Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 46

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48→Archive 50

Article for Deletion: 2009 Indian Premier League

A user has put the recently created article 2009 Indian Premier League up for deletion, due to the (I believe) clearly mistaken belief that it is unclear whether there will be a 2009 IPL Season. I welcome editors to the discussion page for the AfD to clear up this situation once and for all. Juwe (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The user (LeaveSleaves (talk)) has thankfully withdrawn his AfD for the article. However, a considerable amount of time has been wasted due to his refusal to engage in constructive debate or accept that his initial position might have been mistaken, despite arguments and evidence to that effect (see Talk:2009 Indian Premier League#Proposed deletion). This is not the first time I have had problems with LeaveSleaves employing counterproductive debating techniques. I posted this message on his talk page, after he had repeatedly claimed to know that consensus supported his viewpoint on a matter, when I subsequently found (through lots of wasted time and effort) that it unequivocally did not. I strongly feel that he needs to be spoken to and made aware that such behaviour is totally unacceptable. Could someone here please look into the matter? Thankyou Juwe (talk) 03:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:W Limited Overs Matches

I tried to create this from Template:Limited Overs Matches for Women's ODIs when it's "player of the match" not "man of the match" but I can't seem to get it to change. Could anyone help? SGGH speak! 12:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Haven't taken the time to figure out exactly what's going on, but there was one "Man of the mathc" that you hadn't changed - looks ok now (although it needs it's own documentation). JPD (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's fixed. You can see it at 1997 Women's Cricket World Cup. Thanks very much! SGGH speak! 15:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this POV: Bradman is "generally acknowledged as the greatest batsman of all time"?

At the Bradman Peer Review (and my talk page), Tony1 is concerned that those words in the Lead constitute POV:

"Opening sentence POV, I think. I've heard opinions that he wouldn't measure up to today's batsmen. Tone it down. "Was considered to be one of the greatest batsmen of the time (or "of the 20th century" if you think you can go that far)."

The source used for the relevant sentence is Cricinfo's player profile on DGB which opens:

"Sir Donald Bradman of Australia was, beyond any argument, the greatest batsman who ever lived and the greatest cricketer of the 20th century. Only WG Grace, in the formative years of the game, even remotely matched his status as a player."

I think that the current text allows for the fact that one or two people may dissent from this opinion, but overwhelmingly it is the case that commentators will agree with this opinion. JH has tried to help by pointing out that all 100 pundits gave a vote to DGB in Wisden Cricketers of the Century, but I'm discounting that as they could, for all we know, all have ranked him fifth of their five votes.

I'd appreciate help on this. Is it POV? And if you think it is, how can we improve it (without distorting the reality that if you asked cricket pundits who the greatest batsman of all time was, you'd have to ask an awful lot of people before any other name was mentioned more than once)? --Dweller (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

NB Some background: Some time ago, the article said "univerally acknowledged" before I opened this thread which resulted in the current wording. --Dweller (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think universally acknowledged is fine. Given in particular the fact that statistically he is still the greatest sportsman in history according to analysis, not just the greatests batsman, and he is generally acknowledged as the greatest batsman of all time by both experts and laymen. SGGH speak! 16:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it was me who originally suggested "generally acknowledged", since "universally acknowledged" would only need one person dissenting to be falsified. I don't think it's POV. A few recent players and ex-players may have queried Bradman's status, but I think you'd find that they didn't know very much cricket history. Having been a fine player doesn't automatically make you an expert on past cricketers. Those people who are, such as David Frith and Gideon Haigh, I don't think have any doubts. A few people when Bradman was playing put Grace or Hobbs (better on bad wickets) or even Trumper (looked better) ahead of him, but they were in the minority. Only Grace as a young man in the 1870s, before he had the chance to play in Tests, outscored his contemporaries by the same sort of margin as Bradman did. Bradman's average was at least 50% higher than his nearest rivals. Recent players such as Viv Richards, Lara and Tendulkar haven't been able to do that over a sustained period. Because of Grace's claim, if being cautious you might want to say "Bradman was generally acknowledged to be the greatest batsman of the 20th century". JH (talk page) 17:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I too think "generally acknowledged" is quite okay as it pretty much the truth. Outside of 1871 to about 1877, Grace was not as dominant as Bradman usually was. But JH, as for the ex-players, Fender, Sutcliffe & co have actually seen both Bradman and Hobbs bat. As knowledgeable as they are, the first hand knowledge of the contemporary critics like Frith, Haigh or Engel is limited to a few grainy videos. SGGH, that is one analysis done by one person, and I am not sure how much weight we can give it. Tintin 17:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the two posts above: "generally acknowledged" is the best bet (link it to a cite from a RS that uses this exact phrase), but I suggest after the sentence that includes this phrase, use the 100 out of 100 votes in the Wisden COTC poll for affirmation. There is a problem with crossed wires when people try to sum up Bradman; ie, trying to isolate his achievements purely as a batsman as against his wider (and continuing) fame and influence on the game as a personality, administrator, writer and as an Australian icon. Reading through some of Tony's comments, he seems to have confused these two issues. Through no doing of his own, Bradman was drawn in as an example of John Howard's conservativism and supposed preference for the old days ahead of the modern, multicultural Australia. Bradman was called "the greatest living Australian" long before young Johnnie threw his two bob's worth into the hat, so maybe the reference to Howard can be removed without losing the original quote. Or maybe we can incorporate Tony's most scholarly use of the c-word as a pejorative description of Howard to ease Tony's POV concerns :-) (Only kidding Tony, I'm sure you have more degrees than a protractor) Phanto282 (talk) 04:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the quote from CricInfo is out of order because it doesn't take account of historical context. JH is right to point out the superiority of Grace and Bradman over their contemporaries: it is this factor that sets these two players apart from the rest of cricket's great batsmen. But if you start to compare Grace and Bradman you have to consider the prevailing pitch conditions. WG played on uncertain surfaces while the Don played on good pitches for the most part.
JH has already mentioned that Jack Hobbs was a great player on bad wickets. Another was Len Hutton. The evidence from the 19th century clearly indicates that WG could not only prevail in poor conditions but actually master them.
The statement that WG played in "the formative years of the game" is frankly drivel. Cricket was a long-established professional sport before WG was even born. The key differences between the 1870s and the 1930s were organisation of fixture schedules, which began in WG's time and was largely due to his influence; and pitch preparation, particularly the use of marl and other binding agents from about the 1890s.
You cannot say that Don Bradman was universally acknowledged to have been the greatest batsman of all time because I for one think WG was probably the greatest. You cannot say he was the best of the 20th century because, as JH pointed out, plenty of Aussies have said that Victor Trumper was better. A lot of English people have said Jack Hobbs was a better batsman in all conditions. West Indians still say that Bradman was only the "White Headley". The Don was statistically the most successful batsman but statistics do not take account of pitch conditions, style, repertoire of shots, match contexts, quality of the opposition or the opinions of watching contemporary experts.
Instead of "generally", I would write that Don Bradman was WIDELY considered to be the greatest batsman of the 20th century and this is borne out by the fact that 100 acknowledged experts included him in their first five votes in the Wisden survey.
By the way, Dweller, it is a superb article. Well done. BlackJack | talk page 07:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we're agreed we can't use "universally", with the best argument I've seen being the Hobbs on bad wickets comment. However, I'm not sure what's wrong with "generally", being that it excludes the odd dissenter, while accurately reflecting the general consensus.

