Lollapalooza

Australian cricket team in England in 1948

39 articles

1948 Ashes series

First Test

Second Test

Third Test

Fourth Test

Fifth Test

Don Bradman

On the tour

Lindsay Hassett

On the tour

Sid Barnes

On the tour

Bill Brown

On the tour

Ron Hamence

Neil Harvey

Ian Johnson

On the tour

Bill Johnston

On the tour

Ray Lindwall

On the tour

Sam Loxton

On the tour

Colin McCool

Keith Miller

On the tour

Arthur Morris

On the tour

Doug Ring

Ron Saggers

Don Tallon

On the tour

Ernie Toshack

On the tour

Keith Johnson

Non-notable cricket clubs & competitions

It seems that people will insist on creating pages for their own little corner of planet earth (sigh) resulting in pages being created for any and every small cricket club and competition, when a single line on the village/town page would more than suffice. In a large number of cases these pages should be deleted as they fail to meet WP:NOTE.

The project page has guidelines for the creation/deletion of player bios, perhaps there should also be the same for clubs/competitions. -- bigissue (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This was actually discussed pretty recently, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 50#Club notability again. Spotted one today, too, and prodded it (Charlesworth Cricket Club). Agreed we should definitely extend WP:CRIN to include club notability, and on that note expand to clarify which of the other non major cricket level leagues other than Bradford, Lancs & Central Lancs are notable, else it just creates a potential loophole... But I've no idea which, really :) AllynJ (talk | contribs) 13:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the List of English cricket clubs could be "dangerous" as it is full of red links, and it could encourage people to transform these red links in blue links, so to create an enormous amount of non-notable articles. OrangeKnight (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The list is a good spot which I'd not seen before. Perhaps the sensible thing would be to prune it down to the ECB premier leagues and their top division clubs (plus the major Lancashire and Yorkshire leagues outside the ECB system), because the gist of what seemed to be accepted before was that, with a few historic exceptions, other individual clubs were likely to be non-notable. I'm badly under the cosh IRL for the next 48 hours: if it hasn't been done by then, I'll take it on at the weekend. Johnlp (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that is the way forward. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Update

User:Wjemather and I have gone through this list and just about halved it in length: it now makes a lot of redlinks, but at least these are the teams that can probably justify having a short article on them. Any help with reducing the redness would be welcome, but we're also slightly uncomfortable that we've perhaps done a small injustice to Yorkshire League cricket, most of which stands outside the ECB system but has historic notability at least, and quite possibly contemporary notability too. Thoughts, please. Johnlp (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me and I think the two of you deserve a pat on the back. Do we need to review the others group at the end or are you happy the clubs there meetWP:N? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely needs reviewing. Some may be notable, others are most certainly not – I have already prodded a couple. Even those that may be noteworthy require a good clean up to remove all the self promotion. -- bigissue (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Mitchell Johnson

I'm intrigued how the guy's managed 9 Tests while playing just 25 other FC matches ever. --Dweller (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Doping cases in cricket

This category seems to me to define it as allowing recreational drugs. I think that it should be redefined if necessary to exllude Fleming and Nash etc, because they smoked pot, and it's a bit harsh to include that with steroids, EPO, HGH etc.... YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Apart from anything else, possession of cannabis is (generally) actually unlawful, so in that sense it's more serious than using drugs which are legal but banned by the sporting authorities. Loganberry (Talk) 19:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand but the "doping" seems to hint at cheating while I can't see marijuana as cheating. YellowMonkey (click here to chose Australia's next top model!) 06:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Aus v India

