Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 41

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

→

Marcus Trescothick

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marcus Trescothick .Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Unusual Man-of-the-match

Hi,

Can somebody jog my memory: A man-of-the-match winner in a Lord's final without taking a wicket or scoring a run...

Cheers –MDCollins (talk) 10:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

John Abrahams of Lancashire, won it for his captaincy. I forget the year. Andrew nixon 11:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

1984 B & H Cup --Jpeeling 11:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. –MDCollins (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should ask for an opinion on this

Be gentle, please. :)

In the three hours I spent awake this morning I hashed out this on my sandbox, basically I wrote it as a response to the fact that I saw Yorkshire County Cricket Club in 2007 having been written, but I just never got around to writing any for Derbyshire until now.

Please offer your opinions - but as I say, be gentle, it was 1am. Obviously the article, when it exists, will be Derbyshire County Cricket Club in 1895. Bobo . 12:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Having read the previous section, I now see that Stephen is prodding these. Great timing from me – but never mind, it's worth a shot. Bobo . 12:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to the narrative ones, such as your Derbyshire County Cricket Club in 1895; it's the ones that are just lists of results that I don't think belong here. I welcome discussion on it, of course. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Stephen. The next thing I am curious as to whether it is needed, is either of two boxes at the bottom of the article, one reading:

Derbyshire in the County Championship
Previous season: None	This season: 1895	Next season: 1896

And the other being some kind of box as follows:

Whether it should focus on Derbyshire in the County Championship or Derbyshire in first-class cricket (from their debut first-class appearance in 1870) I am undecided, but since there were so few matches in those first twenty-five seasons, I see this as having less of a point to it than focusing on the County Championship seasons. Bobo . 16:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think your new article should focus on Derbyshire in the 1895 County Championship but include a sub-section about other first-class matches played that season (I haven't checked who they did play that year). I think a separate article about the origins of Derbyshire CCC and covering its first 25 years would be great: there is already some bits about the early years in Derbyshire CCC as there is for all the counties. Good work. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, BlackJack. The only other first-class match Derbyshire played in the 1895 season was a match against Marylebone Cricket Club. I was really talking about the period pre-1895 when they were already playing first-class cricket, but were not in the County Championship - for example, in 1871, they played just two first-class matches. In fact, in the 24 seasons between 1871 and 1894, they played only 141 matches - including zero in the period between September 1887 and May 1894. Bobo . 18:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think BlackJack had the right idea in suggesting that the earlier history of the club be covered in a single article, rather than season by season. JPD (talk) 09:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly — this would be the period of 1871 to 1894, in a single article. So we're looking for two separate articles, as per the soccer clubs: History of Derbyshire County Cricket Club (1871–1894) and Derbyshire County Cricket Club in 1895... up to Derbyshire County Cricket Club in 2007. Easy job, just gotta get into writing an essay a day, I suppose. Bobo . 14:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Templates

Another thing I worked on this afternoon is a bunch of first-class cricket teams by season templates, from 2007 back to 1890, each one of which links to "<team> County Cricket Club in <year>", based on the teams in the County Championship in each year, through expansions in 1894, 1897, Worcestershire's absence in the championship in 1919 and return in 1920, and Durham's introduction in 1992. These are here, and, although this template is unneeded for the 2005 season, as all teams have articles dedicated to them based on this season, it would be useful to have templates for all other seasons when such articles are created. Thoughts? Bobo . 19:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why you say the template is unneeded in 2005, where there are actually articles that the navigation template would be used in. JPD (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean that the template doesn't need to be used in 2005 because there is already a template used: see for example the English cricket season articles on Derbyshire or Durham, where the bottom infobox covers the 2005 season with a greater number of teams than any of my templates, with me still only using the 18 in the County Championship. Bobo . 17:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

To do

I'm getting slightly confused here. So here are my immediate plans as regards cricket clubs by season, summarized easy enough so that I can understand what I'm doing.

Firstly, can someone please give the thumbs up or thumbs down to this. Do you want anything else covered? An infobox of some kind? A list of debuts?
Secondly, can someone give me a yea or nay as per the early cricket seasons by team templates, which are all here, not so much those for the later seasons, as information in those is covered, particularly for the 2005 season, in great detail, but certainly those for the early years.
More of the same in terms of prose descriptions of early County cricket seasons?

Tell me what else you want doing to the article - I'll probably do another one this afternoon. Bobo . 15:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ian Bell

Why is there a disambiguation page, one of them doesn't even have an article, one has barely enough text to fill a square of bog roll and then there's the cricketer. 86.128.110.219 15:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is so much attention being drawn to this?

There is a statistical article called Somerset County Cricket Club First Class Matches which includes this paragraph:

W G Grace played a number of matches for Gloucestershire against Somerset between 1879 and 1885. Wisden and Playfair recognise all of these as first-class and they are included in Grace's career figures. However, the ACS regards only those matches played between 1882 and 1885 as first-class. For more information about this issue, see: Traditional career totals.

I'm not sure of all the WP guidelines and policies but I know there is one about notability. The notability of Wisden and, to a lesser extent, Playfair is in no doubt; but the notability of the ACS is questionable. It does not represent anyone or anything except its own members, one of whom is responsible for this article and the other one it refers to. It seems to me that this person is using Wikipedia to try and promote the notability of the ACS. As I understand the notability concept, a subject should have notability in its own right.

