Talk:Australian cricket team in England and Scotland in 2009

England squad

Is the squad that has been entered an educated guess or is there a reference we can access?

I was generally of the view that home teams don't actually pick squads in the same manner as visiting teams. Rather, we use the 1st Test 12, and then add to it as the series progresses, as required. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A 16-man squad is set to be announced today for the England training camp, but it hasn't been announced quite yet, so I think someone's been guessing. Also, I think you're right that we should reduce the list to the XII from the First Test. – PeeJay 11:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I added the squad as it was announced today. M0rt (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Link:http://www.cricinfo.com/engvaus2009/content/current/story/410177.html

And I've added the reference to the main article for the English Test squad. It needs to be there, not here. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Rename

I think this article should be renamed to reflect that the 1st Test will be played in Cardiff and also visiting Edinburgh. Welshleprechaun (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, but the general feeling was to stick with 'in England' because the majority of matches are played in England and because tours are often refered to as 'tour of England' even when matches are played outside England. BTW If you were to rename this page you would need to rename a lot as many tours have included matches against Glamorgan. --Jpeeling (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Majority or not, they're not all England. Perhaps a rename to Australian cricket team against England in 2009? Welshleprechaun (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The only title I would support moving this article to would be Australian cricket team in England and Scotland in 2009, since that's what cricinfo.com calls the tour. Even Cricket Australia refers to it as the "VB Tour of England". – PeeJay 14:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The article covers the whole tour rather than just England matches so I presume you're suggesting placing the tour matches and Scotland ODI onto another page. I'm not keen on doing that, the page isn't overly long so I see no reason to split it from the current scope of the whole tour. --Jpeeling (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Can't it be Great Britain as that's what the tour covers? Cavie78 (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. It doesn't matter if the link call it's England as it's factually wrong. Welshleprechaun (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there any sources that use 'Great Britain' with regards this tour? --Jpeeling (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

CA calls it "Australia in British Isles 2009" even if there's no game in Ireland (I think that they usually use this name for such a tour). OrangeKnight (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Common sense should be the key; they don't call it the Tour De France + six other countries. The central object here is England. (194.34.10.1 (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC))

The central object may well be England, but that doesn't stop the name of this encyclopaedia article being factually incorrect. Welshleprechaun (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

In my hand I hold an Encyclopaedia Britannica, referring to the Melbourne Olympics that also had the equestrian in Stockholm owing to quarantine issues. The article is called '1956 Olympic Games In Melbourne', not '1956 Olympics In Melbourne Except For One Bit In Sweden Because Of Stringent Customs Laws'. The deviation from the central tour object (England) can be explained within the article itself. (sevendaughters 18:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevendaughters (talk • contribs)

So you're also suggesting we should rename the Tour de France article because that's factually incorrect? --Jpeeling (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm suggesting we re-name this article. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

But the TdF visits other countries as well so I imagine you would also want that changed because it's factually incorrect. Could you explain why that one shouldn't be changed yet this should? --Jpeeling (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No name for this article has my preference, but I'd like to say that their is a big difference between this cricket tour and the Tour de France. "Tour de France" is an official name, that's the name of a competition. Of course, it's not a whole "Tour" (because the race don't all go all France round, as "Tour" in French could suggest), nor is it limited to France, but that's its official name, and the one used by everybody to call it. That's absolutely not the case of any of the different "Australian cricket team in [wherever you want] in 2009", because their seems to be no official name for this tour (it's not a competition in any case, even if it includes one). OrangeKnight (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you got a source for TdF being the official name because I would imagine it would be Le Tour De France, this encyclopedia uses TdF because it's the common name equally 'tour of England' is the most common in this occasion. A quick search of Google News reveals 72 hits for "tour of England" with a grand total of zero for both British Isles and Great Britain. --Jpeeling (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really a huge fan of cricket, and I apologise if this has been brought up before, but couldn't this just be solved by renaming the article "2009 Ashes series" like the 2005 one? Sky83 (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot the second part of my comment before I saved this lol. I meant to distinguish between the parts of the tour, and eliminate the need to use a country in the title, since I gather the one test in Wales is the one causing the problem. The other part of the tour could be included in an article with this title. Maybe my lack of interest in cricket means I'm looking at this too simply, I don't know lol. Sky83 (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