Bradman's Wisden obit does take this on somewhat, calling him "the most effective batsman in cricket's history". As JH points out, any who have dissented from this opinion are a minority. I think that "widely" does a dis-service to the naked truth, which is that without applying caveats and if...buts, such as "on bad wickets", "style-wise" etc, the vast majority of knowledgable respondents would put Bradman as the greatest batsman of all time.

It would seem that Jack is a (well-argued) lone voice. Am I right in thinking that consensus here has it that we're content with "generally" being appropriate and NPOV? --Dweller (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy with the use of "generally" -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather with Jack on this one and prefer "widely" as being incontrovertibly true, whereas "generally" is a bit weaselly. Johnlp (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Move to close

OK, would everyone support use of "widely"? --Dweller (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, one and all. I take that as consensus. I've made the amend and closed the PR. As soon as the article's had a c-e, it'll be off to FAC and, hopefully, another brick in the Invincibles FT wall. --Dweller (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is hoping! SGGH speak! 10:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

List of English Twenty20 International cricketers at WP:FLRC

I have nominated List of English Twenty20 International cricketers for removal due to failing the featured list criteria. Any comments are welcome here.--Crzycheetah 03:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:FL-Class cricket articles

I think I brought this up before, but featured lists in this project are being rated in the project template as FA not FL, and when placed on FL they are placed in the "unassessed article" category rather than the above. Could someone fix this? SGGH speak! 11:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added the switch for FL, but the code seems to have all manner of different things that it changes depending on the class. I don't know if anything needs adding. But, it's working, and Talk:List of English Twenty20 International cricketers looks fine, although Category:FL-Class cricket articles of Low-importance et al need creating. I have no clue how to get the box at the bottom of the main Wikiproject page to work, mind you. You're on your own for that one. :)
Scratch that, figured it out and added, too. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 14:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I took a look at a few pages and didn't see it having inadvertantly changed anything, but feel free to revert it if I've missed something. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 13:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hick

I don't think we can say that as we have no means of comparing them. Few would disagree that Warne (or Barnes but who saw him to compare)was the pre-eminent bowler of the century but the others you mention have very good test records and the WI fast bowlers had certain advantages - slow over rate, bowling in a quartet, poor regulation of short-pitch bowling and no helmets. No FAST bowler has been a sustained success in the last ten years. They have had fits and starts. I would not call McGrath a fast bowler in the sense of the WI quartet. I watch Hick most weeks, he's always looked wobbly on occasions and imperious on others - he has a good test record if you remove the first eight and last six tests. Gatting was not disimilar if a heavier scorer in the middle years. I am a big fan of GH and I would go with those who felt he was messed about joining Ramps, Geoff Miller and quite a few others. We need to add, he had a very good odi record.Fieldgoalunit (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

So Graeme Hick has had a raw deal. But the main point I am making is that we as editors must consider the credibility of the source as well as the verifiability. This journalist is entitled to his opinion and we can use him to verify that doubts about Hick's ability did exist but we must then counterbalance it by placing emphasis on the much more credible views of experts by experience like Botham and Warne. BlackJack | talk page 08:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
What really cemented Graveney's reputation was his success on his return to the side in 1966, when he had to deal with a West Indies attack of Hall, Griffith, Sobers, Gibbs and Holford. There haven't been too many attacks better than that, though admittedly the West Indies attacjs of the 1980s and early 1990s might be among them on all but surfaces helping the spinners. Prior to 1966, Graveney had been rather similar to Hick: loads of runs in county cricket, but inconsistent at Test level and often dropped. Given that Graveney was almost forty in 1966, there may yet be time for Hick. (As an aside, if Davidson was not as good as McGrath there wasn't much in it. Davidson had an excellent average, even allowing that pitches at the time tended to be more bowler-friendly.) JH (talk page) 09:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Wait... what did I do? SGGH speak! 09:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Bowled Blackjack behind his legs. Must have been a useful delivery. --Roisterer (talk) 09:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It was a ball from hell. There'll be an article about it one day. I went away looking as if someone had pinched my breakfast. BlackJack | talk page 21:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
A bacon butty, it was. BlackJack | talk page 21:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

He might not be the only one bowled behind his legs: MacGill out, Warne in. Time for another Micky V presser to let us know what he thinks of superannuated Australian cricketers. Phanto282 (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Zzzzzip!