An interesting series....Perhaps India have not chosen their best team. I think, if the batsmen play properly, which they don't really do anymore nowadays, all the Tests should be drawn...and Perhaps Australia should pick 8 batsmen. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Surely the Australian selectors will pick White. If you are going to select a spinner who doesn't get any turn, better to pick the one who can bat. Australia's spin attack will be lead by Clark and Katich, both of whom at least turn the ball! I predict a miserable series and a lot of leather chasing for Australia. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think they'll pick Krejza because Indians like to pummel wristspinners who toss the ball up. Neither of them spin the ball but White tosses the ball up and can get freaked out by aggressive batsmen. I reckon the IPL commentators get paid to talk everything up. In the opening IPL match between Calcutta and Bangalore, everyone was saying that McCullums 150 odd was "unprecedented hitting" etc but most of his sixes and fours came from full tosses and long hops because the bowlers lost their marbles. White bowled one over for 24 runs. There were about 3 sixes in that over, all from full tosses and balls that bounced 8-10 metres from McCullum. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, guess Ponting was bluffing about Krejza. Anyway, it's good to have a wristspinner and some attacking cricket. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sure since you are interested very much in the Indians and living in Australia. What chances do you think the Australians have? Given their bowling attack is pretty slim especially spin, id be relying on the bat to make sure Australia dont lose. Ta 211.30.12.197 (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to say it's probably up to either side's batsmen to lose the series, probably India's moreso. I guess if the pitches are good for batting, I don't see why the series should not be drawn 0-0, and if it isn't I think the batsmen from one of the sides won't have batted well enough. Both batting lineups are quite strong, especailly compared to the bowlers. If the batsmen were replaced with the 1930s Australian and England batsmen, I could see Ponsford, Bradman, Hutton and Hammond making triple centuries more than once. In the last series, the SCG match should have been drawn I think, and now with Gambhir and Sehwag there instead of Jaffer I think the Indians won't be forced immediately onto the back foot like the MCG and SCG Tests when they bat. To be honest, the Indians are not a first-class level team in terms of fitness - I saw them train at Adelaide Oval when I took all their photos and most of them didn't do the stretches when John Gloster told them to. Sehwag and SRT just leaned against the fence and Sreesanth and Harbhajan were talking to the spectators. LOL. I didn't see any jogging type exercises. In the March 2005, Jan 2006 and Dec 2007 series against Pak, there were a pile of flat pitches and India's attack went all toothless in 4-5th days and in some cases Pakistan only lost 3-4 wickets per day on a wearing pitch in the second innings. Looking back on the last 3 years, almost all of India's wins have come when the game was over in < 5 days, or when it only lasted 4 days and 1 hour. Especially now that the warhorse Kumble appears to be rusting quite badly and he was the usual in defatigable lionheart in such matches, I think India might struggle in the flat-pitch attrition battles. Harbhajan has gone rather flat since the start of 2006 and looked pretty hopeless for two years, but after the controversies of this year, was MotS against RSA and after he slapped Sreesanth he came back and took 9 wickets in the 2nd Test against SL in Kandy. In 2001 he took 32 wickets after he got expelled from the Academy and his father died and in late 2005 he won a couple of MotM after he got gagged for bagging Chappell. So he tends to do well after getting into some angry incidents so I guess it depends whether he is still fired up or might get invovled in another stoush. I can't see the Indian pacers being much of a threat on flat pitches, especially when Zaheer drops down to 120kph after his first few spells. Most of the Australian batsmen + Sehwag and Gambhir get out mostly trying to be aggressive so I think if either side are worried about losing they should just bat. If India decide to go to minefield result pitches, it could end up with the likes of Clarke taking bags of wickets and it would diminish India's spin advantage. If they went for a green pitch I think India would mentally psych themselves into losing by an innings or something (Ahmedabad 2008, Nagpur 2004), because they aren't meentally prepared for green ptiches in India. I think they would actually do well if they didn't think pnegatively when they see a green pitch at home and think they've lost their home advantage. Most of India's recent overseas wins have come on bowling pitches (Perth 2008, Headingley 2007, Joburg 2006, Sabina Park 2006), which I think is because they seamers can move the ball, India have Tendulkar and Dravid-two technically correct batsman, which is quite a lot in this age, and if the match lasts three days, the terrible fitness and 4-5th day burnout doesn't show up so much and the bowlers only have to bowl 70-80 overs at a time. People always talk about Australia's "amazing" and "uncanny" ability to make a comeback late in the day but I think it's just fitness and not miracles. A lot of the Indian batsmen fell late in the day to normal deliveries. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 08:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If I was an Australian selector I would be tempted to pick Jaques, Katich, Watson and White and only have two specialist quicks. I think Clarke is the best spinner as is anyway. Indians tend to bash wristspinners, I can't see White and Katich conceding less than five runs an over, but even those two would be better than Krejza who got bashed about by Yuvraj who struggles against even Symonds and Hogg. Also play both Katich and Jaques because lefthanders score big against India. They tend to not bowl well when they go around the wicket. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 08:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think both captains would win the toss, bat first and try to make 650+ and demoralise the other lot. I think India would be more susceptible to getting demoralised if they lost the toss or had 600+ piled up against them. It didn't affect India when Pak piled on 600+ first, but the Aussie fielders will cut off at least 20% of the runs due to old Indian uncles "Fab Four" who run about 30% slower. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 08:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Bermudian cricket team in the Netherlands in 2008

