Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Transhumanist (talk | contribs) at 23:46, 28 July 2009 (question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

1948 Ashes series

First Test

Second Test

Third Test

Fourth Test

Fifth Test

Don Bradman

Lindsay Hassett

Sid Barnes

Bill Brown

Ron Hamence

Neil Harvey

Ian Johnson

Bill Johnston

Ray Lindwall

Sam Loxton

Colin McCool

Keith Miller

Arthur Morris

Doug Ring

Ron Saggers

Don Tallon

Ernie Toshack

Keith Johnson

Template:OzTestCaptain Advert

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• WT:CRIC

Template:WikiProject Cricket Navigation

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Misplaced Pages:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Misplaced Pages talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:00, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

No Boycs at Lords?

Pity. They should make him full time and get rid of Blowers! Tuffers is pretty amusing though... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 13:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

He is there, he rang the bell this morning. SGGH 13:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Leave Blowers alone, some of us prefer him to Jim Maxwell (and, to a lesser degree, Chappelli)... — AMBerry (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Maxwell is pretty bad too. We only need the "Expert" commentators really, they can describe it themselves. It's not difficult like calling a chaotic football match or pack sprint/horse race YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 13:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I used to be amused by Blowers till his unpleasant racist on-air comments during a Headingley Test some years ago. I can't believe he wasn't sacked for it. He was an outstanding schoolboy cricketer, for those who don't know - the schools sections of a few post-war Wisdens rave about him. I'll be at Lord's on Sunday and will try to take some photos. --Dweller (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Do Jews normally prefer sitting at that end or living in that block of flats or did he say it because Trueman bowled from that end or some other thing? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It was the typical ethnic slur about Jews being tight with their money; hence they would choose to watch cricket from the flats rather than pay an entry fee into the ground. See Stereotype#Jewish stereotypes. Poor form and lazy, casual racism (mind you if he had called in the "Scotsman's end" he may been excused). -- Mattinbgn\ 03:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

He was excused. Cf Ron Atkinson - who was not. --Dweller (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Blowers really should retire, I fear age is really taking its toll, he hardly ever gets players names right now. Tuffers, on the other hand, has been hilarious during this test and the banter between him Gus Fraser and Aggers tremendous stuff. The only good thing about having Maxwell and Chappelli there will be Aggers or CMJ handing over to them as England (we hope and pray) complete their victory some time mid afternoon on Sunday. Come on boys! Nick mallory (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I enjoy Tuffers, I don't think that he should be paired with Agnew, as their joking together is overdone and becomes rather tiresome. An example yesterday was the Queen's menu business, which meant that at one point Agnew failed to describe what was going on on the field. I suspect that when Peter Baxter was producer it wouldn't have been allowed to get so out of hand. I think that Chappell is very good value. JH (talk page) 08:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to withdraw my previous comments about Chappelli – I've actually rather enjoyed his commentary this Test. Can't help but agree with JH re the Aggers/Tuffers partnership, found myself relying on cricinfo to find out what was actually happening, as funny as the conversation was.

On a slightly different note, are TMS sponsored by Twitter all of a sudden?! — AMBerry (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone remember the O'keefe/Aggers combo in Australia 2002/03? They were good, Aaroncrick (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/archive1

Now open YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Good luck, but does this topic really merit an article at all? Obviously Doug Ring does, and the Australian team in England in 1948 does, but does the conjunction of the two really merit one, given that Ring was hardly a central figure on the tour? I've just seen that Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 has achieved Featured Article status. Well done to those involved, but Hamence was an even more peripheral figure on the tour than was Ring. For players like Bradman and Miller I can see the justification, but with players like Ring and Hamence we seem to be in danger of losing all sense of proportion. A comparable article from an English viewpoint would be "Les Ames on the Bodyline Tour of Australia". (I'm assuming that article does not actuallty exist!) --- User:jhall1 forgot to sign (slap on wrist!).

