Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 57

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60

Jack Hobbs (footballer)

Is it known whether this Hobbs was specifically named after the cricketer? I've asked on the footballer's Talk page, but thought it worth repeating the question here. Loganberry (Talk) 00:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably just a coincidence; google doesn't turn up much that would indicate otherwise [1]/ Nev1 (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Could be, though who knows? I haven't seen a reliable source saying he was named after the cricketer, so obviously I can't put speculation in the article... but the footballer is not particularly famous, so there isn't much reason for anyone (except perhaps his local papers) to write about him anyway. I'm sure he was teased by his more historically-aware schoolmates, though! Loganberry (Talk) 21:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sub editing

Hey, I just spent the last two or three days updating Alastair Cook's page but I did it without thinking to check guidelines here so I may have contrevened some style policies. If anyone fancies looking over it and making sure it all fits, that'd be handy, I'm terrible at editing my own work. Tony2Times (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Haven't done a full check of the article, but from what I have read, it's looking a lot better than what it was! Well done. The article is also organised very well. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 04:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Seconded: it looks very nice indeed. If all our articles on Test players were up to that standard, we'd have done a superb job. The only minor point (and it is a minor point) that comes to mind is that averages are not usually quoted to one decimal place (unless a direct quotation, of course) - they tend to be either quoted to two dps (even if the second is a zero) or rounded to the nearest whole number. Loganberry (Talk) 21:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_4#Category:Shane_Warne

Grumble. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't see it hurting anything. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 20:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Ebaran and the 100s/50s tables on SL bios

He is doing good work but putting the text in all different colours. I have reminded him but just a message in case he adds more of the same. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

David Gower

I think Gower has spent too long away from the warmth of FA class. I shall make it my mission to get that start into an FA the way of Marcus Trescothick and Geoffrey Boycott (which still needs a picture to be FA!) SGGH ping! 12:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Great stuff. Ping me when you want a fresh eye on it. --Dweller (talk) 12:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Thus far everything from his debut Test match downwards is just the original content reshuffled into the right sections. But the lead down to the debut is new stuff. Just taking a break now to give my laptop Windows Service Pack 3. If it breaks my laptop, you shan't be hearing from me for a bit! SGGH ping! 12:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The scores are getting there, the only problem is it lacks context. All I can get is the numbers, I know relatively little about the matches. If anyone can go through and give these matches a context, and a little reorganising, then that would be grand. Thanks! SGGH ping! 15:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help guys. I didn't link to some of the grounds simply because I couldn't recall the names. That Hopps book has some great quotes on cricketers, Gowers and Gattings made me smile. "Gatt, get out of the way, I can't see the stumps...." SGGH ping! 08:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(The) West Indies

Hi all,

Quick question:

In a piece of prose do we write:

or

My thoughts are for the first option, treating the team as any other 'Australia', 'Sri Lanka', although it may flow better as 'the West Indies' (as in the islands).

This question was in part triggered by Aggers, because he omits the definite article everytime.—MDCollins (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you and with Aggers here: leave out the article, since the team is "West Indies". However, do put it in when talking about non-international fixtures. "Greeenidge played for West Indies against India", but "Haynes played for the West Indians against MCC." (Note that MCC does not take a definite article either!) Loganberry (Talk) 00:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Cricket flag templates

Couple of points to make:
1. The same flag templates are used for both men's and women's national teams, but they only link to the men's team pages. Is there any point making a separate women's cricket flag template with a direct link for the women's?
2. What's happened to the Ireland cricket flag template (see 2009 ICC World Cup Qualifier for example). I presumed the flag had become obsolete, but I can't find any evidence of this. Does it just need a new link?
Waterhogboy (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

When the Ireland flag was removed for a player in the Surrey CCC current squad, the reason given was that the flag was copyright. If it's the national flag with no embellishment, then that doesn't sound very likely. Maybe whoever originally uploaded the flag image failed to include the approved form of words saying that it wasn't copyright? JH (talk page) 10:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
It wouldn't be the national flag for obvious reasons, it was the flag featuring the then logo of Cricket Ireland. Andrew nixon (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to go back to my first point; I missed the fact there is a women's cricket template because the link doesn't work for a number of teams, these being England, Ireland, Hong Kong and West Indies. This seems to be because the template links to XXX national women's cricket teams but the above four are simply XXX women's cricket teams. Even though some of those pages contain redirects, it still doesn't seem to work. Is there a way to solve this problem?
Waterhogboy (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the traditional naming scheme for our teams is 'XXXX national [women's] cricket team', but those 4 countries happen to be the only exceptions: Hong Kong and West Indies aren't nations, whilst England and Ireland don't represent *just* England and Ireland (incorporating England/Wales and Ireland/Northern Ireland) so to call them the national team of just one of those countries would be incorrect, thus the national is omitted for them.
Now, true, you could put a switch in to the template (although I forget how to do that kind of thing) but honestly, given WP:R2D I wouldn't think fixing it is actually really worth the time or effort. Cheers, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 18:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Players being added to Category:English Muslims

