Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 62

All-time Test ratings
Not sure if this is widely known already, but inclusion of stats from here, showing the all-time comparisons for Test batsmen by rating may be useful in biogs. I suppose it will date - e.g. someone will eventually get a rating high enough to get in at #8 and knock all those below him down a peg - but quite nice for NPOV inter-era comparisons. --Dweller (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting how post WWII performances dominate both batting and bowling lists (albeit except for the top 2 slots for bowlers). I expected the former, but not the latter. Is this just a result of the increasing proliferation of Tests since 1946? The ratings are geared to downplay statistical anomalies by not giving full value for performances until a player has featured x times and the players of yesteryear would struggle to muster a huge number of appearances in a career. SF Barnes, the number one bowler, had a 13 year Test career, pretty much uninterrupted by World Wars (he was 41 in 1914 after all) and played just 27 times. (Note to Flintoff: 27 Tests, 24 "Five-for"s. Different era, eh?) --Dweller (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think they're scaled enough for minnow-bashing. Irfan Pathan rose to 6th Test bowler in 2005 after taking 39 wickets at around 10 in 4 games against Zim and Bang. At the same time his average against the other teams was 40+. Shakib al Hasan also got really high in the ODI rankings at a stage when his batting average was around 20 and bowling was 45+ excluding games against Zim and subminnows like Ireland and Hong Kong. I don't think any human would rate Steyn or Md Yousuf among the all time greats at all. I don't know of any commentators even recently who think that Steyn is better than Pollock or Donald, let alone better  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 04:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the rankings as listed at Fast bowling, Steyn is equal to Lindwall, better than Donald and Holding and a few of his WI colleagues. Stupid.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 04:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is biased against Indians, Tendulkar is way too low! -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is important to remember that these are peak ratings and shouldn't be used in a greatest ever context, Yousuf and Steyn had hot 12-15 month streaks so score highly whereas Tendulkar is quite low because he's churned out runs consistently throughout his career. Steve Harmison is placed ahead of Michael Holding and Wasim Akram on peak performance but look at the graphs and you'll see Harmison spent eight months over 750, Holding and Wasim about six years. For factual accuracy Pathan never got higher than 9th in the Test rankings and Pollock is ahead of Steyn. --Jpeeling (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

List of first-class cricket quadruple centuries
nominated List of first-class cricket quadruple centuries for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Floyd Reifer
I’m at work so can’t do too much research but I was wondering about the following: Floyd Reifer has now played six Test matches as a specialist batsman, two of them as captain, and averages less than 10. Is his the lowest ever career average for captain who was a specialist batsman? Perhaps one of the 19th Century gentleman cricket captains had a lower average but even this sounds doubtful. --Roisterer (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We have Vizzy (8.25) and Pataudi (11.00 post-war) Tintin 03:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I didn't know a proper team go lower than Ian Craig's 18 odd as they would normally pick an established player and therefore someone who has had success....  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 04:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Not quite in your zone, but this brings back painful memories (some literally painful) of Chris Cowdrey in the Summer of four captains. --Dweller (talk) 10:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

JM Brearley didn't set the world on fire with the bat. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He flippin' well didn't, he's a walking wicket in International Cricket Captain 2009 :( SGGH ping! 10:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Jeepers....22 for specialist batsman who played so often. He got even more chances than Yuvraj!  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Brearley was a better batsman than he's given credit for, although he never scored a test hundred he did have a first class triple. He scored over 25,000 first class runs and his first class average of 37.9 is higher than Michael Vaughan's 36.95. Nick mallory (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ashraful isn't going much better.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 05:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:New Zealand umpires
CfD discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 20. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