Found this uncategorized article, thought that maybe someone here could find an appropriate category. If in fact this topic deserves an article of its own... /skagedal^... 12:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the article needs renaming, the first sentence mentions the teams playing in Scotland and yet the article title says "in the Netherlands". Nev1 (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph reveals that it was copied from another article. The rest of the article matches the title, so the first paragraph needs changing. Andrew nixon (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

All fixed now! Andrew nixon (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone help with Norman "Nobby" Bennett?

I have conflicting information about Bennett, who made one first-class appearance for Worcestershire in 1946. His CricketArchive info doesn't have a date of death, while Cricinfo says he died in 2007. Cricinfo also mentions that he played rugby, and that led me to a passing mention in this Telegraph obituary of Tom Kemp. Yes, a redlink, as is Thomas Kemp. In fact, Category:English rugby union footballers contains no Kemps at all!

Anyway, I also turned up this brief mention on a rugby blog, which seems to be about the same person. The information in message 8 there says that Bennett "won seven caps in 1947 - 48", and also mentions Epsom College and St Mary's Hospital, both of which are mentioned in the Cricinfo bio. So, it would seem to be the same man... except that the blog - dated 2005 - mentions that a memorial service is about to be held, which would mean that Cricinfo's 2007 date would be wrong; and also says that Bennett played for Hampshire, which "my" Bennett never did. Any suggestions? Loganberry (Talk) 20:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Other things being equal, I would always be more inclined to believe CA. It's not conclusive, but the Wisdens for 2006, 2007 and 2008 don't have an obituary for anyone called Bennett. JH (talk page) 20:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Having now looked at that blog entry, I'm prepared to believe that it could be the same man, as the age at death looks correct. The rugby world may have picked up on a death that the cricket world overlooked. As for the blog saying that he played cricket for Hampshire, that could have been a slip by someone whose main interest was rugby. I'd try emailing the guy who posted the blog message, in the hope that he hasn't changed his email address and that he can shed some light on the matter. If you were really feeling energetic, you could also contact CA, CI and Wisden about it. JH (talk page) 20:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've started off by emailing the blog guy, and will see where it goes from there. Thanks. Loganberry (Talk) 22:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

