Talk:Jersey cricket team in Qatar in 2019–20

The Roon Ba
Does the Roon Ba you mentioned earlier in an article talk page edit on Wikipedia? He seems to be helpful. I can only find his Twitter account (and most probably yours too) from the Jersey cricket post. Human (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * He mentioned that he used to edit on WP (football I think); I think he is busy with his website now... it is very impressive, it has scores from loads of team sports. Bs1jac (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Match 2
The CricHQ scorecard shows Qatar using 12 players (6 batting and 6 did not bat). All of the DNBs bowled. Assuming one of the bowlers has been entered incorrectly, and we will see what happens in Cricinfo, but I don't think it will affect the top scorer/bowler. Bs1jac (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Based on score on Cricbuzz Qalandar Khan was a concussion substitute for Saqlain Arshad. Ankurc.17 (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Ah That's possible. Cricinfo is still missing the second match result, despite match three saying the series result was 3-0... not sure what's happened there! Bs1jac (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * 2nd match's scorecard is updated and Qalandar Khan was indeed a sub for Saqlain Arshad. Ankurc.17 (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep I updated the player lists and stats yesterday. Bs1jac (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Match 3
Hi. Interesting that Cricinfo says Jersey scored 101 all out but CricHQ and Cricbuzz both say 101/9. Jersey only lost 9 wickets after the allocated 20 overs (with one retired hurt, not out). If there had been any balls left in the innings, it would be recorded as 'all out' (even though there were two 'not out' batsmen, as I explained before) because the retired bat wasn't fit to resume his innings. But in this case, the overs were used up and only 9 wickets had fallen so I am surprised CI has it as all out. Of course, it makes absolutely no difference to the total, or to the batsman's stats (Hawkins-Kay is correctly recorded as 'not out' in his stats), its just interesting... dont think I have seen this scenario before! Bs1jac (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Let's leave it like that. It's all CI's fault so we can just notify them of their mistake. Why not email them? Human (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes I think we have to go with CI unless it is an obvious mistake. That's the thing though, I don't know for sure. It seems illogical, especially with other databases agreeing, but I couldn't tell you 100% which is right. Just thought it was an interesting scenario. Bs1jac (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)