Talk:Fifth ODI, Australian cricket team in South Africa in 2005–06

1st news reports
noticed a few results on google which show the first news report that came out - that australia smashed the record, but then they redirect to the updated article. "Aussies smash record" for most of these redirects to "Proteas do impossible" -- Astrokey44 |talk 13:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Page title
Is there a better title for this page? It's a bit cryptic at the moment, but I can't think what to use instead without making it excessively wordy. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably need something from a cricinfo article. Australia in South Africa, 5th ODI, 2006 isn't really good enough for a match that will be remembered in history. Noble eagle   (Talk)   08:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have noticed that some South African commentators are refering to the this match as "the 438 match" I don't know how Australian commentators are referring to it. Roger 17:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this page should at least have a redirect from 438 match ( or re name it compleatly) because that is what all South Africans call it. There are a few Austrailians that call it the 434 match.Scubasteve55 (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I found it hard to find, and I knew what to search for. I've made redirects from the 438 game and 438 match, and added refs to those names in the article.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The format of this title has two inconsistencies with other cricket match pages, e.g. Second Test, 2007-08 Border-Gavaskar Trophy: firstly, to be consistent, the title should take the form of "[Game designation], [Series designation]". Secondly, although the match took place in 2006, it is correctly considered part of the 2005-06 Southern Hemisphere summer season, and should therefore be designated as such in the title (consistent with all other cricket tours). Since there is no trophy name or other more elegant designation by which the series can be referenced, this means the name should be Fifth ODI, Australian cricket team in South Africa in 2005-06. Aspirex (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In the absence of any disagreement to this proposal, I shall make the proposed change above.Aspirex (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK
I proposed this page at Template talk:Did you know. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

what links here
Greatest cricket match and Greatest match redirect here.. they might be better being directed to The Greatest Game Ever Played (disambiguation) -- Astrokey44 |talk 02:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The latter one is particularly arrogant. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Conditions info
Could we add some extra information about:
 * The type of pitch (is the ground renowned for high scores etc)
 * Yes i would say - 2003 WC Final, Australia scored 350+


 * The temperature, ground conditions etc
 * Fast outfield, look pretty hot, blue sky at start, clouds towards the end, no rain.

Day match. -- HamedogTalk 13:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Time of play - was it day/night?--Commander Keane 11:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Dippenaar
"The early loss of Boeta Dippenaar for 1 didn't help the cause" I'm not sure I agree with that. I'd argue that the early loss of Dippenaar was instrumental in South Africa's win. :) I mean it really was the early Smith/Gibbs partnership that enabled South Africa to be in a position to win the match and it was very important that Gibbs started his innings so early in the game. There's no way to verify this but I think it's highly doubtful that Dippenaar would've been able to have such a partnership with Smith. 203.212.133.70 13:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Greatest ever?
This seems a bit POV, and I think to claim this in the first paragraph because a few tabloids said this is a bit of a joke. I don't have much faith in tabloid newspapers, because I think they are more interested in glamour, so they would jump to the conclusion that MANY SIXES = THE BEST. There is no way to verify that the standard of cricket skill in the game was one of the highest ever seen - reasons for a high score could include - pro-batsman conditions (small ground, perfect pitch, more powerful cricket bats), and possibly - bad bowling. eg Hayden's 380 and Lara's 401 are not regarded as the best ever batting performances, because they were considered to be made under highly favourable conditions for batting (and weak bowling in the case of Hayden). Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC).
 * Cricinfo also said this to be the greatest match - http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005-06/AUS_IN_RSA/, look underlatest news - South Africa win the greatest game. Cricinfo is easily the best cricket website on the internet. 202.74.165.162 03:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There is however a tendency for the media to value new things above old ones. I personally think the tied world cup semi-final was a better game. But in the article we only say that many commentators are reporting it as the greatest game, which is undeniably true, and we also mention the semi-final as another candidate later on. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the reaction section balances this out a little (there are probably more quotes or viewpoints that could be sourced to expand here on the points you make). But perhaps the leading paragraph needs to be qualified a little. Regarding "The match broke many records,", what other records besides highest score & highest chase did the match break? Should we restrict this statement to breaking run scoring records? WhiteCat 07:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See The Records Section!-- HamedogTalk 08:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Apart from being record breaking it was also a thriller, I agree with the idea of it being the greatest match ever played. Noble eagle    (Talk)   08:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Links
I tried the first two links in the list. Number one is a dead link. Number two is a ball by ball commentary of an old semi final world cup match between SA and Australia which isnt relevant to this match. I fear for the remaining list of links. Tyhopho 07:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Number two is a reference for the claim "Some followers of the game consider this to be the greatest game of all time [1][2]." in the background paragraph, which is why it's relevant. Number one has now been replaced with a link that's working for me, at least. Sam Vimes 07:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section
What do other people think about the Trivia section of this article? I removed it on the grounds that no doubt lots of people made lots of comments which could later be interpreted as predictions, and only the most accurate ones were remembered. This is especially true of the South African team trying to encourage each other that they could just win. But worst of all, most of the "eerily precise prognostications" are actually surprisingly imprecise. If they happened as reported, one of the four was accurate, two were inaccurate, and one was very non-specific and was only said after the conclusion of the match. Is that really the best they could come up with from four hours of conversations? It seems to me that it's the kind of thing which is interesting for a newspaper article, but doesn't really stand up to serious scrutiny.

Anyway, the (I think) original author just restored it on the grounds that it was credibly sourced (which I don't dispute) and that the facts will linger in the collective memory about this match (which can't be proved or disproved yet; I'm slightly skeptical, but I can't judge from here how much currency these predictions have in South Africa now).

So after all that, I thought I'd bring it here. What do other people think?

Thanks,

Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I was the original author and can see your point, but would argue that such "trivia" will be exactly the kinds of 'cute' anectdotes people will remember about this game in the years to come. Yes, many of the player's bold "predictions" were slightly imprecise (and perhaps "precise" should be changed to something more, uh, precise), but we could certainly say the same about Nostradamus (he mispelled Hitler's name for instance), yet the man is still held in high regard in some corners for his "eerily precise prognostications" (or, at least, approximations of such). At the end of the day, I don't see how the "Trivia" section detracts from the article (which it would if it was improperly sourced), yet it certainly does something to the "story" of this game. It is information in which some people are interested and so I can't really see why you want to deny access to that information. I'm not sure also what you mean by "serious scrutiny". What exactly is the difference between what should go in to a newspaper article and what should go into Wikipedia?

--140.247.246.121 10:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted. I'll take your word for it on the reference, 140.247.246.121, but I do dispute the relevance to the facts of the game. Is there meant to be a claim for some sort of causal connection between the prognostications (sic) and the result? If so, such a link has not been established. If not, it is tangential at best. Consistency with WP:TRIVIA would put a lot of pressure on this section's retention on these grounds, in my view. More importantly (from a cricket lover's PoV), this section detracts from the Wiki record of one of the most thrilling sporting events I have ever seen, by clouding the reportage with extraneous and debatable material. The undisputed facts of the central narrative of this match provide all the amazement and drama anyone could want. Why spoil it by adding this stuff? If one wants to proselytise about prognostication, the main article on a particular cricket match is not the place to do it - knock yourself out writing something new on predictions in sport, and link here by all means. Deoxyribonucleic acid trip (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Background
"For some years, there has been intense rivalry between Australia and South Africa in One-Day Internationals, dating from the semi-final of the 1999 Cricket World Cup..." Is that really the best we can do? The "intense rivalry" goes back a lot further than 1999! In fact it is about a century old. Together with England these countries have been figting for world dominance for as long as international cricket has existed. Roger (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)