The IP user 86.164.148.175 added a number of cricketers (and a couple of other people) to this category this afternoon. (Contribs list here.) Unfortunately in every case this was the only edit the user made, and so no sources have been given for the addition. Adil Rashid is easy enough, as his religion is mentioned in this Guardian piece, which I'd add now if I had the time, but what about the others? Loganberry (Talk) 21:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's mentioned in the article and is sourced, it can stay. Otherwise, it goes. Andrew nixon (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Does this not fall under WP:OC#CATGRS and WP:CATGRS; i.e. only place them in categories if it has significant bearing on their career. While Adil Rashid may be muslim, it doesn't affect his ability or stance in playing cricket, so it doesn't need to be there.—MDCollins (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know. I tend to avoid adding categories like this, but Islam is neither a gender, a race nor a sexuality so the question is not specificially addressed. I wouldn't have added the category, but have never been all that sure of categorisation issues once you move beyond the basics. At any rate, if the cat is removed from those articles, I shan't object. Loganberry (Talk) 00:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


While the heading and sub-page actually says Gender, Race and Sexuality, the actual "guideline" from WP:Overcategorization (WP:OC#CATGRS) says:

"Likewise, people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. For instance, in sports, a Roman Catholic athlete is not treated differently from a Lutheran or Methodist, nor a Black athlete from a Latino or White one."

—MDCollins (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be removed. A guy always "claims Muslim credit" for Zaheer, the Pathans and Munaf all the time. I'd suggest that apart from players who like to invoke religion a lot, lit Md Yousuf, Harbhajan, Monty, Saeed Anwar etc, it shouldn't be in there. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Chris Broad

Does anybody wish to comment on the recent edits by IP user 91.135.6.24 to this page. --Jpeeling (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition of the material. It's given for too much prominence, and more over Miandad's comments are in a minority. Something does need to be mentioned in the article, but it needs to be done fairly and impartially. Discussion also needs to take place on the talk page. Nev1 (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

-- Broad has had a number of run-ins with Asian players and sides over the years, and has been accused by leading players and experts of bias. As you say, it deserves a mention, and I wrote from a neutral point of view, saying that racism and bias was 'alleged', not that he was actually racist or biased. I have included numerous references from international media sources to support this. Meanwhile, his comments about security vanishing in Pakistan have provoked widespread anger and criticism in Pakistan and throughout the world - this cannot be doubted. Taking all this into account, the edit should be re-instated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.135.6.24 (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. None of the sources explicitly mentioned racism, bias could just mean preferring the Australians, so saying he's been accused of racism is defamatory to everyone involved. We have to be extremely cautious about the wording because it's a biography of a living person and could affect Broad and his job. Also, as Jpeeling pointed out, there as unsourced sections. As such, I once again reverted your edits per our policy on biographies of living people until the issue is resolved, but please to continue to discuss the issue here. Nev1 (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree with the removal. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

1945 English cricket season

Working on Miller's article, I made this edit and found that there is no article on 1945 and it's not on the templates either.

There were the (very notable) Victory Tests and enough stuff for Wisden to report on in its slim 1946 volume, that I'd have thought this article should be created. Thoughts? --Dweller (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say yes, definitely. There was also the first post-war county match (a Yorks v Lancs clash at Bradford) and Trevor Bailey's first-class debut, for Under 33 v Over 33. Loganberry (Talk) 15:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
1945 is covered as 1940 to 1945 English cricket seasons#1945, but perhaps merits its own article. However there is already an article on the Victory Tests (which is on the "Non-Ashes Australia v England Test series" template). JH (talk page) 20:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Useful, thanks. I'll create the redlink as a redirect there for now. --Dweller (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Invincibles update

Of 42 articles, only five remain below GA. Almost there for a WP:GT on the way to a FT. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. :) Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 08:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oxford and Cambridge Universities cricket team

We don't have an article dealing with this team, who CricketArchive says played 22 first-class matches between 1839 and 1992, including four "Oxford and Cambridge Universities Past and Present". I was going to dash off a stub, but I'm not sure whether to make it a separate article or to include it in the British Universities cricket team article. The more recent games seem to fit better with the latter, but the nineteenth-century stuff doesn't so much. Loganberry (Talk) 15:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of any views one way or the other, I've decided to create a separate article, and put a "See also" to British Universities. I'm not sure either option would have been wholly satisfactory, but at least now we have something rather than a redlink. Loganberry (Talk) 01:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't "See also"s for Oxford University Cricket Club and Cambridge University Cricket Club be more appropriate? JH (talk page) 10:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm ahead of you! Oxford and Cambridge Universities cricket team does indeed have both of those - but I'm leaving in the British Universities "See also" as well. Loganberry (Talk) 16:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

England lose the Test series to the West Indies

:'( waaaahhhh!! SGGH ping! 22:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That advert is tremendous history, but also a great example of horrible typography. Quiz: how many fonts did they use? --Dweller (talk) 10:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ben Laughlin (cricketer)

I've started a stub on Ben Laughlin, who's been drafted into Austrlia's one day squads to replace Siddle and Hilfenhaus who are both carrying injuries. There's potential to expand the article for a DYK, but would it be worth it? Aside from his father having played a few Tests, a quick look doesn't turn up anything that stands out as a good hook about the guy. Also, who is he? When Australia have been blooding players who are pretty much unknown in England (Jason Kejza, Peter Siddle, Ben Hilfenhaus, Phil Hughes, Doug Bollinger), they've at least had wikipedia articles, so it looks like this guy's slipped under the radar. Nev1 (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ben Laughlin (cricketer) is a surprise selection. Noffke must be annoyed. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 05:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's all that interesting except for stats geeks like me, but I found (and have added) the fact that in only his second List A game, having bowled only one previous over at that level, he took 6/23 against NSW. Those were the best figures for Queensland since Carl Rackemann took 7/34 against South Australia in 1988/89, and beaten only by that and Jeff Thomson's 6/18 (also against S Aus) in 1978/79. Loganberry (Talk) 00:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Date of death in infoboxes