On the face of it, I might be inclined to agree but you have to remember the purpose of these articles which is to achieve featured topic status for The Invincibles. In such a situation, it is necessary, I think, to do somewhat more than have a good article per player and a good article about the tour and the season. I suppose it's like the old cliche of "running that extra mile" but to be a featured topic does need that extra something. Anyway, good luck with the review. --Jack | 09:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent about the article and others of its kind. While it has sources it feels like content forking, but I can see an argument for having it. That said, I think pushing for a Featured Topic is a poor reason for an article, it's not one you'll find in the notability criteria. I'm not convinced about the worth of FTs anyway. I've nominated one, and been peripherally involved in a GA nomination (admittedly a very small sample) and there was no content checking; the only thing that was checked was that there was a link between the articles and that the article had been passed as a GA, FA, or FL. Regardless, it's a tremendous effort to write those Invincibles articles and not a task I envy. Nev1 (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My view about the FA and GA processes is that they are pointless unless you have a reviewer who has some knowledge of your subject: hence a cricket article should be reviewed by someone in this project who hasn't previously worked on that article. As Nev says, you get no content checking and in fact their quality checks are less stringent than those that we use for B-class. Even so, I support YM and the others who are prepared to put up with the review processes because every success they achieve raises the profile of cricket and this project. --Jack | 05:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, copyedit/presentation aside, the people in the best place to make the article better are the WikiProject people who are can know if the article is missing some info... So, if a WikiProject is cheap they can push any old rubbish and racist propaganda through as long as it is presented neated, just be cherry picking half the story and so forth. Some projects do do that. Those projects where their own people are softer than the outsiders are usually POV pushing projects (usually nation-state ones where they glorify their race fighting against nasty other racist races) YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As for the prestige of the wikiproject it would be improved if the scholars among us with hundreds of books in their personal collection and a lot in their head would chip in to point out areas of imporvement in content that the outsider cannot. Some of the toughest WikiProjects like literature are so respected because they expect a lot of themselves. Yes, I should have made mroe noise about Bradman when it was on FAC YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Lancashire League professionals

I've added succession boxes to all the Nelson Cricket Club professionals that have articles on Wiki, such as Nathan Hauritz, Steve Waugh, Learie Constantine, etc.

Just checking that before I do this for all the Lancashire League teams that they won't get removed from the articles. Thanks, BigDom (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

With all respect to Nelson, this seems rather a minor thing to have a succession box for. If this was done for the professionals for all the Lancashire League clubs (and maybe the Bradford League and so forth as well), then articles could become rather overloaded with succession boxes. I'd prefer that categories be used for such things. JH (talk page) 20:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm with John on this one: If the Nelson CC article has a list of the club's professionals, that would surely do the job without creating more boxes. And categories are just for that purpose. Mind you, I wouldn't want to deter any improvement drive on the clubs themselves that you might think of doing. They seem to be fairly routine in some cases and there must be lots of material. Johnlp (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I can see the point you are making about categories but they don't provide a successive view which I think is BigDom's main purpose here. I don't believe the articles will become overloaded as most pros played for one club only and we won't have the problem that occurred a couple of years ago when someone started creating World Cup and Test squad templates. I think the information is valid and is of real interest. I would say to Dom that he should go ahead and see how it goes. --Jack | 05:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Jack, that's what I was trying to do; providing a successive view of an interesting topic - the Lancs League is well known for attracting the very best pros like the ones I named in the OP. Like you say, most pros will have played for one club or a maximum of two clubs and I don't see any harm in adding the boxes to the articles so I might do a couple more of the teams for now.

John and John, there's no reason why we can't have categories as well as the boxes. The main reason for putting the boxes on was that I checked the articles and most didn't even have a mention of playing as a pro for Nelson and I thought the info might be of real interest to some people, including myself. Thanks, BigDom (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There is quite a lengthy section about league cricket in the Gary Sobers article because he paid a lot of attention to it in his autobiography and he gave a lot of information about means of remuneration and the lifestyle. --Jack | 08:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

See Dweller's law --Dweller (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Five-for table

Batsmen often have tables at the bottom of their pages that list their centuries. Bowlers, with occasional exceptions, seldom have a chance to gain this accolade but their equivalent is the five-for. Shouldn't they have a table too? It'd be a bit odd, and there's some debate over what it would include but I think it's an impressive thing that should be recognised. Tony2Times (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think a certain Mr Flintoff would deserve one. Magnificent performance. Nick mallory (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Flintoff would have more 5-fors if he attacked the stumps more, but yes I agree this would make a neat addition to any article. SGGH 14:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well with Johnson it seems to be the opposite. Bowl lots of wides. Half of his wickets in the India tour were from wides, some leg side. Even the Bopara/Hauritz disputed catch was off a big wide. If I was Nehra or Pathan I would try and resuscitate my career by bowling a lot of wides YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added five-for tables for both Test and ODI cricket to Flintoff's article. – PeeJay 16:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A sensible suggestion, it gets my support. Nev1 (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Roland Perry

Eyes needed on the talk page and agreement please. Every review of him on Wisden and Cricinfo by the experts is negative because all of the learned scholars like Haigh and Frith etc have read all the old classics and concluded that Perry just paraphrases the golden oldies. However he keeps on selectively swamping it with fluff by non cricket people, who aren't aware of this, and say how marvellous it is and what amazing new info it produces. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea -- many eyes and perspectives to Talk:Roland_Perry. Where the Misplaced Pages criteria for reliability of sources can be discussed and consensus reached.

