Talk:Test cricket/Archive 1

Comment

"regard Australia as stronger team (in their most recent two series, Australia beat South Africa 3-0 in Australia and 2-1 in South Africa) and the changeover the result of the inadequacies of the ranking system."

I thought SA was ranked higher than Aus because Aus refused to play series against certain countries. [1]

First paragraph

Is it really necessary to mention the first international? That was a limited overs game. Not a test. --Differentgravy 18:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again...

The first ever international cricket match was NOT a test, so it therefore only needs a fleeting mention, if not at all. --Differentgravy 16:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter it should be there since most people will think that the first international match wasn't a test match. It was credited a test match but it was first class kind of a match.--THUG CHILD z 17:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...which is what I've changed it to. And it should remain that way. --Differentgravy 15:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Test cricket playing nations

Is it worth keeping the note about Zimbabwe's suspension from Tests? It was useful when they weren't playing, but now that the suspension has ended I'm not sure it serves any useful purpose. I will remove it if there are no objections. --Ngb 01:25, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just changed the wording of that Zimbabwe suspension note. It does indeed say "suspend" on the ICC/ZCU announcement, but it seems to refer to the Tests themselves, and not Zimbabwe or the Zimbabwean team. Not as in "Tim was suspended from school," but as in "the trial was suspended for a week." http://usa.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2004/JUN/166521_ZIM_10JUN2004.html 4th paragraph. Um, that said, I just saw your message about removing the note, Ngb, and actually I haven o objection to that. --bad_leprechaun 11:08 pm, 10 Jan 2005 (EST)

We should keep the info about the suspension somewhere (History of test cricket?) as it's interesting info, jguk 14:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There's already a section about it in History of cricket which I've just clarified with the exact dates of the suspension, and tried to make more encyclopaedic. Does that suffice? --Ngb 15:04, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think so - good stuff:) jguk 19:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Which country is considered to be the "first" country on the list of Test playing countries? Is it Australia, because they hosted and won the first "Test" Match or England? BartBart (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation

Why is "Test" capitalised, as far as I can see, in every instance here? I have never seen that done for any other sport, is it a proper noun somehow?--Dmcdevit 23:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is treated as a proper noun in cricket usage, at least. It is standard among cricket writers, magazines, and newspapers that "Test" is capitalised. I can't recall ever seeing it in lower case, except on some dubious web pages. I'm not sure why it should be capitalised, but established usage is that it is. - dmmaus 00:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it, I only noticed it and became concerned when I saw some of the subpages had (what I thought might be) the wrong naming convention. --Dmcdevit 01:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We had a discussion on this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket. I was the only one supporting "test" over "Test". The outcome is that WikiProject Cricket's standard is to capitalise the first T in Test, jguk 06:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is idiosyncratic spelling usual in cricket articles? There are other capitalized words that don't seem to warrant it. Also worthy of note: in the Jesus article, all of the instances of "he", "him", "his", "etc." are not capitalized, unless they come at the beginning of a sentence. -Acjelen 01:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See for instance, the report of a match in progress from Cricinfo, which is the top cricket site. Tintin Talk 01:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green?

There is no definition of a Green Wicket; and, as an idiot American, I have no clue.

I've tried to clarify, and linked in 'wicket' to the Cricket pitch article which has more complete explanation of what the state of the pitch means. Better? --Ngb 14:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why "Test" matches?

When do they play real matches? More seriously, what is the origin of the word "Test"? --Henrygb 16:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think because it was a "test" between England and its Colony. The term originated in the press in the mid to late 1880s, I think, jguk 17:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Date problem

According to today feaured article History of Test cricket (1884 to 1889) the term Test use this way was The period also saw the introduction of the word "Test", a word coined by the Press in 1885, which has remained in common usage ever since. but this article says It seems to have been used first to described an English team that toured Australia in 1861/62, although these matches are not considered Test matches today. this appears to be a contradiction. Does anyone know the correct date? Hopefully with some sort of refrence. Dalf | Talk 00:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Frindall column goes with 1861/2. Tintin Talk 01:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Complete Encyclopedia of Cricket" Peter Arnold & Pete Wynne-Thomas (2006) p92 refers to a sentence in Hammersley's "Victorian Cricketer Guide" (1862) mentioning "Test-match". It is also mentioned that the term "Test Match" became more common in the 1880s. According to the book which matches qualified as Tests was disputed until the beginning of the 20th Century when the list in "Australian Cricket and Cricketers" by C.P.Moody (1894) came to be regarded as the official list. BartBart 12:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it test cricket

The article glosses over what makes Test cricket "Test", by which I mean different from other sorts of cricket. That Test cricket is a match between two cricket sides with Test status seems like a tautology. That Test cricket is five days long (as opposed to what?) and between international teams seems like an aspect of cricket worthy of its own section in the article Cricket at most. In addition, the five-day length isn't mentioned until section 3. For an encyclopedia filled with over-contextualization, the cricket articles I've read can be vague and uninformitive. And I've seen Lagaan! -Acjelen 01:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, while Cricket_terminology#T does mention about Tests being the highest level of the game, this article talks about it being the 'longest' and leaves it at that. The paragraph about Packer series etc could well be moved out of the intro section. Tintin Talk 01:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Authenticity check: A search reveals that the phrase "regarded by many" appears in the text. Is the phrase a symptom of a dubious statement? Could a source be quoted instead? Perhaps the "many" could be identified? Might text be edited to more genuinely reflect specific facts?