"Current" Squad sections

Am I the only person who is puzzled why a current squad section lists all players to have played in the last year? The England team page has Darren Pattinson and Matthew Hoggard as being in the current squad, and they simply aren't! If it's going to include all players from the last 12 months, the section should be titled "Players to have played in the last 12 months". If it's going to be titled "Current squad", it should include just that, the current squad and nobody else. Andrew nixon (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it possibly just because it is slow in updating? But yes, I agree with you. SGGH ^speak! 10:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A belated response to this before it slips off the main page. Over the past 6 months I have been working on international team squad lists, standardising and improving them. I set a standardised criteria for inclusion, so that nothing was subject to POV. The spree of edits which I'm guessing andrew spotted, and which I reverted, removed a few old players, but a few who'd played the team's last game! Anyway the criteria I used was that a player had appeared in the last year. My reasoning for this was that that covered a full cycle of northern and southern hemisphere seasons, allowed for injuries and the vagaries of the fixture list. Pakistan, for example haven't played a Test in 2008, yet a year long criteria allows for the inclusion. I don't want to suggest I own the squad lists mind, so if the project doesn't feel it's suitable... I agree, though, that "current squad" is a deceptive heading, and perhaps "players" might be a more accurate one for this set of criteria. HornetMike (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Just moving this down the page so it catches peoples attention. Probably needs to be resolved, with criteria set by the project. HornetMike (talk) 09:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As I've said above, the criteria for a current squad section is quite simple - it should be the current (or most recent) squad. If we're going to have any other criteria, the sections should be called something else. Andrew nixon (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Current Squad should be the most recently announced squad. Create an additional sub section Recent callups for those players who have been called up in the last 12 months but excluded from the most recently announced squad. Should also list cap numbers. --bigissue (talk) 10:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to list as current quad the contracted players, and only them, and to write why they have been chosen and by whom. OrangeKnight (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case, you'd have Michael Vaughan in as being in the current England squad. He's a contracted player, but hasn't been named in any of the winter squads. So why should he be in a listing of the current squad? Andrew nixon (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

C-class rating criteria

I see our old friend Sydney Riot of 1879 has been given a C-class rating for both WP:CRIC and WP:AUS by someone who, presumably, belongs to the latter project. We have had this article in our A-class review section for many months and it has been left that if someone can be bothered to complete the inline citations, then it will be worth an A-class rating. But, as this has not been done, it should be reviewed against the B-class criteria.

However, the C-class rating raises an issue because we have not adopted it in WP:CRIC while WP:AUS is one of the minority of projects that have.

The question is, should we expand our assessment criteria to incorporate C-class, which is the equivalent of better quality Start-class? The advantage of C-class is that it would potentially reduce the Start-class group by hundreds of articles and I see that the WP v0.7 data posted above indicates we have nearly 8,000 articles in all. The disadvantage is that it is an extra layer of admin. For a description of the C-class criteria, see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment.

Personally, I think C-class would be a useful staging post between Start-class and B-class. I'd be prepared to do the necessary to incorporate it into our assessment page. But it depends on what you all think? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I say go for it. Considering the huge volume of articles we cover, it probably would help in the long run to add another layer. I've set up the infrastructure for it. Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 14:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it would just cause a rather pointless domino effect I think. I think we need BJ and everyone else devoting themselves to writing articles. There's so much cricket literature around in everyday places such as CI/CA databases and lots of books in everyday libraries that almost anything can be worked up into a decent B level article. One of the main proponents of the C-class criteria has just ended up using it to inflate more articles - he is tagging all 2-3 paragraph articles in his WP as C, and I don't see any of his activities as doing anything except causing inflation. He'll be creating a Zimbabwean-class assessment at this rate. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Good points. I've had a thought that C-class would be an "it'll do" second-class level when really we should be striving to get everything to B-class which is like Base Camp on Mt Everest. In that sense, C-class would not encourage editors to strive for a quality article; rather it would encourage quantity before quality. The B-class criteria are quite demanding and any article that gets there does have quality. Indeed, for short articles, B-class is realistically their pinnacle. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that Allyn has done some work on this I'm loath to dismiss it but I think it needs to be a clearly defined standard. I've thought about this and I have a proposal based on the B-class criteria which are:

• 1. It reasonably covers the topic using WP:NPOV and contains no major omissions or inaccuracies
• 2. It uses good English and is free from major grammatical, syntax and spelling errors
• 3. It has a defined structure with a lead section and one or more sections of content
• 4. It provides adequate navigation through links, categories and appropriate templates
• 5. It is suitably referenced and all major points have appropriate inline citations
• 6. It contains appropriate supporting materials such as an infobox, images or diagrams