PoB of Cowdrey
Re, does anyone have his autobiography ? Iirc, he said at the very beginning that he was born in some hospital in Ootacamund (Ooty), but Bangalore is often (incorrectly) cited as his place of birth. Tintin 08:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Dickie Bird requested move
I have requested a move of Harold "Dickie" Bird to Dickie Bird per WP:COMMONNAME. The RM discussion is ongoing here. – PeeJay 09:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Cricket umpire nationality
I see that the "Cricket umpire" category is now being broken down into categories for each of the main nationalities. Given the large number of articles on umpires, this seems like a good idea. But I'm unsure about the recategorisation of Bill Alley as an "Australian cricket umpire", ss it seems rather misleading. I'm not sure if he has ever formally changed his nationality, but during most of his playing career and throughout his umpiring career (and after it) he has been resident in England. I don't think that he has ever umpired a matches in Austraila, I think it might be best to simply leave him as a plain "Cricket umpire". JH (talk page) 17:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that'll be my fault. I simply sight-scanned the article for an indication of his nationality, and since he is categorised as an Australian cricketer, it seemed appropriate for him to be categorised as an Australian umpire as well. – PeeJay 17:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Mo apology necessary. You can certainly argue it either way, which is why I raised it here rather than simply changing it back, in the hope of finding out what the consensus of opinion is. JH (talk page) 18:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the likely situation is that Alley was registered as an umpire with the ECB, but he himself is Australian. But like you say, it should probably be up to the community to determine whether he should be categorised as an Australian umpire or an English umpire. – PeeJay 19:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Cec Pepper and Vanburn Holder present a similar conundrum; John Holder's cricket was primarily English as well as his umpiring, so maybe he's in a different category. There are probably quite a few of these, but those are the ones that spring to mind. Alley is the clearest one: he was an "Australian", and even after 12 years playing with Somerset no one could be more fruitily Australian than he was, and he was a "cricket umpire"; but he wasn't an umpire of Australian cricket. Perhaps the category should be "Australians who umpired cricket", and then we'd all be all right. Johnlp (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any need to make the category name unnecessarily verbose. As long as it is explained on the category page that the category is based on the person's nationality and not the cricket board that they were affiliated to, that should be fine. – PeeJay 20:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I argued at CfD that this should not be a nationality category but should be tied to the cricket board i.e. ECB, WICB, BCCI, etc. That would make Alley an Australian cricketer but an English England umpire, which seems to me to reflect the facts. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See, I would just find that confusing. Alley is Australian, of that there can be no doubt, so to put him in a category called "English cricket umpires" just because he umpired in England doesn't seem to make sense to me. – PeeJay 21:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the category should be Category:England cricket umpires not Category:English cricket umpires, England is shorthand for the E(W)CB, English is a nationality. Secondly it is based on the same principle that sees Justin Langer categorised at Category:Middlesex cricketers, even though he is not from Middlesex. We categorise cricketers according to the team they play for, not their nationality in general. Albert Trott, who is unambiguously Australian still gets categorised at Category:England Test cricketers because he represented the English Test team. I see no reason why umpires should be treated any differently. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, it should be under his registration as working for the England administration  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability of junior cricketers
Is an Under-19 national player notable? eg. Jack McNamara. I feel sure that this has been discussed previously but cannot find it in the archives, nor can I remember the outcome. –Moondyne 09:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * From my knowledge it is. I think Phil Hughes got deleted a while back, before he played first class cricket.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 10:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He got AfD'd at least. SGGH ping! 11:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, U-19 is definitely not a form of major cricket, and so he wouldn't pass WP:CRIN, nor WP:ATHLETE. He could (and, to be honest, perhaps should) be WP:AFD'd. A fair number of youth cricketers don't go on to play major cricket, anyway (although, this isn't so much the case with those from Australia/England/India), so he might never become notable, and we can't be WP:Crystally about it. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 18:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hughes was indeed deleted. See Articles for deletion/Phillip Hughes (cricketer). Jevansen (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Rose Bowl series
Hi all. Having some trouble expanding this list as some results seem to have dropped off the Cricinfo radar. For instance, the 2001/02 results in the list currently say 3 all in a home-and-away series, but Cricinfo has just three results. Similar issues with 03/04 and 06/07. Anyone have a solution for me? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you tried looking on CricketArchive? I find they are generally more reliable than Cricinfo. JH (talk page) 17:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not exaclty sure of the problem but the 3 all wouldn't be the result but the venue, in 2001-02 the series consisted of three matches in Australia and then three in New Zealand, because of the change in venue Cricinfo consider them to be seperate tours. This link has all the series and the scorecards for 'both' 2001/02 series work fine for me. --Jpeeling (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Expanded Nathan Hauritz
Hello all. I've spent some time expanding the article on Nathan Hauritz. I'm not really sure about the processes for requesting assessment in the cricket project yet (still feeling my way around), but it is currently listed as a stub and I would appreciate it if someone could take a look and maybe re-assess it. I don't really have the time or the inclination for a full-on peer review, though. Apologies in advance if this is not the correct forum. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done on that. Assessed as C-class, although its referenced well enough to be B-class.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 04:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. It probably needs a bit more biographical details for B, so a C Class seems a fair call. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well this project doesn't have inhouse reviews like MILHIST and you can just re-rate your own articles. Are you planning for GA or something higher? I'm (pleasantly) surprised that someone would want to write about Hauritz; I assumed to only reason people would bother is to write an attack page. I do think that the article should be in a chronological order, as some of the domestic stuff is after his Test debut and breaks the order. Also if you have Mallett's biog of Doug Walters it has a whole chapter where they have a discussion about Australia's spin woes including Hauritz, and Hauritz getting a cheap cap in Mumbai. I'll add that. Maybe some discussion about Australia's general spin situation is needed for context  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 05:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, there is a choice of pictures for Hauritz. If you go into the commons link at the bottom.... I started a poll on which should be used for Hauritz although I haven't had many takers...  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 05:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "...you can just re-rate your own articles". That seems to me to be poor practice. It's very hard to be objective about an article that you've made a major contribution to yourself. I wouldn't dream of rating any article that I had done a lot of work on. JH (talk page) 08:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Up to "B" I don't see a major problem,. Below that, rating is all rater arbitrary. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The ratings are so all over the shop that up to B-class it doesn' matter if a person does it themselves. I know one guy not in this WikiProject who labelled all his 1-para articles as B, which is a joke, and some WikiProjects always inflate the grades to feel better about themselves, especially if their leaders like to tell everyone about their achivements.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 03:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

