaries. I was going to standardise those between Test 1 and Test 2 on Indian cricket team in Australia in 2007-08 but it occurred to me that I didn't know what the accepted standard was for summaries. Ansell 10:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And should it be S.C. Ganguly or SC Ganguly or S. C. Ganguly or Sourav Ganguly for that matter. Darrowen (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
There are no hard and fast rules and both are used fairly indiscriminately. But my preference is for full name (forename+surname) on the basis that doing it this way creates automatic links to the biographical articles, which are always in this format (with a few exceptions of people known primarily by their initials, like a certain Dr Grace). Also you avoid Darrowen's problem of which form of initials: there are Wikipedia rules on this, but you'll find examples of all the formats, and individuals have their own preferences. Johnlp (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
We do have an FA with match summaries - West Indian cricket team in England in 1988. --Dweller (talk) 11:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Statistically comparing all-rounders

The Miller article currently contains the following text: "By the time of his retirement from Test Cricket in 1956, Miller had the best statistics of any all-rounder in cricket history." This is followed by a deserving {{cn}} tag. Any ideas how this could be sourced? --Dweller (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Excuse me. I've found it immediately. --Dweller (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Another deleted article

Another cricket article has been deleted, Sajid Ali, any chance that an admin could restore it. --Jpeeling (talk) 10:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Cricinfo has teo players by that name, one born in 1979 and won in 1986. Both are notable, having played f-c cricket (34 games and 2 games respectively). Which one is it who's vanished? (I'm not an admin, just curious.) JH (talk page) 10:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's neither, it's the one born in 1963 who played 13 ODIs, see the redlink on List of Pakistani ODI cricketers. --Jpeeling (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Restored. JPD (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That is a pretty short article, even for a stub. Surely someone can write more than one sentence on someone who has played almost 250 first-class matches? Having articles on every ODI player is all well and good, but I'd prefer at least a couple of paragraphs rather than one sentence. Andrew nixon (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi protected Border-Gavaskar silliness

I've semi-protected cricket's hottest new article, in part to help prevent some editors who should know better from walking into 3RR blocks, but mostly because of the plethora of reverts, bad edits and general vandalism from IPs and SPAs. It expires in 24hrs. I'll be off-wiki soon. I know this WikiProject has a good number of admins, so I request you chaps keep an eye on things. Finally, as I've noted at the article talk page, as I'll be off-wiki I'm totally comfortable with my use of the mop being overturned without discussion with me. --Dweller (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Dwayne Leverock

Can someone else keep an eye on Dwayne Leverock. I keep having to revert someone who adds to the article their claim to be Leverock's biggest fan, with their only reference being a comment they themselves made on a Bermuda Sun on-line article. I'm probably going to end up in violation of 3RR if I continue reverting on my own. Andrew nixon (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

More vandalism

I've just made some changes to History of cricket and could not help notice that it is a magnet for the infantile element in our midst. Our friend Jpeeling has made several reverts in recent days. To help him out, can one of the admins please do for this what another friend Dweller has done for the bollyline thing and protect it too? --The Ghost | séance 21:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, but I see only 4 incidents of vandalism reverting this year, which is hardly an epidemic. It's not like there's a seasonal reason prompting a rash of vandals; they're of the type that will perpetually be attracted. For those reasons, it's not a great idea to protect the article - protection would need to be permanent to be effective and there's not much vandalism anyway. We're very cautious to do this; after all, Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Sorry --Dweller (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

