Talk:Pakistan national cricket team/Archive 1

Current team
Under "current team", changed Abdur Razzaq to Abdul Razzaq, the former was linked to the wiki page referring to the Bangladeshi cricketer. -fkh82

Some guy called Saeed Ahmad is grafftiing this saying himself he is a captain and a bowler as there is no such


 * It is actually Saeed Ahmed. Am adding him back in the list of captains but not in the list of batsmen as whether to include him in that list would be a matter of opinion. Tintin (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
Pakistan Cricket Team Test Squad 2011-2012 Misbah-ul-Haq (captain), Asad Shafiq, Abdur Rehman, Adnan Akmal, Aizaz Cheema, Azhar Ali, Imran Farhat, Junaid Khan , Mohammad Hafeez, Saeed Ajmal, Shoaib Malik, Taufeeq Umar, Umar Gul, Wahab Riaz, Younis Khan	 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immnk (talk • contribs) 17:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone here aware of wiki's NPOV policy? The quanity of superlatives employed would make a local Urdu daily proud.

This page is a poor reflection on wiki in general and Pakistan cricket in particular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.165.146.59 (talk • contribs)


 * If we're going to use a NPOV flag, can we also follow Wikipedia's flagging criterion, that being to specify what is in fact wrong with it in clear terms rather than saying "it is POV". Thanks. M0RHI | Talk to me 13:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Notable Cricketers
We should Pakistani cricketer Alimuddin to the list of notable cricketers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.96.187 (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2009 (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://usa.cricinfo.com/db/STATS/PAK/BY_OPPONENT/IND-PAK/ODI/IND-PAK_ODI_SERIES_SUMMARY.html|accessdate=1
 * In Pakistani cricket team on Mon Jul 17 16:02:29 2006, 404 Not Found
 * In Pakistani cricket team on Thu Jul 27 00:52:25 2006, 404 Not Found

maru  (talk)  contribs 04:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ignore this as it's a bug in Maru's bot rather than a link problem. The link works fine. In any case I've changed the link so it won't be picked up again.  -- I@n 05:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

202.83.175.150 (talk) 06:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

2006 Englnd vs. Pakistan 4th Test Controversy
I've removed the section on this. althought it was accurate to my knowledge, it's probably best to leave any editing of this until later this evening, when we know more about the situation - 88.105.68.243 17:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and in any case it's too early to start getting hugely worked about it and including it in every article. What we've got in the Pakistani cricket team in England in 2006 article is fine, IMO. Sam Vimes | Address me 17:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I won't argue with that. But now I've got to trudge all the other atricles removing hasty edits :-( - 88.105.68.243 17:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've put this back in- it can easily be changed if more information comes out, and given that play is ended for the day at least, and the only way the match can resume is by overruling the umpires, it is clearly a significant and notable incident. MartinMcCann 17:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but if we're going to include every single "significant and notable incident" in Pakistani cricketing history, the article would blow out of proportion. At present we've got a tour article, so in my opinion it should be left there until we know just how big this incident is. The article isn't very good at present, but at least it's not overly biased with current issues. Sam Vimes | Address me 17:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This section is totally POV and should be removed:

"Another point to note was there was no television evidence nor any photographs brought forward that showed that the ball had been tampered with by the Pakistan side. There were 26 sky sports cameras monitoring everything that was going on and if the ball had been scuffed up, then it would have been picked up by the cameras. The umpires also failed to name one certain individual whom they have seen doctoring the condition of the ball. The fact that the ball was hit into the stands a few times, hit the advertising boards, and hit concrete also put the accusation in further doubt as it is becoming more obvious that the umpires just simply assumed that the ball was tampered with." --85.210.81.175 08:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, actually, the ball was in the posession of the umpires after Cook's dismissal (51.5), and it was inspected again (and deemed to have been tampered with) only a few overs later (55). In the minutes between the two inspections the ball had not been hit in to the stands, and had only gone for a single four. One would assume that the fact the ball had changed so much in such a short time was the reason tampering is suspected. I don't think the fact that it was hit out of the ground a couple of times has anything to do with the condition of the ball, so this POV part should be removed. - Feebtlas 10:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Assuming is not good enough. If you were listening to the commentators, they were always saying that Darrell Hair needs some sort of evidence, Video or Visual, that ball tampering has been done.  What if that four you're talking about hit concrete, or hit and advertising board?  That can always change the condition of the ball.  What also could have happened after Cook's dismissal was that umpires thought that they condition of the ball wasn't the best, but good enough.  If you would have looked at the ball in the umpires hand, that was a typical 56 overs old ball.  And also the fact that it was hit hard for fours and sixes a few times, does put this accusation in further doubt.  This Part of the Article is right should remain there as it speaks the truth.