In November 2009, Mallett, Haigh and Bernard Whimpress and Boria Majumdar were at this cricket forum and Mallett totally teed off on the Australian spinners (and also Murali and Bhajji about their actions) "If I chucked I would have got 250+ wickets" etc and saying "If I was as bad as Hauritz I would have quit" and started blaming the ACA for robotic computer coaching, which in his opinion killed of spin bowling. He claimed that all these good youngsters who were better than Hauritz were rejected by the computer....  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 06:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, YellowMonkey. Thanks for your comments and addition to the article. Most appreciated. I'm not really aiming to take the article much further than where it is now. I was just bored and came across the article, saw that it was a bit stubish and felt it might be interesting to expand it a little, especially as it seemed to have a few hits during the last Test. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The rating done previously was guesswork without reference to the agreed criteria. I rate it a start-class only, albeit a good start. It lacks content given that much must be known about him as both a player and a person; and it needs additional structure in the way of extra sections about his style and technique, and about his personal and family life. YM is quite right that we can rate articles ourselves up to B-class (I do it all the time, although I take the point from JH about objectivity which I sometimes overlook) but unless the article is an obvious stub, you should always use the B-class criteria outlined in WikiProject Cricket/Assessment by completing the template call and rate it according to the number of yes/no views. In this case, Hauritz fails on two counts, so it cannot be a B, and as it also fails criterion 3 it cannot be a C either, hence it's a good start. --Jack | talk page 05:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Test cricket grounds
Hello project. I've done some work on correctly merging this list with the "... by date" list of a similar nature for one nice sortable list with everything in it. I have a quick question which doesn't seem to have an answer within Cricinfo, namely on the names of the missing ends. Some of these stadiums hosted just one test, back in the day, so it's wholly possible the ends were never named, but if anyone could shed any further light on the absent data, I'd be extremely grateful. Much obliged. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, good job! The daggers for the footnotes are good, but could you make them clickable by using, so you can easily switch from the text to the footnote, or vice versa?&mdash;MDCollins (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there enough articles on this subject to justify an Outline of cricket?
Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

The Transhumanist 23:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Easily enough articles, but it seems like "outlines" are just a collection of links, so something like outline of cricket would be the normal cricket article without any prose or context, just links. I think cricket does an adequate job of introducing the subject, how do you think an "outline" article would be useful? Nev1 (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Outline articles are redundant anyway  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 00:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally more comprehensive in scope than the corresponding article, and easier to browse. The Transhumanist 23:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Outlines start out as a list of links, like Outline of martial arts, but you have to start somewhere. As they further develop, they start looking like this:  Outline of Japan, Outline of anarchism, Outline of cell biology.  The Transhumanist  23:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still not convinced I'm afraid, I looked at the outlines you mentioned and they were just begging to be expanded into proper articles. A developed article giving context to each heading would be much more useful to a reader. Nev1 (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