It does not matter what the ACS thinks about Grace's record any more than what Fred Bloggs thinks or what I think. The fact is that Wisden is THE authoritative source for cricket statistics and remains the one that must be quoted. Playfair is a good secondary source, especially for its biographies and career records of contemporary players, which Wisden does not include.

In my opinion, any references to ACS views about cricket statistics should be edited out and the Traditional career totals article should be deleted. There is no "issue" about Grace's totals: there is simply Grace's record as published by Wisden. Fiddlers Three 07:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I see the Traditional Career Totals srticle has now been proposed for deletion, which I think is a pity. I'll repeat what I said in the deletion debate. Whilst I think that it is a pity that ACS have gone against tradition as to which matches are accepted as first-class, and hence have come up with different career totals for some players, one can't ignore that their figures have been adopted by many authorities. Both of the major online cricket sites, CricketArchive and Cricinfo, use their figures, and most Wiki player biographies take their statistics from one or other of those sites. Like it or not, ACS are far more than a "fringe group". The article is I think useful, factual and does not push a particular POV. I can't see any promotion of the ACS in it. I should add that I am not an ACS member and have no personal axe to grind. (In fact Wisden did use the ACS figures for several years before, with a change of editor I think, they had second thoughts.) JH (talk page) 08:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The other thing to consider is what WP:V says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." To my knowledge, Wisden has NEVER published a complete list of matches it considers to be first-class. Indeed the only authority to do this is the ACS. The only way we can verify what is and isn't first-class is from the ACS data on Cricket Archive. Nobody (but Wisden themselves) knows the data Wisden uses to generate it's statistics, we do for the ACS. Andrew nixon 10:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Another point is that Wisden routinely publishes f-c career records only for batsmen who have scored more than 25,000 runs and bowlers who have taken more than 1,500 wickets. Career figures are sometimes included in obituaries, but for relatively minor players by no means always. Playfair gives career figures for players who appeared in the previous English season, which is helpful, but how many people have access to a complete run of Playfair? Almost all Wiki player biographies quote CricketArchive or Cricinfo (and hence ultimately ACS) statistics, and in most cases there is no practical alternative if statistics are to be given at all. I hope no-one will say that websites cannot be authoritative sources, since Wikipedia is itself a website and we are all striving to make it authoritative. The differences in career totals arise through a different in opinion on the first-call status of a handful of matches. There will always be a degree of subjectivity in this for matches in the days before the governing bodies started laying down rigorous definitions of what was f-c. JH (talk page) 12:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Traditional career totals article, which we can argue about in its AfD, I've prodded Somerset County Cricket Club First Class Matches, along with Gloucestershire County Cricket Club in 2004‎ and Gloucestershire County Cricket Club in 2006, on the grounds that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of statistics. Stephen Turner (Talk) 03:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

When I wrote the content for what I hope will become Derbyshire County Cricket Club in 1895, here, of which I did the bulk of the work this morning, I did so on the basis that these articles already exist for football seasons – see Liverpool's, Manchester United's, and others' articles which are similar but for a different sport. These seem to have the blessing of the football community, and since these had started being introduced for cricket – and not by myself – I don't see the harm they are doing. Bobo . 12:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think club reviews by season should be classified as a statistical compilation, though obviously care is needed by the author. But I agree with Stephen about the Somerset one because that is purely a list of stats and they mean very little. A new user has just produced one for Yorkshire in 2007 and it's fine (except that he hasn't quoted his sources). I would support deletion of the Somerset stats but keep the Gloucester, Derby, Yorkshire and Liverpool reviews.

Oh, all right then, I'd keep the MUFC review too. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the Somerset article has merit if you regard it as an adjunct to the main article on Somerset CCC. We already have with a couple of counties separate articles that deal with the county records; in other cases the records and statistical stuff is inside the article on the county club. I'd support any move to standardise on a particular format, but I think the information in this one has value and adds to Wikipedia's usefulness. I'd like to see a similar article for other counties. Conversely, I have less attachment to the "xxxshire in 19xx" seasonal articles unless there is a particular notability to the county's deeds in that season, though I wouldn't go so far as to delete them once created. In fact, I think we're in danger of getting too deletionist around here: as Bobo says, what harm are these articles doing? Johnlp 20:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I am deprodding them all. Performance over a season or overall is best expressed in statistics and I can't see anything "indiscriminate" about stats predominating those articles. This is true whether it is cricket, baseball, football, or basketball. Of course, anyone can take it to AfD. On a related topic, what are this sudden waves of destruction in WP:CRIC all about ? Tintin 06:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments by the Author - Fiddlers Threes main point seems to be that the ACS has no more authority that anyone else and that Wisden/Playfair figures are somehow nearly universally accepted. It is simply not the case that Wisden has more authority that the ACS or anyone else. There is no authoritative list of first class matches before 1947. All lists are in a sense equally valid. However there are, to all intents and purposes, just two lists. The purpose of the article is to explain this and the historical reasons.

The example quoted about Somerset is a useful example. The 'Traditional' figures for WG include matches played by Gloucestershire against Somerset in 1879 and 1881. However a look at the Somerset Yearbook 2007 (a publication which has no allegiance at all to the ACS) has a summary of Somerset first class matches which starts in 1882 (as per the ACS list of first class matches). Are we to tell the editor of the Yearbook that he's completely wrong and that he should be including the additional matches. At the same we can tell Peter Roebuck he got it all wrong too in his history of Somerset CCC. Indeed I can't find a single publication about Somerset CCC which includes the 1879 and 1881 in its stats about Somerset ever. And I mean ever. I'd be interested to hear of one. Are all these publication wrong. No. The list of matches is not set in stone. Different authors use different lists.