War service

I obviously accept that it isn't practical to include all war heroes on the site but those who become notable in more mundane ways, like playing cricket, tend to be included in categories like category:Australian World War II pilots (e.g., Keith Miller, Colin McCool, etc.). That being so, we must acknowledge the war service of all cricketers and ensure we include it in the introduction to each article, per the Keith Miller case above. --The Ghost | séance 21:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It don't think it belongs in the lead in most cases, although it can be mentioned in the article. Almost every European man in two generations served in one of the World Wars. We shouldn't start putting it in the lead of every biography. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that it always merits being in the introduction, but where known it should certainly be mentioned somewhere in the article. Unfortunately it's not always mentioned in cricketers' obituaries, which (especially in Wisden) tend to focus almost exclusively on a player's cricket. JH (talk page) 21:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
In some cases, such as Miller, war service seems to have informed virtually everything they did subsequently, including their cricket deeds. In other cases (eg Sid Barnes) even where war robbed them of probable years of extra cricketing fame, it appears to have been almost an irrelevance. I don't think you can have rules on this and only in some cases will it be so noteworthy as to merit inclusion in the intro. But in most cases, even Barnes, it is relevant background, if not relevant foreground. Johnlp (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, on balance I agree it should only be in the introduction if it is especially important to the study of that person. The comparison of Miller with Barnes is a good one.
To pick up on JH's point about Wisden obituaries, I think we on WP have to remember that we are writing for a global audience and, if a biographical article is going to be featured, it has to provide a rounded view of the whole person and not just what he did on the cricket field. Wisden is conscious of its cricket audience but I think too conscious: what knows he of cricket who only cricket knows? --The Ghost | séance 11:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Article tags

I've removed an article tag from cricket which requested: "This article needs additional citations for verification".

In fact, the article does NOT need additional citations because there are already sufficient sources noted. More to the point, there is not one single specific "verify" or "fact" request anywhere in the article.

There are people who scan articles like this one and look for footnote numbers. If they don't see an epidemic of the things, they stick a tag on and go away. To me, this is a form of semi-vandalism.

I propose that if one of these article tags is going to sit at the top of any cricket article, there must be at least three (short article) or five (long article) specific requests in the body of the article for citation or verification. Certainly from now on when I see one of these things without any specific requests to back it up, I'm removing it. --The Ghost | séance 11:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to complain about over-tagging of articles then I might have some sympathy, but I disagree with your other points. I think it is unlikely that every point in the article is covered by the sources cited, unless a link to cricinfo.com is taken to refer to every article that has ever appeared there. Even if they did, the point of citations is that the reader can check where a specific fact comes from and possibly find out more detail which is not possible from a list of websites. This article has no inline citations except for the international structure section, a few laws, the status of Don Bradman and the fact that cricket is a bat and ball sport with two eleven-player teams. This is clearly not enough so the article does need additional citations. I strongly disagree with your assertion that pointing this out is vandalism.
Having said that, I'm not particularly bothered whether it has a template on it or not. The issue is fairly obvious to anyone who reads it and I doubt this particular article will get much attention from Category:Articles needing additional references from September 2007.
I also disagree with your proposal that articles need a specific number of {{fact}} tags before they are considered to be deficient in references. I'm sure any of us could easily add a {{fact}} tag to the end of every sentence/paragraph/section of this or any other article lacking citations, but I would not regard this as a useful move. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 18:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, if it is going to claim a FA star, as cricket does, then it can be expected to be held to account to FA standards, thus the templates there. If it wasn't an FA, nobody would care. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

<puts hand up> It was me that originally tagged the article in Sep 07 (although someone shortly afterwards replaced the tag with a more appropriate one that said essentially the same thing, better). I did so because, as I said here I was worried about cricket being taken to FAR. I still am. The current article does not deserve its star. A number of editors signed up to my post as citers but sadly, we've not made any headway. I do note amusement that I began the whole thing because I was inspired by User:Blackjack. :-) --Dweller (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Herbie Collins

I have been working on this article for a while and while it still needs a thorough copy-edit, I am almost finished. Included in the article is the claim "Such was the disappointment at losing the Ashes, Collins was stripped not only of the New South Wales captaincy but also that of his local club, Waverley". The claim in uncited and I have been unable to come up with a source for it. I don't want to lose it, as I think it is interesting but if a source can't be found, it will have to go. Does anyone know of a source for this claim? -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to Phanto282! -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

While on Collins, it has been brought to my attention that Collins and Gregory hold the record for the fastest ever 200 partnership, in terms of time. Once again, I would love to include this in the article, but I need a source. Tintin1107 suggests the relevant edition of The Cricket Statistician may be useful for this purpose. Any help would be much appreciated. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

On this day ...

75 years ago, Bill Woodfull got one over the heart in the Adelaide Test in the Bodyline series. Portal:Cricket now has a Anniversaries section which needs contributions here. —Moondyne 07:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a nice idea. Good thinking. :) Johnlp (talk) 10:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

To do

I just have a couple tasks I need to do, relating to Argentine cricketers, thanks to Cricket Archive moving pages around. The list is mostly for my benefit only, though if you guys disagree with any of my decisions, please feel free to revert, and I will by no means disagree with your actions.