John Arlott
The article is a disaster zone. With no offence to the contributors, but it is miles away from a suitable article. I have gone through and cull'd a load of the POV and the standard 'romantic-phrase'd adoration' problems that we normally encounter in dodgy cricket articles, but there are still huge problems. I have been liberally with the tags, but each one is relevant. Maybe write a new article from scratch in a sandbox and put it in? SGGH ping! 12:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed it's a mess, but let's be careful not to introduce more errors: first par now reads as if he was still commentating! I'll change it. Johnlp (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have written a new one at User:SGGH/sandbox. Personally I think it provides a better foundation which we can build up into a decent article than trying to re-write the existing. It uses the better bits of the original, and has the citations required. Shall I paste it in? SGGH ping! 13:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at your suggested new version yet. Personally, I don't think that the original, as now amended, is as bad as has been suggested. Most of the essential factual information is there, and the other defects shouldm't be that hard to correct. Whether we have a new article or not, we need to retain enough - though of course it needs to be from properly cited and authoritative sources - to make it clear that he was a major figure in both cricket writing anf broadcasting and not just some "run of the mill" journalist. There's no doubt that he was held in great affection and respect by most English cricket lovers. When you take his writing and his broadcasting together, he was arguably the most significane media figure in English cricket in the second half of the 20th century. (He also had many other strings to his bow besides cricket, of course, and these mustn't be overlooked.) JH (talk page) 17:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll leave the one on my sandbox there, and we can pick and mix. I need my box for something else, so I've left it on the talk page :) SGGH ping! 17:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I have more time to look at this (and am not "at work"), I'm with JH. The messiness is mostly to do with rather vivid style and an overuse of adjectives, plus a somewhat individual structure which is episodic rather than chronological. I think it can be improved with citations and with toning down and doesn't need a new article. I'm also loath to jettison work that has had more than 200 edits already from up to 50 different editors: there's got to be some wisdom in there, amid the purple prose. Your very factual account should be a useful resource for its overall improvement. Johnlp (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've now had the chance to read through what you've put in the Talk page, and like almost all of it. Much of it is definitely superior to the equivalent bits in the original. JH (talk page) 21:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to keep the best bits of the original. The personal life section and info on written works and biographies are the same. Much of the same information is retained. SGGH ping! 21:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's raining in Edgbaston, so thoughts turn to...
I've fulfilled an ambition I first mentioned in 2007 and have created an article on the Brumbrella. Feel free to edit it. It particularly needs info on when it was first created/employed. --Dweller (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking "What happened to the Brumbella?" and was about to come here to see if thee was interest in an article. :-) Very topical ... -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why wasn't the 600,000 spent on the outfield before the ashes, not after? I know they wanted to do the developments at once, but still...  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 11:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wasn't there a similar criticism about Cardiff or one of the other grounds? --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure.. I know the Oval has recently been done but Edgbaston is shocking, like the Adelaide Oval of old.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 11:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There is this as a start (although "free" trials concern me). Built in 1981 at a cost of £50,000 apparently -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That was the 6-ton old version, made from a section of oil pipline, that worked (more or less) for 20 years.  Its flimsy £80,000 replacement only lasted a few months.  (A subscription to a newspaper archive helps :)  The new-fangled thing to use seems to be hovercraft...   -- Testing times (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, after all the wait, Boycs and Aggers amused us with some sledging. Vic Marks is great too! Haydos a ridiculously biased commentator. I wish Macgill would stop with these choreographed set-piece jokes he does with Mo and Marto.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hayden is rubbish, all that touchy feely bonding stuff is truly annoying. His concern for Phil Hughes was rather overdone too, considering he fought to hold onto his test place like a cornered wolverine. Boycs could scarcely contain his disdain. Nick mallory (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Boycs was self promoting as usual.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 07:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hayden always talks up the difficulty of the pitch each time he made a century, so I'm not surprised he keeps on spouting rubbish  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 07:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What he say about the Perth pitch against the Zimbabweans? I suppose Streak and his mob were swinging it everywhere on the worlds fastest pitch. ;) For memory he was plumb lbw on 0.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 09:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A small group of collaborators has done a thoroughly good job with my crappy stub and I think Brumbrella is now a rather nice little article. Could someone please rate it on its talk page? Also, is anyone familiar with the DYK process? It looks a goody. --Dweller (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Simply follow the instructions at T:TDKY. SGGH ping! 09:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks and thanks for the rating. What does it need for C status? Re DYK, I'm just labouring through the citewebs before going there. --Dweller (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Easy DYK pass  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 03:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not raining at Edgbaston so