While we're about it why don't we tell all those statisticians in India and authors of publications about Indian first class cricket that there all wrong too by including the disputed tour in which Jack Hobbs played. I'm sure a load of Englishmen telling them the error of their ways would go down well.

Regarding the ACS it is worth noting that ACS is now regularly consulted about statistical matters by the ICC. The classification of List 'A' matches has now officially been transferred from the ACS to the ICC but with the ACS continuing to provide advice and maintaining the official list. To quote the ICC General Manager David Richardson the ACS "performs an essential role in the cricket world.". The ACS has never claimed that its list of first class is 'correct', it just provides a list so that statisticians can produce a consistent set of data. Currently this is more that Wikipedia can achieve. We have (since 13 Aug) WGs figures including the matches v Somerset in 1879 and 1881 and the Somerset CCC page having the statement "Somerset CCC played its initial first-class match versus Lancashire CCC at Old Trafford on 8, 9 and 10 June 1882". This is just the sort of inconsistency the ACS list was intended to avoid. (Bangs head against wall!) Nigej 14:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe johnlp hit the nail on the head when he denounced the title of this article on the deletion page. The title is meaningless in the context of Wikipedia and absolutely useless to all readers, including those interested in cricket. The title is pure ACS-speak and would be typical of the "Cricket Statistician". It fails to acknowledge that Wikipedia's intended audience is Planet Earth.

I have been very interested in the views expressed by several people and I have revised my opinion about the article. I do not think, as some have suggested, that it should be merged into the main ACS article. I believe it should retitled and restructured but, in essence, retained. It is true that a divergence in a certain area of cricket statistics has arisen and the issue should be addressed here to try and counter any possible confusion that, as one person said, might arise if someone reads WG's figures here and then sees an alternative version elsewhere.

The article needs to be written chronologically beginning with the inclusion of Grace's Somerset figures in what became his accepted career totals and how this happened (Ashley-Cooper et al). Then, the article must focus on the Jack Hobbs situation and the celebrations that followed his feat in catching and then overtaking WG's accepted total of centuries. As someone said earlier, this is the point at which the Somerset figures became not so much "something in a book" as a part of the sport's history.

Now we come to the crux of the matter. Instead of loudly proclaiming the part of the ACS in all this, the article must examine the origin of dissent. I doubt if Webber was the first to question WG's totals but he was probably the first to publish a significant work that asked that question (does anyone know of earlier publications?). After him came Frindall. Webber and Frindall are both more notable subjects than anyone in the ACS. Frindall is easily the most famous and most distinguished cricket statistician around and he was in actual fact Webber's successor to this mantle. Why then, does this article relegate Webber and Frindall to the bottom of some sub-section instead of placing them in the van of dissension where they belong? The answer is that the article was written by an ACS apologist who invariably, browsing some of his contributions, quotes the ACS as his source even when it is only a tertiary source like Wikipedia itself.

Certainly the ACS should be mentioned in the revised article but in its proper sequential place, as must CricInfo, CricketArchive and the other sources mentioned by Tintin which are not presently in the article at all.

Naturally the article must, inter alia, continue to feature the MCC v Reef fiasco and explain the circumstances of the Vizzy tour given its impact on the totals of Hobbs and Sutcliffe.

I recommend that someone retitles and restructures the article along those lines so that it presents an overall and sequential view of the events that have led to the present unsatisfactory situation whereby the sport's greatest player has alternate career totals. Fiddlers Three 06:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have never claimed that the article is correctly or well written. Indeed my first comment in the talk page of Traditional career totals quite clearly says "I'm fully aware that the style of the article might not be suitable for Wikpedia, although I had fun writing it. If anyone wants to rewrite it I'd be delighted although I'd like to remain the detail, which I feel is important (although others might disagree) since it's an area that people comment on without really understanding the issues". I still stand by this.

It would indeed be interesting to have a fuller history but this may overdoing it for Wikipedia. The article is inappropriately large anyway. I'm not overkeen on the Frindall worship. He's an important figure but no more. He is also something of a late convert to the ardent 'Tradionalist' viewpoint, being happy to use two sets of figures in at least one of his early publications: "Kaye book of Cricket Records" (from memory).Nigej 13:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point regarding the ACS list. It is simply a list. I don't care which list is used but I do think it would be better to use a list and not provide inconsistent data. Use a different list by all means, the 'Traditionalist' one would be quite appropriate. All I ask is that a list is used and that there are some remarks about which list is used. We mustn't get bogged down in dicussions about which is 'correct' and which is 'incorrect'. Such a discussion about completely trivial matches is a complete waste of time.

I agree that my remark about the ACS think it is "correcting long-standing mistakes" was wrong. Perhaps "providing a consistent approach" would have been better.Nigej 13:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm away at present, but I can't let Fiddlers Three's comment about my "denunciation" of the Traditional Totals article title stand without adding that I also said that the article should be retained. I also am of the opinion that Nigej's Somerset article would usefully be replicated for other counties, identifying where there is debate about the first-class status of some matches. And I would regard the departure of a respected editor such as Nigej in the face of an anti-ACS campaign by a couple of closely associated editors as to be very much regretted and against what we are trying to achieve here. Now I am away again. Johnlp 20:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Witch hunt on me ?