I'm getting a "non-recognised" note at the date of death in infoboxes, which hasn't happened before. It may be my new machine here, or has there been some change to the infobox template that I don't know about? I can see this note in the infoboxes on, for example, Denis Begbie and Gilbert Parkhouse, both of which were working when I looked at them last night at home (I'm [hard] at work [!] now). Can someone who knows about these things investigate, please. Johnlp (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm too stupid to understand these things, but does this explain it? --Dweller (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
^ Yep, 'tis that. The new template works slightly different. I'm trying to work on a solution but not getting anywhere just yet :) AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I think the problem is the new template doesn't convert a number to a month (i.e. it's not changing a 2 to February). I think there's two options to fix it: get someone to write a bot and update all of the articles (not the best choice for obvious reasons), or implement a switch to change them, which I think is our best choice. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Got it. :) You may have to purge your cache, but I think it's fixed. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 16:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Well done. Thank you. Do I need to change the version of the template that I have in my sandbox for creating new infoboxes for cricketers? Johnlp (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
If you mean this bit, nope - the template's been changed in such a way that the old way of filling it in will still work perfectly. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Mmm. Still doesn't look right. Perhaps I should just cut and paste a new version in there. Johnlp (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Done that. Now it looks okay. Johnlp (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys - I had a feeling when I made that edit that it may cause problems, but didn't seem to on first sight. Thanks for fixing it.—MDCollins (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Still a problem as far as I can see. Everyone I've checked was born on the 13th March, the year is fine for most but Geoffrey Boycott and David Gower were apparently born today. --Jpeeling (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure I've heard Sir Geoffrey say: "I weren't born yesterday, lad" or some such. And now it seems he wasn't. Johnlp (talk) 09:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Umm.. Geoffrey Boycott wasn't born today! Where would anyone of got that from? Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 10:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Should of read previous posts. ;) When you got to edit in the infobox, everything looks sweet, but.. not showing up correctly Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 10:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Some infoboxes are now displaying the death date in a different format to the birth date (month, day, year rather than day, month, year), see Dick Pollard, Gilbert Parkhouse, and Manjural Islam for examples. Nev1 (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Working on a fix. Someone's been changing the date of death template today, which is what's causing this. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be counting properly right now (Pollard died at 73 but it's insisting he died at 72)... Either that or I've not quite got it right yet. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
That any better? Again, will probably need a cache purge. I still think it's counting wrong, though, and I'm fairly sure that's not a problem with our template. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
(Addendum, 10 mins later...) Ok, I think it's working now: I don't think it helps we switched over while this template is apparently still in development, though it's functional, but it's fine for now as far as I can tell: Dick Pollard is showing up as 73 rather than 72; date of birth works fine whichever template they're using; no longer showing up as everyone born on the current date... I think it's fine, though some second (and third and fourth :)) opinions/people checking would be much appreciated. Ta. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 18:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

God - sorry guys - didn't realise it would cause so many problems. I assumed that since the MOS was changed, they were confident that the template is completed and working properly. If it helps, we could run a bot through to convert the month names (after all all the other dates in the infobox are written out in full, so it might make sense to standardise that and remove the switch)...—MDCollins (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Bowling figures

I couldn't leave this alone in the article for Kalumarakkala Tharaka. One-time first-class player, probably faded into relative obscurity ever since, but:

"Tharaka bowled nine overs in the match. Bowling two overs in his first innings, Tharaka took figures of 3-0, securing the wickets of Lushan Kuruppu, Dinesh Seneviratne, and Ujitha Eranga without conceding a single run."

Incredible figures for any bowler, but for a one-match wonder, quite something else. Bobo. 05:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Cricket

has been redirected to Battletoads. Is there an administrator here who can deal with it? --Orrelly Man (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's okay, I was able to revert it. I thought redirects could not be reverted; I suppose that is moves? I suggest an administrator protects the article and deals with User:199.197.112.182 accordingly. --Orrelly Man (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I've only just unprotected it. A certain amount of vandalism is tolerable and is an acceptable price for allowing all editors to edit, which is the point of Wikipedia, after all. If it gets silly, a semi protect can be reimposed. NB The page is move protected. --Dweller (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
That's fine, but since I reverted that redirect I've been offsite and returned today to see that there have been ten or more vandalism edits in the meantime: an average of about three per day. In my book, that is silly. I think you should re-protect. --Orrelly Man (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Three a day is hardly excessive vandalism in my book; one every eight hours? What do others think? --Dweller (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are seeing this in purely admin terms and forgetting the readers. If there is one act of stupidity every eight hours, such as redirecting to some children's game, then the chances are that a sizeable number of readers will try to look up cricket in that time and be put off the site. The main criticism of Wikipedia in the real world is that it cannot guarantee the credibility of its articles because it is open to vandalism.
A second criticism I often hear is that the so-called administrators are only interested in applying the rules to suit themselves and are not particularly bothered about the poor reader who is trying to research a subject and cannot do so because the article has been wrecked. The fact that you come along five minutes after he has left in disgust doesn't help the situation at all. The point is that he has left in disgust.
When dealing with cretins three times a day, prevention is necessary. Reverting does not repair the damage in terms of the lost reader. --Orrelly Man (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I support a semi-protection. If editors want to edit the article bad enough they can just make an account, which is fairly simple. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 09:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but that goes against the whole point of Wikipedia. Look, I'm happy for you to get an outside view - post a request to WP:RPP and see what the regulars there think? --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Although I understand why you have your concerns. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 06:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Australian First Class Cricketers

