Talk:2005 ICC Super Series

I have expanded this article a fair bit, should I remove the stub? DaGizza
 * Yeah, I think that's ok. Please note that I removed the Super Series from the 2005 template, as the 2005 template strictly concerns what cricinfo/Wisden defines as within the 2005 season. There's a new template full of redlinks at the bottom :) Sam Vimes 12:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Test and ODI status
My strong view is that we at Wikipedia have to report the situation that these matches will be official ODIs and an official Test, rather than allow our own views on whether these matches should be granted this status or not. I know a few WikiProject Cricket members subscribe to the ACSH and the ACSH views, but as the ACSH does not officially decide the status of international matches (the ICC does), we have to go along with the ICC, jguk 17:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

In Wikipedia which must reflect the reality which is that the status of the matches is contentious. That there is an ongoing battle between the ICC and cricket historians is a fact. The ICC may think that they are the ultimate authority. They are not! PaddyBriggs 20:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The status of the matches is contentious, yes, but we don't put every contentious claim in double quotation marks (or whatever they're called again). Otherwise we'd be putting double quotation marks around "evolution" in scientific articles, for example. The status is contentious, and that's perfectly well explained in the article, and that should IMO be enough. Sam Vimes 22:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with jguk and Sam. Putting every instance of "Test" and "ODI" in quotes is highly POV. It is an explicit declaration that these are not Tests/ODIs, which is completely one-sided.


 * I wrote the original paragraph on the controversy, and I worked hard to make it as NPOV as I could. I stand by what I wrote then (no-one except PaddyBriggs has edited it since I wrote it) and I've reverted to that version.


 * Stephen Turner 07:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't want an edit war on this. But cricket historians (of which I am one) are all agreed that the matter of the status of the matches is far from over. In fact the ICC does influence but does not not determine the eventual status of matches - the ACS and other authorities who respect the history of the game and its records do. There will be a compromise, perhaps along the lines of Bill Frindall's article. In the meantime it's right to say "Test" not Test.


 * PaddyBriggs 09:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You don't want an edit war yet time the fourth revert to 24 hours and 2 minutes after your first? and . As for the issue at hand - no other source uses "Test"s for these matches, even cricketarchive - which AFAIK is pretty close to the ACS - writes Test. . Wikipedia can not unilaterally use this terminology. Sam Vimes 10:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * In fairness, it was only his third revert &mdash; the first one was his original edit, not a revert. Stephen Turner 10:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm with jguk and Sam as well...if we put quotation marks, that means that we too deem these matches and tests to be not really tests, and thus we break the NPOV thing. So I am in favour of keeping these words quotation mark-free. And as much as cricket historians have sway, please remember that they are NOT the governing body of the sport. There is a large difference between the number crunchers and suits who keep the sport going. --J L C Leung 15:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ha, I missed all this fun ! I am also with jguk here. I share Paddy Briggs' opinion of the matches, but these articles should not be used to represent strong personal POVs.


 * I believe ACS, after showing dissent initially, has also agreed to consider them as official Tests. Tintin 23:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It looks like Paddy's on his own here, so I'm going to remove the POV notice. Stephen Turner 11:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Stephen. That's fine by me. We cover the controversy well in the latest version with Border and Grieg nicely counterbalanced. I accept that the ICC is the final arbiter (it was they who decided that the England v ROW matches in 1970 were not Tests !). PaddyBriggs 10:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is the latest from Bill Frindall:Question to Bill: Why should the Super Series scores be recorded in players' Test and limited-overs career records? Packer's World Series, which was similar to this ICC Super Series, were never recorded as official matches. How come these scores should be official?

Answer from Bill. This Superfluous Series should most definitely NOT be given Test match or limited-overs international status. These games are not internationals and the ICC's own regulations confirm that only Full Members of the ICC can participate in Test matches. Conglomerates such as World XI teams most certainly do not qualify. It is quite ridiculous that a player should be able to represent two Test teams concurrently. The ICC's main committee was far from unanimous in this controversial decision. The Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians was consulted and opposed official status being given to this junket.

The Packer series is a separate issue but I do not support their inclusion either. I will not be including the current matches in any records supplied to the BBC or published in the 'Playfair Cricket Annual'. Thankfully some of the players are embarrassed by the ICC's decision, Adam Gilchrist having publicly declared his unease with it. PaddyBriggs 09:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Scorecards
How do you guys like it? --J L C Leung 16:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you should remove the extras - not really relevant IMO. The batting time in minutes is ok, though. Maybe replace the ICC flag with a world flag? Sam Vimes 17:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If you can find a world flag, then by all means add it...but I personally think the ICC logo is a tad more relevant, since it is still an ICC World XI playing. --J L C Leung 18:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that the ICC flag should stay for this particular article, but as it happens Image:Earth flag PD.jpg would fit the bill if a world flag were ever needed. Loganberry (Talk) 23:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Sam put that one in, but I took it out again, because it didn't look like anything meaningful to me. See what you think: . A little cartoon globe on a transparent background would work though. Stephen Turner 08:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that the extras shouldn't be there unless the full scorecard is included. As for the flag, it is an ICC, and a world flag would definitely be inappropriate, since it is not a World team, but a Rest of the World team. JPD 09:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Live Coverage
Hey gents and ladies, so we're back again...It's the dead of night here in Calgary, and it's only halfway through the first ODI. I'm just wanting to check who is going to be updating the scorecards live along with myself? Sound off...:) --J L C Leung 08:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Updated the end of the innings, amazing that Sehwags 1-20 was the highlight of the bowling! --kroome111 09:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Extra Comment
The World XI were disgraceful! I preferred watching the Ashes. I especially feel sorry for Inzamam. At lease Brian Lara (very slightly) redeemed himself in the 2nd innings of the Super Test. Inzy however made no runs on the tour! A disappointing series overall  D a  Gizza  Chat  (c) 11:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * A very disappointing series all round. Part of the problem was that so many of the World XI were clearly out of form - which isn't surprising when their domestic seasons haven't really got started, and India's and New Zealand's cricket's been against Zimbabwe. Lara hasn't played competitively since July. Meanwhile all the Aussies have played cricket in England. It's just a shame that only one side bothered turning up to the matches. At least The Ashes DVD is out today, so we can be reminded of what cricket is like when two teams compete, jguk 16:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

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


 * http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/288887.html}}
 * In 2005 ICC Super Series on 2011-05-25 08:00:07, 404 Not Found
 * In 2005 ICC Super Series on 2011-06-12 01:23:20, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.espncricinfo.com/southafrica/content/story/222710.html}}
 * In 2005 ICC Super Series on 2011-05-25 08:00:07, 404 Not Found
 * In 2005 ICC Super Series on 2011-06-12 01:23:31, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://acscricket.com/Articles/2/2349.html
 * In 2005 ICC Super Series on 2011-05-25 08:00:07, 404 Not Found
 * In 2005 ICC Super Series on 2011-06-12 01:23:43, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge
Unless and until there is another similar test, List of World XI Test cricketers is a pointless duplication of part of 2005 ICC Super Series. I would have been bold and just made it a redirect but I'm not sure how the player statistics table from the List article should be integrated into the main one. jnestorius(talk) 13:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.91.148.158 (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. I'd ditch the table. There is a link to the scorecard and given there was only one game the table is just duplication of this. I may do this if I have a spare moment. Spike &#39;em (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder that this proposal is still outstanding (I know that you're busy elsewhere). Agree that it's worth merging. Klbrain (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)