There seems to be something of witch hunt against me simply because I choose to exclude (in my articles about Somerset CCC) some early matches in which WG Grace played and to provide a discussion about career figures. I'm happy to leave Wikipedia to its own devices but to hound out well meaning people seems undesirable to me. Bye Nigej 13:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree Nigej - it all seems to have got out of proportion. I'm sure we'd all hate to lose an editor over it (I've stayed out of the discussion all together!). Stick it out mate. –MDCollins (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No witch hunt or anything personal from me. In fact I'm going to withdraw from all discussions about that article and remove my last post on this page because I did promise myself when I returned to WP recently that I would not get involved in anything to do with ACS and here I am getting sucked in again. No more.

I hope Nigel will reconsider. I've had my problems with the site before now and the thing to do is put it behind you and move forward. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Racism in cricket

In light of the recent Australian tour of India, this Cricinfo article about Ranji and knowing the impact the apartheid had on the South African cricket team, I think that such an article would have lots of potential. I also recall and Eng vs WI series stirring up racism, where according to memory, the English players refused to play with a black team. If anybody has any spare time and don't how to spend it, may I suggest writing this! Gizza^Discuss ^© 08:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Latest Twenty20

It seems the rules on neutral umpires have gone out the window. --Jpeeling 18:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There are no rules on neutral umpires for Twenty20 Internationals. Outside the World Championship, they're treated by the ICC as (essentially) glorified exhibition games. Andrew nixon 18:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The Ashes

The Ashes has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael Durandt

The article, previously at Michael Durant (cricketer), who had been an Under-19 Namibian cricketer, has a new Cricket Archive entry, spelling his name Michael Durandt. Since this is a much higher level, and discrepancies in younger Namibian players can be found in three or four places in Cricket Archive, this seems like this would be the more likely way to spell his name. Just to check whether you guys think this is sensible. Bobo . 04:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Trescothick FAC...update

Hi all,

The Marcus Trescothick FAC failed, but no real reason why. All of the comments were addressed/discussed, and there was certainly no objections. Can anyone suggest the way forward? Does it need any more work before re-nominating? Could a couple of you with FAC experience (or with lots of promotions) have a look please?

Thanks guys, –MDCollins (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. Some FACs with majority support but without consensus, have been archived quickly recently. Hmm, I think asking Raul for clarification might be useful in this case. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ashes FAR

There's been an astonishing lack of interest in the FAR page. Are we content to let The Ashes lose its Featured status without fighting to keep it? --Dweller 10:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Honourable exceptions, of course, are Tintin, JHall and Blnguyen who're active at the article, fixing it and BlackJack who made a great suggestion at the FAR. --Dweller 10:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit that I haven't done very much recently. Also I must confess that - though I of course accept that all potentially contentious statements should have citations to support them - I am rather ambivalent about the level of citing that a Featured Article appears to require. Having seemingly almost every statement with a footnote attached IMO makes an article look unattractive. I don't think that most printed encyclopaedias go in for citing to such an extreme degree. As an example of what I think is excessive citing consider: Australia went two-nil up after three Tests, but England won the fourth Test by 3 runs (after a 70-run last wicket stand) to set up the final decider. However, the game was drawn. That has a citation of the relevant part of Harte's book. But something as straightforward as a scorecard could be easily looked up by anyone interested online by anyone with any Googling skills. Few people will have access to the Harte book in any case, to check that it really does say what is claimed. If we must have references for scores, then online references from a respected site such as CricketArchive, that anyone is in a position to check, seem to me to be preferable. I appreciate that we can't go against Wikipedia guidelines on citations, if we want to retain FA status, but these are two related points that have been bothering me for a long time, so I thought that this was as good an excuse as any to vent on the subject. :) JH (talk page) 20:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad you vented. First, because you did it so well. And secondly, because I was beginning to get quite lonely here. --Dweller 20:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This was what the article looked like just after the 2005 series. I think the section on matches should go back to this, with the recent series compressed into one section. The "legend of the ashes" now contains too many details and quotes. Except the main quote (Sporting times), the rest should be removed, or if someone really wants to retain it, pushed to the notes section. Tintin 05:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That is better than now but it still needs to be trimmed back because of imbalance. England v. Australia was until about 1975 the virtual Cricket World Championship. By the time of the overrated 1981 series, it was an also-ran contest between two very ordinary teams who just happened to produce some exciting finishes. If Bofum is going to be in there, then Trumper in 1902, Rhodes in 1926, Bradman in 1930, Hutton, Frank Tyson, John Snow and a host of others must be in as well. That is why the match series section started being expanded in the first place.

I would remove all match and series descriptions and only refer to matches and series in terms of their impact on the legend or their association with the introduction of the recent replica trophies. So I would talk about how the Demon's performance in 1882 gave rise to the obituary; about how the Hon. Ivo "recovered those Ashes"; how Plum resurrected the legend and brief mentions of the replica trophies. I would not even mention Bodyline.

