Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 59

What should this article be named?
The article - Pakistan Vs Australia UAE 2009 - needs a better name but Australian cricket team in Pakistan in 2008–09 is a little misleading. Any ideas? -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I found Australia against Pakistan in United Arab Emirates in 2009. It was very hard to find however
 * Is there an article on the Test series played partly in Sri Lanka and partly in the UAE between Aust. and Pak.? -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I don't think that 2009 series' article's title is correct. In line with our style guide, think it should be Australian cricket team against Pakistan in (the) United Arab Emirates in 2009; I'm not sure whether that "the" is correct or not, hence the brackets and why I haven't just gone ahead and moved it.


 * Secondly, the best I can find on the earlier series is a brief mention in the (now rather out of date) History of cricket in Pakistan from 2001 article; it's under "International tours of Pakistan", which is of course misleading for that particular tour. I suppose the full title would have to be Australian cricket team against Pakistan in Sri Lanka and (the) United Arab Emirates in 2002–03, which is one heck of a mouthful! Loganberry (Talk) 01:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy with "Australian cricket team against Pakistan in UAE in 2009". I don't think the "the" is necessary, nor is the full name of the country.  "UAE" is fairly specific. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Categorisation of these tours in "neurtral" venues is also problematic. There is a category for International cricket tours of Pakistan, but this does not really apply here. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me, or from seeing the snippets on the TV news that a very high percentage of wickets have fallen to very odd nothing shots or just rank poor batting. The quality of batting seems very poort from both teams  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The quality of both teams isn't real good.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk)

Books on the Invincibles tour
Does anyone know of more detail books than Fingleton, or alt sources. I am aware of Perry's book, he lifted off fingleton and padded a bit more. The Tests in Perry's book are a lift of Fingleton  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 06:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have the 1949 edition of Wisden? The online archive only seems to have snippets. Do you have the tour match reports and the parts about Saggers and Tallon? I wonder if you could get a digital camera and snap the pages and email them to me. Thanks  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 07:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have 1949 Wisden. But also have very heavy load at work and home. Will try and find time to snap images and send through. --Dweller (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Australian national cricket captains
nominated List of Australian national cricket captains for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Keith Miller doco on Australian TV
Australian Story, 8pm on Monday, ABC. Replayed at 12:30? Saturday afternoon.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 02:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good to know.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 02:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Roland Perry is one of the "expert pundits"  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 00:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wasn't too bad.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 10:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Part 2 next week  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good news :)  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 06:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I read the header as "Keith Miller disco on Australian TV". I'm not sure, but I think he might have been amused by that. --Dweller (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting the second part was.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 00:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As an aside I read that it was one of the highest rating docos on Oz tv (unfortunately I missed it but no doubt it will be available on DVD)--Roisterer (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC).