I note:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biographies_of_living_persons

Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space.

Haruspex101 (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)

Maybe you should have quote the part about "hig-quality" sources. Haigh and Frith trumps the opinion of a chef any day. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

All-time Test ratings

Not sure if this is widely known already, but inclusion of stats from here, showing the all-time comparisons for Test batsmen by rating may be useful in biogs. I suppose it will date - e.g. someone will eventually get a rating high enough to get in at #8 and knock all those below him down a peg - but quite nice for NPOV inter-era comparisons. --Dweller (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how post WWII performances dominate both batting and bowling lists (albeit except for the top 2 slots for bowlers). I expected the former, but not the latter. Is this just a result of the increasing proliferation of Tests since 1946? The ratings are geared to downplay statistical anomalies by not giving full value for performances until a player has featured x times and the players of yesteryear would struggle to muster a huge number of appearances in a career. SF Barnes, the number one bowler, had a 13 year Test career, pretty much uninterrupted by World Wars (he was 41 in 1914 after all) and played just 27 times. (Note to Flintoff: 27 Tests, 24 "Five-for"s. Different era, eh?) --Dweller (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they're scaled enough for minnow-bashing. Irfan Pathan rose to 6th Test bowler in 2005 after taking 39 wickets at around 10 in 4 games against Zim and Bang. At the same time his average against the other teams was 40+. Shakib al Hasan also got really high in the ODI rankings at a stage when his batting average was around 20 and bowling was 45+ excluding games against Zim and subminnows like Ireland and Hong Kong. I don't think any human would rate Steyn or Md Yousuf among the all time greats at all. I don't know of any commentators even recently who think that Steyn is better than Pollock or Donald, let alone better YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the rankings as listed at Fast bowling, Steyn is equal to Lindwall, better than Donald and Holding and a few of his WI colleagues. Stupid. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is biased against Indians, Tendulkar is way too low! -- Mattinbgn\ 05:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It is important to remember that these are peak ratings and shouldn't be used in a greatest ever context, Yousuf and Steyn had hot 12-15 month streaks so score highly whereas Tendulkar is quite low because he's churned out runs consistently throughout his career. Steve Harmison is placed ahead of Michael Holding and Wasim Akram on peak performance but look at the graphs and you'll see Harmison spent eight months over 750, Holding and Wasim about six years. For factual accuracy Pathan never got higher than 9th in the Test rankings and Pollock is ahead of Steyn. --Jpeeling (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

List of first-class cricket quadruple centuries

I have nominated List of first-class cricket quadruple centuries for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Floyd Reifer

I’m at work so can’t do too much research but I was wondering about the following: Floyd Reifer has now played six Test matches as a specialist batsman, two of them as captain, and averages less than 10. Is his the lowest ever career average for captain who was a specialist batsman? Perhaps one of the 19th Century gentleman cricket captains had a lower average but even this sounds doubtful. --Roisterer (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

We have Vizzy (8.25) and Pataudi (11.00 post-war) Tintin 03:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I didn't know a proper team go lower than Ian Craig's 18 odd as they would normally pick an established player and therefore someone who has had success.... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Not quite in your zone, but this brings back painful memories (some literally painful) of Chris Cowdrey in the Summer of four captains. --Dweller (talk) 10:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

JM Brearley didn't set the world on fire with the bat. -- Mattinbgn\ 10:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

He flippin' well didn't, he's a walking wicket in International Cricket Captain 2009 :( SGGH 10:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Jeepers....22 for specialist batsman who played so often. He got even more chances than Yuvraj! YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Brearley was a better batsman than he's given credit for, although he never scored a test hundred he did have a first class triple. He scored over 25,000 first class runs and his first class average of 37.9 is higher than Michael Vaughan's 36.95. Nick mallory (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ashraful isn't going much better. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:New Zealand umpires

