Talk:List of Australia Test cricketers

Strewth - that was quick work - well done! jguk 17:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - you've done a terrific job to get them all listed. Now for the real work - writing biogs for them all! I'll help with the early ones when I have the time. MulgaBill 21:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I've made a tiny start - disambiguating a few - I'm using the style Bill Bloggs (cricketer)|Bill Bloggs - unless anyone has a better idea. (I know, I know, Bill Bloggs never played for Australia - he was West Indian wasn't he?) MulgaBill 21:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Status

392 cricketers. Blue links:

• 100 August 6 2005
• 134 August 19
• 144 August 21
• 181 August 25
• 200 September 1 (51%, we're halfway!)

Alick Bannerman?

MulgaBill changed Alec Bannerman to Alick Bannerman (and moved the associated article). But Cricinfo calls him Alec. Is Cricinfo wrong? Stephen Turner 10:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• I have heard both versions Tintin 11:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Jack Pollard, "doyen of Australian cricket writers", consistently calls him 'Alick', which was the way I was brought up to believe. However, as Tintin says, both versions are used, and I note that both Moyes (in the 1950s) and Martin-Jenkins (1980) use 'Alec'. I probably erred in drawing attention to the spelling - after all his deeds are what should be remembered, not the spelling of his name! MulgaBill 12:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it was Alick. What do CricketArchive and the Wisden of the day say? jguk 23:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Wisden obit uses Alec in four places. CA database is always in sync with CI.Tintin 23:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Updating stats

I just reverted an edit made by User:Rogerthat when he updated the stats for just three of the players. I think we need to update all the stats at once, and the date at the top, otherwise we won't know what's up to date when.

Nevertheless, we do have a significant problem here. Updating all the stats is just too onerous. Do we have any solution to this?

Stephen Turner 10:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm planning to write a spreadsheet and upload it somewhere - I think it has to take stats from howstat, not quite sure how yet, though. Been a bit busy lately. Sam Vimes 12:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bugger of a job, having done it once (after the initial upload). I found the easiest way was to go to the Howstats country/test players page, select current players only, and print that page out. Then, armed with a hardcopy just work through the list - took about 20 mins. And you have to convert overs to balls as you go. I suppose copy-pasting into a spreadsheet would allow a) removal of 50, 100, 5no, 10no columns, b) calculation of balls, and c) sort by date -- Ian ≡ talk 13:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I can do it programmatically (and have done so). This has dropped the "-" in the career indicating a current player, though. I've run my eye over it, it looks accurate but check it out. And do the Cricinfo links look a little messy? --Paul 06:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Lovely. :) The Cricinfo links really aren't that necessary IMO, they were only added for easy access to the stats whenever a manual update was to be done. I think it could well be done without. You couldn't do some of the other pages as well, that'd be really appreciated! Sam Vimes 07:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You're referring to the pages for other countries? Should be doable, the England page will have to take on the same format though. I've also removed the CricInfo links.--Paul 09:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep. I don't think anyone would mind greatly if England got changed to the same style - I'll put a note on that talk page, though, so other editors can see it. Sam Vimes 09:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Nicknames

I think caution is needed when using nicknames and diminutives. Bill Lawry and Norm O'Neill are probably OK, but not 'Tup' Scott, 'Tibby' Cotter, or 'Garth' McKenzie. Or should we be consistent and have articles for "Tugga" Waugh, "Tubby" Taylor, and "Pigeon" McGrath?? Let's not, eh! MulgaBill 23:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I see it as not so much nicknames, but how they were commonly referred to e.g Plum Warner, which isn't the case with Tubby et al. I've changed a few going by what CricInfo calls them e.g. Pud Thurlow, but I guess you'd have to be there to decide whether it was a "nickname" or a "better known as" --Paul 05:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Gosh - what a lot of blue links :) Almost ready for WP:FLC? The glaring omission is is a "References" section (presumably the external links are references?). -- ALoan (Talk) 22:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you think?

Hey. I remember raising this sometime before but I don't remember looking back at it for an answer. What would people if the list looked like this?:

Cap	Name	Debut	Matches	Final	Specialty
1	Charles Bannerman	March 15 1877 Australia v England Melbourne Cricket Ground	3	January 4 1879 Australia v England Melbourne Cricket Ground	Batsman
2	Jack Blackham	March 15 1877 Australia v England Melbourne Cricket Ground	35	December 20 1894 Australia v England Sydney Cricket Ground	Batsman Wicket-keeper
3	Bransby Cooper	March 15 1877 Australia v England Melbourne Cricket Ground	1	March 15 1877 Australia v England Melbourne Cricket Ground	Batsman
4	Tom Garrett	March 15 1877 Australia v England Melbourne Cricket Ground	19	February 15 1888 Australia v England Sydney Cricket Ground	All-rounder
5	Dave Gregory	March 15 1877 Australia v England Melbourne Cricket Ground	3	January 4 1879 Australia v England Melbourne Cricket Ground	Batsman
6	Ned Gregory	March 15 1877 Australia v England Melbourne Cricket Ground	1	March 15 1877 Australia v England Melbourne Cricket Ground	Batsman
7	John Hodges	March 15 1877 Australia v England Melbourne Cricket Ground	2	April 4 1877 Australia v England Melbourne Cricket Ground	Bowler
8	Tom Horan	March 15 1877 Australia v England Melbourne Cricket Ground	15	March 25 1885 Australia v England Melbourne Cricket Ground	Batsman
9	Tom Kendall	March 15 1877 Australia v England Melbourne Cricket Ground	2	April 4 1877 Australia v England Melbourne Cricket Ground	All-rounder
10	Billy Midwinter	March 15 1877 Australia v England Melbourne Cricket Ground	12	March 1 1887 Australia v England Sydney Cricket Ground	Batsman
11	Nat Thomson	March 15 1877 Australia v England Melbourne Cricket Ground	2	April 4 1887 Australia v England Sydney Cricket Ground	Batsman
12	Thomas Kelly	March 31 1877 Australia v England Melbourne Cricket Ground	2	January 4 1889 Australia v England Sydney Cricket Ground	Batsman
13	Billy Murdoch	March 31 1877 Australia v England Melbourne Cricket Ground	2	January 4 1889 Australia v England Sydney Cricket Ground	Batsman

xxxx-2008

Is it usual in Australia to describe a cricketer's active Test career as xxxx-2008 - for example: 1999-2008 for Brett Lee - even when the cricketer is still getting picked? In the UK (and other places, I am sure), it would be more common to write xxxx- with no second year, so Brett Lee becomes simply 1999-. Otherwise there is no distinguishing between players who are still active and players who have retired in 2008. I would have just changed it, but I thought this could be a local difference so thought to consult on the matter first. -Estesark (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with you - I would prefer to see the year range open ended. I guess someone will raise the question of a cricketer such as Shane Watson. He hasn't been picked for a few years and is a still an active ODI and first-class cricketer. In this case I'd still leave the range open. He might well come back to Test level. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

List of players

Why does the list of players have the correct number (405) while the category says 399 have played test cricket for Australia? I checked the list and all the links are blue. I'm assuming there must be 6 players who don't have "Australian Test Cricketers" as a category, is there an easier way to check then going through all 405? Paulyt (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It was a manually entered figure and is now fixed. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 01:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I clicked on "Edit this page" and couldn't see it. i musn't have looked too well. Thanks for the quick reply. Paulyt (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's right at the top lol Paulyt (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Formatting

I've highlighted the names of current players to be bold to bring this table into line with other Australian cricket tables. I've also removed the end-year for current players. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Australia Test cricketers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090929211727/http://www.cricket.com.au/site/_content/document/00000344-source.pdf to http://www.cricket.com.au/site/_content/document/00000344-source.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Data types are not numeric

Hi - this is a fascinating page I just happened across here. The only thing is, I'm guessing there's some kind of XML or Excel database behind it, anyway, the numbers aren't numeric, if that makes sense. In other words, they're just standard text. Which means, among other things, the columns are left-justified, whereas numbers are usually right-justified. More significantly, if you try to sort ascending or descending you get funny results, for example 1200 will rank higher than 11000. It's still a nice interesting page. Cheers, Tonyglaser (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Tony