Can anyone help with cleaning up current Australian First class cricketers articles. As many of them have POV statements and outdated infoboxes. I'm currently in the process of fixing the Tasmanian Tigers arts. Cheers, Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 06:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A-Class thing

A while ago there was a message around asking for WikiProjects to send a person to the forum on WikiProject assessment. Does anyone here want to volunteer? What is our ppolicy on this? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 06:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I pine for Blackjack. --Dweller (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Keith Johnson (cricket administrator)

I've requested a review at MILHIST under the reasoning of KJ being a RAAF officer and the Services being an official unit. Just an outlet for everyone to point out any errors in my shoddy scholarship. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Cockermouth Cricket Club

Anyone fancy cleaning this one up? It's the sort of article cleanup I'm not at all good at doing, so I'm rather hoping someone else will give it a go! It's a horrible mess at the moment (eg "This guidance came from the likes of About a third of the way through the 1900s...") and doesn't read like an encyclopedia article at all. Loganberry (Talk) 21:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Has all the hallmarks of a WP:COPYVIO anyway so worth checking that before a clean-up. I'll investigate.—MDCollins (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Definitely. from www.cockermouthcricketclub.com; Early Days, "1900-1950s approx", Key Players etc. etc. I'll try and flag it up.—MDCollins (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec)I don't believe that it meets WP:CRIN, insofar as the club is not listed at List of English and Welsh cricket league clubs. The article also provides no evidence that it meets the WP:N general notability guideline, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." If clean-up was to begin by removing all material not reliably sourced, the article would be empty. Is the article worth attempting to save? -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Because it is (and always has been) copyviolated material from the source website, I have had to prod it for speedy deletion G12 (blatent copyright violation). There is no previous version to revert to, so it is likely that it will be deleted shortly. As notability is dubious anyway, it's not worth saving it this current format.—MDCollins (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It's gone.—MDCollins (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Official staff blogs on newspapers etc

Well a while ago, the Cricinfo example was OKed on the grounds that Cricinfo has editorial control over it. I suppose mine counts as a RS then??!?! :) Saves me paraphrasing from other sources if that's the case.... YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. --Dweller (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
He means that now Cricinfo is a reliable source because Cricinfo has control over it, his blog is a reliable source because he controls it. Probably was a joke. DeMoN2009 16:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
No, I actually have a blog on an Indian newspaper's website now. And a couple of articles! YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Great. Does this mean that whenever we need a source for a statement we can ask you to make the statement? --Roisterer (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, of course! YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Lol, just don't tell anyone Yellow Monkey wrote it. :P Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 08:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I worked out how to get more blog traffic. Instead of just the normal slogan, attach the name of the match to it, and it'll show high in google....YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

An unreliable source!

Carr's Illustrated Dictionary of Extra-Ordinary Cricketers (JL Carr, pub Quartet/Solo 1983) is an amusing read, but I wouldn't recommend its use as any sort of reliable source. Some of its entries are clearly intended as humour rather than fact, but there's also the odd one which is simply wrong. An example: Jim Laker is said to have taken his maiden first-class wicket when Alf Gover caught the ball between his knees whilst pulling a sweater over his (Gover's!) head. Presumably the match in question was Surrey v Hants near the end of the 1946 season, though CricketArchive's scorecard bears no mention of any such incident. However, Laker had actually taken six wickets on his first-class debut against Combined Services in July. Loganberry (Talk) 18:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

First f-c wicket is clearly wrong then, but Laker's first Championship wicket was caught Gover, according to the scorecard. So it's possible that it was caught as described, though corroboration from another source would be good. Cricket has an awful lot of good stories like that, and I agree that just because they appear on a book by Carr (or Cardus, for that matter) doesn't make them true. JH (talk page) 09:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd say that the catch was dramatised a touch. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 09:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, cricket books at the time (1950s) tend to say that Arthur Morris took a leaping catch to remove Compton in the Oval Test in 1948. On a 1998 made DVD for the 50th anniversary, Morris and Loxton indicate that it was caught at the throate without having to move. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Reginald Hargreaves

Greetings! I have recently created an article on Reginald Hargreaves, who mplayed first-class cricket for Hampshire and was famously married to Alice Liddell, the inspiration for Alice in Wonderland. Could any kind soul please have a look at the article and improve it if possible - infobox, more info about his career etc.? Many thanks in advance, GiantSnowman 11:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll add an infobox and some other bits and pieces. I can't guarantee to find anything interesting, but I should be able to flesh his career out a bit. Loganberry (Talk) 00:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay; done. There's not much in his Wisden obituary, so I've had to lean heavily on CricketArchive data. Mildly interesting perhaps that he appeared in the only first-class game ever played at the Green Jackets Ground in Winchester, and that he was dismissed by Bastard in both his last two f-c games. Loganberry (Talk) 00:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much Loganberry, much obliged! Kind regards, GiantSnowman 02:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sinhalese Sports Club Ground