CfD discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 20#Category:New Zealand umpires. -- Mattinbgn\ 01:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

PoB of Cowdrey

Re , does anyone have his autobiography ? Iirc, he said at the very beginning that he was born in some hospital in Ootacamund (Ooty), but Bangalore is often (incorrectly) cited as his place of birth. Tintin 08:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Dickie Bird requested move

I have requested a move of Harold "Dickie" Bird to Dickie Bird per WP:COMMONNAME. The RM discussion is ongoing here. – PeeJay 09:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability of junior cricketers

Is an Under-19 national player notable? eg. Jack McNamara. I feel sure that this has been discussed previously but cannot find it in the archives, nor can I remember the outcome. –Moondyne 09:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

From my knowledge it is. I think Phil Hughes got deleted a while back, before he played first class cricket. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

He got AfD'd at least. SGGH 11:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, U-19 is definitely not a form of major cricket, and so he wouldn't pass WP:CRIN, nor WP:ATHLETE. He could (and, to be honest, perhaps should) be WP:AFD'd. A fair number of youth cricketers don't go on to play major cricket, anyway (although, this isn't so much the case with those from Australia/England/India), so he might never become notable, and we can't be WP:Crystally about it. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 18:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hughes was indeed deleted. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Phillip Hughes (cricketer). Jevansen (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Cricket umpire nationality

I see that the "Cricket umpire" category is now being broken down into categories for each of the main nationalities. Given the large number of articles on umpires, this seems like a good idea. But I'm unsure about the recategorisation of Bill Alley as an "Australian cricket umpire", ss it seems rather misleading. I'm not sure if he has ever formally changed his nationality, but during most of his playing career and throughout his umpiring career (and after it) he has been resident in England. I don't think that he has ever umpired a matches in Austraila, I think it might be best to simply leave him as a plain "Cricket umpire". JH (talk page) 17:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that'll be my fault. I simply sight-scanned the article for an indication of his nationality, and since he is categorised as an Australian cricketer, it seemed appropriate for him to be categorised as an Australian umpire as well. – PeeJay 17:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Mo apology necessary. You can certainly argue it either way, which is why I raised it here rather than simply changing it back, in the hope of finding out what the consensus of opinion is. JH (talk page) 18:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think the likely situation is that Alley was registered as an umpire with the ECB, but he himself is Australian. But like you say, it should probably be up to the community to determine whether he should be categorised as an Australian umpire or an English umpire. – PeeJay 19:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Cec Pepper and Vanburn Holder present a similar conundrum; John Holder's cricket was primarily English as well as his umpiring, so maybe he's in a different category. There are probably quite a few of these, but those are the ones that spring to mind. Alley is the clearest one: he was an "Australian", and even after 12 years playing with Somerset no one could be more fruitily Australian than he was, and he was a "cricket umpire"; but he wasn't an umpire of Australian cricket. Perhaps the category should be "Australians who umpired cricket", and then we'd all be all right. Johnlp (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to make the category name unnecessarily verbose. As long as it is explained on the category page that the category is based on the person's nationality and not the cricket board that they were affiliated to, that should be fine. – PeeJay 20:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I argued at CfD that this should not be a nationality category but should be tied to the cricket board i.e. ECB, WICB, BCCI, etc. That would make Alley an Australian cricketer but an English England umpire, which seems to me to reflect the facts. -- Mattinbgn\ 20:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

See, I would just find that confusing. Alley is Australian, of that there can be no doubt, so to put him in a category called "English cricket umpires" just because he umpired in England doesn't seem to make sense to me. – PeeJay 21:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the category should be Category:England cricket umpires not Category:English cricket umpires, England is shorthand for the E(W)CB, English is a nationality. Secondly it is based on the same principle that sees Justin Langer categorised at Category:Middlesex cricketers, even though he is not from Middlesex. We categorise cricketers according to the team they play for, not their nationality in general. Albert Trott, who is unambiguously Australian still gets categorised at Category:England Test cricketers because he represented the English Test team. I see no reason why umpires should be treated any differently. -- Mattinbgn\ 23:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, it should be under his registration as working for the England administration YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Expanded Nathan Hauritz