A big shout out to fellow Croweater Graham Manou, the first South Australian to make his Test debut since Dan Cullen in 2006 and the first SA wicket keeper since Flipper Phillips in the early 80s. --Roisterer (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Groan.. Paine should have played.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 11:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Was that a groan of Paine? --Dweller (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Groaning now. I was meaning Tim Paine should have been selected ahead of Manou. Both don't have great records but Paine is solid and will end up playing for Australia I think.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 09:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just plonk'em onto Hughes instead of Manou. Hughese couldb't drop any more than Haddin and Manou is a pretty average batsman to say the least. I would not rate him higher than Harbhajan or Kumble  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 03:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's stupid playing Manou. Paine should end up playing for Australian once Haddin retires so why not give him a go now.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 05:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections/August 2009
May be of interest, one of the cnadidates  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 04:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Main page
Hey- just noticed today's main page. 2 Main page FAs in 1 month...we must be doing something right! &mdash;MDCollins (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Either that, or the Ashes is on... :-P – PeeJay 20:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Suprised there wasn't a big complaint about too much cricket  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 03:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Complains from the Americans? :) Australia will be lucky to get out with a draw. Just wondering why are so many major tournaments hosted in South Africa? 2003 WC, 2007 T20 WC, 2009 IPL and 2009 Champions trophy. Australia hosted the 1992 WC and haven't got another major event until 2015.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 05:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are travel costs between venues too high?&mdash;MDCollins (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think time zones are a big factor. Matches in SA and Eng fit in better with prime time television markets in India. Also, Australia is lacking in medium-size venues. Our stadiums tend to be huge, concrete multi-purpose venues, where SA, Eng and India have smaller stadiums and more variety. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Australia have a iron-clad policy of never playing overseas from mid-November to mid-February, whereas some teams like South Africa and NZ have to give up their prime summer slots to come here, Boxing Day and all that, and sometimes India comes here and misses a bit of their November period. Australia would be reluctant to host a multilateral tournament during Nov-Feb anyway as it dilutes the focus on Australia, and that leaves only March like in 1992, or October, and the subcontinent countries want to play their home games. So it seems hard to fit in. And unlike the subcontinental teams, Australia isn't willing to give up their Test matches (and rightly so).  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 00:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If Australia played a boxing day Test in Durban they'd get a crowd of just 10,000 compared to 50,000 + at the MCG. Bellerive Oval and the WACA are probably our only small English type grounds. And Bellerive attracts poor crowds like in South African/New Zealand/Sri Lanka/Pakistan (test).  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 06:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of main page articles, I am hoping to get Archie Jackson on the main page for his 100th birthday on 5 September 2009. I am a bit worried that Don Tallon may have cruelled his chances :-( Mattinbgn\talk 08:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A 100th birthday should bring a torrent of points, regardless of DT and KP. --Dweller (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't even ask for Tallon  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. Raul654 had previously lined up Jackson without me knowing as well. It wasn't until a bot marked the article talk page that I become aware. I then had to ask him to hold off so I could wait for 5 September ... Still crossing fingers and toes that it gets up, I have had this goal in mind for a long time! -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Date linking
Does anyone know what the end result of the discussion on wikilinking dates was? I can't find it. Particularly, any result regarding the removal of already wiki-linked dates? SGGH ping! 16:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The end result was a resolution that dates should not be linked. However, no special effort needs to be made to remove dates that are already linked. – PeeJay 16:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For full and gruesome detail, see Requests for arbitration/Date delinking. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah hah. Thanks SGGH ping! 20:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Test umpires
Further to this, we have had articles on all (or almost all) Test players for some time, and the debutants are sorted out quickly, but we are still lacking articles on Test umpires. Many have been involved in memorable or historic incidents along the way that are worth documenting.