The fake IPL blogger
I guess it had to be created sooner or later. Is it notable? Hmmm ... -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly Not Notable Most Edits are from Anon or Red guys Bharath (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Much of it is copyvio from here.  [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 16:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Tagged for AFD SGGH ping! 17:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Under-19 cricket teams
At the moment, all of the national under-19 teams articles are given titles of the form Australian U-19 cricket team, which is out of step with the full national sides in that it uses the adjective form of the nation's name, and also abbreviates "Under-19" for no obvious reason. The category, Category:U-19 cricket teams, also has the pointless abbreviation. The team articles could be moved simply enough to something more sensible (Australia Under-19 cricket team - currently just a redirect, and many nations, Zimbabwe for one, don't even have that), but changing the category would presumably require a CFD discussion. Loganberry (Talk) 00:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, a question: Zimbabwe Under-19 cricket team or Zimbabwe under-19 cricket team? Loganberry (Talk) 23:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * under-19 for me&mdash;MDCollins (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Under-19" for me, on the grounds that the official name of the team is presumably "Zimbabwe Under-19". On a related point, I'm not sure that there's any justification for the hyphen. JH (talk page) 08:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you should follow the convention used by a regularly verifiable source and CricketArchive entitles this match for example as Australia Under-19s v India Under-19s. So I think the article names should be Australia Under-19s cricket team, India Under-19s cricket team, etc. --Orrelly Man (talk) 09:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Other sports also use "under" not "U" so sounds good to me. SGGH ping! 16:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Different replies; different opinions! I tried a Google search on the ECB site (I know that's only one nation) for the phrase england under 19, and got these results: for no obvious reason, the ECB seem to use the hyphen as a matter of course in articles, but leave it out as a matter of course in scorecards. "Under" is definitely capitalised, though. In the absence of a clear official name (at least, I can't find one on the ECB's cluttered site) I'm attracted by Orrelly Man's idea of following CricketArchive. I would assume that (assuming this idea found favour) we'd then propose at CFD that the appropriate category be renamed Category:Under-19s cricket teams. Loganberry (Talk) 16:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Current sport
I've started a discussion on the guidelines of Template:Current sport and their application here, for those who are interested. --Conti|✉ 15:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Heads-up for Yorkshire editors: long-standing partnership records fall
Today's third-wicket partnership of 346 between Joe Sayers and Anthony McGrath against Warwickshire is a new Yorkshire record stand against anyone for the third wicket, beating Sutcliffe and Leyland's 328* v Glamorgan in 1928. It is also a record for Yorkshire against Warwickshire for any wicket, beating Holmes and Oldroyd's 333 for the second wicket in 1922. Loganberry (Talk) 14:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Good to see Sayers back in the runs after a long lean spell and McGrath is a much better player now then when he lucked into playing for England for five minutes. The sad thing about that game was the eclipse of Michael Vaughn, after Bopara's excellent hundred, he's got no chance of getting back into the England team. Let's hope he scores a few for Yorkshire this season, there's a first time for everything I suppose. Nick mallory (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_29
Fyi. --Dweller (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CFD is so annoying. Even when people work full time for BBC or Paris by Night their cat gets deleted  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 06:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Tail-enders
There's currently pages on Tail-end and Tail-ender as well as a section on the batting order article. Is there a need to cover much the same information in three places or can they be merged? --Jpeeling (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Both redirected to the section. SGGH ping! 22:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Geoffrey Boycott
FAC time? SGGH ping! 16:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * At GAN now. SGGH ping! 17:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The dates in teh refs are not in a consistent format. Also some article titles are italicised and others not. The lead is too short. I guess a lot of people out there know more about the 1965-80 era, I hardly know anything about it  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No reason you couldn't fix it all on the run at FAC. Not much traffic on cricket articles at FA nowadays :(  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 02:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I;ve gone through some of the links, a slow process I shall continue with over time. The lead has a little bit more in, but not sure what to give it. SGGH ping! 12:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I can see some unsourced comments redolent of POV or OR. Try searching the article for occurrences of the word "favourite", for example. --Dweller (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * think I've got it, the "favourite" uses (as in it was his favourite shot) is just what is said in the sources cited after if, but i've re-worded it anyway. SGGH ping! 13:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone able to GA-check this one for me and upgrade it or review it if its not ready? If it gets promoted to GA I'll put it up for FAC SGGH ping! 12:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have ducked out of GAR as it is one of the slowest processes on Wiki, and there is little doubt that it would have passed, and gone straight to FAC. See Featured article candidates/Geoffrey Boycott/archive1 SGGH ping! 13:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And Featured article candidates/Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/archive1  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 04:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Be proud
"(cricketer)" came out as the 19th most common disambiguator term in the recent survey. --Dweller (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Cricket at the Asian Games
Twenty20 format approved by the games council today according to Cricinfo. The article though contains some poorly formatted stuff about an earlier approved decision in 2007 for an ODI format. Anyone have any clue as to whether this was actually approved, then later rejected? Or should this news just overwrite it? HornetMike (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I seem to recall it being discussed but never approved. Andrew nixon (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

World Cricket League
Anybody think that there isn't really any need for this: ICC World Cricket League 2009–13 when the main World Cricket League article does the job just fine. The new article isn't even accurate.Andrew nixon (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard Ellison and WP:PRIME
Anyone fancy making an argument that the cricketer is clearly more notable? --Dweller (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure of this one, but the same person also moved John Davison to make way for a disambiguation page that included a relatively minor MP - that's probably a more easily won fight! Andrew nixon (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that he is...  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 00:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Who is? And what? --Dweller (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think both are better suited as disimbaguation pages anyway, given that there are most than 2 John Davison's and Richard Ellison's are probably of equal notability. SGGH ping! 09:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure about the word "disimbaguation". Sounds a bit like taking your trousers off in public. Johnlp (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's really very funny! --Dweller (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think we're agreed there's no clear cut case here. Makes an interesting parallel for the Bill O'Reilly annual movefest currently enthralling editors over at Talk:Bill O'Reilly. --Dweller (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And I of course mean disambiguation, not desimbaguation. SGGH ping! 15:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Man, there is a big drama over at Talk:Bill O'Reilly. Added my two cents worth.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 22:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It is that time of the year again
Bill Oh Tintin 04:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, who ever heard of some dead cricketer. The TV guy is ahhhsome. --Dweller (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Some lame edit wars going on again...  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 23:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

We've [the scholarly side] won I think  YellowMonkey   ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well we need to keep those American's honest! ;)  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 10:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Geoffrey Boycott/archive1
Could people possibly lend their opinions to the above? The prose issues have been addressed but it is now drifting... SGGH ping! 09:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Failed FAC and at peer review SGGH ping! 15:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Chin up! Brianboulton is one of the toughest guys at FAC and he likes cricket and has specific knoledge of it. You'll be better for the run  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you need a copy-edit by an univolved editor? I could do it if you're not in a rush. --Dweller (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Any help is appreciated! Many thanks :) I have also listed David Gower for a peer review. SGGH ping! 13:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I can chip in. We need to resuscitate the FA spirit  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 04:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Now this is a bit of topic but I was wondering in the lead of the Gower art is says;