Is there any resource which catalogues bowler's career average speeds? In the days of modern statisticaly recording, I suspect it's not far away if it doesn't exist already, and if it does, it would make an interesting statistic for the infobox. We would, however, have to make the entry in the infobox invisible unless there is a value, otherwise it will look bad on infoboxes where no data exists. Thought was prompted having read on Cricket Archive that Jimmy A is a "genuinely fast bowler". I would have thought fast-medium, and was curious. SGGH speak! 17:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any bowlers have been measured often enough to get a reliable average speed. Below international level, most won't have ever been measured. So I think that we are stuck with the present, rather subjective, categorisation into fast/fast-medium/medium (with some schemes inserting medium-fast as well). JH (talk page) 20:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
That's a shame SGGH speak! 08:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Secretaries of the (other) MCC

Hi all. I am looking for a list of the Secretaries of the Melbourne Cricket Club. From piecing together bits from different articles, it appears that the club had only 3 secretaries (all Test cricketers) in the 71-year period from 1911 to 1982; Hugh Trumble 1911-1938, Vernon Ransford 1938-1956 and Ian Johnson 1956-1982. This seems remarkable to me and I would like to include a mention of this in the Johnson article; but I can't find a source stating this on the interweb. Any help, pointing in the right direction etc. would be much appreciated. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 23:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Major Ben Wardill was secretary from 1878 to 1910. He had played in 2 f-c games for Victoria in the 1860s. He was manager of the 1886, 1899 and 1902 Australian touring sides. A Google search on his name turns up a few hits. His Wisden obituary is here: [1] (slightly out of precise alphabetical order). JH (talk page) 08:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Hon secreatry from 1841 (no record between 1838-1841): G Cavenagh, W McVitie, O Gilles, FW Marsden, AH Broadbent, P Turnbull, WH Hull, Melmoth Hall, WH McKenzie Jnr, AM Dick, JW Brookes, TW Wills, TF Wray, RW Wardill, WC Biddle, WH Handfield, AF Robinson, R Johnson. In 1877, it became a paid position: 1877-78 CA Reid; 1878-80 Reid & BJ Wardill, 1880-1911 BJ Wardill, 1911 SM Tindall, 1911-38 H Trumble, 1939-1957 VS Ransford, 1957-83 IWG Johnson, 1983-2000 Dr JC Lill, 2000- Steve Gough. nb. Ben Wardill status as a "major" was honorary; RW Wardill is his brother who scored the first first-class century in Australia and later committed suicide after he was discovered embezzling money from his employer. TW Wills is, of course, Tommy Wills, while Thomas Wray sat on the first committee of the Melbourne FC in 1859. The heritage of the position is remarkable, equal to any in world sport. The enigma among the paid secretaries, however, is Tindall [2] and [3]. Chris Harte, A History of Australian cricket: "Sidney Tindall, formerly of Lancashire and London County, lasted only a few months in the post before departing under a cloud; and his death in Sydney eleven years later, when he fell from a tram, was covered in suspicion and mystery. The club then elected Hugh Trumble as Secretary, and he remained until 1938, but even nowadays, when listing its secretaries, the Melbourne Club tries to forget Tindall's name."

Phanto282 (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Viv Richards

Can we have an eye on this? The IP of Anup Ramakrishnan (talk · contribs) keep on engaging in idol worship. He's also been trashing the Tendulkar page over and over. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I got it. SGGH speak! 08:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Crickey he is causing kurfuffle isn't he? Besides, I would have said Ricky Ponting was the greatest ODI player, personally. He has been blocked for 31 hours for 3RR, and I left a note on the 3RR report he initially filed against you stating how it is malicious, and that he will need watching upon his return. SGGH speak! 08:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Quiet thus far, and his block is long gone. SGGH speak! 19:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
He's on Dweller's talk and mine as well with some other IP. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

He's back. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

nothing harmful so far lets watch. SGGH speak! 06:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Warned the IP though, User talk:68.45.216.36. Could you clarify something for me? Was it Viv or Sachin who was voted the greatest ODI batsman? He seems to provide URLs for his claim that it was Viv, but you revert to the Sachin version with a citation needed tag, which one is correct? Cheers, SGGH speak! 06:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I've had further words, and seem to have reached a compromise. I have kept the reliable sources which rate Viv so highly, and have trimmed the fancruft and POV from it. Haven't done anything to Sachin, his comments are all cited and I think they are yours not his anyway. Any further issues? SGGH speak! 15:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I have further amended the lead paragraph. One of the references was for a Wisden award of the greatest ODI innings of all time (as well as his award for greatest ODI batsman), while 2 of the references were not even relevant to the sentences they were referencing. One of these reference articles was just an opinion piece by Derek Pringle on 3 ODI batsman and 3 ODI bowlers who he rated as "the creme de la creme". His 3 bowlers were Joel Garner, Wasim Akram and... ahem... Gavin Larsen! Juwe (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
At least the disruption has calmed, who is Gavin Larsen? SGGH speak! 18:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The fact that you asked that question proves my point I think. Gavin Larsen was what I would call a "typical New Zealand ODI bowler of the 1990s". He would bowl 10 overs, not too fast (so the ball wouldn't come on to the bat), with not too much width, and not too much of anything else. Still, for ODI cricket he did the job, and I think it is because New Zealand have had players like him that they have long been more competitive in ODIs than Tests. Juwe (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Larsen is slightly famous for having captained his country in ODIs before winning a Test cap. Not sure how many times that's happened. A kind of antithesis of Mark Butcher. Johnlp (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Cricinfo

Is the site down, or is it just my connection? --Dweller (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Down for me in Oz as well, which is rather annoying when I am looking for a source for the Atkinson/Depeiaza partnership. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
If I didn't know what you were talking about, I'd think it sounds like a law firm or a nasty disease! --Dweller (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Likewise, I'm trying to fix the above FLR with Cricinfo sources! SGGH speak! 11:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Site seems to be back up and running. --Dweller (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not quite, the records section is still down. At least I can follow the Black Caps' progress now - doing very well! -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't you just love England vs New Zealand Test matches? It always seems to be a battle of who can fail the hardest. :p AllynJ (talk | contribs) 13:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Jimmy Anderson's failing at failing now. Highest Test score. --Dweller (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Good for him :) SGGH speak! 11:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

VICTORY :D SGGH speak! 11:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Cricket by country

Mostly due to the splendid efforts of User:Andrew nixon, we now have an impressive 136 items in Category:Cricket by country. So, whenever some Yank comes along insisting that cricket is an insect, show him that. I think only soccer can beat it. Baseball certainly can't.