 * The umpires do not require to report anyone. Surrey were penalised for ball tampering last season without naming any player by name. Do you mean that if sky cameras did not pick up something, it did not happen ? Tintin (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, they don't need to report. But in the past, it always has been that the umpires have told the fielding team's captain that he didn't like the condition of the ball and that he doesn't like whats going on or something.  Thats just a friendly way of how cricket has been running for years.  So according to you, Surrey was penalised without naming.. big deal!  There is a difference between County and Test cricket.  Also for your last part, if it was not picked on camera, then its VERY HIGHLY LIKELY that it was NOT done.  It doesn't mean it wasn't done, but it makes it a lot less unlikely.  The cameras are monitoring pretty much whats going on the field.  And the number of cameras is not small either.  26 Cameras-- thats quite a lot of cameras.


 * The law does not need the umpire to provide any sort of "proof" or name any one. The laws are the same whether it is county cricket or Tests. Despite having so many cameras, they still miss runouts and cannot gets the right pics for boundary hits now and then (like in the Dhoni incident), despite knowing where the action was. Silly isn't it ? Tintin (talk) 11:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously it is not required but naming captain for ball-tampering easily suggests that if the umpires only THOUGHT that the ball was tampered with, they don't know who did it. Just because law says this and that, its not always going to be that way.  THERE IS PROOF REQUIRED, and the umpire MUST SEE SOMEONE TAMPERING WITH THE BALL.  Not everyone goes by law, in fact there are many people critcizing the law.  Simple as that -- You NEED some PHYSICAL EVIDENCE and NAME a certain player whom you have SEEN TAMPERING THE BALL from your eyes. And thats how it has been in history. The ball looked in good shape for a ball that would be 56 overs old.  And for your last part, how often do they miss run outs?  Like seriously.  They only miss it when its extremely close, and it only happens rarely. Most of the times, even close one run outs are caught up by the cameras.  These two incidents like the Dhoni one, where no one was sure if it was out or if it was runs, and this ball tampering cannot be compared, my friend.  If you remember the Afridi incident at Faisalabad, I don't even think Ten sports had that many cameras as Sky sports, and they still caught everything.  If you remember when Mike Atherton tampered the ball, it was caught on the camera.  Here there is no video or visual evidence.  And shall I repeat, you NEED some evidence to covince the fans think that ball-tampering was done.  You can just use the laws and convict someone of ball tampering, but the public and the fans will not believe you, especially when you convict the captain.  You will only convince yourself by doing that (and ofcourse ICC) that ball tampering was done.


 * Nothing of that sort. The umpires are experienced enough to know the difference between a damage caused by the ball hitting the bat or advertising boards, and by human nails (or that is the supposition). If the ball shows signs that the seam has been pulled up or whatever, and if that was not done by the batsmen or the umpires themselves, who do you think did it ? Btw, the 26 cameras is very misleading figure. It includes, for example, the four used for tracking runouts, the two inside the stumps etc. In reality, there are probably three or four which focus on the player who has the ball. So it will probably catch it, or it may not. It is not like 26 cameras are focused on a single individual from all sides at any point of time.


 * Okay, so four or five cameras following the player who has the ball. Thats good enough for me.  Obviously not all cameras will follow everything.  But if something would have happened, those few cameras would have caught it.  In reality, there was no ball tampering done and the umpires simply assumed that it was done.

Tintin (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just wondering, is it time to remove this ball-tampering controversy from the controversy list? It's more than a year old now and a lot of people have forgotten about it.  Also the fact that allegations were proven to be false meant people didn't care as much about it as they would have if they were true.  Just something to look at.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.106.65 (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

POV
I've tagged this article for POV. It is very nationalistic. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits
I would tend to agree that this article should only discuss the ball tampering controversy when it affects the Pakistani Cricket Team, so Hair's offer to resign doesn't really fit here. Any other thoughts? --Cherry blossom tree 00:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. The bits that I removed were also POV and inappropriate, casting aspersions on Darrell Hair. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree also. That information should of course go in the Darrell Hair article, but not here. Andrew nixon 00:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hair's offer to resign was something that is very important in this controversy. It was one of the reasons why he got fired (even though ICC didn't say that but they realized the true character of Darrell Hair). His offer has a lot to do with this controversy because it also really strengthend Pakistan's case, because the controversy didn't end at the Oval on the 20th of August.  A lot happened in this controversy latter on, including this incident Hair offering to resign.  It's one of the most integral part of this controversy, and if you're going to mention talk about this controversy anywhere, you must also mention about this Hair's offer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.50.19.195 (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC).