The article has failed because it has gone out of scope and lost focus. The match and series descriptions are in the tour articles elsewhere and don't belong in an article about the prize. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 04:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Traditional career totals

The consensus on this article when it was up for deletion was not entirely clear: it has, however, been kept and a lot of contributors to that deliberation (including me) felt that the title needed to be changed. Rather than let this languish, can we have a debate here about a new title for this, as a starting point for improving this article and then making links to it from other articles where the subjects are involved in the controversy or affected by different interpretations of what is a first-class match? Johnlp 20:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this. It's hard to come up with a more descriptive title whilst keeping it reasonably short and neutral in tone. I think that the word "cricket" definitely ought to be in there somewhere. Maybe something like "Cricketers' career totals: traditional and revisionist". JH (talk page) 20:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"Revisionist" sounds very negative to me. How about something like "First-class cricket statistics discrepancies"? Not very catchy, but... Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds pretty good. JH (talk page) 08:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty good: I reckon it doesn't need to be catchy, because in most cases readers are likely to get to it through a link from elsewhere – one of the players whose career figures are affected, or the first-class cricket article, or the ACS article. "Discrepancies" is better than "anomalies" or "divergences" or "controversies", I think. Johnlp 23:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of other suggestions (and wanting to act while the issue was still fresh in collective minds) I've moved this article to First-Class Cricket Statistics Discrepancies, following Stephen's suggestion. I have also amended references in the Grace, Hobbs, Jack Newman and Somerset CCC First-Class Matches articles to point to this article as providing an explanation for the divergences in published stats. The article itself could still do with some work on it, I think. Johnlp 20:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

They are not discrepancies. That is a POV word and is inappropriate because it suggests Webber & Co. are correct when in fact that is extremely arguable. The article is about differences or variations between alternative versions of cricket statistics. A discrepancy is when someone miscalculates a total in his chosen version; but his choice of version is not necessarily wrong. The article should not use terms like traditional or revisionist either. I would call it Variations in First-class Cricket Statistics. This discussion should have been left on here for longer than two days before changing the title. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 04:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've made a start on improving the article but am nowhere near finished as the chapters about Grace and Hobbs need revision. I've given it a meaningful intro and improved the tail-end chapter about other cricketers. I've also tidied up some of the linkages and added some additional sources. I'll continue over the weekend but won't have any more time for it today. Oh, and I've changed the name to remove "discrepancies". --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

How interesting that two days with three fairly experienced editors pretty much in agreement is too short a time to make a change, when just a couple of hours is enough for one person to override that view. From a reader's viewpoint, which is the one that matters in a work that is intended to be read, differences between stats in published accounts are "discrepancies", and there is no POV or implication of correctness on one side or the other in this. I'll not now change this back, but it doesn't leave a pleasant taste with me: I'd hoped that some work by some of us without a particular axe to grind in this area might sort this out in the spirit of collaboration. Obviously I was too naive. Johnlp 11:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Johnlp. To me, "discrepancies" doesn't have the connotation that BlackJack claims, though the new title is fine too. I think BlackJack is just over-sensitive about this topic. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Discrepancy is a synonym of error and in common usage it signifies an error of detail. There are no errors of detail in the Wisden version of these stats and none in the CricketArchive version either: they are simply two alternative versions. I am very interested in the article because I can see greater potential for it than it has had previously. Differences in cricket statistics go right back to the 18th century and the first person to really highlight the fact was not Webber but Haygarth, as I shall show. As for collaboration, you need to read what Dweller is saying on this page about The Ashes. I never wait for collaborators: if I'm interested enough to make major changes I get on with it as per WP:BOLD. If anyone else wants to help out, they're welcome – but it doesn't often happen. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite completed. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Cricket Stubs

Cricket stubs are being discussed here. --Jpeeling 15:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It is pointless pedantic discussion that fails to address the real issue. We have far too many stubs. I see a figure of 5600 quoted and that was six months ago so there must be well over 6000 by now. What is needed is a concerted effort to expand the articles or to utilise the {{notstub}} tag where an article is necessarily small. And, yes, I am doing the tour and season articles now. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 04:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Youngest Test captains

In expanding the Murray Bisset article, I noted that he was only 23 when he captained South Africa. I know that Taibu was younger when he captained Zimbabwe but has anyone else captained a Test side younger than Bisset? And can anyon recommend reference for this fact? --Roisterer 12:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

See here. Andrew nixon 12:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe I managed to miss 4 captains. Thanks for the reference. --Roisterer 12:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

notable cricketer up for deletion

A cricketer called Morshed Hossain has been put up for speedy deletion even though he is notable any help given by this project would be greatly appreciated. 02blythed 09:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

W. G. Grace, Bobby Abel, and history of cricket

I found this lovely image (in a theatrical journal of all things), and thought it might be useful, but am not enough of an expert on cricket to put it properly in context. I know there was a debate on paying cricketers in the 19th century, but can't remember the details. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Footnoting and reference lists

As the quality of articles on modern Test cricketers is generally high and the research has become very detailed, I have noticed that the number of items in the list of references (footnotes) has become quite large. I have started to include scroll bars and panels on those cricketers with very lengthy (and somewhat distracting) lists of references in order to improve readability. Does this make sense? Check out Adam Gilchrist, Shane Warne, Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid and Muttiah Muralitharan to see some examples. --Calabraxthis 10:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't do that. Scrolling lists should not be used due to readability concerns. Please see the citation guidelines for details. In addition, it doesn't matter if a particular reference section is too long; it appears at the end of the article in any case. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 13:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of American date formats

At present the cricketer infobox presents dates of birth in American English. This is totally inappropriate. The golfer infobox allows them to be presented either way. Eg the relevant entry for Darren Clarke is:

| '''Birth''' || {{birth date and age|1968|8|14|df=y}} <br>[[Dungannon]], [[Northern Ireland]] |-

the |df=y line puts the date in the correct British format. It is also used for many other British people, to ensure that there is no American English in their infobox. Could someone possibly update the format of the cricketer infobox to incorporate this feature? Mowsbury 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted. It should definitely be the British way around. Nick mallory 02:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

They both display the same to me, for example: Darren Clarke displays "August 14, 1968 (age 39)", Darren Gough as "September 18, 1970 (age 37)". This might be because the Template:Infobox cricketer biography uses the date and time preferences set in your "my preferences/date and time" formats, and mine is set to the above format. If this is not the case, feel free to reply...