Hi all, I expanded Sinhalese Sports Club Ground article and nomed for DYK. Can someone check it and reassess it. Cheers!--Chanaka L (talk) 11:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

CFM

Just a heads-up that I have proposed a merger of Category:Barbados cricketers into Category:Barbadian cricketers at WP:CFD. Given that Barbados is not an international side in cricketing terms, it should use the adjective (as do, for example Category:Jamaican cricketers and Category:Guyanese cricketers). Grutness...wha? 21:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Your notice here is appreciated, but perhaps asking for clarification before nominating may have been a better way to go here. The principle is that teams on one hand and nations, states, counties, provinces etc. are different entities and require different categories. Now that it has been posted on CfD, I expect this project will have imposed on it a solution that will be much less efficient and user-friendly than the current solution, but at least it will be "consistent". Sorry if this sounds bitter but my experience is that the CfD process is fatally flawed and skewed towards unworkable solutions, all in the name of supposed consistency. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Barbados have played international cricket, although not at Test or ODI level. They competed in the 1998 Commonwealth Games tournament, and those matches had List A status. At any rate, the distinction between (for example) "an Irish cricketer" and "an Ireland cricketer" is important, and needs to be retained. Loganberry (Talk) 14:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Feedback from the ongoing CfD

What seems to be coming out of the CfD is that if both categories are to be keep, then usage should be defined and standardised. May I propose that we have a quick drive on completing any gaps in our category trees and sorting out any mis-use, and clarifying the system.

I think we need to have

and

This may mean that some need creating or repointing (Category:Jamaica cricketers being one of them). Any thoughts? I think something like the above will silence any problems and proposers of the CfD. —MDCollins (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Further, could the Category:England cricketers be used as a parent cat for England Test/ODI sub-categories, but kept empty, so that non-internationals (i.e. those who haven't played for "England" the team) are correctly categorised by nationality (in Category:English cricketers.

but not Category:English cricketers nor Category:England cricketers nor Category:South Africa Test cricketers (and by extension not Category:South African Test cricketers, which would get far too complicated!).

—MDCollins (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed pretty much with the above. But one player who could go in Category: England cricketers could be Alan Jones, who did play for England, but not in Tests, ODIs or T20Is. A similar situation would exist for the hundreds of Irish, Scottish, Dutch, Bermudian, UAE and Hong Kong cricketers who have played for their national sides but never in ODI or T20I cricket - for example Ed Joyce would go in Category:Irish cricketers (because he's Irish), Category:Ireland cricketers (because he played for Ireland), Category:England ODI cricketers (because he's played ODIs for England), but wouldn't go in Category:Ireland ODI cricketers (because he never played ODIs for Ireland). Andrew nixon (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: Alan Jones etc. That's fine, yes. And regarding the other 'national sides' which aren't ODIs etc, that's what I meant too. Players can go into "Foo cricketers" if they have played for said "nation", and not at a more-specific level (e.g. "Foo Test cricketers"). We may have to clarify the "Fooan cricketers" if they are of dual-natioanality; is Andrew Strauss an English cricketer or a South African cricketer?—MDCollins (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
What would be the definition of "nationality (at birth)", though? Going strictly on birthplace would make Ted Dexter an Italian cricketer, whilst an Englishman and a Scotsman have the same nationality in law but different nationalities in cricket. Loganberry (Talk) 00:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that players should automatically go in the country of their births nationality category, and they can go into another category if we have a source that they have nationality of another country. In the example of Strauss he must have British nationality as the ECB requires all players to have British (or Irish for some reason) nationality. We may have the situation where England players born overseas go in Category:British cricketers as we don't know by which "home country" they get their British nationality. Geraint Jones for example has British citizenship through a Welsh parent, but he wouldn't go in Category:Welsh cricketers. He'd certainly go in Category:Papua New Guinean cricketers and would also go in Category:British cricketers. As for Andrew Strauss, I'd put him in Category:South African cricketers and Category:British cricketers - same with Kevin Pietersen. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Nationality by "citizenship" - or how about use the same guidelines as in the lead - Strauss is English, as is Dexter but KP is not.—MDCollins (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The lead for Pietersen's article currently states that he is "an English cricketer". I wouldn't have a problem with "a South African-born English cricketer", but "a South African cricketer who plays for England" just looks silly, even if quite a few people do think of him that way. Nationality questions simply cannot be standardised perfectly, especially in cricket; that's fine in the body of an article where these things can be explained, but I am worried that insisting on near-perfect standardisation in category names will make things worse than they are now. (A "Category: South African-born players" would present no such problems, of course!)
On another note, every specific player mentioned in this context so far has been a high-profile cricketer for whom there will be multiple sources reasonably easily available. Most cricketers, however, are not: what should I do with a (hypothetical) player who was born in Scotland, died in South Africa, played most of his first-class cricket for the Europeans in India and is listed as "England" on Cricinfo's profile page; and for whom CI and CA are the only sources I can find? Loganberry (Talk) 17:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course - a solution (SA-born cricketers) that would probably be shuned and shouted down by the rest of the community - I like it!! Obviously we can't insist on perfection but we can probably be a bit more standardised than we are now. In the end, common sense must always prevail. And there will always be exceptions who can be in several categories. For what it's worth, if they are clearly in a "Test cricketer" cat for one country, then a "by birth (or nationalisation) of another country" is ok (for example in KP's case who was clearly brought up a SA. Without checking, someone like Ted Dexter (presumably) born to ex-pats was clearly English, and so would go in an English cat. I would put Robin Smith in "South African cricketers" (as he was raised as SA and would have played for them if apartheid didn't get in the way) even though he was born to two English parents. Judge each on a case-by-case basis, but maybe use some precedences from higher-profile players who get more WP traffic. As for your hypothetical example, hold your hands up to the almighty for guidance, take an educated guess based on common sense, and hope that nobody would dare to argue with your extensive knowledge of "minor" cricketers!!!—MDCollins (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Another thought - what about those countries that don't have a nationality form - eg Hong Kong. Would we have Category:Hong Kong cricketers for players from Hong Kong such as Dermot Reeve and then a separate Category:Hong Kong international cricketers.? Andrew nixon (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd imagine this crops up with other categories so I'll have a hunt around and see if I can spot any precedence. ALternatively, all the players who play for England the nation (excluding Test/ODI etc) go under "England international cricketers" (parent cat - inc Alan Jones as above), "Barbados international cricketers" to avoid the confusion.—MDCollins (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Should all the FC teams have more explicit names as well Category:Essex CCC cricketers rather that Category:Essex cricketers (which could be seen as cricketers from Essex? Not sure how it would extend to other nations though (would Category:Western Australia cricketers need to change for example?—MDCollins (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I have an answer for the Hong Kong problem - according to the article here on Wikipedia, one can use Hongkonger or Hongkongese. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyvios in bios

