Talk:Daryll Cullinan

Untitled
I won't revert a second time, though the article is woefully short as it stands. However, I will attempt to start discussion on the paragraph that has now been removed twice:


 * The Herald Sun claimed he was the "batting bunny" of Shane Warne, and Cullinan has been dismissed four times by Warne, for a batting average of 2.75 whenever he was out to Warne. During one Test, Warne is said to have remarked that he'd been waiting two years for another chance to humilate Cullinan. Cullinan replied "Looks like you've spent it eating.".

I don't understand what is wrong with this; it's all verifiable (the second bit is, admittedly, an anecdote, as shown by a Letter to the Observer), but it is nevertheless true. If you feel the article focuses too much on Cullinan's failures against Warne, by all means write more on his career - but it is true, verifiable, and notable (Cricinfo mentions it in the second sentence of his short biography, for example).

If no reasonable argument for removing it has been provided within the next 24 hours, I'll put the content back. Sam Vimes 20:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I understand, Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Of all the things you could have written about Darryl Cullinan, you chose to input the "bunny" story and virtually nothing else about a career that spanned nearly 20 years. You did not write about the records he broke or any other achievements. The only 'notable', 'verifiable' and true thing you could come up with was about Darryl Cullinan being Shane Warnes' bunny. Thats interestingly selective - especially considering that Wikipedia is supposed to be about providing balanced information - you certainly have not done that. If I was a new cricket enthusiast and knew nothing about Darryl Cullinan - the only thing that I would be able to surmise from the ridiculous article was his batting average and the fact that he was Shane Warnes bunny. BoltonD 09:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added some more relevant facts about his career and included the bunny stuff. The Shane Warne page does not use a reference about Cullinans failings against Warne, so neither should this page. BoltonD 09:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * See? Adding stuff works better than removing it. Now I'm perfectly happy (after adding some wikilinks, and the reference to the Herald Sun again - you might think it a nuisance, but unfortunately Wikipedia requires all opinion (such as "he was the bunny of Warne") to be cited with a source. Oh, and by the way, if you're the same guy as Dude X you might like to read Sockpuppets - not accusing you of misusing accounts, but people will if you start voting for the same thing twice, for example, so just bear that in mind. If you're not, then just disregard the advice. Sam Vimes 10:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Re this change that I made. Cullinan played 7 Tests against Australia, all of which included Warne, and scored 153 @ 12.75 and a HS of 47. The Statsguru "Batsmen against bowler" is very misleading. It just adds up the innings in which a batsman was dismissed by a particular bowler and computes the average. In his 12 completed innings, Cullinan was dismissed 4 times by Warne and his scores were 0, 0, 2, and 9 (11/4 = 2.75). This does not in any way mean that he "averaged 2.75 against Warne". For all we know, he might have scored all the 47 runs of his highest innings against Warne. Tintin (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

= Bunny? =

What is a 'batting bunny'? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bertus (talk &bull; contribs).


 * Heh, it's probably worth a link to Cricket terminology (for rabbit). It's basically saying, when he got out to Warne, he did it for low scores.