This is why most people don't notice. If your preferences are set, then any wikilinked date will be shown according to your preferences. If however, you are not logged in, or have no date preference set, then they will be shown as entered, so it is better to enter them in the format best suited to the article. The template currently uses the "US" format, meaning anyone not logged in will see the "US" version, rather than the format more common in cricketing countries. JPD (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

For clarification, I assume the US format is November 9, 2007, and the UK format 9 November 2007? I may have changed the template's default behaviour, but would have to change my preferences to confirm. Can anyone else have a look please? –MDCollins (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what's meant, even though it's not true that either format is universally used in either country. I checked simply by logging out, and it seems to be right now. JPD (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Good! –MDCollins (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The MM/DD style dates should be retained for American cricketers. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Guardian Archive

A bunch of workshy communists they may be, but the Guardian is offering a free 24 hour pass to its archives at the moment. This could be a great source of material for articles here, match reports, obituaries etc. Just a thought. Nick mallory 11:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Broken flag templates

These new infoboxes which have been implemented have caused a problem for a couple of former ODI playing countries. All players from the UAE (see Khurram Khan) and East Africa (see Shiraz Sumar) have the flag template in the infobox appear as a redlink. Any idea how to fix this? Cheers. Crickettragic 08:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed now. (Needed to add alternate country names to {{Infobox cricketer biography}})

I'm a little bit uncertain as to whether we can use the East African flag though. I've done it because the ECACC is defunct and there is no one left to claim copyright. Sam Vimes | Address me 10:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. With East Africa we could always just use the flag of the country the player was from, eg Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya or Zambia. Thoughts? Crickettragic 11:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Holt (cricketer)

I have recently created an article about Arthur Holt who was both a cricketer with Hampshire and a footballer with Southampton. As my cricket knowledge is fairly limited, I was wondering if someone could have a look at the article and possibly tidy up, improve or expand the cricket sections. I was deliberating whether to title the article as "Arthur Holt (cricketer)" or "Arthur Holt (footballer)" and decided that he was probably better known as a cricketer and his shop definitely specialised in cricket. Thanks in anticipation of your help. --Daemonic Kangaroo 10:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks a very good article, well done. Nick mallory 10:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Adrian Aymes ListA stats

I've been expanding and re-writing the Hampshire WK Adi Aymes article, and have come across a discrepancy in his ListA runs. Currently Cricinfo and Cricketarchive have the figure at 2210, but other sources and biographical articles (not necessarily cricket related) have this at 2269. I have gone with the reliable figures, but was wondering if the incorrect figure stems from Playfair, or Who's Who or a Hampshire Yearbook or anything. If anybody has any of those resources from 2002/3 it might be interesting to find where the 59 runs came from. Just a thought anyway!

–MDCollins (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Do the sources agree on his catches and stumpings? If so, then it is probably an error in calculation rather than whether some match had List A status. I see that his last List A match was in 2001. Playfair 2002 gives his List A runs as 2210 in 221 matches, ie it agrees with Cricinfo and CricketArchive. JH (talk page) 20:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Thanks for looking anyway, I'll stick to the archive. Perhaps I'll put a note in somewhere. –MDCollins (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ian Chappell FAC

I have just nominated Ian Chappell for FAC. Would appreciate some comments here [1]. Cheers Phanto282 17:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Pink cricket balls

Whatever next. Sounds fun though! –MDCollins (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely it looks more real than the white ones! Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Morris FAC

I have just nominated Arthur Morris for FAC. Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Arthur Morris. First step towards the Invincibles FT. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marcus Trescothick

Please can people lend their support to the above FAC. The article is good enough for FA but the last FAC was closed unsuccessfully simply because hardly anyone commented, and those who did didn't go back and lend their support once we addressed their points. Please lets not let that happen this time! Cheers, SGGH ^speak! 10:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marcus Trescothick

Please can people lend their support to the above FAC. The article is good enough for FA but the last FAC was closed unsuccessfully simply because hardly anyone commented, and those who did didn't go back and lend their support once we addressed their points. Please lets not let that happen this time! Cheers, SGGH ^speak! 10:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Imran Khan

Presumably as a result if his arrest a couple of days ago, this article is taking a hammering with vandalism and POV edits. Please add it to you watchlists if its not already. —Moondyne 08:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's worth sprotecting it? Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its there just yet, but will if gets any worse. —Moondyne 14:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yuvraj of Patiala > Maharaja Yadavindra Singh

Yuvraj of Patiala was moved to Maharaja Yadavindra Singh last night by Trv93. He copied the text and pasted it onto the new article this means the history was destroyed. I googled both names and Yuvraj of Patiala won by 45,900 to 1,160. Can one of the admins who has knowledge of India take a look at it. --Jpeeling (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the non-cricketing side to make a confident comment about this, but I think Yadavindra Singh of Patiala (not the current title) would be quite fine. He ceased to be the Yuvraj (prince) in 1938 when his father Bhupinder Singh of Patiala died. If you look at the big picture, playing one cricket Test match was among the least of his achievements. He was the pro-chancellor the Indian chamber of princes (an association of 550+ princely states), Rajpramukh of Patiala after 1947, represented India in the UN on several occasions, was the ambassador in Italy and Switzerland etc. See this link for a big list. I'll also post a message in the India notice board. Tintin 15:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Variety

Looking for some variety in those match descriptions? Can't quite find a new turn of phrase that will make your prose engaging, nay brilliant? Try this for inspiration[2]. It's all theatre for the Americans.... Phanto282 (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Cricketer

Hi all,

Do we need this article: cricketer? It is linked to a few player articles, but most biographies tend to use [[cricket]]er.