Twenty20

I think the player infoboxes need to be updated to incorporate 20/20 matches as the game continues to grow and will eventually take over 50 over matches. Couldn't think of a decent username (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. The current preferred user box has customisable columns, and there is nothing to stop you adding Twenty20 stats to it, if there is a free column. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Most recent discussion was here. —Moondyne 07:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Cheers for clearing that up. Couldn't think of a decent username (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot

I discovered again that a major cricket article did not have a tag, Peter Moores, the England coash, did not have a WPCRIC tag. A few weeks ago it was the Englush wicket keeper, and there have been several others. I have thus put a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests for a bot to tag every article in the Cricketers by nationality category, that should take care of this problem. I hope this is helpful SGGH speak! 16:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A bot is definatly needed, I've found out that Graham Thorpe and Phil Tufnell were tagless! Crickettragic (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the need for project tagging, but just as importantly, a concerted effort is needed to assess tagged articles for quality and importance (and to my mind, that is the primary purpose of project tagging). As you can see, there is a large backlog already at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Assessment. And that's a manual task. Any help there is appreciated. —Moondyne 14:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Australian Cricket Hall of Fame

Hi, I have made an attempt at adding a table (mainly pinched from List of Australian Test cricketers and Australian national cricket captains) to the above article, but it doesn't exactly look attractive. I don't know if there is any here with any good ideas; my wiki mark up skills are poor to non-existent. Any advice, assistance etc. would be appreciated. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Duplication of articles on Ashes series

We have two articles on the 2005 Ashes series, I've just discovered, which must be a Bad Thing:

The latter title corresponds to the standard naming convention that has usually been used for tours (including those by Australia in 1902 amd 1926). There is also already an article on the 2009 series: 2009 Ashes series, so the duplication could recur with that. JH (talk page) 21:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is a problem, the 2005 Ashes series is an in-depth look at the TEsts, while the second includes the ODIs and tour matches. With the Invincibles we are going to have to do the same thing otherwise it will get too large. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with both JH and Blnguyen. The two articles are necessary, but the detail re:Ashes on the tour article is far too great. All that article needs is an Ashes heading, followed by "Main article: 2005 Ashes series. That way, the latter article becomes a sub article of Australian cricket team in England in 2005. It does look like there is a lot of duplication, especially with each articles having a day by day account. –MDCollins (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam Gilchrist

Dare I say, one of the project's flagship FA's is being slaughtered by a huge bout of recentism edits. I've restored the lead back to the way it was when it made FA and added a line about his retirement which I think is sufficient and keeps the tone and content we all agreed on back at the FAC. Can people keep an eye on the page and ensure we don't get too much recentism creep... Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fringe trimming

Having explored in no great detail the entries for cricketers, there appear to be a few relating to what I might call 'someone's mate'. IE: Players of no significance such a Stephen Cheetham for example - a second eleven player, or Ben Brown, perhaps a future legend or perhaps not.. This does not include major league cricketers or well known minor county players etc who clearly have a place.JimBakken (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ben Brown (cricketer) is a first-class cricketer, hence notable. I can't find an article for a Stephen Cheetham though. Andrew nixon (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
JimBakken means Steven Cheetham, a onetime first-class cricketer for Lancashire. Bobo. 14:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Cheers. Also a first-class cricketer, so I see no problem with either article. Andrew nixon (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

2008 Season

Whoever made the 2008 season has changed the title style from "Sri Lankans in India" that has been used the previous years to "Sri Lanka's tour in India"; was there an official decision to change this or did s/he just go ahead and do it? If so can I revert it because I don't like the new style. Tony2Times (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

General style for these articles has been "Sri Lankan cricket team in India in 2007-08", and there are probably a couple of hundred or so separate articles that conform to this kind of title. Seems sensible if you want to adopt a different style to make redirects that keep this consistency. Johnlp (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This is for the title of headers, rather than the titles of articles themselves. Tony2Times (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

James donohue

I assume from the end comments (and, to an extent, the d.o.b.) that this chap isn't notable, but wondered if any of you chaps had heard of him. --Dweller (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not notable at all. Andrew nixon (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Bangladeshi national cricket captains is under a Featured list review

None of the contributors have commented, so I just wanted to make sure the project members were aware of it. The review page can be found here. -- Scorpion0422 15:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand national cricket captains and Zimbabwean national cricket captains are also up for review because of similar issues.
Many of this project's FLs were promoted in 2005/early 2006 when references weren't as big of a deal and thus many of them have referencinf problems. ie. Lack of citations, improperly formatted references, etc. These issues are usually easily fixable, so some members may want to start reviewing some of the current FLs and taking care of these issues. -- Scorpion0422 15:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone shed any light on this?