Having said that, it should be only 135 because one of them is the UK, but that was foisted upon us (by the Yanks).

By my reckoning that leaves 103 modern countries, give or take a few, for which we do not yet have a cricket article. I've posted a line in the To-Do box which links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/missing countries where you can see a list of these countries. Many of them are quite obscure, even though they do exist, and I doubt if they will ever be worth an article. But there a few surprises in there too: I would certainly think that cricket has found its way into countries like Jordan, Romania, Hungary, the Seychelles, Kiribati, Tuvalu and the Solomon Islands.

If you have any verifiable information about cricket in one of these places, especially if it refers to a national team, please create an article ( a stub will do) and add it to the category. BlackJack | talk page 21:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Of those, Roy Morgan's excellent Encyclopedia of World Cricket (plus other sources) records cricket having taken place in the following:
  • Azerbaijan - At least one match every weekend between June and November.
  • Cambodia - Phnom Penh Cricket Club founded in 1999.
  • Christmas Island - played by Australian and New Zealand workers in a ground within the airport.
  • Colombia - Bogota Cricket Club founded in 1964
  • Congo - Gujurat Cricket Association played a team in Mbole in 1960 [4]
  • Dominican Republic - Cricket association founded early last year (see article written by myself here). National side pencilled in for the next Stanford 20/20
  • Ecuador - national side came last in the South American Championship last year, see here.
  • El Salvador - national side played in Central American Championship last year, see [5]
  • Ethiopia - British and Indian embassies play against each other.
  • Hungary - Budapest Cricket Club plays regular matches against teams from Austria and Germany.
  • Kiribati - Two or three matches played each year, occasionally a national side plays against Tuvalu.
  • Liberia - Liberia was part of the West African Cricket Conference, but never provided any players for the West Africa cricket team. The game now seems to have died out.
  • Libya - Cricket Association formed in 2001, clubs in Tripoli and Benghazi.
  • Mauritius - Four clubs, but limited mostly to the wealthy Indian population.
  • Monaco - There is a Monte Carlo Cricket Club, but since their ground was demolished to make way for a supermarket, they now play their games near Nice.
  • Mongolia - Mongolian Cricket Club founded in 1995 - another MCC!
  • Nauru - Game declining due to equipment shortages.
  • Netherlands Antilles - Sint Maarten are officially part of the West Indies Cricket Board and play in the Stanford 20/20, Curacao played against Venezuela two years ago.
  • Nicaragua - Played against Costa Rica in 2002, and against El Salvador and Costa Rica earlier this year.
  • Norfolk Island - Cricket Association formed in mid 1990s, hope to gain ICC affiliate membership in next few years.
  • North Korea - Pyongyang Cricket Club played against teams from Shanghai earlier this year, see [6]
  • Paraguay - Cricket association formed in 2002
  • Puerto Rico - officially covered by the USACA, but national side were runners-up in South American Championship in 2004. Pencilled in for next Stanford 20/20 and Cricket Federation hope to gain affiliate membership in their own right.
  • Romania - cricket was played between 1893 and 1930, but no current signs.
  • Seychelles - A small club plays occasional matches against teams in Mauritius.
  • Solomon Islands - played since 1870s, international played against Fiji in 1977. Played in 1991 South Pacific Games. Current Cricket Association formed in 2000 though coup that year caused many players to leave the country.
  • Sudan - No cricket played in last twenty years. Combined Egypt/Sudan team played against MCC at Lord's in 1914. See here.
  • Syria - One of the first references to cricket outside England was to it being played there on 6 May 1676. No record of cricket there ever since though!
  • Taiwan - Three clubs playing in a 15 over tournament each year.
  • Tuvalu - Occasional matches played against Kiribati, played in 1979 South Pacific Games.
  • Uzbekistan - Some matches played amongst the expatriate communities.
  • Venezuela - National side played in South American Championship in 1999 and 2000.
  • Vietnam - Hanoi Cricket Club formed in 1993.
  • Wallis and Futuna - Cricket Association formed recently, being assisted by New Caledonia Cricket Federation. Hope to compete in 2011 South Pacific Games.
  • Yemen - As one would suspect cricket was played when South Yemen was a UK colony (Aden) and they left somewhat of a legacy. South Yemen played against Hyderabad Blues in 1971. Cricket Association formed recently, national league of eight teams.
Just a taster there. I'll eventually get round to writing articles on the national teams above, I'm currently working on first-class cricketers to have played for Egypt, just a handful to go! I highly recommend Roy Morgan's book for anyone wanting an introduction to the game outside the major countries. There's a review of it here, written by, oh, me. Andrew nixon (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Great stuff. We'll overtake soccer yet. BlackJack | talk page 08:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
One of my great cricketing memories was when I was in Kiribati a decade or so ago and watched a team of Tuvalu expats thrash a team of Indian expats in a one dayer. The headlines in the Kiribati media obviously read "Tuvalu beat India by 7 wickets". --Roisterer (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Strike rate

Have a look at this, can anyone tell me How did Sandeep Patil scored 15 Runs in 1 ball and got out LBW while facing the same ball ???? His strike rate is 1500 !!!, can any one Explain me? Bharath628 (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