We have articles on all umpires who have stood in 17 or more Tests. Having done Swaroop Kishen (of memorable profile) we only need B Satyaji Rao and WT Martin to push the coverage down to 15 or more Tests.

Others done recently include Steve Dunne, Douglas Sang Hue, Mahboob Shah, VK Ramaswamy, Marais Erasmus, Ralph Gosein, Steve Woodward, Dai Davies, Cortez Jordan and Shujauddin Siddiqi. But more contributions - anecdotes from their matches, swarms of bees, riots, giving Gavaskar out for 96 in his final Test, players attacking each other or walking off, etc - are very welcome.

Other targets are 1880s umpires Tom Nicholas Cole and C. R. Deare and relatively recent umpires Gamini Silva, Evan Watkin, Krishna Hariharan, Peter Manuel, and Arani Jayaprakash.

If nationality matters:
 * two of the three Bangladeshi Test umpires are missing - A. F. M. Akhtaruddin and S. R. Chinu
 * Cole and Thomas Cobcroft are the only Australians missing
 * there are only three Englishmen missing - Walter Richards, Jack Smart, and Charles Richardson
 * two of the three Zimbabwean Test umpires are missing - Quintin Goosen and Kantilal Kanjee

Then there are lots (and lots) of Indians, New Zealanders, Pakistanis, South Africans, Sri Lankans, West Indians... -- Testing times (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Keith Johnson (cricket administrator)/archive1
Is up and running  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

St Asaph Cricket Club
Is this club notable? I'm intending to write an article about them as they're my local club, but I'm not sure about notability. – PeeJay 17:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Google results for above SGGH ping! 18:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My main worry is that, while this WikiProject's main notability criteria state that teams listed at List of English and Welsh cricket league clubs are inherently notable and St Asaph is listed on this page, they are in fact erroneously listed as they do not currently play in the North Wales Premier Division. They actually currently play in North Wales Division One, but only because they were relegated at the end of the 2008 season, and they are looking like getting promoted again this season. Anyway, since notability is not temporary, can I assume that their notability still holds? – PeeJay 19:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Australian cricket team in England in 1997
Hey. Could anyone take a look at the above, and help me with the match boxes where one innings isn't played? Cheers! SGGH ping! 22:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a different template to the one you were using (template:Test match instead of template:First Class Matches), but how's this? Nev1 (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks much easier! Excellent... I was not looking forward to doing five more of those big templates! SGGH ping! 08:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your going to add in the tour matches, correct?  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 00:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Twenty20 cup
Hi, Can someone do a results section for the 2009 Twenty20 Cup in a similar way to the 2008 Twenty20 Cup group stage page, with cricket results boxes. I have created several standalone articles for the 2008 competition to make the info easier to navigate. Thanks. 03 md  09:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Give it a couple of days, I'll try and rustle something up. &mdash; AMBerry (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, made a start on 2009 Twenty20 Cup South Division (decided to give each group its own article, else it'd be a bit on the large side), haven't finished it though. If anyone feels the urge to finish it off in the next twelve hours or so that'd be much appreciated. &mdash; AMBerry (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

International tour templates
has "cleaned up" the links to the tour articles at Template:International cricket tours of New Zealand and various other templates by giving them en-dashes rather than hyphens (Indian cricket team in New Zealand in 1967–68 instead of Indian cricket team in New Zealand in 1967-68, for example). That has broken most of the links, other than a few that have been moved or redirected already. Is this right? -- Testing times (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Per MOS:DASH, endashes should be used for date ranges rather than hyphens. I'll start moving some of the articles. While I'm at it, would now be a good time to point out that the tour articles don't match cricket team article titles? Ie: "Indian cricket team in New Zealand in 1967–68" rather than "India national cricket team in New Zealand in 1967–68". Nev1 (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * MOSDASH:whatever. Don't ask me.  I was only writing up William Trevor Martin, and noticed all the redlinks in the template! -- Testing times (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. MOS is policy though, so it really should be followed. I know most tour articles follow the pattern Indian cricket team in New Zealand in 1967–68, but would people mind if I changed the pages in this case to India national cricket team in New Zealand in 1967–68? I don't want to do it without consensus, but I think it makes sense as it would match the cricket team articles. Nev1 (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, some of our Ashes series articles are "Australia/England in England/Australia, 1997" and some are "such and such Ashes". Which are we going with? Or are there just articles for the series and the tour? Both kinds are linked to by the template. SGGH ping! 20:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We've been around this loop several times before. Matches outside the internationals (Tests, ODIs etc) tend to be against "the Indians" etc; the team is only the national team when it is playing international cricket. And of course the West Indies don't fit into any "national team" format. I see no particular benefit in moving all of these, though I mind less if there are cross-refs. And is it churlish of me to think that a lot of these are articles that need content expansion rather than renaming as a priority? Johnlp (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I understand now. I don't think the point about tour matches being against teams such as the Indians was made before. (England don't fit into a national team format either, their articles would, under my previous suggestion, be "England cricket team tour of...) Nev1 (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the 1948 Ashes series was only created after the main article was overgrown a bit, with the 29 matches and all that. However, with more recent tours with only 3-4 FC matches outside Tests, two articles might not be needed  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 00:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But when you factor in the One Day Internationals and Twenty20 Internationals, perhaps creating a separate article for the Ashes Tests isn't such a bad idea. I was certainly considering it for the 2009 Ashes series. – PeeJay 01:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if it is done in any detail, then it will always need a separate article for every Test :P  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to the original point of this discussion, I have now moved every single tour article I could find to use an endash instead of a hyphen, so the templates should all have bluelinks now, assuming the appropriate articles existed in the first place! – PeeJay 00:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