Anything that fails #1 is a stub: has to be. So, anything that passes #1 is a start and whether it is a strong start or a weak start depends on how many of the other five it passes. It has to pass all six for B-class. C-class must represent a sound start and I propose that anything passing all of criteria 1 to 4 inclusive should be a C. Even it passes 1-3 and 5, it is not a C; if it passes all of 1-5 it is still a C. My reasoning is that the vast majority of articles failing B-class review do so because they don't meet one of #5 or #6: and there really are loads of them. Owzat? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the WP Cricket template to include C-class functionality (i.e., to create the appropriate categories). Sydney Riot of 1879 fails criterion 5 and so is confirmed our first C-class article. If no one objects, I'll update our assessment page accordingly. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

BUMP! If there's nothing else to be added to this topic, I'll go ahead with changes to the assessment page per above. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no issues. But I'm curious to know what a class C cricket article looks like. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There are some already in Category:C-Class cricket articles but a few have not been assessed according to the B-class criteria so those ratings will need to be reviewed. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A request

Ahmm..Can you guys do some cleanup work and expansion on the article Saurav Ganguly? Currently it is rated START class. He going to retire.. So..Many people might read this article.. Soo. Its shameful to see this article in such a state. So.. I hope you'll do something.--Abhishek Jacob (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You are of course more than welcome to be WP:BOLD and make the changes yourself. The problem with the article is that it isn't objective so you don't have to do any research. It is simply a case of rewording the existing content so that it doesn't read like a fanzine. See the WP:MOS page for guidance. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Having had a quick glance at the article I would have thought it would qualify as C Class, or whatever it is that comes after Start Class IMHO. Jevansen (formerly Crickettragic) (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Warwickshire County Cricket Club

A new user has added this fans forum site as an online link. I think I've seen a rule about this sort of site somewhere but can't remember where. Does anyone know if they are allowed or do they constitute advertising or whatever? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The external-links policy says:

Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists.

I have removed the link. Sam Korn ^(smoddy)

Thanks, Sam. Actually the guy had duplicated the link so I removed the other one as well. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

International cricket in 2009 - proposal for speedy deletion

I just created this page, for the semi-annual season starting in April 2009. It was immediately tagged for speedy deletion. If you have an opinion whether it should be deleted or not, please express it on the article's talk page, in the section headlined "speedy deletion". Thanks.--Nitsansh (talk) 08:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The article certainly deserves to be there, but when you create an article with no references whatsoever, it's always going to be tagged for speedy deletion. Add some references. Andrew nixon (talk) 09:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've dealt with it. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It is somewhat suprising such a tag was added. SGGH ^speak! 12:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oldest List A player?

By which I mean oldest when he played a match, not oldest now. List of List A cricket records does not contain age-related sections, and it's perhaps not the most vital of information, but I'm curious: I wonder if anyone knows? I don't, but in the course of editing an article today I came across Johnny Lawrence of Somerset, who retired from first-class cricket in 1955, but who then played on for some years for Lincolnshire - in which cause he appeared in a 1966 Gillette Cup match (scorecard) aged 55. That certainly beats Ray Illingworth, who was 51 when he finished after the 1983 season. Might there have been anyone else? Loganberry (Talk) 16:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

From memory, Nolan Clarke and John Emburey played List A cricket in their late 40s, but I can't think of any in their 50s. I suspect most of those that did play in their 50s would be minor counties players though. Andrew nixon (talk) 06:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

English county cricketer redlinks

I thought I had already done this, but I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to let you guys know - I've made lists of first-class cricketers from - as of this moment - six different English County cricket teams, Derbyshire, Durham, Essex, Glamorgan, Gloucestershire and Kent (wikilinks are piped to my user subpages), which may or may not assist people in creating articles for county cricketers. Most notable are the redlinks for Gloucestershire - if only because clearly I blinked and missed the moment when Cricket Archive finally put up a Gloucestershire subsection on their site.

If anyone wants to start working on relatively prosey articles for these, I would be most appreciative - particularly, for example, as we are only 11 cricketers away from having an article about every Durham first-class player.

Thank you everyone. Bobo. 04:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)