StatsGuru Founded This Problem for me ! Bharath628 (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It is possible he faced a series of no balls that he creamed for fours/sixes, and then faced one legitimate ball which got him out, perhaps? SGGH speak! 07:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
No, that scorecard doesn't make sense at all. If you face a no-ball and hit it for 6, it still counts as you (the batsman) having faced one ball, even though the ball is illigitimate and will be "rebowled". As such, the only way to be out for 15 off 1 ball is to actually hit 15 runs off one delivery, no-ball or otherwise, and then be run out going for the 16th! However, the scorecard says he was out lbw, so the scorecard is in error. I suspect that SGGH is correct in saying that he probably faced a string of no-balls, and I suspect that the scorer didn't realise that these balls should count amongst the balls faced by the batsman. Juwe (talk) 07:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
As usual, CricketArchive is more accurate, their scorecard revealing that he faced 21 balls.Andrew nixon (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks For the info, Cricinfo should change its name To Crapinfo :P , i always visit Cricketarchive Instead of Cricinfo But cricketarchive Doesn't have a StatsGuru :-((( --Bharath628 (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Archives box on this page

Something's missing... --Dweller (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

...I can see it? SGGH speak! 10:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Arch 44 ends in April. This page begins in June. I guess there is/are an/some archive/s missing. --Dweller (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 45 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 46 are about, just not in the box. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

They are there now. Juwe (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I replaced it with an auto-archive box. Moondyne 13:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Another Invincible

Hi all. While work has been continuing on the Don Bradman article, I have had a bit of a bash on another Invincible article - Ian Johnson. Any feedback, advice, improvements, edits etc. would be very much appreciated. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 03:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Had a bit of a WP:MOS tinker, looks very good as always. SGGH speak! 22:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Worst bowling analysis

The Twenty20 tie between Wawrickshire and Gloucestershire got me thinking about the worst bowling analyses, especially those in T20. Anthony Ireland's 0.1-0-12-0 seems a pretty bad going (2 dangerous no-ball full tosses, and got removed)... Anybody recall other expensive 1 ballers? –MDCollins (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"Nationality" of West Indian Players when playing non-international cricket

Recently I have been editing a lot of pages related to the Indian Premier League and an issue has arisen as to what to put under "nationality" (and therefore also which flag to use) for various West Indian players. I advocated on one of the talk pages that it should be the home country of the player (eg "Jamaica") rather than "West Indies", and, after a brief conversation, my reasoning was not challenged. However, due largely to the fact that there are many pages where this issue is relevant, and due to the fact that new users come along and decide to "fix" the problem (in good faith I am sure), various pages have alternated a few times between the 2 versions (see for axample this and this. Unfortunately, there is no guiding principle on WP:CRIC, so I thought I would bring it up here and see if we can create one. One we have reached a decision, I think it should be inserted into WP:CRIC#STYLE. Here I will give my reasoning for advocating the "home country format":

  • "The West Indies" isn't actually a country, but a group of countries who band together for certain cricket matches, so putting "West Indies" as a player's "nationality" cannot ever be correct.
  • In tournaments like the IPL, players are never representing (ie playing for) the West Indies, they are only representing their respective franchise (eg Mumbai Indians). They do, however, remain nationals of their home country.
  • I still advocate using "West Indies" on individual player pages (such as Dwayne Bravo), as these pages deal with the players' entire cricket careers, and the highest level of cricket played by such players is International cricket (Tests, ODIs and International Twenty20s) for the West Indies. For articles about the West Indies team, the appropriate names, links and flags are (of course) the West Indian ones.

This issue doesn't just affect the IPL, but also English County Cricket (see eg Leicestershire County Cricket Club#Leicestershire Squad) and presumably other first-class tournaments too. So, what does everyone think? Juwe (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, in cricketing terms the individual countries in the West Indies are equivalent to the English counties - and we don't say "Vaughan of Yorkshire" or anything. The West Indies cricket team seems like the more relevant link in the context, given the status of the individual islands' cricket teams; I'd personally prefer to see West Indies over individual nationalities. Obviously nationality is the wrong term to use in these situations... I originally edited the Kolkata Knight Riders page to say "National team" so Gayle would fit as being from the West Indies, but someone changed the whole table round and changed it back to nationality in the process, I didn't feel any real need to change it back at the time, especially without consensus.
Let us also not forget that some West Indians don't ever make a performance for their native country - Darren Sammy has never appeared for Saint Lucia in any form, as they simply don't exist on a first-class level; they're a part of the Windward Islands cricket team. (Granted, St Lucia did have its own team at the Stanford 20/20, but Sammy didn't appear. Also, he isn't in the IPL, but it's not farfetched to think someone from one of the 8 Leeward/Windward islands countries would get bought.) AllynJ (talk | contribs) 14:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
"National team" would certainly be better than "nationality", if "West Indies" is to be used. The links at present don't even point to national team pages, but to the country itself (eg India). This raises another point, many of the Indians have certainly never played for the Indian National team, but they all have Indian nationality. What do you think about my point about players not representing their national team while playing in the IPL BTW? Juwe (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, just to add, given that the heading says "nationality" rather than "national team" (at the moment anyway), I think it is good that the links point to the countries and not to their cricket teams. With the St Lucia example, the link in this case would be to the country and not the team (and definitely not the Windward Islands team), so the issue is really just about whether we think "nationality" or "national team" is more appropriate (and practical). Juwe (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that national team is the best heading. Nationality doesn't quite work in all circumstances. Eg. Ed Joyce has Irish nationality but plays for England, Dwayne Leverock plays for Bermuda but will have British nationality, Kevin Pietersen has dual nationality, etc, etc... so national team is best... Now if they have not played international cricket, we have a problem... my suggestion would be to use the national team it appears they are eligible for, ie. where they primarily play their domestic cricket. Andrew nixon (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a sensible solution. Another thing I just thought of is that if "nationality" is used, some people might start putting "United Kingdom" for all the English players, which wouldn't look too good. Juwe (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Assuming we are all agreed on that (I was the only one who had suggested using "nationality" so far anyway) I think that something should be inserted into WP:CRIC#STYLE, something along the lines of:
  • When listing the national team of players, if they are from the West Indies, West Indies (rather than e.g., Guyana) should be used. If a player has yet to play for a national team, the team they are eligible to play for (and in the case of multiple eligibility, where they primarily play their domestic cricket) should be used.
Juwe (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess I'll just whack it in then. Juwe (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 Done Juwe (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Part Two