South Africa v. Namibia Under-19s - the scorecard on Cricket Archive states that Pieter Malan and Jon-Jon Smuts were retired out - and thus the team have three wickets beside their name, meanwhile another scorecard claims that these batsmen were simply retired hurt - and thus the score in the South African innings was 107-1. Anyone able to shed any light? (Feel free to ask me to cite this, I have saved the address and can bring it up at a moment's request.

Meanwhile, and I hate to bring up the topic of under-19 cricketers again - those Namibians who made appearances in this match who do not have articles - Claude Bouwer, Pikky Ya France, Bernard Scholtz and Martin van Niekerk - how would they stand up in modern-day AfD? I'm tempted to add their bios to Wikipedia myself. Opinions? There are so many Under-19 Cricket World Cup-only players who have articles on Wikipedia as it is - but I have no idea how concensus is flying with regards to that lately. Bobo. 03:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If the other scorecard is from Cricinfo, I'd be tempted to assume the CricketArchive scorecard is correct. Cricinfo have a habit of putting retired out down as retired hurt. Retired out is almost certainly the correct entry though. As for the four Namibians, they've not played first-class or List A cricket so I wouldn't say they were notable.... yet. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Just checkin' that things hadn't changed in that regard - thank you very much Andrew. Retired out would make more sense then, and thus the score should presumably be 107-3. Thank you Andrew. Bobo. 17:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability issues

Just to let you know, the football WikiProject has had a few wrangles recently over notability within that sport. The consensus seems to have shifted to admitting notability for international U21 players even if they've not played a pro game (previously the bar). Cricket's age level equivalent is U19. I think that there's not necessarily a need for uniformity, especially as at that age 2 years is a lot, and I'm certainly not pushing for us to move in line... just thought you'd be interested to know. --Dweller (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think football is different in this regard. To my knowledge, almost all Under-21 internationals do go on to play a professional game, but even Under-19 internationals from the Test playing nations sometimes never play first-class or List A cricket. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
To be pedantic, the football WikiProject regards selection for U21 as notability in and of itself, otherwise it would fall foul of WP:CRYSTAL. I 100% agree that playing U19 cricket does not confer notability in and of itself. So we agree on the answer, just differ on rationale for getting there :-) --Dweller (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Stuart Clark - yet again

No, this time it's not the weird 'Clark is Curtly' vandal, but massive addition of POV. I've hacked out some, but it's depressing me. Anyone wishing to help is more than welcome. --Dweller (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox cricket ground

I posted a comment on Template talk:Infobox cricket ground about merging {{Infobox cricket ground}} into {{Infobox Stadium}} but that page doesn't get much traffic. I thought a pointer to the discussion from here may help! -- Chuq (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Indian cricket photos

Pics of the Indian cricket team will be arriving soon! Stay posted. Uploading in progress. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Since there are many attempted photos of the same thing, I am asking for opinions on which photos are most appropriate. User_talk:Blnguyen#Straw_poll_for_selecting_photos_of_the_Indian_cricket_team_for_use_in_articles.Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
In addition to the poll, I am also needing help in identifying a few members of the Indian staff who are likely former cricketers. Help appreciated. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox for Ellyse Perry

Can someone help me with {{Infobox cricketer biography}}? I'm trying to write an article for Ellyse Perry but the infobox isn't quite working. I'm missing the Test debut and first ODI lines, although I have supplied the information. I'm not sure whether it's a bug in the infobox or in my use of it. Thanks. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it for you. You just had testdebut and odidebut rather than testdebutagainst and odidebutagainst. Andrew nixon (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. That was a documentation bug (which I've fixed). Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Lack of county logo in Surrey CCC article

