Jump to content

Talk:List of current first-class cricket teams

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Question: Is not the English Minor Counties XI cricket team considered first-class when it plays one of the first-class counties, or a touring international XI? braveowlracing February 24, 2008 16:27 (UTC)

I thinks the tables are too cramped. I also think the websites should be formatted differently. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 2, 2005 15:21 (UTC)

Nicholas, feel free to tweak it as you see fit, jguk 2 July 2005 16:03 (UTC)

What's the deal with Jharkhand and Bihar? Cricketarchive consistently uses Bihar, cricinfo used Bihar for the line-up but Jharkhand for the scorecards...it's gotta confuse some people. Maybe Nichalp can clear that one up for me? Sam Vimes 3 July 2005 09:45 (UTC)

There was a note on first-class cricket, which I removed as part of setting up this page. It said that Jharkhand was carved out of Bihar state (politically this is, not cricket-wise - have a look at Jharkhand). As most of the cricketing infrastructure of the old Bihar state was in Jharkhand, Jharkhand became the first-class team, replacing Bihar, jguk 3 July 2005 10:39 (UTC)
I'll add that piece of information as a footnote under India, then. Sam Vimes 3 July 2005 11:12 (UTC)


Is it necessary to include the sponsors of the Australian state sides? The nicknames are unnecessary but not too bad, but including the sponsors is a bit too much. JPD 11:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't the sponsor's names now part of the official names of these teams though? jguk 11:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In the sense that those names are used officially, yes. However, the teams are also still sometimes officially referred to simply by the name of their state. Since the state names have been around from the start of the cricket team, and will last, whereas the sponsor's will change quite frequently, it makes more sense to use the state names. JPD 16:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree with you. I think it's important to give the current team name (especially given the title of this list). Where the state name is not obvious from the official team name, the state is given in brackets. Doesn't this give us the best of both worlds? jguk 19:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Both names are used official, so one name is not more official than the other. The teams are still officially representatives of the state cricket associations, not like in South Africa. In this situation, I think it is better to stick with the name that has continuity. JPD 11:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First Class teams for Australia, Sri Lanka, Canada, Ireland and Kenya

[edit]

Recently a user has been doing numerous edits to include the Northern Territory and Canberra (Australian Capital Territory) as first-class teams. This alone indicates that the user has either never read the first-class cricket article or is assuming that this is a list of all domestic cricket teams. If the user keeps this up in spite of all the corrections made and pointed out, then perhaps the article needs to be locked entirely or just locked to anonymous users until he/she take the time to really understand what this article is supposed to be listing. In addition, the same user added the national and domestic teams for Canada, Ireland and I suspect Kenya. All three play first-class cricket in the Intercontinental Cup (and in the case of Ireland when they play against Scotland in the ECB domestic setup and for Kenya when a Kenya select plays in Zimbabwe). However, I have never heard nor read of first-class cricket being played domestically in any of these countries (and simply giving a link to the domestic associations' homepages is not enough since those homepages say nothing about first-class cricket). Perhaps the national teams ONLY for the other Intercontinental Cup participants (Bermuda, UAE, Namibia, Scotland and the Netherlands) as current first-class teams. Finally, someone (it may have been the same user or someone else) added the Maldives to the list of Sri Lanka's first-class teams but I have since removed it. Does anyone have any reference to the Maldives playing as a guest first-class team in Sri Lanka?72.27.8.128 (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had already removed the Australian territories and Canadian provinces last week. I didn't remove the Kenyan teams, as the first class cricket article also suggests that they will play first class matches. I don't know whether this is true, but it was added by someone who isn't making quite the same mistake as this user.
With Sri Lanka, I don't know what is going on. This user removed the Premier Leauge club teams, which are first class, and left provincial associations. The inter-provincial tournaments in SL are not first class (one-day and T20), and don't have teams with these names. I have removed them fromo this page. This page is for teams playing first-class cricket, not the regional cricket associations in each country. JPD (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JPD, if it's alright with you I think I'll add the national teams (and only the national teams) of the current intercontinental cup participants since they do play first-class cricket like Canada and Ireland. Oh, and a question for you: do you think Northern Territory will ever play first-class cricket?72.27.8.128 (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. It would be good if we could check the status in Kenya somehow. As for the Northern Territory, I'd be surprised if they were given first class status any time soon. Statehood might make it more likely, but I don't think it will happen until they can support a team that is at least vaguely competitive with the the others. The ACT is probably a more realistic chance for a first-class team, actually. JPD (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was also wondering if the Duleep Trophy zonal teams for India and the SuperSport Series franchise teams for South Africa should be added since the matches involving those teams are adjudged first-class. By the way the other anon who seems to have made some of the changes (both correct changes with regards to the Scottish team apparently and incorrect ones about Canada and Australia) has been wondering if there shouldn't be a page on just domestic cricket associations/teams (first-class and otherwise). I've told him/her that he/she can freely propose it, but that the current page shouldn't be hijacked towards that end. Don't know why he/she hasn't proposed it in the dicussion pages for the relevant articles. Such a list would be huge anyway (with probably thousands of associations/teams) and I would be in no hurry to attempt it.72.27.8.128 (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously haven't looked too closely, as I thought the SuperSport teams were already included. They should definitely be there. As for a list of domestic associations, it could be done if someone wants to take on such a big task, but I wonder whether such information is better listed on pages such as Cricket in Australia and/or Cricket Australia. Of course, this would mean creating these pages for some countries. JPD (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

India

[edit]

Currently, the article reads:

India

National team: indian cricket team1

Note: 1 first-class only when playing in the ICC Intercontinental Cup or when playing against Scotland.

This is incorrect. The Indian cricket team, like all test teams, is also a first class team.Ordinary Person (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


It seems an unreg user changed "Ireland" to "India". I've reverted this vandalism.Ordinary Person (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of current first-class cricket teams. 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:

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) 04:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of current first-class cricket teams. 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:

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) 18:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of current first-class cricket teams. 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:

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) 04:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_current_first-class_cricket_teams&oldid=1200535073"