Talk:ICC Men's T20 World Cup/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Move Teams to 2007 Twenty20 World Championship squads

As this page is related to the Twenty20 world championship in general, can someone move the teams list to the 2007 championship squads page. - శ్రీకాంత్ బాబు జాష్ఠి 08:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


First inaugaral world cup won by India, not by Pakistan. I think there is a mistake al other details are right.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.110.28.77 (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

Batting and bowling averages are so meaningless in this form of cricket that I removed them and replaced them with strike rate and economy rate. I hope others agree that these are better measurements of achievement than traditional averages, which are mere curiosities. Refs are here and here. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have solid references saying that batting or bowling averages are meaningless? Otherwise, it is Orignal Research. Every single website and TV broadcast I have seen (including Cricinfo), lists Twenty20 batting averages as one their main player statistics. Therefore, I don't see why it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.219.154 (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well put it back then. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The stats for India and Pakistan are wrong. In the 2007 ICC Twenty20 India won a bowl out against Pakistan, it wasn't a tie. That would me that the stats should read as India having won 8 games and tied 0 times and Pakistan having won 9 games, lost 4 games and tied 0 times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RRRAD (talk • contribs) 08:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a tie in statistical terms. The bowl out was just the competition's rule for deciding a winner like penalties in football, they don't count in the record books. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Most Successful

I am in a unconstructive edit war with a few IPs about the meaning of this term in the infobox, so I am here to try and gain some views and find a consensus. To me success means winning the tournament and therefore there are currently two most successful teams India and Pakistan. This opinion appears generally to be backed up by other uses of this infobox on the articles of Indian Premier League, ICC Champions Trophy, Pro40 and Standard Bank Pro20 Series. I'm not sure whether the opposing view is based on the opinion there can only be one 'most successful' team or whether it's India-Pakistan rivalry but anyway should we change the concensus to take second (sixth for the IPL) places into account? --Jpeeling (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with number of victories only; this is the standard across multiple Wikipedia articles. I'd point the other user towards the more detailed 'results' table which shows the full set of performances by team. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In cases like the World Twenty20 and IPL where one team has clearly had beeter results than any other (the only assumption being that each edition of the tournament is weighted equally), that team should definately be called "more successful". Now I know in a hypothetical case this could cause confusion (i.e.: is a team with two 2nd place finishes better than a team with one win, and one last place). But that is clearly not the case with the world twenty20. I suggest one of two options: Either we call Pakistan the "more successful" team, or we simply change the statistic to "Most championships" instead of "Most Successful".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.22.160.1 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think most successful should mean--since this is a tournament-- most number of championship wins, if that is ties then and only then should runner-up should be used to break a tie. Although this is not perfect way of deciding who's the most successful team, but it's the simplest and arguably the most practical way to judge this. In 2007 Pakistan, and in 2009 Sri Lanka were undefeated until the final. Taking these other stats into account will only complicate things, and cause more confusion. Again Most Championships defines success, and only using 2nd place finish as a tie-breaker. --DrSultan85 (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My main query (besides going against the current concensus) with using runners-up positions is where does it stop, if Sri Lanka beat India in next years tournament and Pakistan get knocked out of the group stages, who's the most successful then Pakistan (RU, W, GS), India (W, S8 (4), RU) or Sri Lanka (S8 (3), RU, W)? Sri Lankan cricket fans may be claiming they are the most successful based on third spot in the Super 8 stage. Change the scenario to see Pakistan reach the semi-finals, will they be back here claiming they're still the most successful because a semi is better than a Super 8 finish? Is it overly pedantic to say a runners-up spot counts (which wouldn't split them in this case) but a semi-final finish doesn't? I appear to have asked numerous theoretical questions but to summarise my thoughts: where do you draw the line and would it not save confusion and disputes to stick with titles only? --Jpeeling (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, is the hypothetical scenario presented above it will cause a lot of argument on who's the most successful team, but in the more probable(just by random probability) scenario, a third team will win the title, then we will have a 3-way tie. But to go as far as drawing a line, who says we have to draw a line, if 2 teams in a few years have(W, RU) status then we just go the next lower ranking to break the tie, which is this case would be semi-final. That is how this sport works too, most points, most wins, higher net-run-rate, etc I don't think there need to be a line drawn. In conclusion we should just have the most successful as the Most number of championship, if a tie, break it with RU, if still a tie, break with SF played, if still tie # of S8 appearances, if still a tie then a true tie. --DrSultan85 (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair that's how it's done in the Olympics (most successfull is defined as most Gold's, use Silver and Bronze as a tie-breaker), and in most other sports (whether or not that convention is followed on Wikipedia is a different story). I would be open to using this convention, or just changing the statistic to "Most Championships" instead of "Most Succesful". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.22.160.1 (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the Olympics don't go down to most fourths, fifths, sixths etc. If they're tied by Golds, Silvers and Bronzes it goes by alphabetical order. --Jpeeling (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, that call it a draw and stick to thousand year history of Olympics standard, Most Championships, use RU, and SF only as successive tie breaker, Do we have a consensus on that. IF we ever have a tie in Championships, RUs, and SFs then we'll talk again, until then can we agree on Most championships and RU and SF only to be used as tie breakers. --DrSultan85 (talk) 25:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if my previous comment wasn't clear, I'm not suggesting we go to wins, RUs and SFs merely pointing out that in the Olympics the line is drawn at top three and there's not infinite tie-breakers. Therefore a contray conclusion could be drawn, if USA and China finished with equal Golds, Silvers and Bronzes instead of counting up fourth places they both would be considered first in the medal table, i.e. more than one country can be 'most successful' which appears to be the main crux of this discussion. --Jpeeling (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MOST, means more than the rest, so only one unless it's a rare occurrence(this does not qualify). My favorite is, there does not need to to be line drawn, I'm sure if there was a tie in the Olympics in G,S,B medals then the 4th position would come into play. Either way either draw the line at SF, or don't draw a line at all, END OF STORY whatever we all agree on. --DrSultan85 (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well in my book success means winning not finishing runner-up or a semi-finalist, and most means greatest quantity therefore most successful equals most titles. My view is backed up by the examples I gave at the start of this discussion, and looking around I've yet to see a 'most successful' in an infobox which is decided by anything other than titles.
It looks clear that neither of us are shifting from our current POV so I suggest we wait for some more views before continuing the discussion. --Jpeeling (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[indent reduced] I'd stick with the idea that we just include victories in listing the 'most successful' in the infobox, and let the 'performance of teams' section give a finer grained picture - which it does, showing Pakistan above India due to their higher win percentage. If we want to look elsewhere to support this - see the FIFA Confederations Cup (shown before Brazil got their third win), Giro d'Italia, Vuelta a España, Standard Bank Pro20 Series, which list the competitors by victories only. If you want a few more viewpoints, I'd suggest making a request for comment.--Pretty Green (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Due to a death in discussion here, would it be OK to cautiously return to the situation which listed both teams who have won the title as most succesful? --Pretty Green (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Performance of teams