 * I agree that Hair's offer to resign is important in a discussion of the controversy, but if you look at the article's title, it says Pakistani cricket team. Hence this article should cover the controversy as it relates to the Pakistani team. The Darrell Hair article already includes the resignation offer, as that does belong there. Could you please explain to us how details of Darrell Hair's resignation has anything to do with the Pakistani cricket team? Andrew nixon 19:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Its not just about Pakistan cricket team. Pakistan team was involved in this controversy, but this incident is an integral part of this controversy. I am not listing a while profile of Darrell Hair, but this incident should be mentioned here as this was one of the reasons why he got fired from international games, and at the end of the controversy, that's what PCB and Pakistan wanted to happen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.48.215.171 (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC).


 * So there is no reply in reply to my post. Does that mean nobody can counter what I said and I should go ahead and put Hair's resignation offer on the main page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.228.73.157 (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC).


 * No it means that you still haven't convinced us that is should go on the article. The article is about the Pakistani cricket team, not Darrell Hair. The information is quite welcome on the Darrell Hair page, indeed it is already there. You will notice that you are the only one who actually thinks it belongs. Hardly a consensus. Also, it might help if you registered an account, and also signed your posts like this: ~ Andrew nixon 22:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're repeating the same thing over and over again. And I have no choice but to repeat my self as well.  If you aren't convinced by this, then nothing is going to convince you.  And also, this retirement offer was here earlier a few months ago when I visited this page; Surely it didn't appear there by itself.  You will also notice that all the people opposing this are non-Pakistanis, including you.  Also many indians are involved in this article, and we know what that can mean.  I don't need to talk about that.  As for registering, I will register when I have time.   —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.70.0.37 (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC).


 * There's another paragraph. This text: "The series was a controversial one as the Pakistani team got accused of ball tampering, particularly by the English media. Reverse swing soon expanded around the cricket world and more and more bowlers started to master reverse swing, including English bowlers. In the end, it was concluded that the Pakistani bowlers were simply ahead of their team.". Who concluded Pakistani bowlers were ahead? A few months back Afridi said you can't reverse swing it without an element of tampering. Does that suggest Pakistani bowlers have always been better than English bowlers? Someone needs to fix it.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 03:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The person adding the part about Darrell Hair has done it again. I have inserted a comment where he puts the text asking to not insert it again without discussing it first here. If it continues, we may have to look at protecting the page from non-registered users, though I'd rather not have to. Andrew nixon 16:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Added Bagh-e-Jinnah Cricket Ground in Lahore and Defence Housing Authority Cricket Staduim in Karachi as grounds where Test/ODIs have been played.Fayselaslam (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews
70.55.88.134 03:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Shahid Afridi's domestic team
I am writing here after User:User aaqib12 edited twice the domestic team of Shahid Afridi. So Mr. Aaqib I must tell you that you are editing the Domestic team of Shahid Afridi, not his ethincity to a city, which you may be confused with. And his Domestic team can be confirmed at Shahid Afridi's profile at PCB's Official website. Secondly(not much related to the article) you said in your edit summary that there are no khans in Karachi, i must add this to your knowledge that there are many Khans residing in Karachi and Shahid Afridi also resides at Karachi. -- S M S  Talk 18:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

New Section for Recent and Upcoming matches
I will create a new section for the recent (Last 5 matches) and upcoming matches played by Pakistan cricket team in all forms. If you have any objection then say here. ThanksManagerarc (talk) 09:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah ... no in short. That would be WP:Undue weight - recent matches aren't necessary for an article on a team. Add your info to the specific series article.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 10:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Check the article of the South African team, Why can't we have the same thing for the Pakistani team. I see no problem in it. Managerarc (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that there should be no section on upcoming matches, but also think that there should be uniformity between the two pages. Is there a way to merge this discussion with the editors of that page to decide the best outcome for both pages?bigforrap (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Batting & Bowling feats cleanup?
Pakistan_national_cricket_team

Somehow, I don't think being the 14th best player is significant enough. Should we limit the feats to those within the top 10?bigforrap (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Is Saeed Anwar still the record holder for highest ODI score?
I thought a Zimbabwean beat him in a minnows match. Plaease clarify?bigforrap (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He equalled the record and didn't beat himManagerarc (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked...he was not out, but had a lower strike rate. But being not out, I would have thought that he had passed Saeed Anwar's (who got out) record? bigforrap (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, he remained not out that puts him on top of the list, but still Saeed Anwar remain as the joint record holder. Managerarc (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"After gaining independence from the British Empire in 1946"
Who added this line? a) Independence was gained in 1947 b) This line was not before... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.250.4 (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Main page states that Shoaib Malik is banned but he is playing against England today - 30th July 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.204.143 (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