"Following his retirement, Gower became a cricket commentator so successful that his cricket seemed mere preparation." Now is that a bit POV?...  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 05:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well there is a disclaimer with some quotes, but attribution might be good in there as well. I don't know whether that guy's POV is mainstream. I've never experience DG's talk  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 05:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My personal point of view is that the most important thing is whether the POV expressed in the article is mainstream. The editor should read as widely as he can, summarise his findings, and then use citations to support it; and not the other way round. Citations, even decent ones, can be found for just about anything. Tintin 06:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't have thought that it was the mainstream view. I suspect that it's the opinion of someone too young to have actually seen Gower bat. And though Gower has certainly been a successful commentator, I wouldn't place him in the class of Benaud. JH (talk page) 09:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind his commentary, but I'm not a huge fan and would have to disagree with that statement and my personal view is it should get changed. Or at worst say, "according to (......     ), he has become a cricket commentator so successful that his cricket seemed mere preparation."  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 09:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a quote from CricInfo, I don't think it is meant to be taken literally, I suspect the writers there are very well informed on how Gower batted, but I have attributed it and moved it down into the section on the commentary. SGGH ping! 10:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Matthew Engel - wasnt he the ed of Wisden IIRC? Very notable, although I'm not sure about mainstream. As for Richie, it might be correct to say that he was more iconic as a commentator as a lot of kids do ask him if he ever played cricket as they don't know about the early 1960s!  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 00:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Gower seems to be very short for such a guy with 117 Tests and a lot of power struggles. Ganguly has a similar record in terms of # of Tests and average and lots of controversies and I can't see how all of his stuff can be fitted into such a small article.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 07:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Took me a moment to understand your post :D yes it isn't full yet. SGGH ping! 09:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

George Yates
In editing George Yates (cricketer) I have come across what appears to be a discrepency in the original sources in regard to two cricketers called George Yates

1. George Yates Born: 21st August 1858, Bolsover, Derbyshire, England Died: 21st July 1933, Bolsover, Derbyshire, England Played first class for Lancashire 1885-1894 Also played for Werneth from 1880 to 1886 http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Players/34/34140/34140.html

2. George Yates Born: 6th June 1856, Haslingden, Lancashire, England Died: 21st August 1925, Marple, Cheshire, England Played 1 match for Derbyshire in 1883 http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Players/34/34141/34141.html

According to the census, in 1881 George Yates born in Bolsover was living at Bolsover as a miner, George Yates born at "Bukingden, Lancashire" (probable transcript error for Haslingden) was living in the pavilion at Wernath.

It looks as if the careers have been mixed up - does anyone have a way of authenticating this? Regards Motmit (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's probably worth sending CricketArchive an enquiring email; they're usually reasonably prompt at responding. For what it's worth, Cricinfo agrees with CricketArchive on this one. Loganberry (Talk) 22:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This looks like one of mine - it's probably more accurate to assume that I had both names open at once and forgot to check which name was which. I can believe that I got the two confused - if I did, please correct. Thank you. Bobo. 17:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bobo, but it is not yours at all - the confusion is in Cricket Archive and Cricinfo. I propose a combined article for both cricketers for the time being. That will allow the reader to decide. When either the sources are corrected (as I believe they ought to be) or someone comes up with an independent substantiation we can split them. Until then, I think it would be OR to go against the only accredited sources that exist. Howzat? Motmit (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers for the clarification, I will double check things in the morning. All the best. Bobo. 20:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

FAR for Samuel Beckett
nominated Samuel Beckett for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 06:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

World Cricket League
This is in poor shape and badly out of date. I don't really understand it. Anyone fancy fixing it up? --Dweller (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Bit past me ;) It's alright now isn't it?  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 05:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

WG Grace & the Wisden figures

 * Though I'd raise a question of consistency and see if we could come to some agreement.


 * The WG Grace article includes the following statement in the See Also section -


 * "This article uses the "original" figures for Grace, as given in the 1916 edition of Wisden Cricketers' Almanack." That claim is untrue. (Also, why does the death date appear next to the source. It has nothing to do with the publication of the 1916 edition).


 * The article's infobox, which I gather is meant to show the "traditional" career tallies, includes some figures which are not published in Wisden for decades.


 * For example, the balls delivered tally published in 1916 edition is 126,157. No details of that statistic seem to appear in any later edition.


 * The wicket tally is shown as 2864 + 12, with an average of 17.92 From 1920 to 1938 the figure of 2876 wickets appears, but no average is shown. From 1939 to present I presume, the bowling figures are shown as 2876 @17.92, which of course is an incorrect average anyway.


 * No tally of career catches is shown for Grace in the 1916 edition. Nor is there any such figure shown in future editions until 1955 when a tally of 871 is included. This lasts until 1971.
 * The 1972 to 1980 & 1982 to 1986 editions give tally as 877.
 * 1981 uses 872, and 1987 shows 874 catches.
 * From 1988 to present I presume, the tally is shown as 887.