According to cricinfo's statsguru, this link shows the performance of teams by win percentage, but in the article, there are many differences. Please confirm where I could be going wrong?--Managerarc(talk) 15:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were three edits from unregistered users that completely messed the stats up. there were one or two errors before this however that i was continuing on while i updated. I have fixed it all up and it should line up with the link you provided. I suggest you check it as well to make sure i havent missed anything. - O for Awesome —Preceding unsigned comment added by O for Awesome (talk • contribs) 03:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, its fine now.--Managerarc(talk) 06:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tends to happen mid tournament; the good thing about Wikipedia is that at the end of the tournament we can check against this revision from the day the tournament started to make sure all stats have been properly added! --Pretty Green (talk) 08:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, can we edit it so that it is sorted by: best performance; then win percentage? At the moment it is a little odd that the Netherlands sit so prominently. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, Kinda looks pretty odd at the moment with seemingly no order to it (I had to read the new description to find out). I tried to make the some of the columns sortable but i dont know how to do it. I can only manage to make the main ones sortable and that doesnt work properly anyway. Does anyone know a way to do this? That would be the best way but I think Win percentage or at least number of games played would be better. Thats just me though, Could be a minority here hahah O for Awesome (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it looked less of a mess and clearer now than by win percentage! I guess it's probably just where your eyes draw you. I guess we can see if we can make it sortable after the tournament. Pretty Green (talk) 07:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that win percentage is more relevant though because it if backed up by the other information on the table. When you see the Netherlands so high, you check the number of games and then it makes sense. What would happen to a team who wins all their group matches and all their super 8 matches only to lose their semi final match? Thats 5 wins to one loss in one tournament which is a very good result yet they wont be rewarded on the list for it because of a team that may have just won the tournament as a one off. Im currently making a results grid in the same style as the one on the cricket world cup page (the one with all the colours). Will that be a better way to show best results rather than the table? O for Awesome (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit unfair to leave out New Zealand ;) 90.211.3.54 (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some user has gone in and removed the men's team performance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.50.38.34 (talk) 09:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was consensus that team's with an equally successful result would be sorted by win percentage (see the discussion "most successful") but yet someone had put India above Pakistan. The rest of the table was consistent. Changed it. Please have the decency to discuss here before it's changed back. 172.254.41.172 (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The women's table is also inconsistent. In short, this article is a mess because some people with the mentality of 5 year old's keep making edits. Note: I actually disagree with the consensus that was reached (I think we should have infinite tie-breakers -- so West Indies should be listed higher than India due to their semi-final finish), but I accept that that's not what was concluded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.254.41.172 (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gender Balance?