I just thought it might be worth revisiting the talk-page debate about turning it into a dab page. –MDCollins (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, being bold and

Done. cricketer is now a redirect to cricket, and cricketer (disambiguation) lists the multiple meanings. The alternative is to change ~1600 pages which link to [[cricketer]] to [[cricket]]er. —Moondyne 13:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What I really hate is biographies which use the phrase "X is a cricket player". I can only assume it's by analogy to baseball. Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I was planning to use AWB to change all links from [[cricketer]] to [[cricket]]er but it was being uncooperative and kept crashing so I didn't get anyway. If I get it working, I'll try and check for [[cricket]] player as well. It will be more obvious to editors what the correct form is. I'll mention it on the project style guide too. –MDCollins (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

County Cricket

Should the two articles Champion County and County Championship be merged?

I believe a merged article would have a good chance of elevation to good or even featured article status. At present, it is a house divided. The former article describes the origin of the championship in conceptual terms and the latter is specific to the official competition that evolved from the concept. To present a complete study, I believe the essential scope of the article must be the full evolution.

Please discuss. Thank you. --AlbertMW 19:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be in favourr of a merged article under some such title as History of the County Championship, so long as it didn't mean that the combined article would be so long that there would be pressure to cut it to keep it within Wkipedia guidelines on length. JH (talk page) 19:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right about length. The optimum could be to have two articles after all, one about the concept and one about the history. Leave it with me and I will see what I can do. --AlbertMW (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the articles should remain separate with clear cross-refs between them. The County Championship is a formal competition that did not start until 1890; the informal and unofficial rankings before that are clearly part of the background that led to the establishment of the formal competition, but once you've said that in the Championship article, the details of pre-1890 machinations are better covered, in my view, with all their attendant ACS-related controversies, in a different article. Johnlp (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You've lost me. I know of no controversy about the County Championship unless you mean the different lists in use between 1864 and 1889? I have used Grace's list as a default, but that is not controversial, especially as I have stated where a strong alternative claim exists. There is controversy about the status of matches before 1895 but that does not impact the championship, official or unofficial. --AlbertMW (talk) 07:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation of One Day International (revisited)

This was discussed previously here but a consensus is not apparent. All three words capitalised with no hyphen does seem to be the ICC standard[3], but Cricinfo uses "One-Day International"[4] (CricketArchive just says "ODI"). Our style guide still says "One-day International" which contradicts the current article name. There's lots of articles which link to each of the variants.

I agree that changing existing links should not be an obstacle to making the right decision, but in the interests of consistency which one shall we use? I say #1. —Moondyne 01:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer Limited Overs International (LOI) because such games are not necessarily of a single day's duration but they are all subject to limited overs. Having said that, of the above list I definitely prefer #1 – One Day International. --AlbertMW (talk) 07:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The BBC appear to use #1 One Day International also[5]. —Moondyne 07:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Omitting the hyphen looks like bad grammar to me, though maybe I'm just out of date. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Stephen, grammatically the current style guide usage seems correct, but if the wider cricketing world suggests otherwise, should we bow to their (possible) incorrectness?! –MDCollins (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

One Day International per Moondyne. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Morris FAC

I have just nominated Arthur Morris for FAC. Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Arthur Morris. First step towards the Invincibles FT. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Need some help with some complaints about the article being too technical. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Cricket protection?

The Cricket article seems to be attracting an awful lot of vandalism recently. Time to give it some sort of protected status? Andrew nixon (talk) 06:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Done, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Other recent name changes

List of Indian ODI cricketers > List of One-Day International cricketers from India

This goes against the format for all other countries. Discussion needed?

Shanthakumaran Sreesanth > Sreesanth > Shanthakumaran Sreesanth > S. Sreesanth > Sreesanth

No discussion at any stage. Discussion needed?

Leslie Fleetwood-Smith > Chuck Fleetwood-Smith

No discussion, fair move IMO.

Vincent Hogg > Vince Hogg

No discussion, fair move IMO.

Ebrahim Essop-Adam > Eboo Essop-Adam

No discussion, fair move IMO.

Pommie Mbangwa > Mpumelelo Mbangwa

No discussion, fair move IMO.

Found these on Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Cricket articles by quality log maybe there might be a place for a link to it on the WP:Cricket frontpage. Also this. --Jpeeling (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Cricket articles needing attention

There are 22 articles in Category:Cricket articles needing attention which is now top priority in the to-do list above.

One of these is The Ashes which has expand and improve tags in it. The others are all equipment and terminology articles that lack sources. If anyone can find any suitable sources for these it would be a great help.

Don't forget to remove the "attention=yes" tag on the talk page if you fix an article. --Bart | ^{talk page} 17:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Many of these, as mentioned, are brief one-liners. I have suggested a merge of Chest on (cricket) with Side on (cricket) (discussion), but have just noticed the following (which are effectively orphaned as they only link to each other). Could these be combined into one article, for example Bowling technique, or perhaps better still deleted:

Any thoughts?