 * The batting info in Wisden in the early years often shows runs tally but little else. When expanded details are shown in later editions the figure of 1493 innings is given, rarely if ever have I seen the 880 matches shown.


 * So, as I see it, you have a choice. If the claim quoted above stays in the article, then I think you have to use the figures as published in the 1916 edition, limited though they be. If the "traditional figures" are to be used, then I think you should cite another source.


 * Of course, the simplest solution is to use the Cricket Archive figures in the infobox, and highlight the "traditional figures" in the 'variations' section. After all 99.99 % of the cricket player articles use CI or CA figures, including Stoddart and Trumper !


 * RossRSmith (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is gone into in more detail in Variations in first-class cricket statistics. That article is referred to in "See also" at the end of Grace's article, but perhaps could do with an earlier mention. Grace's career figures as published in his obituary in the 1916 Wisden were compiled by FS Ashley-Cooper, and the matches that he decided should be treated as first-class were accepted without question for the next sixty years or so. Then the ACS pointed out that a few matches really had no justification for being f-c and published revised figures. These are used by CricketArchive and Cricinfo. They were used by Wisden for a couple of years in the 1980s before it reverted to the "traditional" figures. The problem is that if you accept the revised figures a couple of famous moments in cricket history are rendered meaningless. What was accepted as Grace's hundredth hundred in May, 1895 would no longer be his hundreth. And Jack Hobbs would no longer have first equalled and then surpassed Grace's career total of centuries against Somerset in 1925.


 * Ideally we want Grace's infobox not to have any items omitted. It's true that neither the 1916 not the current editions have quite all the data that we want, but they have the advantage of being readily accessible. However any work prior to the 1970s quoting career figures for Grace will be based onm Ashley-Cooper's data and especially his list of f-c matches. One possible source could be the Memerial Biography edited by Sir Home Gordon and published under the auspices of MCC. Incidentally the 2864 + 12 wickets arose because there were twelve wickets for which the runs conceded were not available. JH (talk page) 16:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Update: I've just checked in my copy of Simon Rae's biography, published in 1998. On pp 495-6, the "traditional" figures are given as part of a statistical appendix cimpiled by Bill Frindall: 878 matches, 1493 innings, 54,896 runs, 39.55 ave; 126,157 balls, 51,545 runs conceded, 2864 wickets, 17.99 ave, plus 12 wickets for which analysis not recorded. Catches are given as 887 on p498. His Test figures are summarised on p505, but I don't think there is any dispute over those. So this may be the best source to cite. JH (talk page) 17:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, John. I've just seen the changes made to the infobox etc. I understand your point about wanting to maintain as much data as possible, therefore, I think citing Rae's biography is more valid for your argument than the 1916 Wisden. The "variations" paragraph still needs a little work in my opinion. Will review and offer suggested change.


 * And just clarifying my view - I don't accept the traditional figures as valid, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that question !
 * RossRSmith (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Maybe we could expand the article to give both sets of figures, though that would involve adding a lot of explanation? I don't think that there will ever be universal agreement on which set of figures is "right". The traditional figures suffer from several matches habing been included that don't really have any claim to be first-class. But the revised figures make several significant pieces of cricket history meaningless in retrospect, since landmarks weren't reached when people at the time thought that they were. I think that this issue was previously discussed on here a year or two ago, but unfortunately I can't give a precise pointer.


 * I'm a little surprised that no-one else has chipped in with an opinion. Surely we can't be the only two members of the project to think that this is a matter of some significance?! JH (talk page) 16:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As John says, we did go around this loop with one of our former colleagues a couple of years ago, and the Variations article was the result. I think it should be referred to more prominently in those articles affected by the anomalies (particularly Grace and Hobbs). With the infobox, a possibility might be to quote both sets of figures: modern cricketers (eg Ricky Ponting) have four sets of stats at the bottom of infoboxes for Test, ODI, FC and ListA, and though it looks a bit crowded, it does work. Grace/Hobbs could have Test (FSAC), FC (FSAC), Test (CA/CI), FC (CA/CI) - or some rather more elegant notation - with a footnote to explain or to cross-refer to the explanation in the main article text. One of our infobox geniusses could probably solve any problems that might arise from this. I rather agree with Ross that when we rely so heavily on CA and CI for all other cricketers' stats, it's a bit capricious of us to discard their views in these few cases. Johnlp (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Three columns would probably suffice, as I don't think thst there is any dispute about the Test figures. For most cricketers who played from the 1890s onwards, it doesn't matter which source one uses, as the figures will be identical. And probably only for Grace and Hobbs is it significant in terms of landmarks being reached. The great advantage of the ACS figures, as used by CI and CA, is their ready availability, and that it probably the main reason why they are used in almost every Wiki player biography.