Some months ago, the Surrey CCC logo was removed from the article because no rationale had been included with the image. Presumably the rationale that has permitted other county logos to survive, eg that for Yorkshire CCC would also be valid for Surrey. I couldn't find a suitable image of the logo on Surrey's own website but obtained one from a Cricinfo article on Surrey. However I then discovered how complicated the art of validly uploading an image was, and found myself out of my depth. Is there anyone familiar with the procedure who would be willing to upload the image if I emailed it to them? It's a PNG of 160x160 and is 9kb in size. TIA. JH (talk page) 21:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've downloaded, cropped and uploaded one myself. You are quite right. It is absurdly, horrifically complicated. I have been a Wikipedia editor for over three years and that took me a quarter of an hour. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for such a speedy and helpful response to my request. JH (talk page) 10:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

England Retain the Ashes!!

And I was there at Bowral. A terrific performance from the girls who went to Australia as rank underdogs. They played with skill, determination, great team spirit and, above all, smiles on their faces. What a contrast with the big boys of late. It's a real shame that with all the money currently pouring into cricket the Women's Ashes are decided in just one test. These girls play for the love of the game and have done England proud with Claire Taylor [1] as solid as the rock of Gibraltar, Isa Guha taking nine wickets, Charlotte Edwards as graceful in her batting and captaincy as ever and Sarah Taylor a real star with bat, gloves and above all personality. Let's make sure their articles reflect this. Nick mallory (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

After the third day I didn't think they'd be able to make it go to a result but bravo them. Why don't women's tours make it on the cricket season like they used to a few years ago? Was a conscious decision made or are editors less dedicated to putting up women and U21 tours or do they go somewhere else now? Is the main season page just for Tests&One-dayers? I looked at the previous season and my table on the Hong Kong Sixes tournament has been totally removed without any explanation in the discussion pages. No-one seems to talk on this project like they do on the pro-wrestling one.Tony2Times (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was following that match because of the article I just wrote on Ellyse Perry. Looks like it was an exciting one all the way through. As you say, pity it wasn't a whole series. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Did anyone else notice this extraordinary women's match that was also played today? Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

List_of_cricket_terms

Doing some gentle clean-up and stub creation surrounding this list (which will definitely lose its FL star at some point) and came across List_of_cricket_terms#X. Looks like nonsense to me - but could be a notable phrase somewhere in the world. --Dweller (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Added here. It does smell like an WP:NFT, but the user who added it is still active so you could ask him. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Ta. Done. --Dweller (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Flight (cricket) illustration help

Hi. I'm looking for help from someone who can help illustrate this article. I'd like a side-on illustration of the trajectory of a flighted ("looped", "given air") good length delivery, compared to a "flat" delivery that pitches on the same length, showing the batsman's eye level. I'd be most grateful. --Dweller (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

FLRCs

Two more cricket related FLRCs: Wisden Cricketers of the Year and English national cricket captains. -- Scorpion0422 18:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for cricket clubs?

Every so often, someone writes an article about a cricket club, which ends up at WP:AfD (there's one there at the moment). Unlike cricketers, where we have a clear notability guideline, there is nothing similar for clubs, so it's harder to be sure how to treat them.

So should we say that a club should normally have played first-class (or List A) cricket to deserve an article, or is that too strict? Is anyone aware of how other sports have tackled this issue?

Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is always WP:ORG which seems clear enough to me. From an Australian context, any club at a level lower than district or grade level (e.g. Victorian Premier Cricket) would have to demonstrate clear notability, supported by a reliable source for me to consider suitable for an article. Note: I was the nominator of the article named above. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess it's not clear enough to me because you get into the quagmire of what counts as a reliable independent source. Is the web page of the league in which they play sufficient? What about their town's newspaper? Why not? Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
So Alsager Cricket Club should get hit with an AfD as well?--Roisterer (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I would say so. In fact I'll do that now. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if the above sounded a little dismissive. It was not meant to be. Regarding the definition of a reliable source, WP:SOURCES covers this. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" I would suggest that this would not cover the overwhelming majority of league web pages especially those at a level lower than, say, Sydney Grade Cricket or Lancashire League (cricket) where the cricket is essentially social. Small town newspapers wouldn't normally demonstrate wider notability of a subject. Why not? Does a small town paper have the resources to fact check? Without being too criticial of my local paper, it normally prints press releases that I give them verbatim and the sports coverage is written by voluntary contributors who are not independent of the club. In the end it comes down to judgement calls about the source and the claim it is being used to support.
I guess I am loathe to establish guidelines for notability for specific projects such as Wikipedia:Notability (schools) as regardless of the good intentions of the creators, they nearly always work to undermine the core guideline - WP:N and Wikipedia is then filled with cruft, such as Mt Eliza CC as discussed above. If there is uncertainty about what is a reliable source, that should be dealt with at WP:V and WP:RS, not by us creating our own idiosyncratic definition at WP:CRICKET. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 10:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cricket is getting busy right now. But I've just noticed List of English cricket clubs. Almost every bluelink on there is a candidate for deletion in my view (with the possible exception of the Lancashire League). But I'll see how the current AfDs go down first. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with most of these, but I'd be tempted to argue that redirecting the articles on minor teams to the (possibly hypothetical) article on the league itself. Some club cricket teams (I won't comment on the Lancashire League, since I wrote a lot of those articles) probably do deserve articles but I'm not entirely sure how to divine which is which. --Cherry blossom tree 11:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I am unfamiliar with how the English cricket pyramid works and at what level any significant media coverage sets in. I would argue that sources could be found for Lancashire League clubs. I would not be so confident for any other clubs in England. There are also wandering clubs such as I Zingari that could clearly demonstrate notability. Finally what sort of "List of English cricket clubs" leaves off Marylebone Cricket Club! -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
We had an inconclusive discussion on this before, which is archived here. I'm minded mostly to be generous where a club is demonstrably at the highest level in the ECB pyramid and would extend this to Lancashire League teams on the basis that they formed a part of several prominent cricketers' careers (eg Sid Barnes). I don't know enough about structures in other countries to make a judgement. Johnlp (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I forgot we'd discussed it before — thanks. Another useful link from that discussion is Category:English club cricket teams. But perhaps you could guide us, John: which leagues are "at the highest level in the ECB pyramid"? Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a list of the ECB Premier Leagues here, and these are also the leagues that have their top division tables published in Wisden (pp982-985 in the 2007 edition). The Lancashire League and the Central Lancashire are outside the ECB structure; the Northern Cricket League was also outside in the 2007 Wisden, but was "ECB-approved". Now it's renamed itself as the Northern Premier Cricket League I presume it's on the inside of the ECB structure, and it's certainly on the www.play-cricket.com list (which is put together by the ECB). These leagues have promotion and relegation from and to lower divisions or feeder leagues.
I tend on principle to be inclusionist rather than deletionist and, while I suspect I wouldn't ever create any cricket club articles for teams in these leagues myself, I'm loath to delete articles that have been created in good faith by others on teams that are at the top level for amateur club cricket in their area. By all means, if they're not at this top level, then they should go - unless there are other reasons for keeping them, as there is, for instance, with Mitcham Cricket Club. Johnlp (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Supposing a side is in the top division of its ECB-approved county league, and is viewed as being notable on that basis. What happens if the next season it is relegated? If its article should be deleted, then suppose it gets promoted back to the top division the following season? JH (talk page) 21:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but there will be a problem wherever we draw the line, unless we decide to exclude everyone or include everyone. Soccer, which has a similar pyramid structure in England, seems to include rather a lot more than just the top league teams: every team in the Hellenic Football League, for instance, at levels 9 and 10 in the pyramid, has a Wikipedia article, and there are a few in feeder leagues below that. I don't think we should be that relaxed in cricket, but the teams that play in the premier leagues are at the highest level of English club cricket and that would be good enough for me. Johnlp (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just nominated eight leagues for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol & District Cricket Association League. Please comment, especially those of you who are familiar with English cricket. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Project tagging

If anyone is looking for something to do, see Category:Unassessed cricket articles. I've done up to D but have run out of steam. —Moondyne 07:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Celebrity cricket matches

Celebrity cricket matches certainly reads like a hoax, but maybe someone who knows Indian cricket could comment definitively?