See this which came up on my watchlist. Someone is still replacing West Indies with individual countries. BlackJack | talk page 04:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I might be partially to blame for that (as far as anyone is to blame, that is) as I did initially advocate that type of change on the 2008 IPL talk page. At least we have a guideline on WP:CRIC#STYLE now. The Glamorgan page does raise another interesting issue though. If we are to use "national team" rather than "nationality" (maybe an unabbreviated heading on the page is appropriate too, rather than simply having "nat"), then all those Welsh flags should presumably be turned into English ones (I realise of course that the "England" team is actually the "England and Wales" team). I can't imagine that this change would please Welsh people too much. Maybe a full  England is what should be used, with asterisks for all the Welsh players and a note at the bottom of the table to mention that these players are Welsh and that the "England" team is actually the "England and Wales" team. Just as a side point, I don't see the need for any abbreviations in the table (the table could easily be widened) and "SLA" (for example) doesn't immediately leap out at me as "Left arm orthodox spin". Juwe (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I have just come to the realisation that this:  Wales exists, and so could be used for all the Welsh players. However, this still leaves a bit of a problem. For a start, the "Wales" team is a lower level team than the "England (and Wales)" team, and this would seem equivalent to using (eg)  Guyana over  West Indies. Secondly, some Welsh players play for the England team. The difficulty is that the West Indian flag implies only that players come from one of the West Indian countries, but the English flag carries the implication that Wales is excluded, due to the fact that Wales is definitely not a part of England. As the Wales team article says: "Criticism has been made of the England and Wales Cricket Board using only the England name whilst utilising Welsh players such as Simon Jones, who was instrumental in England winning the Ashes from Australia in 2005." Maybe the solution is that, for England team players  England should be used, but with an asterisk and a note. None of these ideas seems entirely satisfactory to me, but this is what I have come up with so far. Juwe (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Another option, I suppose, would be for Welsh "England" team players to use  Wales with a note to say they have played for the England team, Juwe (talk)
Considering this again, I think the best solution is to use  Wales for all Welsh players, except those that have played for England, where  England should be used with an asterisk and a note. This would ensure that the Welsh flag and label are attached to the vast majority of Welsh players, while also giving players such as Robert Croft the label of their highest level team. It would also maintain the consistency of labelling of such players throughout wikipedia (eg the Robert Croft page has the England team label).
Thoughts? Juwe (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I know this issue might not be the highest on people's priorities, but should I take the silence as tacit approval of my last proposal? If so, I plan to extend the recently inserted guideline in WP:CRIC#STYLE. It currently says:
  • When listing the national team of players, if they are from a country in the West Indies, West Indies (rather than e.g., Guyana) should be used. If a player has yet to play for a national team, the team they are eligible to play for (and in the case of multiple eligibility, where they primarily play their domestic cricket) should be used.
To this I plan to add:
"If a player is Welsh, Wales should be used, unless the player has played for the England cricket team, in which case England should be used, with a footnate indicating that the player is Welsh."
Does anyone particularly agree/disagree with this plan? Juwe (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure here, since players never actually play for Wales anymore (as far as I'm aware the national team itself - i.e. not Wales Minor Counties, which is more like Glamorgan (or, a better example is a Welsh equivalent for Hertfordshire/Bedfordshire/etc.) than the Welsh national team) hasn't played match in 60-80 odd years), I'd be tempted to go with just putting England down for all Welsh players: it should be enough for it to say they're Welsh on their own page, the status of Welsh cricketers is covered in the England cricket team article anyway. I don't think we should have to repeatedly specify this information on every single Welsh cricketer's page, it would seem unnecessary to me. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The issue I see is in lists like this, where all of a sudden a majority of Welsh flags would turn into English flags, and give it the appearance that the players are English, which of course they are not (Jamaican, Guyanese, etc players however are West Indian). As I have said, there would be a minority of these Welsh players who have played at least one match for England, and for these players  England could be used, for reasons of listing their highest level team and of wikipedia consistency. I'm not suggesting that we "repeatedly specify this information on every single Welsh cricketer's page" either, as the pages of the non-International Welsh players (eg Mike Powell (cricketer)) could just be left as they are. The thing is that, even if the Wales national team doesn't play very often and the particular players haven't even played for it, they haven't actually played for any national team yet (including England), so I don't see any compelling reason to put "England" down as their "national team" and replace their Welsh flags with English ones. In addition, the lead paragraph of the Wales national cricket team page simply says:
  • "The Welsh cricket team has appeared on a number of occasions. Generally however, Welsh players are represented in international play by England."
Maybe it could do with a bit of a reword, but the essential point has been made (and a link to the England team page is right there). Juwe (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think any player eligible to play for England or West Indies should be shown as such. The only exceptions would be a player who has played for a Wales national team, but not for England; and a player who has represented, say, Barbados in an international competition (not just in the Shell Shield), but not WI. If I remember rightly, a few of the main Caribbean countries took part individually in certain Games gatherings in the past. BlackJack | talk page 05:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems then that I am a lone voice in advocating "Welsh" labelling for Welsh, non-International players, so I suppose  England it is. My main concern was that Welsh players who have spent their careers playing for, say Glamorgan, and who have never played for England and possibly (or in many cases definitely) never will, will still appear to be labelled as English (even though "England" is really "England and Wales"). Maybe a footnote for each relevant table is in order? Again, I do not advocate changing individual player pages, as (eg) Simon Jones (cricketer) is fine as it is.
Regarding the West Indies point, the only competition that immediately springs to mind is Cricket at the 1998 Commonwealth Games. Obviously, in relation to the particular event,  Barbados (eg) labelling is appropriate. I'm not too sure about this labelling for players in general though, even for players who have never played for the West Indies, as  West Indies is surely still the "higher level" label, and it would seem strange if one player was labelled  West Indies because they had not played international cricket for any team, but another player was labelled  Barbados, the "lower level" label, because he had. I suppose in the distant past there was no "West Indies cricket team" for a player to be eligible for, in which case  Barbados should be the label used, but that doesn't seem to be the situation we are discussing now. Likewise, I would argue that if  England is to be used for Welsh players, it should be used for those players who have played international cricket for Wales, but were eligible for England too.
Juwe (talk) 07:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to sew things up, I'll add to the aforementioned WP:CRIC#STYLE point:
"If a player is Welsh, England, rather than Wales, should be used."
Juwe (talk) 06:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Jack Hampshire