 * I believe that when Grace scored what was thought at the time to be his 100th hundred, Sammy Woods was one of the opposing bowlers, and said that when Grace reached the late 90s he became terrified thart he might inadvertantly dismiss him. What would he have said if, in later life, he had been informed that he needn't have worried as Grace hadn't really been on 99 hundreds at the time? It probably wouldn't have been printable! JH (talk page) 19:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of any dispute with the Test figures for WG, so agree that three columns could well work in this situation. As an aside on this matter, it isn't just the stats being "added" to Grace's career which has irked me over the years - it is performances of other players in the "10 Matches" NOT being added to their records by the 'traditional' compilers.


 * ACS member and author JR Webber comments in his hefty tome The Chronicle of WG about that 1895 match vs Somerset - 'On the one hand, there is no doubt that matches are included in the record which are clearly unworthy to be there...On the other hand, everybody "knew" that this was his hundreth hundred...That is the situation that everybody actually lived through...Accepting both versions of WG's career should not present an insuperable barrier to the enjoyment of that career." The over by over detail confirms that Sammy Woods was the bowler off whom the 100th run was struck. Later in May that year, when Grace genuinely reached his 100th hundred (vs Middlesex at Lord's), Stoddart was the bowler.
 * RossRSmith (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"Lists of" cricket captains
There has been a mass move made of these articles. Some discussion can be found at Talk:Australian national cricket captains. Good arguments for either method, although I prefer the status quo. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattinbgn (talk • contribs) 00:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer the more truncated wording, but it doesn't make any any real difference to substance really. Of course I think the article could do with more info about the role of the captain etc instead of just the raw stats as well  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 00:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that quite a few of these lists were former Featured lists. If they are updated, leads are fleshed out, inline citations are added, and stylistic glitches fixed, I think it they could easily be re-promoted. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Will need some work though.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 05:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Headingley Stadium
Any reason why the Cricket and Rugby grounds are merged into the same article?  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 10:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Because they're the same building, owned by the same company and are considered by there owners to be the same ground? Andrew nixon (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Still think they need different arts, but anyway.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 05:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A rather flaggy issue
Anyone care to weigh in? Had no responses there, so thought I'd bring it to some more active peoples' attention :] AllynJ (talk | contribs) 16:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The IPL counts as cricket does it? Nick mallory (talk) 05:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To some.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 05:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

PCB disgrace over Shoaib Akhtar
[http://blogsadmin.livemint.com/blogs/silly_point/archive/2009/05/22/pakistan-cricket-board-disgracefully-and-unethically-turfs-out-shoaib-akhtar-warts-and-all.aspx Absolute disgrace. how can people trust the PCB not to leak seucrity arragnement details to terrorists???]  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 08:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it's Pakistan.. say no more. Can't believe they even think they've been hard done by, when they lost WC hosting status.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 05:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I also thought this was a strange announcement, though it's a bit of a leap to go from them not respecting the privacy of Akhtar to aiding and abetting terrorism! --Dweller (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

David Lloyd (cricketer)
Given the above a bit of a re-write, only half done, but welcomes other contributors. SGGH ping! 17:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * One possible trap to beware of is that there is another David Lloyd who is a cricket journalist, and who used to write for (and may still, for all I know) the London Evening Standard. (At the moment, the citation given for Bumble's cricket writing is something written by John Arlott in 1984, and I wonder if that citation can be correct, as Bumble would still have been playing back then and I wouldn't have thought doing much if any writing.) JH (talk page) 18:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * His cricinfo profile (the "stats" part) cites that he is a journalist and author, and most of the blurb (the other part) is written by Arlott (with a post script by the cricinfo staff) so that's why I cited his profile as by Arlott. Bumble has written for the Guardian and is a columnist, so that's why that is there. Though I haven't found a non-cricinfo cite for the "author" part yet. Will keep looking. SGGH ping! 18:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if he's written anything else, but as far as being an "author" is concerned he's written his autobiography. Nev1 (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Roger Kimpton's place of death
This article has recently had edits by User:Kimpton1, changing Kimpton's place of death from Melbourne to Flinders. I changed it back the first time since I couldn't find a source that said Flinders, and all three of Wisden, Cricinfo and CricketArchive give Melbourne. Kimpton1 then reinstated their edit, with the edit summary "Roger Kimpton died in Flinders, on the Mornington Peninsula, NOT in Melbourne", but I felt constrained to revert again for the reasons given above.

Given this editor's username, I wondered whether they might be related to Roger Kimpton, so left a message on their User talk page explaining why, even though my opinion is that the edit was made in good faith, WP:V meant that I couldn't simply let it go. (This goes all the more given the sources above.) Unfortunately, Kimpton1 has not responded, and has not enabled the email facility, so I haven't been able to discuss the matter. My hunch (and that's all it is) is that they do know what they're talking about, and that Flinders is correct... but without more than just that hunch, I don't see that we can change something that three first-rank sources say on the say-so of an(y) editor.