Thanks,

Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Taken a look at his other few edits - all bad. Looks like certain fan fiction type nonsense to me. –MDCollins (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I've AfD'ed it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Profiling sites

Copied from User talk:WINTERJ:

" Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Stuart MacGill do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mattinbgn\talk 19:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)"

Why exactly is that site able to be called spam on sight while two other profiling sites are allowed? Does wikipedia really maintain a list of favoured external information providers as part of the external links policy? Ansell 20:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Did you happen to follow the link to the site? If you can show me what is on that site that is over and above what is on the article then I may reconsider. The Cricinfo and CricktArchive sites provide links to further stats, articles and images none of which the "WorldWideCricket" site does. It was also part of a mass adding of links (just like a spammer would) by the editor without any discussion of their appropriateness to the article. Further, Cricinfo and CricketArchive has built up a reasonable reputation as reliable sources while this new site has not. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Doosraful

Surely this doesn't warrant an article? Crickettragic (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

One delivery given a nickname by the media does not warrant an article. This statement: "This is the only instance in modern day cricket where a ball was bowled with two bounces." is incorrect, as I've seen it on TV a few times in recent years.Andrew nixon (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't even named by the media, just some fans in this forum I believe - Crickettragic (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I've AfD'ed it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

SatyrBot to tag all cricket articles with project template

From AWB, I have gotten hold of a list of all the categories under the hierarchy of Category:Cricket. If there are no objections, I am going to ask SatyrTN (talk · contribs) to run his bot to tag all the articles under these subcats with the project tag for us. Comments? Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 01:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to give the link. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Categories2. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree. On a related matter, most category talk pages have a {{CricketWatch}} (there wouldn't be many that don't). This was done for a now defunct program of having a megalist of cricket articles maintained by User:WatchlistBot. That bot is now inactive (nothing since August last year, and its owner hasn't edited since December), and the list is being maintained manually. Given that its probably hopelessly out of date by now, perhaps you should ask Satyrbot to remove the CricketWatch tag from category talk pages at the same time. —Moondyne click! 02:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll have to do those in two separate runs. The tagging is a program I've already set up - the "un" tagging I'll have to work on :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
So am I using {{WikiProject Cricket}} ?? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 04:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
And are there any parameters to put in there (like put in "|importance=" on all of them)? And finally, should I automatically assess as Stub, FA, and/or GA? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess putting "|class=" and "|importance=" on all of them. I guess if something is already tagged FA or GA, then it should be duplicated. I'm not sure about the stubs though. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 04:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
If the article has a stub template, I would say it can automatically be assessed as Stub. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The result from the bot operating on Talk:Fielding (cricket) suggests that it may have a bug. And on Talk:Peter Wynne-Thomas too. JH (talk page) 20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Thank you. I've just run a subset of the categories, so I'll work out the bug before I run the rest of them. Thanks for pointing this out. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay - got that fixed. I'm going to run another set of 500 categories. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

ICL Notability

I don't think this applies yet, but it may be worth discussing it for the future. If a player plays in the Indian Cricket League but has not played first-class or List A cricket, is he notable? The ICL is a fully professional league after all. And while we're at it, where would we stand on the Pro Cricket league in the US a few years back, also a fully professional league? My hunch is that all players in both leagues are notable, but what does eveyone else think? Andrew nixon (talk) 14:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

U think the ICL players must all be notable, though the point is probably rather moot since, as I understand it, the ICL clubs are only interested in hiring well-known players. I don't know enough about the US league to comment on that. JH (talk page) 18:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The ICL has hired a lot of young indian players as well as retiring australians. Nick mallory (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Some pictures

Hi folks - I took some pictures at the SCG a while ago, and think I may have some useful shots of some notable cricketers... thoughts for article 'suitability' most welcome - here are the shots..... Privatemusings (talk) 22:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I should note that I went ahead and added some where I felt they might work;