So, rename to 2009 Ashes series? Welshleprechaun (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No, because this article covers more than just the Ashes series. I think that the articles about the Ashes tests should be split into a new article (2009 Ashes series), and then this article should be kept for the tour matches and the ODI/Twenty20 series. – PeeJay 10:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Then what about Australian cricket team in Britain (or against England) in 2009 because the current title remains factually inaccurate. Welshleprechaun (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

But the ECB represents Wales too, so the fact that one Test was played in Wales shouldn't make any difference. – PeeJay 19:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does, but we're not talking about the cricket board. Australia is not just in England, it is also in Wales and Scotland, the details of which are covered in this article. That makes the article's title inaccurate and adds to the already worldwide confusion of the difference between England and the UK. Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's job to correct misconceptions, only to report facts as they are presented by other reliable sources, such as Cricinfo or CricketArchive or the BBC or Sky Sports, all of which refer to this tour as a tour of England. They may mention that the odd match is being played in Wales and Scotland, but the vast majority of the tour is being played in England. – PeeJay 21:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the sense in reporting incorrect "facts". If this article is about Australia in England, then the Scottish and Welsh tests should be removed. Yes the majority are in England but the title of this article suggests that all are in England. I can see no reason why the title can't be changed other than nationalistic opinions. Welshleprechaun (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're being far too sensitive about this essentially minor issue. In cricketing terms, this is a tour of England: get over it. – PeeJay 12:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In reality terms, this is a tour of Great Britain. Why are you so against a rename to ...against England ? Welshleprechaun (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it wouldn't follow the established naming conventions for articles about cricket tours. – PeeJay 18:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Quicker updates?

Is there any chance someone can post the over-by-over or an update every 15 mins in here on matchdays, then we'll revert to the previous settings after the day's play? It's just I'm in work and my two friends who email updates are both AWOL and this test is hung on a knife-edge. (sevendaughters 10:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevendaughters (talk • contribs)

Cricinfo and most of the British dailies run a ball by ball (or over by over) service. However, there is no need to watch either. England will have the match won by the end of the morning session. And as I write this Haddin has just been dismissed, so make that by drinks. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 10:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sadly I don't have access to 'non-academic' sites, hence my request! I'll take that prediction though. If updates can be posted to my talk page then I guess that wouldn't impinge in the more serious discussions above this one... (sevendaughters 10:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevendaughters (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a sports site. It will have to be cricinfo or the BBC I'm afraid. SGGH ^ping! 15:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

These pseudo-philosophical debates about wikipedia 'is' or 'is not' could go on forever. I was asking for people to help a brother out - a fellow cricketing brother no less, with all the implicit connotations of sportsmanship and gentlemanliness that takes in - and then amended my post to ask for people to post them on my talk page as to not interrupt the general business of the site (which they did). However, it is difficult to assume good faith when you patently didn't bother to read my post where I mentioned this and also that I had no access to the aforementioned sites. Boo to you. Yay to the others who helped out. --sevendaughters 08:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevendaughters (talk • contribs)

Haven't tried cricinfo yet, but the telegraph.co.uk has a good ball by ball commentary. Wikimsd (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Any help today (day five, third test) would be massively appreciated = Sevendaughters (talk • contribs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.34.10.1 (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

MAYDAY, MAYDAY = Sevendaughters (talk • contribs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.34.10.1 (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

BST or GMT

Should Grenwich Mean Time or British Standard Time be used to denote the time of day. I've had both reverted! Francium12 (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the event is taking place in Britain, it makes far more sense to use the time zone that the country is in at the moment, which is BST. – PeeJay 20:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