So... does anybody know of a suitable source that gives Roger Kimpton's place of death as Flinders? Loganberry (Talk) 00:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can find no sources that say anything other than Melbourne. If the user knows different, he or she has to provide reliable sources stating so. "I know him" with nothing to back it up will not suffice, and until then any change of "Melbourne" to "Flinders" should be reverted and policy explained to the user. SGGH ping! 11:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears Kimpton is buried at Flinders Cemetery (here's a photo of his gravestone), but obviously thats not necessarily the place of death.   143.238.216.57 (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case I suggest putting Melbourne as his place of death and Flinders as his place of buriel, with the cricinfo/cricket archive cites for the former and the above links to cite the latter. Thanks to the IP for supplying them. SGGH ping! 15:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent; I'll add my thanks. Unfortunately the links the IP gives are not working for me, but assuming that's a temporary problem: there seems no problem with adding a line to the article text noting Kimpton's place of burial; I can't see any reason for it to go in the infobox itself, though. Loganberry (Talk) 23:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Work for me so I suspect it is a temporary problem. :) SGGH ping! 10:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard
I feel like posting the links for the codename <-> real name on the blog and citing it in order to keep the section on the article....  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Help needed!
I have found a collection who need their "infoboxes" converting to a more standard infobox for easy of editing and readability, as well as for consistency. It's simply too big a job for me. They're all Australian. This is the list:


 * Alex Doolan
 * Andrew Downton
 * Andrew Dykes
 * Andrew Saballus
 * Anthony Benneworth
 * Arthur Marriott
 * Ben Targett
 * Blair Campbell
 * Bruce Doolan
 * Bruce Neill
 * Charles Arthur
 * Chris Broadby
 * Chris Duval
 * Christopher Hargrave
 * Clay Young
 * Danny Buckingham
 * David Anthony Smith (Australian cricketer)
 * David Gatenby
 * Dennis Baker
 * Garry Cowmeadow
 * Gary Goodman
 * Gary Whitney
 * George Gibson (cricketer)
 * George Maddox
 * Gervase Du Croz
 * Greg Rowell
 * Gregory Wilson (cricketer)
 * Henry Allison
 * Henry Lette
 * Jade Selby
 * Jason Shelton
 * John Cox (cricketer)
 * John Marshall (cricketer)
 * John Saint
 * John Tabart
 * Keith Bradshaw
 * Luke Swards
 * Mark Colegrave
 * Mark Ridgway
 * Mark Scholes
 * Michael Norman (cricketer)
 * Neil Majewski
 * Nick Allanby
 * Nick Granger
 * Peter Clough (cricketer)
 * Phillip Blizzard
 * Robert Gartrell
 * Robert Hodgson (cricketer)
 * Robert Jeffery
 * Robert Knight (cricketer)
 * Robert McDowall
 * Robert Still (cricketer)
 * Rowan Sherriff
 * Scott Kremerskothen
 * Scott Mason
 * Stephen Howard (cricketer)
 * Stuart Saunders
 * Todd Pinnington
 * Trevor Docking
 * Vincent Giblin
 * W McEwan
 * Walter Westbrook (cricketer)
 * William Brown (Tasmanian cricketer)
 * William Field (cricketer)
 * William Henty

If everyone chips in (I did two), it shouldn't take too long to get all of these standardised. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And if anyone really gets the bug, there is a further list here: WikiProject Cricket/requested infoboxes ! &mdash;MDCollins (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll do the Tasmanians shortly.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 02:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