I note that cricketarchive call him Jackie Hampshire. I know he hates this and was certainly not known as it by his contemporaries. I'm glad we have it as John.Fieldgoalunit (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The naming guidelines say that it ought to be what the subject is most commonly known as, therefore I think what he uses and what his contemporaries use probably outweighs what cricinfo uses in this case. SGGH speak! 22:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't take too much note of Cricinfo either (they have Harry Parks as "Henry Parks" for instance, which meant I nearly failed to find his article on their site). But if, as Fieldgoalunit says, CricketArchive call him "Jackie Hampshire", that would carry more weight with me. Hampshire might not have liked it, but I can recall that the media and spectators commonly called him "Jackie". I don't recall his ever being referred to as "Jack"/ So I would use "John Hampshire" as the Wiki article's title, but would note the "Jackie" nickname. JH (talk page) 08:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It can hardly be his name if he didn't like it. Clearly you didn't watch Yorkshire(I did) He was NEVER Jackie bt Jack as was his father. In fact if you have the JP Yearboos from the 70's, they make a point of thisFieldgoalunit (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

1976 Playfair Cricket Annual. Page 151. "John Harry (Jackie) Hampshire". So I don't think we can deny that he was called it. But Cricketers' Who's Who, 1983, when he was playing for Derbyshire, has on page 170 under Nickname: "Hamps. Does not like being called Jackie." Johnlp (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I recall all three names being in use. I was never sure which was the "correct" one and personally I've always used John because that's as I first heard of him. I think that if there is disagreement about a person's used name, his real name should be the default, so the article should be John Hampshire. Whereas John Hobbs was universally called Jack, John Hampshire is not. BlackJack | talk page 06:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin required

Could we please have a block on editing History of cricket which has been attacked several times this month. I've just reverted back to 5 June to make sure all of the interim rubbish has been reverted. Thanks to those who have been doing reverts in the meantime. BlackJack | talk page 18:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Blnguyen. BlackJack | talk page 06:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Geoffrey Boycott

I'm stuck on what to do. If we had just one image of him, we could probably push this for FA class. Gah! SGGH speak! 20:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried emailing him through one of his employers and asking him to release an image of himself under a suitable licence? It can't hurt and you may get lucky. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Are video captres considered legal? If so, there are vidoes on youtube like [7] from which you can get a decent capture Abeer.ag (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Only if the video is under a suitable licence. In the example you cite, the video is an obvious copyvio. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Donald_Bradman#Some_pre_FAC_comments_to_deal_with

Please see the first bullet of this section, where Ref 3 of the article is discussed. What do you chaps think? I'd like to go to FAC today. --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Davis only seems to have looked at five selected sports, so one shouldn't perhaps put too much weight on his findings in claiming that Bradman was the greatest sportsman of all time. Wasn't there some squash player who was unbeaten for many years, for instance? Bradman would obviously stand very high in any multi-sport comparison, but I'm not sure that one can safely say that he'd be top. JH (talk page) 10:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. How about amending it to "assessed by one statistician as..."? Sounds fairer to me. --Dweller (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I've made that amend. How does it look? --Dweller (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Much improved. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Further amended, per Stephen's comments at the article talk page. --Dweller (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I have expressed my view on that more than once, so not repeating it :-) That was Heather McKay. I do generally agree with Tony's comments, except that I am happy about the first but not the second and third. Isn't this somewhat like having in Hitler's intro "Hitler was one of Germany's most notorious leaders, and he is held in the highest contempt by people all over the world; he had an international reputation as a mass murderer". I am sure that it is all true and can be cited but we need to e moderate with the language. Tintin 10:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Tintin. Let's be clear - are you saying you don't like the Lead claiming Bradman was an Aussie hero? I could understand opposition to the international reputation (and I'm now inclined to drop it) but that's a separate point. --Dweller (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
No, that there are too many superlatives, especially for the lead, packed together - which perhaps may be spread out through the rest of the article, or sometimes even left unsaid. "Australian hero" is the one for which I don't have a problem. Tintin 10:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
So, if we ditched the international reputation, would you be mollified? --Dweller (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Or wait a little to see whether anyone else share my view. I am a bit uncomfortable imposing my likes and dislikes, especially as I have contributed little. Wouldn't even mind dropping my argument if I am in a minority. Tintin 11:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Add me to the list who would be happy to see the superlatives toned down a touch. Support this change. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I've commented over on Talk:Donald Bradman. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll take a look. --Dweller (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

←My point is that if you cram all of those puffy statements into the lead, it will reduce the appearance, the tone, of authority, no matter whether there's good evidence of their veracity. Why not distribute most of them more artfully through the article, where in more detailed contexts, and not so close together, their effect will be what you intend? TONY (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think consensus at the article talk page is indeed heading in that direction. As ever, even if I disagree, I'll happily go along with consensus. --Dweller (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Chaps, are you broadly happy with the edits I've made to the article in the last couple of days? I think they reflect consensus... and I'm more than ready to head to FAC. --Dweller (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy for my part. Time to list it, I think. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Englishmen with 50 or more Test caps}}