POV issues with summary of Fourth Test

Is it just me or is the summary of the Fourth Test loaded with POV after the first day? Examples include (with bolding added by me to emphasise the offending parts):

• "After lunch the onslaught continued"
• "the Australian tail pounded the meager English attack"
• "Clark also boomed 3 sixes" (this one not so much, but still...)
• "Johnson came on producing classic left arm swing bowling"
• "England in complete disarray"
• "facing imminent defeat with the momentum of the series now flowing firmly in Australia's favour"
• "Anderson poorly played at a short ball"
• "Hilfenhaus later bowled a beautiful outswinger"
• "took the catch magnificently"
• "Their breathtaking eighth-wicket partnership"
• "demolishing his stumps"

I'm not saying that these statements aren't correct, only that they need to be written in a far more encyclopaedic tone if this article is to be taken seriously. For the record, POV isn't about giving both sides of the discussion flowery language, but about giving it to neither and treating the subject with absolute neutrality. – PeeJay 06:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, written in a tabloid journalistic style. This is an encyclopedia, not a red top newspaper. It probably needs a complete rewrite. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess when you mean neutrality you want it to sound like England weren't as bad as they were. Also if you have a problem with the language its taken mostly from the BBC articles references. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality is telling the facts as they happened, not embellishing them to fit your own personal opinion of the subject. Like I said, the account isn't wrong, it's just far too flowery. And if the language was taken from the BBC's articles, then surely there's a copyright violation here? – PeeJay 12:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Given that I am Australian and a supporter of the Australian cricket team, I have little interest in making the England cricket team look good. Perhaps you might consider not being so personal in your responses. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What is "flowery"? The adjectives give a descriptive narrative of the account. As far as copyright violation - Check all the references if you accuse me of this. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

See wikt:flowery, meaning No. 3. No one has accused you of anything, it was merely noted that copying sentences directly form other sites (as you have claim to have done from the BBC website) could be seen as an infringement of copyright. Secondly, as I said above, this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper article, and as such should be written in an appropriate tone. The BBC can use different language than us here because thaey have a different audience and a different goal. Using excessive adjectives, or overly colourful ones is not appropriate in an encyclopedia article. The article should not express the opinion of the writers (as the section in question does) but should simply report the facts. The section in question may be quite acceptable in a blog or a newspaper as a lively account of the days events but it is not appropriate here. I repeat, the section needs a complete rewrite to be acceptable. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Any references from the BBC were NOT taken word for word. Did you check the references? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW - Why didn't you attempt to describe the day's play??? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Because there is no obligation on me as a volunteer to do anything. Look, your contributions are welcome but in this case they are not appropriate for this article. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

As a volunteer, I will also contribute how I see fit. You are welcome to spend the time to rewrite the two days play. Enjoy! Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

And I didn't describe the days' play because I was out during days 2 and 3. As you will note, I wrote the summary of Day 1, and without sounding arrogant, that summary is probably a good example you should follow. – PeeJay 17:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO, its too bland and does not capture the human element of the game. Facts and statistics are for almanacs. BTW I didn't enter the 3rd day's play only the second day's play. I did add some of the information for the 3rd day which is referenced from a source. Also if references are to be used I find it not right to change the tone of what the original author intended and then cite it here. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

And here we have the root of the problem. As you have said, it is only your opinion that facts and figures are too "bland", but it is not up to you to determine the appropriate tone for the encyclopaedia. With good writing, it is very easy to capture the ebbs and flows of the game. If two batsmen stay in and build a big partnership, then you can write a bit more about that, whereas if three quick wickets fall then write about them in quick succession. The writing does not require extra embellishment. Furthermore, references are used to cite facts, not as a basis for the tone of the writing in the article. Just because the author of a news story has used a particular tone, does not – and normally should not – mean that we should use the same tone! – PeeJay 19:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Each to their own. As you said originally the facts with the adjectives were not wrong. The fact is also that destruction of the English team in three days cannot be just be sterilized. IMO, an encyclopaedic entry of this event in your style diminishes what took place. As to purrfect writing I'll leave that to someone else. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have a problem with it, why not just fix it? --58.111.132.76 (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Did it not occur to you that I may not have time to fix it myself? – PeeJay 23:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet you had the time to make a point of it here? I agree that it's a little to adjective heavy though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.230.242 (talk) 07:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did have time to make a point of it here. What's your point? That my priorities should be with writing articles for ultimately no reward instead of actually living my life? Sure.... – PeeJay 07:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've re-written the Day 2 and Day 3 reports and removed the POV tags. Please review. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In the News