This article deals exclusively with the men’s tournament, the women’s tournament is run under the same name and at the same venues etc. The article needs a complete re-write to reflect the women’s tournament as well as the men’s tournament. I shall make a start soon but some help would be very much appreciated.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overview section

I have removed as there is a need to provide a source for this other wise it is just original research and Synthesis of published material. LGA talkedits 06:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not my intention to disrupt or inflame, but I don't believe that merely counting games/titles (not "ranking") really qualifies as OR or SYNTHESIS. I would call blanking large amounts of uncontroversial content disruptive, however. (Are you challenging the material's accuracy?) I'd suggest you take this up at WP:Wikiproject Cricket and see what they have to say, as tables like this are commonplace throughout the project. Woodshed (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I contend that what WP editors have produced is some form of T20 ranking that no other RS's have before. To lessen that appearance I have re-ordered the table alphabetically and have added maintenance templates highlighting the lack of sourcing. LGA talkedits 09:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ICC does not designate "places"

It seems that the rankings on this page have been ordered into places going from 1st to last. This is extremely unneccessary and inappropriate seeing as ICC tournaments do not have third place matches etc. We can see this at the FIFA World Cup where a match between the losing semi finalists is held to deem a nation third and fourth. One of the beauties of world tournaments is that success is based off of what you can survive. Can X nation survive the first round? How about the next? Can they possibly survive the knockout and take the trophy home! Seeing as this is how the ICC holds major events I would like a consensus to order the "placements" based on what round a nation achieves instead of butchering the system and devising our own rankings for the game. How 'bout it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatsoratchet (talk • contribs) 22:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "team results" table needs to change. In the tournaments played so far teams that make the semi-final don't then play a further 3rd/4th position play-off. Similarly teams who don't make it out of initial rounds don't play positional play-offs. In line with the actual tournaments, rather than the preferred models of page editors, the teams result table should be changed to: Winner, Runner-up, Semi-finalist, R2, R1 etc. depending on the format of the actual tournaments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.203.153 (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Host results

No need of host results separately as they were already mentioned in "Team results by tournament" section. Also, mentioned "^=host" in best result column of "Summary of all teams in all tournaments" section which is not needed, as it conveys only the best result like in world cup page of 50 over format.

The results of hosts nations and the defending champions are teams that are followed closely in every tournament therefore there is and there needs to be much more emphasis on these teams. The "Team results by tournament" sections does not emphasize this, it is merely a summary on the the performance of each team throughout the history of the tournament. As per the "^=host" sometimes the best result come at the home tournament, such as South Africa in 2007, England in 2007 and Sri Lanka in 2012, and there will be more in the future. Furthermore on that topic, by reverting under the point of removing the "Results of host nations" we end up losing other information as well.--Blackknight12 (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do respect your view, i've reverted back. but i didn't mean to remove the table. Only thing i suggest is "Summary of all teams in all tournaments" doesn't require "^=host" tag as the host country table now exists. There you only mention winner or runner up or group stage so no room for host tag again.
Also, can you explain "‡ - the best result at the time of the competition (improved later)."
The tags "†" "‡" are confusing just keep it simple. Simple records are enough so keep the table but remove these tags.
Thank you Vin09 (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your cooperation. The host tag is only an asterisk (*) there doesn't need to be a separate section for that. The "†" "‡" tags mark extra notes about the performance of the team over time. They are important to the table as in the future there will be teams that win multiple times. Just a note cricket tournament articles are of very poor quality here on wikipedia, as opposed to football and rugby tournaments. In my opinion ICC World Twenty20 and 2014 ICC World Twenty20 are up to a good standard now, so I suggest not to always use other cricket tournament articles as reference points to improving these. Thanks--Blackknight12 (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2016