I don't think playing 50 Tests is enough of a big deal nowadays to keep. With the amount of Tests that England play, Pietersen has played about 42 in 3 years. So 50 Tests is 3.5 years of national service. There are already 50+ players in the list and in about 2 years, there will probably be another 5 or 6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

how about making it as "Englishmen with 100 or more Test caps"? We will have only 7 Good Cricketers, good idea ? Bharath628 (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
That is already in existence. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
That's true of any "accumulation record" of course- there are more matches in the modern era. But this is more of a size factor in this consideration. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think lists like this are pointless. They are the worst kind of statistics which give, as Roundhouse said, a grossly skewed view. Pietersen has played as many Tests in three or four years as, say, Herbert Sutcliffe played in two decades. If lists like this are to be kept they must be sub-divided by era. I would divide into two sections with the cutoff somewhere around 1965, which is when we started having these double tours that are the main reason for today's quantity over quality mindset. But even that is a weak compromise: I would delete all such lists, period. BlackJack | talk page 08:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ditch it. It's become an anachronism due to the proliferation of modern cricket. --Dweller (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Donald Bradman

Up and running... --Dweller (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed rename

Have you visited Sam Staples? I can't imagine there can be much argument about the prime usage being Sam Staples (cricketer)... --Dweller (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I say we delete the redirect and move Sam Staples (cricketer) back to Sam Staples. Had anyone thought that Sam Staples (town constable) were worthy of an article, as per the history of the page, they would have protested against the expired PROD which took place almost exactly a year ago. Bobo. 13:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Which I have done. Bobo. 13:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:FLRC of List of English Twenty20 International cricketers

List of English Twenty20 International cricketers has been nominated for the removal of its Featured list status. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of English Twenty20 International cricketers. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Champion counties

JH has spotted an inconsistency between the list of claimants in Champion County and the honours sections of Nottinghamshire CCC and Surrey CCC re the unofficial titles between 1864 and 1889.

The honours sections use a list in CricInfo that is based on Rowland Bowen's researches in the 1960s but the Champion County list is one that WG Grace (helped possibly by his collaborators) created in the latter years of his career. We need to be consistent here so does anyone have any views about which source we should use? One obvious difference is that Grace was actively involved at the time while Bowen used reverse analysis and presented a retrospective view. On the other hand, Grace was probably quite subjective while Bowen was mostly objective.

A difficult one. BlackJack | talk page 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In cases like this, I generally think that we need to provide links to both sources where there is a conflict, and explain the uncertainty. Maybe a detailed explanation in the Champion County article, and footnotes in the counties' articles. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Thinking about it overnight, I'd come to the same conclusion as Stephen. This morning, I had a look at the records of Surrey and Nottinghamshire in 1872, where Grace goes for Surrey and Bowen for Nottinghamshire. Surrey played 12 f-c inter-county matches, won 7, drew 2 and lost 3. Notts played 7, won 2, drew 5, lost 0. (If I haven't overlooked any matcxhes.) Both the matches between the two counties were drawn, though Surrey nearly won the second after following on a long way behind, Notts only having 2 wickets left at the finish. So Grace clearly didn't subscribe to the "fewest matches lost" viewpoint popular at the time. He may have gone for the side with the most wins, either in number or as a proportion of the matches played. Or he may have subtracted losses from wins. He may have used more subjective crieria taking into account the perceived strength of the teams that the two sides played. Or he may simply have had a bias towards a southern, amateur-led county over a northern, all-professional outfit. JH (talk page) 09:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
A citation in the Champion County article - one which needed repairing - is for Cricinfo's list of Champion Counties from 1864 to 1889, which valuably shows which authorities favoured which counties in each year:Champion Counties 1864-1889. There is often concensus, but where there is not Grace often stands out as being in a minority of one. The authorities include other contemporary ones besides Grace, such as Wisden and the two Lillywhite annuals. So I think it is a mistake to give Grace's opinion primacy as is the case at present. JH (talk page) 20:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


Grace had little input into his book(see the last biog sorry I forget author.) In the mid 80's WISDEN were going to publish an article by Peter Wynne Thomas which updated Bowen based on later research by several people including PWT. The main criterea was the contemporary opinion of the paers often summarised in Wisden and Lillywhite's Guide. Whatever the flaws in that system(there are a number) It was the system in use AT THE TIME. I think you have to go by that. I think it's the one on Cricketarchive.Fieldgoalunit (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I think WG's view was largely subjective. He would have looked at the broader canvas and remembered who his most difficult opponents were rather than make an objective assessment of win-lose-draw columns. I think on balance that we should defer to the CricketArchive list but the Champion County article should point out the alternative claims. BlackJack | talk page 06:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to stress it was not WG's view - He merely put his name to the bookFieldgoalunit (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've amended the 1864-1889 list in Champion County to reflect CricInfo and made changes to individual county honours sections accordingly (particularly Notts). Where there is no clear consensus in the CricInfo list I've said "no consensus" and assumed a shared title. Where there is a clear consensus but another county does have a claim (e.g., Derbyshire in 1874), I've said "Xshire also supported". Please have a look and let me know if I've missed anything. BlackJack | talk page 08:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Fine - Do you remember why it was Derby in 1874. I seem to think, I may be wrong, that it was assumed later by FSA Cooper that because of Leat lost but I'm not sure there was a contemporary claim. As I say, it is something in the back of my mind.Fieldgoalunit (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"With 3 victories and 1 draw in 1874, Derbyshire were considered champions, for in those days the team losing fewest matches took the title in the opinion of some authorities. With so few fixtures, Derbyshire clearly had an advantage and later Gloucestershire were named as champions." "Derbyshire" by Major D.J.Carr and Michael Carey, in "The First-class Counties" in Barclays World of Cricket, 1986 edition, page 400. Johnlp (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That was the reference I was thinking off! -BWOC was to say the least, erraticly compiled(You might recall the orginal had articles of a historical nature compiled by people like Henry Blofield!). When Peter Wynne Thomas compiled the list on ca - I think, in fact I'm sure, he said he could find a verification of the Derbyshire 'title' from a contemporary sourceFieldgoalunit (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket/Archive_46&oldid=1146664072"