H. D. G. Leveson Gower
On the basis of being bold, I've removed the hyphen from Shrimp's surname in his article. Both Cricketarchive and Cricinfo are inconsistent on this, having his name unhyphenated in the titles of the "articles" on him but hyphenated in many scorecards. But Wisdens published while he was alive appear universally to have him unhyphened, and I rather take the view that, as Wisden is the voice of the Establishment and Loosen Gore was undoubtedly a bastion of said Establishment, it's likely to have been correct. Johnlp (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't resist this one as it has bemused (and amused) me in the past. If you refer to Harry Altham's history, you'll find that he uses Leveson Gower in the text and then inexplicably has the hyphen in the index entry! Personally, I think you are right to do away with the hyphen, especially as Wisden did so.  Regards.  ---Jack | talk page 12:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wisden is as inconsistent as others. The 1904 and 1912 editions show his name with hyphen, the 1938 without !
 * When The Times published the New Year's Honours List in 1953 his name is shown without hyphen.
 * RossRSmith (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe he originally spelt it with a hyphen and then at some point decided to drop the hyphen. I suppose one would look him up in the 1911 census to see how he spelt it then. JH (talk page) 17:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * On p. 179 of Derek Birley's Social History of English Cricket, he writes: "...the diminutive H. D. G. Leveson Gower (pronounced Loosen Gore and often hyphenated) was already..." This indicates indecision all around but I would certainly to go with Johnlp on this and drop the hyphen.  I think the hyphen might well have been "introduced by later writers" who made a wrong assumption. --Orrelly Man (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Talking of Wisden being inconsistent, I've just looked at his obituary and that is a splendid example of it. His name is initially given as "Sir Henry Dudley Gresham Leveson-Gower", but the article then uses the unhyphenated form thereafter. Incidentally, I did a search on the 1911 census, which showed 11 "Leveson Gower"s, 2 "Levesongower"s, but no instances of the hypenated form. However the cricketer himself did not appear. Perhaps at the time he was residing in a county that has not yet been put online, or he could even have been abroad. JH (talk page) 20:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * All right, mostly without the hyphen in Wisden, but particularly between the wars when he was influential in MCC and festival cricket and Wisden might be expected to get it right. The family name is hyphen-free on the website of the ancestral home, too. Johnlp (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As an aside to this, the occasional Somerset cricketer Bruce Hylton-Stewart appears invariably to be hyphenated in cricket books, whereas his father and brother, both named Charles and both of them renowned in ecclesiastical music circles, are invariably unhyphenated. Johnlp (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Bill Ponsford/archive1
FYI. Comments and suggested improvements sought. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 11:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Keith Miller
Who is working on this primarily? Is there a to-do list? Hopefully we can get it to FA. SGGH ping! 13:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm amazed it isn't a FA already. About the only thing that isn't included is what brand of toothpaste he preferred. YellowMonkey and others have done an excellent job. I'm guessing the 575 inline citations is a record for a cricket article. Bradman doesn't even have half as many. Jevansen (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In theory me, although I don't think any of my articles will pass FA again  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 02:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to return to this, although I'm also working on John Wark with TRM. And I'm confident we can get through FA when it's ready. --Dweller (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It might have a better chance if I wasn't the nom  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 00:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is that?  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 00:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm getting the McGrath treatment  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 08:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Early life of Keith Miller is ready for FAC (need to upload the CE) the Miller in 48 is also ready: already ce'd  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 08:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Featured article candidates/Early life of Keith Miller/archive1  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 02:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox - IPL team
I may be a little biased because I'm not a fan of the IPL but in cases like Muttiah Muralitharan and Mahendra Singh Dhoni where Twenty20 stats aren't included in the infobox, should their IPL team (in this case Chennai) be listed? Jevansen (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it should  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 02:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the IPL is here to stay and is arguably more notable (bigger crowds, greater coverage etc.) than Sri Lankan domestic cricket (for example). -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, notwithstanding whether it is "proper cricket" the quality of opposition is a lot higher than things like the PLate Division of hte RAnji Trophy, where SReesanth and Dhoni play, which is about grade standard if Joginder Sharma can take 10-wicket hauls  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of the teams like Assam and Tripura would be really bad. Dhoni and Sreesanth are the only national players who are from teams in the Plate Division, most of the small/poor states are permanently stuck in there.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 04:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

On a side note what about the IPL team being listed when the cricketer hasn't played for the franchise à la Paul Collingwood and Owais Shah? --Jpeeling (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My initial response to that would be no, since we don't list players in team categories unless they've actually played at the top level, not simply signed a contract. To take a hypothetical example, if Worcestershire signed Flintoff for next season, and he broke down and never played a game, he wouldn't qualify for "Category: Worcestershire cricketers". However, his signing would still be newsworthy, and so it should be mentioned in the text. Loganberry (Talk) 23:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Inzy
Fan worship. More eyes needed.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 02:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh dear! And nothing is really sourced.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 04:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And User talk:74.244.98.28 won't back down.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 04:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Warned for 3RR IF he continues he'll get blocked  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 05:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Quickly cleaned up.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 10:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"It is an autobiography, or has been extensively edited by the subject, and may not conform to NPOV policy. Tagged since June 2009." - What? SGGH ping! 10:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Argh!! Thanks for pointing that out, don't know what I was trying to tag it with but it wasn't intended to be that! :O lol  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 10:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Would be quite a thing. Have we ever had a cricketer edit his own article? SGGH ping! 10:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha maybe Yellowmonkey would know but I doubt it! Maybe Boycott...  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 10:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Gareth White, here. Admittedly not the greatest example. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This edit here is also interesting. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hah! What'd ya know!  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 11:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Tom de Grooth has edited his article. Andrew nixon (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Eddie Barlow's wife edited his article. Tintin 14:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What was Mrs Barlow's username?  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They were IP edits. They are pretty clear with a look through the history. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This was one of the edits. Tintin 03:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 01:59, 13 April 2008 Stangil (talk | contribs | block) new user account - what was Gilchrist doing at that moment? Was there a cricket match taking place in which he played? SGGH ping! 12:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "At the age of 13, his parents, Stan and June ...". -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly
A couple of weeks ago I read, through this page, a renewed argument about disambiguation between THE Bill O'Reilly and some American that I've never heard of. Following up a link from another topic on this page, I've been studying the new-look CricInfo, a site I haven't seen for a long time. I think it's poorly done and its links to its The Cricketer archive don't work at all. However, it does have working links to its WCM archive and in there is what they call Bill O'Reilly's last interview.