'Batting Feats' table
I'm planning on implementing one of these tables into the article. I made them using only the information already on the page. Please vote on which is better, and also make your own based on it if you think mine is lacking. thanks bigforrap (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Usamaanees, 9 September 2010
Hey, i just wanted to update the squad and add some players for a wider range as well as maybe put in the under 19 squad. Thanks

Usamaanees (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Usamaanees

Edit request from Mfchamp, 16 November 2010
Shoaib Akhtar 35 Right-hand bat Left arm fast-medium Rawalpindi N/A 13 6 Most of that line is correct except for the "Left arm fast-medium" Akhtar is Right arm fast. Or Right arm fast-medium at least. The line is underneath Personnel, Current Roster.

Mfchamp (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done This was fixed yesterday by Bigforrap. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 15:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Added 20 Nov Test match to 'Current Squad'
Ie, to the # of matches played. So dont add one more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigforrap (talk • contribs) 12:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC) Afridi scored his maiden century in his maiden innings in 1996, against Kenya. He was originally in the team as a bowling replacement for Mushtaq Ahmed, and walked out as a pinch-hitter up the order wielding Waqar Younis' bat.......this is wrong, Afridi scored it against SRILANKA, the match was played in KENYA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.227.222 (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 21 October 2011
Immnk (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC) Pakistan Cricket Team new Coach is Mohsin Hassan Khan


 * I've updated the infobox. Next time, include sources or your suggestions are likely to be ignored. Nev1 (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan team page singled out for "Controversies"
I previously removed the "controversies" section from "Pakistan national cricket team" page. However, it was added back with comments "not a good reason to remove that; Probably others were not involved in controversies or if they were better to add it to their articles". This argument is totally absurd. Below are different wikipedia pages which cover these "Controversies" in detail: Ball Tampering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_tampering Match fixing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betting_controversies_in_cricket Doping: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_sport_%28T%29

Needless to say that other teams also have had their fair share of controversies. Regarding the point "... if they were better to add it to their articles", well try adding controversies section to "India national cricket team" for a start; It just wouldn't be allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.2.12 (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The rationale that other articles don't mention such things has no value in this case. The content is very much relevant here. -- S M S   Talk 20:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --182.185.220.69 (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

hello

App logon ki team ka etna bura time kew chal raha hay. Aplog Bangladesh say es buri tareka say har rahay hai kew? keya ea aap ki team ea layak thi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.108.244.231 (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Test Cricket
Please could someone add a section about the record of the Pakistan national cricket team in test cricket? --Frans Fowler (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Lack of international cricket in Pakistan
This page - and the history pages - are notable for completely failing to mention the Pakistani team's struggles to get anyone to come to Pakistan. Test series on neutral grounds and the fact that they are a team in exile seem to be completely glossed over. Is there a reason for this? They are unique in Test cricket for this fact and it is of vital importance to their current team yet somehow one would think from reading Wikipedia that there is no problem with Pakistani cricket at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.187.67.159 (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I came to this page to recall the history of Pakistan's involuntary move of "home" matches to the UAE and was surprised to find no mention at all. I get the impression that someone is trying to pretend that the 4 March 2009 attack never happened. 209.179.87.11 (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Please feel free to add something yourselves, that is how wikipedia works. Spike &#39;em (talk) 08:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Ranking
Why does the page say that Pakistan is number 1 in all the rankings of ICC. ODI, test and T20I? When was the last time Pakistan was number 1? Please correct that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.33.159.252 (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Adamgerber80 (talk) the India nationalist attack our Pakistan pages
This hateful Indian guy Adamgerber80 (talk) from India is attacking Pakistan by covertly inserting biased information from fake India news media into all our Pakistan related pages. A very simple look at his edit history shows he is continuously editing all available Pakistan pages to make Pakistan look bad...all with a biased slant towards supporting India. And then he tries to block other Pakistani editors from putting in new information. We cannot accept Adamgerber80 (talk) putting biased information from fake India sources and secretly inserted this fake pro-India information into all of our Pakistan related pages. Pakistan will NEVER be defeated by India! Unacceptable! Pakistan is the best!220.84.130.177 (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Protection.
Protect this page. SHAHEENHUN (talk) 02:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)