Wetman

Your generic accusations and needlessly showy formatting leave a sour taste, but I have edited the article to remove the weasel words. I shall now await the accusations of POV opinions. -dmmaus 06:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Why the citations box? Hardly anything that isn't obviously correct or anything contentious in the article. Where are citations necessary? Stephen Parnell 16:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors seem to love adding those darn things to articles where all the facts are common knowledge. :-/ Frankly, I'd say just remove it. -dmmaus 20:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was added by a new editor who has done nothing except adding such tags to some 30 articles in the space of an hour. Most of the tags are unnecessary or irrelevant. Tintin (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I protested mildly and politely about the "new editor" throwing these tags around and he then bollocked me for having the temerity to suggest he might be a bit trigger happy! Heugh ho! Stephen Parnell 10:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tests for Nations Only

This doesn't make sense. How can the West Indies have a Test team if the West Indies in itself are not a Nation ? Niall123 18:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

England is also not a nation. India wasn't a nation before 1947, yet it had a team. Grassynoel (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its an exception to the rule because of historical reasons--Thugchildz 23:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

Yes, the same historical reasons that gives the UK four teams in world football while every other nation gets, at most, one. Grassynoel (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its a bit more than just an exception to the rule. In reality, test cricket can only be played between teams that are organized solely under the various cricket administrations recognized by the ICC (which are termed "national" sides for short). There is no rule that teams have to come from individual countries, thus if East Africa (or its successor East and Central Africa) or West Africa had passed the requirements they could have become test-playing sides, however they all disbanded before coming anywhere near that goal mainly due to the separate countries wishing to develop cricket individually. In a similar (yet seeming more probable scenario), if Ireland's team continues to develop and achieves test status, it will represent two separate entities. In theory, Australia and New Zealand or the South Asian teams could form new unified cricket bodies (e.g. "Australasia" and "South Asia") and these new boards would presumably either have to re-qualify for test status or they might just continue having test status (especially since the former teams had test status). If Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Indonesia and the Philippines formed an "East Indies" team, that team could also eventually attain test status. In any event, none of these theoretical regional teams could be denied test status on the grounds that they do not represent a single country (anymore than Scotland can be denied participation on the grounds that Scotland and England form the United Kingdom). Also it must be kept in mind that when refering to a "nation" that it is not the same thing as a country, thus the Irish nation is not the same as the Republic of Ireland. Historically the West Indian colonies organized a unified cricket team which vaguely corresponded with the growing sense of nationhood (that ultimately failed when the federation of the colonies collapsed but the team continued as it had before). A similar situation occurred with the Australian team before the federation of Australia in 1901 (except their federation succeeded and Australia is now a unified nation). Now even though multiple countries can form unified teams, there are rules as to which persons are eligible for those teams. Only nationals or citizens from the countries that form the unified team may participate in the team. For example during the period of the East Africa team, a person from say Malawi could not join unless they became a citizen of Uganda, Tanzania or Kenya. Likewise no Bahamian or Cayman Islander can join the West Indies team unless they became a citizen (or were originally a national) of one of the countries represented by the West Indies Cricket Board. Not sure how it would work for Scotland and England now that Scotland has its own team, but obviously if someone chooses to represent Scotland in international cricket they cannot also represent England at the same time (or while their contract with Scotland is still valid).72.27.5.17 07:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"... if Ireland's team continues to develop and achieves test status, it will represent two separate entities."

But how? There is only one nation named Ireland. Grassynoel (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ireland cricket team represents the sovereign state of Ireland (also known as the Republic of) and the British 'constituent country' of Northern Ireland; two seperate (at least legally+politically) entities. Pretty Green (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland as a test nation

Removed this paragraph from the article - really can't see Ireland being granted test status on the strength of a one day victory over Pakistan and seems to include POV about test cricket being "tired"

"Ireland's dramatic defeat of Pakistan and their all-round exciting performance in the 2007 World Cup has raised calls for Ireland to be added to the list of test nations. Cricket pundits have called for the inclusion to bring a fresh and exciting flavour to the tired formula of Test Cricket." Cavie78 22:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have been doing well in the intercontinental cup(first class) but yet to see any talks from the "big men" about their inclusion.--Thugchildz 01:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]