Hello all. I've spent some time expanding the article on Nathan Hauritz. I'm not really sure about the processes for requesting assessment in the cricket project yet (still feeling my way around), but it is currently listed as a stub and I would appreciate it if someone could take a look and maybe re-assess it. I don't really have the time or the inclination for a full-on peer review, though. Apologies in advance if this is not the correct forum. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well done on that. Assessed as C-class, although its referenced well enough to be B-class. Aaroncrick (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It probably needs a bit more biographical details for B, so a C Class seems a fair call. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well this project doesn't have inhouse reviews like MILHIST and you can just re-rate your own articles. Are you planning for GA or something higher? I'm (pleasantly) surprised that someone would want to write about Hauritz; I assumed to only reason people would bother is to write an attack page. I do think that the article should be in a chronological order, as some of the domestic stuff is after his Test debut and breaks the order. Also if you have Mallett's biog of Doug Walters it has a whole chapter where they have a discussion about Australia's spin woes including Hauritz, and Hauritz getting a cheap cap in Mumbai. I'll add that. Maybe some discussion about Australia's general spin situation is needed for context YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 05:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, there is a choice of pictures for Hauritz. If you go into the commons link at the bottom.... I started a poll on which should be used for Hauritz although I haven't had many takers... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 05:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"...you can just re-rate your own articles". That seems to me to be poor practice. It's very hard to be objective about an article that you've made a major contribution to yourself. I wouldn't dream of rating any article that I had done a lot of work on. JH (talk page) 08:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Up to "B" I don't see a major problem,. Below that, rating is all rater arbitrary. -- Mattinbgn\ 09:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The ratings are so all over the shop that up to B-class it doesn' matter if a person does it themselves. I know one guy not in this WikiProject who labelled all his 1-para articles as B, which is a joke, and some WikiProjects always inflate the grades to feel better about themselves, especially if their leaders like to tell everyone about their achivements. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

In November 2009, Mallett, Haigh and Bernard Whimpress and Boria Majumdar were at this cricket forum and Mallett totally teed off on the Australian spinners (and also Murali and Bhajji about their actions) "If I chucked I would have got 250+ wickets" etc and saying "If I was as bad as Hauritz I would have quit" and started blaming the ACA for robotic computer coaching, which in his opinion killed of spin bowling. He claimed that all these good youngsters who were better than Hauritz were rejected by the computer.... YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 06:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, YellowMonkey. Thanks for your comments and addition to the article. Most appreciated. I'm not really aiming to take the article much further than where it is now. I was just bored and came across the article, saw that it was a bit stubish and felt it might be interesting to expand it a little, especially as it seemed to have a few hits during the last Test. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The rating done previously was guesswork without reference to the agreed criteria. I rate it a start-class only, albeit a good start. It lacks content given that much must be known about him as both a player and a person; and it needs additional structure in the way of extra sections about his style and technique, and about his personal and family life. YM is quite right that we can rate articles ourselves up to B-class (I do it all the time, although I take the point from JH about objectivity which I sometimes overlook) but unless the article is an obvious stub, you should always use the B-class criteria outlined in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cricket/Assessment by completing the template call and rate it according to the number of yes/no views. In this case, Hauritz fails on two counts, so it cannot be a B, and as it also fails criterion 3 it cannot be a C either, hence it's a good start. --Jack | 05:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Rose Bowl series

Hi all. Having some trouble expanding this list as some results seem to have dropped off the Cricinfo radar. For instance, the 2001/02 results in the list currently say 3 all in a home-and-away series, but Cricinfo has just three results. Similar issues with 03/04 and 06/07. Anyone have a solution for me? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried looking on CricketArchive? I find they are generally more reliable than Cricinfo. JH (talk page) 17:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Not exaclty sure of the problem but the 3 all wouldn't be the result but the venue, in 2001-02 the series consisted of three matches in Australia and then three in New Zealand, because of the change in venue Cricinfo consider them to be seperate tours. This link has all the series and the scorecards for 'both' 2001/02 series work fine for me. --Jpeeling (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Test cricket grounds

Hello project. I've done some work on correctly merging this list with the "... by date" list of a similar nature for one nice sortable list with everything in it. I have a quick question which doesn't seem to have an answer within Cricinfo, namely on the names of the missing ends. Some of these stadiums hosted just one test, back in the day, so it's wholly possible the ends were never named, but if anyone could shed any further light on the absent data, I'd be extremely grateful. Much obliged. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, good job! The daggers for the footnotes are good, but could you make them clickable by using {{|ref label}}, so you can easily switch from the text to the footnote, or vice versa?—MDCollins (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there enough articles on this subject to justify an Outline of cricket?

Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

The Transhumanist    23:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists