Talk:2019 South American Cricket Championship – Men's tournament

Schedule

The Cricinfo schedule only includes the matches with T20I status and so omits Uruguay and Colombia. Brazil Cricket have emailed the full schedule to me so I have added in the Uruguay and Colombia fixtures with the correct date and time. The matches on their schedule are lsited as being on grounds 1, 2 and 3, while Cricinfo uses A and B, and the numbers don't correlate with the letters, so I suspect like with the Cricket at the 2019 Pacific Games, the ground numbers/letters in Cricinfo probably aren't accurate. Bs1jac (talk) 11:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bs1jac: I guess the matches were supposed to start by now. There is no update from any of the teams and also not Crichq. I think it's raining or something in the ground. Human (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@A Simple Human: I suspect it is just really bad coverage. Eagerly waiting for players to be entered into CI as I know they are likely to be different to what people have added for CHQ, and I want to create/tidy the player list pages! Have only managed to find a few already there. Guess we just have to sit back and wait for updates. Bs1jac (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems there probably was some rain. It gets everywhere! Bs1jac (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

It may not even be rain... almost looks like they have simply decided to shorten all matches in order to fit three rounds into a day. Bs1jac (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bs1jac: They played the entire tournament with 12-18 overs in the name of T20I. ICC might be investigating in this matter. Human (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Ground Page

@Lugnuts: and @Bs1jac: Can either of you make the ground page? I am not sure how to make it. Either create a page for the club with mention of Ground A and B or separate for each ground. I can then subsequently add the same on the T20I Grounds page list. Ankurc.17 (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Yep, I'll knock up a basic stub at some point during today. You can then use the layout to create pages for new grounds going forward if you wish. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ankurc.17: - done! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Great!!! I will do the same for the Malta Cricket Ground as well. Ankurc.17 (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

No worries. If you need me to create any more going forward, just drop me a ping. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lugnuts and Ankurc.17: Quick note on this. CI only includes the T20I matches and says Grounds A and B but there are in fact three grounds (as per comms from cricket Brasil). CricHQ has all matches and uses grounds 1, 2 and 3. I have changed the venues to match CricHQ as it is more comprehensive and matches the official schedule. However, I am aware that this will probably cause issues as the List of grounds article will use what CI says despite my suspicions that CI is wrong. Bs1jac (talk) 12:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I suspect CI has seen no more than 2 T20Is taking place at the same time and has itself allocated ground A or B. But according to the full schedule, T20I matches will be on each of pitches 1, 2 and 3. Bs1jac (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bs1jac: I have added the respective details based on CI only. We can update them as and when it is corrected at CI. Since the source for all ground pages are kept with CI only so have to follow it for the time being. Ankurc.17 (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ankurc.17: Hi, Yes I agree you have to follow CI in the grounds list (as otherwise it wouldn't match the reference). Unfortunately it is clearly incorrect as you can see in CHQ that three matches are taking place at the same time on three pitches. I think CI tends to simplify when there are multiple 'grounds' at the same venue making it innaccurate and it would be better if it just counted all matches as taking place at a single 'venue', but there you go! Bs1jac (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Squads

Looks like some of the squads have been added based purely on players lists in CricHQ which is rarely reliable. Several players from their first game are not listed so some of those that are listed shouldnt be there. Lets remove players once it is clear who is actually playing through the event. Bs1jac (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

CricHQ cards

Even when viewing the full scorecards in CricHQ there are sometimes fewer than 11 players listed, or the same person in the fall of wickets list more than once, so I expect there to be some adjustments to various details once the cards are in Cricinfo. Also hard to get comprehensive debut lists at the moment due to the incomplete cards, but we are doing what we can. Bs1jac (talk) 08:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@A Simple Human: That Peru-Brazil score keeps changing through the day! It was 74/9, then 73/9, then 71/9 and now I see it is back to 73/9 again! Bs1jac (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bs1jac: Yeah that is frustrating. And also, I wonder why Colombia and Uruguay aren't ICC members. They seem to be playing fairly well. Human (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@A Simple Human: I believe it is to do with infrastructure, number of domestic teams, etc rather than standard of play. Bs1jac (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

NRR

@Lugnuts and A Simple Human: Hi there. As pointed out by a Twitter user, I think the NRR calculation in CricHQ is incorrect. There are a couple of important matches (Peru v Argentina, and Mexico v Colombia) where neither side batted the full 18 overs, and it looks like the calculation has assumed these were 20 over matches. There were certainly lots of times in the CricHQ live scorecards where the 'runs required' line was stating the number of balls remaining were for a 20 over innings even though the matches were shortened. If so, Peru's NRR should be a little higher and Mexico's a little lower. I tried a calculation and I think that is true and this could mean that Peru should be in the final rather than Mexico (although my quick calculation might not be right either!). Very interesting though. Hopefully the organisers will work out NRR 'offline' rather than go with the value auto-calculated on CricHQ. Bs1jac (talk) 10:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems a bit of a mess! Nice work in getting all the info. I've not really being paying attention to this tournament. What's the deal with all the 18 over matches? Wet outfield(s)? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: I get the impression that they have simply decided to shorten all matches in order to fit them in (whether that be for light, wet outfield or whatever). Not sure if the ICC would be impressed by that! Very minimal coverage on social media or elsewhere, so CricHQ is all we have (and there's nothing on the women's event); player names will change once in Cricinfo, and debuts have only really been possible for Peru as all other team have missing players in early scorecards so can't be sure when players first played yet. PS: @TheRoonBa thinks all of the NRR values are wrong, but that the only difference is Colombia (4th) and Brazil (6th) should be the other way round. Looking at the Peru and Mexico matches though it must be very close to the wrong team being in the final if they go by the CricHQ table alone. Bs1jac (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bs1jac: The cricket Argentina accounts confirmed that they are playing against Mexico in the final. They calculated nrr with 20 overs in mind because the tournament was supposed to be like that. They shortened the overs due to technical reasons according to Uruguay twitter account. Human (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@A Simple Human: Yes but if the overs are reduced, the NRR is calculated on actual overs faced (or allocated). Anyway according to TheRoonBa even though they are wrong, it wouldnt make any difference to the top two. Bs1jac (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)