AEJ Collins
Does anyone know much about this guy? It's at FAR but seems close...  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that the article has managed to dig up as much about him as it has. It seems that the only truly notable thing that he ever did was to score that 628*. JH (talk page) 09:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Test cricket records nominated at WP:FLRC
nominated List of Test cricket records for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Matthewedwards : Chat  02:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

England's first innings from yesterday...
Well, well, well... as Michael Holding would say. Anyway, I noticed all the dismissals were from catches with no bowled or LBWs, etc. Has this happened before, or is it fairly unusual?  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not as unusual as you'd think, it was the 54th occasion of it in Test cricket. It also happened in the last Ashes series and Australia are the most frequent team on the catching side of the feat. --Jpeeling (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link!  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Writing on the wall
Well, now that Johnson has got his act together and the Aussies have stopped letting us off the hook, the writing is on the wall for what is in truth a pretty average England team. I'm assuming, of course, that Prior, Broad & Co. will not somehow salvage a draw out of this fine mess. Bringing Harmison back was a mistake and Bopara is, as Bob Willis says, "shot to pieces". The performance in this match takes us right back to the dark and dismal days of the dreadful Atherton team in the nineties. Terrible. --Jack | talk page 08:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The cracks in our batting have certainly been exposed and there should be a pretty major overhaul after this Test. Broad's 6fer might have saved his skin, although I missed it and don't know how well he bowled, but I'd expect and Harmison to go and at least one of Bell and Bopara. The way in which the batting folded was very reminiscent of the 90s. Nev1 (talk) 09:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't think Hilfenhaus will be as much of a threat at the Oval as It shouldn't swing as much. Interesting to note how he has got Bopara on 5 of the 7 times he's batted. Doubt Australia will play a spinner now at the Oval. Even though Warne got 12 wickets in 2005 and Murali 9/51 in 1997(?). All England's batsman in the second innings out to defensive shots. Watson hasn't even bowled this Test and only bowled three overs for 23 runs in the series.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 09:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought Broad bowled pretty well on the whole as he did keep to a full length whereas Harmison was dropping it far too short. Although Broad got hit about at times, he also produced some very good deliveries.  He is probably England's one real prospect for the 2010s: the rest are either at their peak now (e.g., Onions, Anderson, Strauss, Prior, Swann) or past it (Harmison and Collingwood) or never will reach the highest standard (Bell in particular).  I think Stuart Clark made a big difference in this match and Australia look a much stronger attack with him involved.  --Jack | talk page 09:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Everyone keeps on harping on about how great the Ashes are etc, how much it means, but in terms of combined talent, apart from maybe the 1980s this has to be one of the worst series of all time. In fact I would say the whole standard of world cricket is pretty bad; I can't think of a time when the frontrunners (RSA/AUS/IND) were so bad.... Where's Neil Harvey when you need him???  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree with you there. To my mind the Ashes reached its nadir in the 1980s when, until Australia became a good team again in 1989, it was contested by two poor teams.  But the 1980s did have the West Indies.  There are no great teams around now.  --Jack | talk page 04:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Advice for another WP
I have a question that may sound odd but I think it may help settle a future debate in the pro-wrestling Wiki Project. I'm almost certain it's never happened since Wiki has been around but what would happen to a player's statistics if a match previously deemed a Test (say the SuperTest) was suddenly stripped of Test status? Would their statistics be reduced or would they stay the same on account of it being a Test at the time? It's the best comparison I can think of for something that sometimes happens in wrestling where a championship changes hands then is won back and the company revises their history to state the change never happened even though third party sources see it has happened. Given the scripted nature of pro-wrestling it seems peculiar just to that sport so it's hard to find a precedent but the ICC governing body granting/stripping Test status retroactively seemed to be about as similar as I could find and seeing as this project has a lot of FAs I thought someone might know. Also the forfeited England/Pakistan Test seems like a good comparison with the ever changing result. Tony2Times (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say just reduce the stats. Also you never know, Packer tests of the last 70's could end up have Test status one day.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I also would reduce the stats. When England played five matches against the Rest of the World in 1970 it was thought at the time, at least in England, that the matches had Test status, but the ICC later ruled that they did not. The unfortunate Alan Jones found that he had never played Test cricket after all. Inconsistently, the ICC ruled that the Australia v RoW match a couple of years ago should count as a Test, but Bill Frindall and some other statisticians would not accept that, and I wouldn't be surprised if ICC changed its mind in a year or two. JH (talk page) 08:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Downgrade the stats. It is the same as a guy getting busted for drugs and getting their medals confiscated  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Stats within the forfeited Eng-Pak match should stand, as the unusual circumstances are within the Laws and so should have no bearing on the status of the Test itself. Deoxyribonucleic acid trip (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection needed for cricket
This article is being attacked by morons on a daily basis and needs permanent full protection so that only established editors can update it. It is all very well assuming that someone will revert the childish stupidity in a few hours but, as someone said on this page a while back, how many genuine readers have looked at the page during those few hours and left in disgust at a site that cannot adequately protect key articles?