I'll send this over to In the News If I am online when England regain the ashes :-) 5 wickets to go! Francium12 (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Good plan! Probably the biggest piece of sports news in the world at the moment, this. – PeeJay 14:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Tour of England and Scotland

I have been attempting to create a seperate page for Australia's ODI against Scotland, on the basis that Scotland is an associate member of the ICC in its own right, and that as England's game against Ireland has a seperate page, so should this one. This has been repeatedly redirected on the grounds that "this is all part of the same tour". The basis for this is Cricinfo's list of the fixtures. However, Cricinfo list the tour as being to England and Scotland. As a consequence, if the Scotland game does not warrant its own page, then this article should be renamed as "Australian cricket team in England and Scotland in 2009". Hammersfan 27/08/09, 16.37 BST

I'm starting to think that, perhaps, the Scotland v Australia ODI "series" should have its own article, similar to the English cricket team in Ireland in 2009 article. Although the match is still part of Australia's tour of Great Britain, I'd prefer to think of it as a "tour within a tour". – PeeJay 15:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, if we start to allow single matches to have articles then where do we stop, there's nearly 3,000 ODIs and 2,000 Tests so do you consider them all notable for stand-alone articles? We even have an article on a single first-class match, there's been over 50,000 first-class matches in cricket history, same question are they all notable? We don't need articles for every single 'tour' and in fact many proper tours don't, and I've never heard any uproar about Wikipedia lack of coverage on England tour of South Africa in 2004/05 for example. If there was any sense here, the Ireland-England and Scotland-Australia ODIs would be redirected/merged with International cricket in 2009. --Jpeeling (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously not every Test, ODI and Twenty20 International is notable enough for its own article, but when a series involving two ICC members (albeit one as an associate member) includes just one match, surely it's fair enough for that series to have its own article. That is the reason why we have English cricket team in Ireland in 2009 (also because that match wouldn't get covered anywhere else!) – PeeJay 00:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a series though is it; a series by definition is a group of matches. What is the scope of the England cricket team in Ireland article? It's one ODI, and I don't see what's notable about this ODI compared to 3,000 others, can somebody tell me why this ODI merits its own article? As I said above the International cricket in 2009 article is a perfectly good location for it to be covered, as it already is. --Jpeeling (talk) 08:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Surely any series involving two ODI-playing nations merits an article, whether the series involves one match or 100 matches? You can argue semantics about whether one match constitutes a series, but according to Cricinfo and Cricket Archive, it definitely is a series. – PeeJay 16:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not semantics, it's simply English. I have taken a look at both those links but can't find any mention of these ODIs (England-Ireland, Scotland-Australia) being called a series. In fact when I look at that Cricinfo link I see the England-Ireland ODI is listed as 'England in Ireland ODI Match' when all previous entries under the One-Day Internationals heading (barring a multiple team tournament) contain the word series, therefore Cricinfo acknowledge the fact that one match cannot be considered a series. --Jpeeling (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine, but you've still failed to address the fact that England, Ireland, Australia and Scotland are ODI-playing nations, so an article about matches between those sides should be perfectly viable! – PeeJay 20:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles covering matches are fine, however an article covering a single match is different. I have notified WT:CRIC of this discussion and suggest the conversation continues there as this matter doesn't directly relate to this article. --Jpeeling (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)