Both the last two bios I've looked at tonight (Arun Harinath and Ryan Harris (cricketer)) contained huge chunks of text lifted verbatim (apart from wikifying) from their Cricinfo profiles. Harris's bio in particular had retained this copyvio text through something like twenty edits before I happened to notice it, about a third of those edits by "real people" (ie not anons or bots). I've now removed the offending text, of course, but it's somewhat concerning. I'm sure I must have missed many such offences myself. Loganberry (Talk) 01:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a bot that checks for this the sort of thing? --Dweller (talk) 12:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure, to be honest, and if there is I don't know whether it can detect very lightly edited copyvios, which is what had happened to Harris's article. In any case, the Cricinfo text in Harris's article had been there for many months, so the bot either missed it or was much too slow to be of great use there. Loganberry (Talk) 16:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how a bot could check for copy violations, without not only examining every page on the Web but every book, magazine and newspaper article as well. Care also has to be taken not to jump to conclusions. There have neem cases where an assumed copyvio has actually turned out to be the other way round, ie the other site has copied the Wiki article. JH (talk page) 18:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
True enough, all round. I suppose these problems will exist unless (I think it's CorenBot) picked up by a bot until humans develop articles. What worries me most, I suppose, is articles created on players who didn't have much a career, which are therefore unlikely to be developed much. Harinath and Harris mentioned above will probably play enough that we'd be bound to eventually get rid of the copyvio (assuming Cricinfo didn't copy us!) but it's more of a concern with a stub on, say, a chap who played twice for Yorkshire in the 1960s before becoming a publican. --Dweller (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
That's actually one of the reasons I've done what I have with the Worcestershire players. Although many of those articles are still no more than stubs, now that they exist in some form it's fairly straightforward to go through the player list and check it every so often (well, chunks of it) to see if anything really obvious has changed. I think I'd notice if a bio I wrote, or mostly wrote, had had a large chunk of text added in someone else's style, so I'd check, and either be grateful or delete according to whether or not the new material was legit. I also try to keep all 500+ such articles on my watchlist, though I think I've probably missed a few. Not foolproof, but an awful lot easier than if I were having to look out for potential new articles I'd never even thought of. Loganberry (Talk) 00:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Amazing achievement

Until a moment ago, according to Cricinfo, this chap was due to bat next for Middlesex --Dweller (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:English first class cricket teams

Our style guide would seem to indicate that this should be "...first-class...", ie with a hyphen. Loganberry (Talk) 23:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The parent cat is Category:First-class cricket teams.—MDCollins (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, it doesn't even match the parent category at the moment. Unfortunately, England isn't the only country whose category needs to be changed. If no one objects I could sort it out. Nev1 (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Johnlp (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Do we need a category for Guyanan first-class teams? It's currently unpopulated, but I can only think of one article to go in there off the top of my head. Nev1 (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the redirects are in place and a bot should run in about a week moving the articles into the correct categories. The only one I haven't changed is Category:Guyanan first class cricket teams because I think it should probably be deleted. Nev1 (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
MCC teams have played Demerara and Berbice at times in the past. But I don't think two teams make a category. Johnlp (talk) 08:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I make it four - Demerara, Berbice, Essequibo, and of course Guyana itself. Andrew nixon (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, I've set up a redirect. Nev1 (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Loganberry (Talk) 18:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You're absolutely right to do this but you left the new category empty and the transfer bot apparently needs a week's notice. To preserve the new category, I've moved the CUCC and OUCC club articles into it. The bot should do the rest next week. --Orrelly Man (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Suranga Lakmal

Created.Stats needs to be added.yousaf465

Done.—MDCollins (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

A specific nationality question

Imran Arif. Signed for Worcs as an overseas player, but has now received a British passport. I've changed his infobox nationality to English, since that's what he now is, but I'm not sure about categorisation. As of now, he's listed (and stubbed) as both Pakistani (nationality of birth, and nationality he first played under) and English (nationality he now is). Is that right? Loganberry (Talk) 15:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well technically he wouldn't be English, he'd be British. As for his infobox, I'd keep it as Pakistan for now. Just having a British passport doesn't mean he is eligible to play for England - he has to live in England/Wales for four years first. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
He's already lived here for eight years (married to a British woman); the Worcester News article quoted mentions that. Does the qualification period start from the time he gets his UK passport? As for the British/English thing, how should I categorise him, then? Category:British cricketers does exist, but is currently used only for a subcat containing the GBR Olympic cricketers. As he's no longer considered an overseas player, leaving him only categorised as Pakistani just doesn't seem right. Loganberry (Talk) 16:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, I didn't realise he'd lived here for that long. As mentioned above, the whole nationality thing is a little murky when we get to British nationals born outside the UK. If you want to put him as English, go ahead. Andrew nixon (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'll leave him as he is now, but I won't object if anyone with better information feels like editing it in the future. I know this isn't conclusive, but his Cricinfo profile now lists him under "England" (although I can't remember what it did last year). It's hardly a secret that I don't enjoy the (increasingly large) bureaucratic element of Wikipedia editing anything like so much as writing the actual meat of the articles, and really it's only because nationality can be so significant for cricketers that I worry as much about it as I do. Loganberry (Talk) 18:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You can always put him in both Category:British cricketers and Category:Pakistani cricketers as a comprimise. After all, the category system is there to help find people, so if he happens to be in both, I'd support that (and any others, see above). If they have dual-nat, put them in 2 categories...—MDCollins (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I've done. Thanks for the reassurance there. Loganberry (Talk) 23:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Timing of player bio updates

Do we have any policy statement on when player biographies should be updated? I have just reverted the alteration of Jesse Ryder's top score in his infobox, because the reference will not update until the completion of the Test in 3 days time. Also, the editor (typically) only changed the highest score field without changing aggregate runs, average or number of centuries (and what would you put in the matches played, 7.5? If we don't have a guideline, I propose the following:

  • Editors should refrain from updating a player's statistics while a game is still in progress. Statistical sources only provide figures to the last completed game. Any editor updating infobox statistics should ensure that all statistics are consistent with the reference source.

(However, I have no problem with the double century being added to the prose section of the article, with appropriate source cited) dramatic (talk) 04:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your point about infoboxes: stats should certainly not be updated until the end of a match. We are not a breaking news service; there's no need. As for updating the prose, I'm not sure. I can see your point, but if a (hypothetical) player is listed as scoring 100 on his Test debut when his infobox still shows zero Tests, then the prose and the infobox don't agree, which I don't like. Personally I'd prefer always to wait until the end of a match, even if this means we're occasionally five days out of date, but I suspect not everyone will agree with me there. Loganberry (Talk) 12:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I certainly think we should wait until the end of a match before updating stats, otherwise the it will just have to be done over and over again and we would be creating unnecessary work for ourselves. The problem is, while seasoned members probably do this (or let Sambot sort it), IPs happily go and update one field of the infobox, leaving the rest out of date. That way, the infobox isn't just outdated, but wrong. Enforcing this policy might be difficult, but I think it's worth stating that we should wait. As Loganberry said, wikipedia isn't a news service. Nev1 (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that the infobox needs to state more clearly that the statistics are correct to the end of a particular match (The template could also contain a comment that it is maintained by a bot and should not be updated). The problem is made worse in that sambot's latest run (which removed the double century from Jesse Ryder yet again) dated the infobox as 28 March (in the middle of the current match). dramatic (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ganguly

Surprising how quickly regionalism can flame massive tensions in India. On testy comment and all of a sudden, there's a stack of angry comments, mostly from a Bengali forum..... and then 3.5% of readers comment, instead of the usual 0.2% of readers.... No under the media like talking about him so much... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Vote on date autoformatting and linking

People may be interested to know that the Vote on date autoformatting and linking is now open. All users are invited to participate. Lightmouse (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

As it happens, I noticed this yesterday and very nearly posted something, but the whole argument has become so absurdly overblown (it reminds me of the AD/CE brouhaha) that I really don't want anything to do with it. It's not something I feel that strongly about (though for what it's worth, when I write new bios I no longer link dates, and think it looks cleaner that way) so I shall probably just wait and see whether anything actually happens after all these months of argument. Loganberry (Talk) 19:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The argument were long because there were many opinions but few statistics on what people like you wanted. The vote will provide those statistics to end the argument. It has gone all the way to Arbcom and so the end is in sight. The more people that vote, the more reliable the statistics. Your vote will count. Lightmouse (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox height heads up

Just so you know, User:Thumperward has been cleaning-up the code for Template:Infobox cricketer biography. Unfortunately, the height conversion fields are now not working properly. I've dropped him a note, so there's no need to try and find a work-around (as seen on Marcus Trescothick's history, as I'm sure he'll will drop by again to fix it.—MDCollins (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

WCOTY

The 2009 Wisden Cricketers of the Year have been listed. The big news is the listing of Claire Taylor; the first woman to be listed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm more puzzled about the inclusion of Mark Boucher. I haven't checked the statistics, but from memory Graeme Smith made a far greater impact on South Africa's series win in England. Did Boucher even make a half century? Jevansen (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
In the Tests, Boucher scored 138 runs @ 27.60 (and 18 dismissals) and in all FC matches on tour 169 runs @ 28.16 (23 dismissals). Not a stellar season, perhaps it was given as a "lifetime achievement" award. Graham Smith had already been named as a WCOTY, in 2004. I thought it was interesting how by the time McKenzie is announced as a WCOTY, he had been dumped from the SA team with his Test career seemingly over. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't aware that you couldn't win the award twice. I probably should have read the article first! It says that Jack Hobbs won it in 1926 to honour him breaking the record for most first-class hundreds so I guess this one's to honour Boucher getting the Test dismissal record. Fair enough, the guy doesn't get enough recognition ... even his Wiki article is a bit modest for a guy with 126 Tests. Jevansen (talk) 06:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
He's a fighter! I'll give him that much. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 07:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Flag of the Irish Cricket Team

I just added this on the To Do List under Teams & Countries at the top of the page, but perhaps I should have posed the question here first.

There is currently no flag associated with the Ireland cricket team link. Instead the template {{cr|IRE}}  Ireland links to [Flag_of_None.svg]. As the Template:Country data Ireland page is locked I am unable to add the flagimage listed on the Ireland Cricket Team page to this template so that it will display on all the relevant pages. I am very interested to know how one should go about having this flag entered as the official Irish Cricket team emblem. Avimonster (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorted, hopefully. SGGH ping! 11:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Apparently the flag is a copyvio (though not been told why) so I have reverted my edit above for now. SGGH ping! 13:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It's copyvio as it contains part of the Irish Cricket Union's logo, here and here Gnevin (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

David Gower

Has a peer review up on the pr page :) SGGH ping! 12:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The painfully annoying process of finding a free picture of him might be a start. Have you looked through Flickr? Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 07:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I have, found nothing yet for him or Boycott, for which I am also looking. SGGH ping! 09:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The only free gower one is of his back, standing far away on the pitch during commentary. SGGH ping! 10:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
damn that's not too good. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 10:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sophia Gardens

I've put a move request in for SWALEC Stadium to be moved to Sophia Gardens, as I believe that this is the common name for the ground. Please leave any comments on the article's talk page. Thanks. Dancarney (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Does anyone here especially an Englishmen understand why it would host the first Ashes test? Very strange move. Imagine having an Australian Ashes series partly played in New Zealand. Tasmania can't even get an Ashes test at Bellerive Oval. So why on earth is another country hosting an Ashes Test? Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 06:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not English, but I do know that the England cricket team represents the England and Wales Cricket Board (rather bizarrely abbreviated at ECB, rather than EWCB). Further, Glamorgan County Cricket Club—from Wales—competes in the County Championship. Therefore it is quite appropriate for the England team to play in Wales. What I find amusing is that Welshmen who would not dream of supporting an England rugby union team, seem quite happy to support an cricket team called "England"—and in Robert Croft's case (among others), even play for them! -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
There are other historic venues in England that are capable of hosting an Ashes Test like Old Trafford. Being an Aussie I just can't imagine supporting a neighbouring country, or even playing for them. I don't know much about rugby but I doubt any Welsh rugby players would be happy to play for England. I would understand if it was an ODI or a tour game but not an Ashes Test. This is probably going a bit far but; Pakistan wouldn't get a lot of support if it played a Test in India ;). Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 07:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but for cricket purposes England includes Wales (like Australia includes Tasmania :-)) Why it does, I do not know; for historical reasons I guess given Glamorgan's position in the County Championship. Given that, then Glamorgan is as entitled as Durham or Hampshire to bid for a Test match. The Welsh crowd will support the England (and Wales) team, no doubt about it and will be a pleased as punch to get an Ashes Test. Why they support a team called "England", well, only a Welshman can answer! -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Interestingly a New Zealand team did play in the List A competition in Australia 1969-70 until 1974–75, I of course wasn't around to witness this but I wonder how that would of went down, as they did win 3 times and were runner up on one occasion. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 07:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that is right (and I would not be surprised to see a Trans-Tasman 20/20 competition with NZ provincial teams). The difference is that the NZ players were not eligable to represent Aust. while Glamorgan players are qualified for England (given they qualify under nationality guidelines, i.e. are British). Glamorgan is in Wales but is a constituent county of the ECB. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
You'd be amazed at how many people from mainland Australia ask if Tasmania is part of Australia or has the same currency as Australia. Bit sad aye! Bring on the Ashes. Why would Australia even agree to play 5 ODI's and a 2020 against Pakistan when it has so much cricket ahead. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 07:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The ECB is, of course, the "England and Wales Cricket Board", but the W gets lost in abbreviation. Steve James' autobiography consistently refers to the Board as the "EWCB". [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 10:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket/Archive_57&oldid=1260855373"