–MDCollins (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Approach (cricket) and Back foot contact are unreferenced and have elements of WP:OR and should go regardless. The others are stubby and really only one or two line definitions. Perhaps merge anything useful into List of cricket terms and change to redirects. —Moondyne 01:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Three FAs this month

Ian Chappell, Marcus Trescothick, Arthur Morris. Thanks to all. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Muttiah Muralitharan → Mutiah Muralidaran

Muralitharan's article has been moved by User:Gibbsyspin - I'm sure we had a consensus not to move it in a previous discussion (unless I imagined it)? AMBerry (talk | contribs) 10:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The article says that Murali prefers the changed name, but doesn't reference it. The article further says that even Sri Lankan cricket use the Anglicized version that we are used to and all the cricket websites uses. Further, I have never (in England - this is the English WP) seen it printed Muralidaran, so my view is to revert it (until a Murali reference perhaps dictates otherwise).–MDCollins (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd go with Muralitharan, it's the one that's overwhelmingly been used throughout his career both in print and by cricket watchers. Nick mallory (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted this for the time being, and asked for some references, and a discussion here if needed. –MDCollins (talk) 13:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:Mdcollins1984 for reference): I have a reference for Murali spelling his name "Muralidaran". [6] He says that he wants to be known as Muttiah Muralidaran, not Muralitharan. I don't know how old the article is, but it seems he still feels the same way about his name. On the Channel 9 coverage of the Australia-Sri Lanka Test match, in an interview with the team he said that he doesn't really care how it is spelt, as long as it is pronounced (moor-allee-DOOR-an). As in saying the nickname, Murali, and then adding DURAN on the end. I was the guy who moved the page to "Mutiah Muralidaran," and changed on the "Muralitharans" to "Muralidarans." Feel free to post back on my talkpage with thoughts on how to do this. thanksGibbsyspin (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that User:Gibbsyspin. Having looked at that reference, it seems it was taken from a press conference or similar, and is therefore a transcription of speech. This does not give any indication of spelling, merely of pronunciation. In which case, I propose that the article is named and spelt Muttiah Muralitharan (you indicate that it is the pronunciation and not the spelling that bothers him as such), with a mention in the lead of how to pronouce it: (Ipa and/or 'Murali-duran'). This would leave all other instances of spelling as Muralitharan. On an aside point, the fansite you link to keeps his forename as Muttaih, not Mutiah. –MDCollins (talk) 12:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he prefers "Muralidaran", but "Muralitharan" is by far the most popular name, so the question is, do we follow wiki policy and go with the incorrect but most widely used name, or switch to the spelling he prefers, which very few people use. I'm leaning towards "Muralitharan", because in similar cases that's probably what's been done on Wikipedia, (a notable exception would be the renaming of Myanmar to Burma) but there is the argument that just because most people get it wrong, we don't have to. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Outside of BLP issues, the subject's preferences are not our prime concern. RS are. This is the English language Wikipedia. As he is universally known in English media/books as Muralitharan, that is how we should refer to him. Should the leading RS (Wisden, Cricinfo etc) start moving to the amended spelling, then we would have a dilemma. Cf our article on, say, Cologne, rather than Köln.--Dweller (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much okay with sticking to "Muralitharan", cos it isn't that much of an issue and that's what explicit Wikipedia policy states, but I disagree with what you've said there. It's not up to Wisden or Cricinfo or "other RS" to decide what someones name is. It's up to them what they want to be called. Cities, countries etc. have alternate names in different languages, so the native name isn't always what is followed on Wikipedia. But you can't just start calling people all sorts of wrong names. If it was spelt wrong to start off with and continues to be spelt wrong in the media, doesn't mean we have to follow suit. I believe that's why WP:IAR exists. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Various responses - our article about Germany is not at Deutschland. I presume Murali's name is a transliteration, not spelled originally in English characters. Wikipedia is a mirror... it's not for us to decide the rights and wrongs of spelling... we reflect the world as portrayed by WP:V and WP:RS. And finally, throwing IAR into the mix is just silly - that is definitively not why IAR exists. --Dweller (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(From MM talk page): ::::::Reference from The Age, which in addition to detailing chronology of the apparently variable etymology, has also cited (1) what Muralidaran has himself provided, (2) what his name has been recorded as, and (3) what he wears on his own jumper. The spelling given is Muthiah Muralidaran. Link here. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Are we anywhere close to making a decision here? –MDCollins (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Unusual Man-of-the-match

I guess I should ask for an opinion on this

Templates

To do

Ian Bell

Why is so much attention being drawn to this?

Witch hunt on me ?

Categories

Latest Twenty20

The Ashes

Michael Durandt

Trescothick FAC...update

Cricket Stubs

Youngest Test captains

notable cricketer up for deletion

W. G. Grace, Bobby Abel, and history of cricket

Footnoting and reference lists

Use of American date formats

Guardian Archive

Broken flag templates

Arthur Holt (cricketer)

Adrian Aymes ListA stats

Ian Chappell FAC

Pink cricket balls

Arthur Morris FAC

Yuvraj of Patiala > Maharaja Yadavindra Singh

Variety

County Cricket

Capitalisation of One Day International (revisited)

Arthur Morris FAC

Cricket protection?

Other recent name changes

Cricket articles needing attention

Three FAs this month

Muttiah Muralitharan → Mutiah Muralidaran