These are very good indeed and would be very useful in some of the biographies of named players. Excellent stuff. Johnlp (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, they're great, nice work. :) The last one would obviously be best with an action shot of a ball flying to the slips but having both of them in tandem as they are now still works great (and beggars can't be choosers, etcera, eh? :)). AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the positive feedback, guys! - I'm actually not allowed to edit the 'BLP' articles at the moment (long arbcom related story....) but would love to see the shots in there, so please do go ahead and add them wherever you think they fit! thanks!, Privatemusings (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Out of interest, do you have any clue who the other batsman in the partnership pic is? I'm fairly sure it's Harbhajan but it could be Kumble or even RP Singh... Added it to Tendulkar's bio, though. Also added one to Hussey's article. (I'm near-certain that's him in the slips pic.) Couldn't really fit any of the other pics in to their respective articles, though. Cheers, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain it's Harbhajan too - but if we absolutely have to be certain, then I can attest that the timestamps on the image are accurate, so we just need to look at the scorecard for Day 3 at the SCG. I'd go as high as 90% for Hussey too.... thanks for adding the pics! Privatemusings (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
ps - i think this shot might work quite well above the the parternship shot in tendulkar's bio 'return to form' section, it's Sachin celebrating his hundred - thoughts? Privatemusings (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Cool, I'll look in to the Harbhajan thing some more. The thing it just simply looks like no-one else really... Too short for most of the Indian team; and short hair so can't be Dhoni/Sharma. I was only going on it being one of Tendulkar's batting partners on the third day and that was Ganguly onwards; assuming 12:47 as local time that's 01:47 GMT. CricketArchive's commentary doesn't have timestamps all the time, but there's one about an hour before; at 5 minutes/over that's 12 overs later, or juts about when Kumble's coming in; but Harbhajan came in very shortly after, so I think that's a safe bet. The next timestamp is at 03:00 GMT which doesn't really help. Either way, nobody below Ganguly is that tall without hair that would be showing.
The zinc cream (or whichever equivalent) he uses is a dead give-away for the Huss. :p
Yes actually, that probably is better thinking about it. I'll go switch it now. Thanks for pointing it out :) Added. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 22:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Player naming question

I was going to create an article on the first player of Chinese descent to appear in Australian first-class cricket, however I'm not sure whether to call him "Hunter Poon" (the name under which he played his sole fc match) or "Ander Poon" (his birthname). It turns out Poon only became Hunter because the clerk registering the birth couldn't understand Poon's father's accent. Cricketarchive and cricinfo name him Hunter Poon whereas the Oxford A-Z of Australian cricketers names him Ander. Any thoughts gratefully accepted.

While I'm at it, how does a player who played first-class cricket in December 1923 rank on the list of "Earliest players of Chinese descent to play first-class cricket"? Ellis Achong, the first to come to mind, made his f-c debut in 1930 but presumably there are earlier examples? --Roisterer (talk) 05:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with Hunter Poon. I personally think articles should always be named after how a player is referred to, then introduced as "<Full name>, better known as <other/nick name>," or something to that effect. My personal opinion, maybe? Not sure who agrees with it but I'd definitely put it that way round.
Speaking of that, would anyone mind if I moved Abraham de Villiers to AB de Villiers for this very reason? Cheers, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't actually care too much which title an article has: as long as there are proper redirects it doesn't matter much. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Norm O'Neill dies

Great strokemaker, compared to Mark Waugh. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 23:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Lagaan#Error_in_no-ball_rule

Is it true that if the batsman charges a bowler out of the crease then the height of the ball is irrelevant? In the movie Lagaan, teh British officer charges down the pitch and the Indian mystic tosses the ball about 4 metres over his head and has him stumped. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 03:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The height is decided in relation to batsman's normal stance. It is irrelevant to Lagaan because we are talking about a rule introduced in the early 1990s. Tintin 03:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
So in the context of Lagaan in 1893, it was legal? Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 03:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Lob bowling also briefly deals with it, and this too. Tintin 04:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Even now the rule applies only OD matches, afaik. Lagaan match wasn't a limited overs match. Tintin 04:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Re. the above,
  • 1947 code 42.6 is the first version to declare fast short pitched bowling as "unfair" and if the bowler persists, the umpire can ask the captain to take the bowler off. No mention of no balls or beamers. (It is always possible that a rule had already been informally tried out for a few years before it was written into the laws).
  • The mention of fast full pitched balls (beamers) find their first mention in the 1980 code Law 42.8,9. Intimidatory bowling - short pitched or beamers - can lead to a warning, then no ball, and finally the bowler being taken off. No mention of slow beamers.
  • The 2000 code Law 42 extends it to include slow deliveries rising over the shoulder of the batsman. The wording is slightly confusing but it seems that any beamer, and repeated bouncers are no balls. Tintin 06:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Lucky we have you here to fix all my errors. I wasn't aware that beamers were also legal!! Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 04:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)