Regarding format its no longer super 8 now it's super 10 from 2014

117.228.89.7 (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)  Done. Thanks for pointing that out. IgnorantArmies (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2016

Performance of the teams appearances of all team except UAE KEN a d Oman should be increased like SL Ind PAK 6 not 5 if 2016 included

117.229.124.110 (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2016

performance of temas change appearence

116.72.18.49 (talk) 07:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Looking okay.--Vin09 (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2016

ind pak srilanka all have 6th apperances please change 6 from 5 in performance of teams 59.185.103.72 (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

whhy not change no. of apperances

59.185.103.72 (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@59.185.103.72: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 11:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2016

in result summary afganustan has 4 appearences not 5 116.74.110.24 (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@116.74.110.24: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 11:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2016

performance of teams Afghanistan appearances -it was mentioned 5 but actually it is 4 (2010,12,14,16) 60.254.121.231 (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. clpo13(talk) 18:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2016

change lasith malinga to SHAHid afrdi in most wickets (39) 116.73.212.179 (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. clpo13(talk) 18:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2016

Performance of teams no.of appearances mentioned for Afghanistan is 5 but in actual it is 4. Please. Correct it .2010 2012 2014 &2016 are 4 appearances

117.229.14.99 (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Vin09 (talk) 06:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2016

India exit in SF of WT20 2016 Saurabhsingh0408 (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Terra ❤ 15:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2016

The last sentence of the second paragraph says "The fifth tournament, 2014 ICC World Twenty20, was hosted by Bangladesh, and was won by Sri Lanka, who became the first team to play in three finals." This is incomplete and should be edited to the following: " The fifth tournament, 2014 ICC World Twenty20 was hosted by Bangladesh. Sri Lanka won the tournament by beating India in Dhaka, and also became the first team to play in three finals." [1]

Rpluss (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: - If Sri Lanka won the tournament, they beat all the other teams. Why should the article mention that they beat specifically just one of the other teams? fredgandt 21:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.espncricinfo.com/world-t20/engine/match/682965.html

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2016

Hi. I'd like to cite a reference as to why the next world cup is scheduled four years from now. The explanation is found at www.quora.com/Why-is-the-next-T20-World-Cup-scheduled-for-2020-rather-than-2018 Please consider adding this, as it would benefit fellow cricket lovers.Asgowrisankar (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
I don't feel that the self published opinion expressed in the link you provided should be used as a reference. If you can provide a reliable reference stating why there's a four year gap, feel free to reopen this edit request by changing answered=yes to answered=no in the request template, and provide the new reference. fredgandt 21:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2016

Please change: "Soon after with the adoption of Twenty20 matches by other cricket boards, the popularity of the format grew with unexpected crowd attendance, new regional tournaments such as Pakistan's Faysal Bank T20 Cup and Stanford 20/20 tournament and the financial incentive in the format."

To: "Soon after with the adoption of Twenty20 matches by other cricket boards such as India's Indian Premier League, Australia's Big Bash League, Pakistan's Faysal Bank T20 Cup and Stanford 20/20 tournament, the popularity of the format grew with unexpected crowd attendance."

The reason being: 1. There was a grammatical error and the paragraph seems to lack continuity. 2. The list should undoubtedly include the biggest T20 Cricket Leagues in terms of gross brand value, viewership and global popularity.

Shivangmbhatt (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC) SB[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
Since the current statement is unreferenced, any change should definitely be backed up by a reliable source. Without a reliable source, the statement as it is may be subject to deletion. Please feel free to reopen the request when you can provide a suitable source, by changing answered=yes to answered=no in the request template. fredgandt 21:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ICC World Twenty20. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 20:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ICC World Twenty20. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 02:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:ICC_Men%27s_T20_World_Cup/Archive_1"