Can one of the admins please think about the readers and deal with this at once? --Jack | talk page 06:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * YM has done it. Thanks to him.  --Jack | talk page 06:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter Judge (cricketer)
Judge is mentioned in the current Ask Steven on Cricinfo as having been dismissed first ball in both innings. However, CricketArchive reckon that in the second innings it was second ball. Anyone know for sure? Loganberry (Talk) 00:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing up the subject of the worst question in the cricket quiz's history ;) Today's Ask Steven doesn't mention a number of balls in the first innings and according to a previous Ask Steven and a Stump the Bearded Wonder Andrew Hignell, Glamorgan scorer, looked at the scorecard and Judge was out second ball in the first innings, so it appears a rare case of CA being wrong. --Jpeeling (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Height
The height template in the infobox isn't working.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 11:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed that too. It wont take a metres value with decimals.  Its been out for several hours now.  I assume the problem is related to convert and note that its been reported here.  –Moondyne 11:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Is there a way to create a monobook code which adds a button to the edit bar (where bold text, redirect, hidden text buttons etc. are) which inserts the wikiproject player infobox? Would make the process of adding new articles much easier, but not sure how difficult it would be. SGGH ping! 13:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The documentation for the cricketer biography infobox already provides blank templates for you to copy and paste into articles. No offence, but how much more help do you need? – PeeJay 16:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My logic is, it is far easier to add the box with one click than navigate another page to the project page and copy and paste the correct box in. Particularly for people with slower internet connections. It could also become a practice for infoboxes everywhere, rather than having to trawl for an infobox for an unusual topic by searching the wikiprojects. SGGH ping! 16:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * C'est possible !
 * You can add that code to your monobook.js and complete it:
 * If you're not happy with the image of the button, feel free to change it!
 * OrangeKnight (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why many thanks! I have added it but still tinkering. If anyone who knows more about it than I could check User:SGGH/monobook.js to make sure I'm doing it right! :) SGGH ping! 18:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry! I didn't know that the function 'addCustomButton' was a custom one on fr.Wikipedia, and was not created on en:. Please have a look on my monobook and copy-paste everything, it works fine now. OrangeKnight (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry! I didn't know that the function 'addCustomButton' was a custom one on fr.Wikipedia, and was not created on en:. Please have a look on my monobook and copy-paste everything, it works fine now. OrangeKnight (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * While we're on the topic of infoboxes, for Laurie Nash I added a copy of his signature to the infobox but I can't get it to show. Is there anything I need to do to get the signature to show in the infobox? --Roisterer (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The full infobox (thanks to this new nifty button):

I don't think there is a signature option configured. SGGH ping! 12:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you know if there can be? There is one for US Presidents. --Roisterer (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You'll need to add the code (as per the image field, or copy the code from the US Presidents box) for a new signature option. Is it necessary? How many cricketing signatures do we have copies of?
 * I don't think it's necessary, personally. Unlike US Presidents, cricketers' signatures are not a defining aspect of themselves, and as such there is no need to have it in the infobox. – PeeJay 17:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Would it be useful to have batting strike rate or bowling economy rate as optional fields in the infobox? They'd be most useful for limited overs matches, but might make the infobox too long. Nev1 (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this would be a good addition. We have options for batting and bowling averages, so why not strike rates? Also, could we have optional fields for numbers of fours and sixes hit, perhaps combined into one field similar to the 100s/50s field? – PeeJay 18:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Basnahira South cricket team
Hello everyone, This article is current DYK suggestion under August 14th. An editor has raised questions on its notability and other matters. While I am pretty much sure about its notability, if like to express your views on the issues please go ahead and. Here is the article entry in DYK. Regards!--Chanaka L (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As the team takes part in the Sri Lankan domestic first-class competition (as well as in T20), I don't think that there should be any doubt about its notability. JH (talk page) 08:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)