I expect those of you who have worked on O'Reilly's WP article have already seen it but, for the rest, it is a very enlightening read about the values of real spin bowling written just before the emergence of Warne and Murali. --Orrelly Man (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Test umpires
I just revamped the above a bit. Is Amiesh Saheba the same as Amish Saheba? (I have also seen Ameesh Saheba)

Lots of red links too, such as:
 * Steve Dunne - 39 Tests from 1989 to 2002 -
 * Douglas Sang Hue - 31 Tests from 1962 to 1981 -
 * Mahboob Shah - 28 Tests from 1975 to 1997 -
 * VK Ramaswamy - 26 Tests from 1985 to 1999 - ).

Comments and/or corrections welcome.

Also lots of red links on the International Panel of Umpires and Referees, such as Marais Erasmus, Gamini Silva and Evan Watkin.

Should there be a List of ODI umpires? -- Testing times (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sang Hue is on my personal "to do" list, but it could be a year or more before I get around to him. JH (talk page) 16:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking into Test umpires I stumbled on List of Australian Test cricket umpires. It seems to me that that is a very misleadingly titled list, as it describes itself as: "This is a list of those people who have umpired at least one Test match in Australia between Australia and other Test cricket nations." I was assuming that the "Australian" qualified the word "umpires" whereas it actually qualifies "Test". JH (talk page) 19:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have had a stab at the first two. Interesting chaps. There also seems to be an actor called Stephen Dunne. -- Testing times (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good work. I may make a few "tweaks" to the Sang Hue one. JH (talk page) 20:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Mahboob Shah too now, but it is pretty dry. I can't help feeling that there may be some interesting stories of his umpiring in Pakistan before the international panel was introduced, or from the world cups he officated at. -- Testing times (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

And VK Ramaswamy. More details of the incident in the 1991 Duleep Trophy final (Rashid Patel attacking Raman Lamba with a stump) or any other incidents welcome.

So now we have articles on all umpires who offiated in 26 or more Tests. Five more redlinks to have articles on all Test umpires with 18 or more matches. -- Testing times (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, User:Nick mallory has done Marais Erasmus, but there are still lots of redlinks at International Panel of Umpires and Referees. And User:Shashanksomanchi has done a stub on Ralph Gosein, so we have something on all umpires who offiated in 25 or more Tests. We need Steve Woodward to get down to 23, and then Dai Davies (an outstanding player for Glamorgan), Cortez Jordan and Shujauddin Siddiqi to get to 18 or more.

Incidentally, has anyone heard of the Bronze Bails Award (or Silver Bails Award or Golden Bails Award)? -- Testing times (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Brian Edrich
Is this right? --Dweller (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is plausible (he is nearly 87) but I can't see anything in the usual places.


 * OMG. What have ESPN done to Cricinfo? -- Testing times (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If it cannot be referenced it needs to be removed I suspect due to something BLP related. SGGH ping! 19:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Reffed. Johnlp (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

How sad. And Testing times, I agree. The new Cricinfo layout looks utterly horrible. Seems to have better functionality, but at some cost of sheer ugliness. --Dweller (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I though it was easier to navigate before. I was worried this was going to happen when I read they were changing the site.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 22:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Cricinfo has been ruined. What are they thinking? They'll destroy the site, it looks f*cking awful. Nick mallory (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's astonishing how bad the new design is. Yes, it has some nice new functionality, but the appearance is dreadful.  The "quick links" in the top navigation bar are unusable because the line above overflows.  The logos are poor and pixellated.  Because all the navigation uses vertical screen space, the articles don't start until two-thirds of the way down the screen.  The new live score-reporting system looks snazzy, but the scores go backwards and forwards dramatically, indicating problems with replication across multiple servers.  Oh, and the adverts, which were bad before, are now unbearable and have forced me to install ad-blocking software.  Oh, and they've changed to using serif fonts rather than sans-serif, a bizarre decision.  Gah.   [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 22:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Another "Ugh" vote here. I find it much harder to find things on than the former layout, and I don't think that's all to do with having become familiar with the old design. I just hope CricketArchive doesn't get any ideas! Loganberry (Talk) 23:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Dreadful  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 00:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to continue a possibly conversational thread, but I have been thinking the same about CricInfo. I used to work for the site way back when, when it first started and before it got popular, lucrative, professional and automated...then they didn't need me and my manually created statistics anymore...(sigh). Anyway, long story short it took me about five years to get out of the old habit of manually typing in the address of the areas I wanted to look at (actually it helped sometimes if you can remember the http address because not all areas of the site were properly linked from the mainpage). Sorry digressed again. Anyway, now that it has been changed again I am virtually unable to use CricInfo as I can't find anything. Sad to think that at 29 I'm now as technologically inept as my grandparents. Maybe if everyone complains they might change it back? Not holding my breath... — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)