This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Why arent we allocating Wales to the list of host nations if we continually keep saying the 1999 and 2003 were given a myriad of nations when the main hosts were England and South Africa and for pure marketing, media and other purposes was called England 99 and South Africa 2003? If we are going to be silly by listing all nations the 1983's should have Wales and the 2003 2015 Rugby World Cup should be Wales, England, Scotland, France 1999 then Wales and England 2015? It is pedantic and ridiculous plus clutters up the boxes with too many flags and listed nations. Just place a NOTE and stating "multiple venues in..." instead.-- Auxodium II ( talk) 18:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the rankings, can't we interactively act with the official ICC website so that rankings get updated automatically? SheikhAzizulHakim ( talk) 14:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Having added a load of information on fixtures today, I have realised that the linked reports state that the fixtures still need to be approved by the main ICC board. There is nothing on the ICC website about this either. Should the fixtures be deleted as WP:CRYSTAL until an official announcement is made? From cricinfo :"...the schedule, were approved by the ICC' chief executives committee (CEC) during the ICC's quarterly meetings on Monday and Tuesday. The ICC Board, which meets on Thursday, is yet to ratify the CEC's decisions." Spike 'em ( talk) 11:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
136.2.16.184 ( talk) 17:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2019 Cricket World Cup has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Points table has already divided in 2 groups, which is not correct. 136.2.16.184 ( talk) 17:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Do we really need 2 tables showing the same information? The only difference seems to be that 1 has the number of matches, the other a fairly unhelpful photo. Spike 'em ( talk) 13:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Just because other articles fail to follow clear guidelines, it does not mean it has to be accepted here. Please explain why WP:DUPLINK and WP:OVERLINK don't apply to this article. Please try to avoid WP:OTHER and show some clear discussion which lead to a consensus to ignore these guidelines. There is no discussion of this on the 2015 article, so please tell me where it is. Spike 'em ( talk) 19:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
It says "Worst world cup ever" for some reason. How do we change that? Linkiscool99 ( talk) 10:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved per snowball clause . Also see Talk:2015 Cricket World Cup/Archive 1#Requested move. ( closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
2019 Cricket World Cup → 2019 ICC Cricket World Cup – This is the official name of the tournament and I just do not understand why we have to use the term “2019 Cricket World Cup” to indude the ICC within the title as the main title when other articles use the official name of the tournament ie “2018 FIFA World Cup” so why not “2019 ICC Cricket World Cup 2A02:C7F:5622:2000:E583:FB32:ED78:ED8E ( talk) 11:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't "Teams that do pass the league stage" read "do not"?
Although see www.icc-cricket.com/media-releases/1221724 "do not" makes more sense? As teams 5 through 10 (6 teams) wouldn't be known until 1 through 4 qualify for the semi final? I think the ICC web page is wrongly worded!
Sorry very new to this - I believe I have just corroborated your statement - it's best to keep to the facts!
This
edit request to
2019 Cricket World Cup has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Zimbabwe despite hosting the qualifying tournament failed to reach the final and will miss the World Cup for the first time since 1983." to "Zimbabwe who hosted the qualifying tournament failed to reach the final and will miss the World Cup for the first time since 1983." 117.198.247.103 ( talk) 19:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Why to mention about the political incident of Pulwama? if you include this then there are several incidents related to the worldcup. This is yet another cheap attempt to defame Pakistan. This is also against the ethics of ICC. Further International hockey already accused India of associating political matters with sports by not issuing visa to players. Hammad ( talk) 14:11, 07 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.114.67 ( talk)
I can't find anything in the article about
...unless I haven't read closely enough. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2019 Cricket World Cup has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Separate to, but linked with previous: add an edit-notice (i.e. Template:Livescores editnotice) for the remaining duration of the event. 107.190.33.254 ( talk) 13:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The 'potential venues' is limited to test/ODI stadia but shouldn't it be expanded? Last time England hosted it I think all 18 county grounds plus venues in Scotland, Ireland and Holland were used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Villafancd ( talk • contribs) 09:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
As we see the matches are are not played due to rain so you could change venue where there is no rain in England only Pavan1224 ( talk) 05:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
"Innings break" is not a proper result (and in any case it ceases to be accurate only a few minutes after being added...); also editors should refrain from adding live scores in any case; this has been discussed and resolved for football, see Template:Editnotices/Page/2019 FIFA Women's World Cup - the same should apply for cricket or any other sport, really. 107.190.33.254 ( talk) 13:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Discussion at WT:CRIC#Live scores started, so see there for wider comments Spike 'em ( talk) 14:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
For the love of organisation, someone please put a cross table in there that shows which teams have already played which team and the results, akin to this :
/info/en/?search=2018%E2%80%9319_Premier_League#Results — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.48.4.222 ( talk) 19:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Pos | Player | Pld | W | D | L | Pts | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Australia | 8 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 14 | — | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||
2 | India | 8 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 2 | — | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||
3 | England | 9 | 6 | 0 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 2 | — | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
4 | New Zealand | 9 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 1 | 0 | — | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
5 | Pakistan | 8 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | — | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | ||
6 | Sri Lanka | 8 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | — | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | ||
7 | Bangladesh | 8 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | — | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||
8 | South Africa | 8 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | — | 1 | 2 | ||
9 | West Indies | 8 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | — | ||
10 | Afghanistan | 8 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
^^ Here we go. In fact if I can NRR in, it could replace the main table. Adpete ( talk) 11:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Who is the highest wicket taker in in worldcup 2019 ? Mrtiwary01 ( talk) 17:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
On what basis are the sections ordered? After "Tournament summary" section, there is "Warm-up matches" and then again a "Group stage" section which describes the format of the tournament. Totally illogical. 2402:3A80:CD2:EE03:5463:85B1:1A81:52B8 ( talk) 15:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
So I have slowly being working on the summary for the tournament as we are having this tournament. So my question is do you want to have a tournament summary for this page for people who doesn't want to look through every scorecard. HawkAussie ( talk) 06:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Bangladesh MD-Razu Khan ( talk) 22:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Bangladesh can't place in Qualification table!!!!!! Padmanabha Dhala ( talk) 03:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
The "Group stage" weekly summaries are very arbitrary - some matches are mentioned, other are not. Instead, all verbal game summaries should be moved to 2019 Cricket World Cup group stage. Once the group stage is complete, this could be replace by a 1-2 paragraph summary of the entire group stage (Australia did well, SAF did unexpectedly poorly, etc). Adpete ( talk) 04:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2019 Cricket World Cup has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
103.118.79.106 ( talk) 05:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Broadcast Partner in Bangladesh Maasranga Television
Isn't it still possible for Sri Lanka to climb to 4th place if the following unlikely combination of results all occur?
Sri Lanka have 2 more big wins, improving their RR above England, and their points to 10.
England lose to NZ, staying at 10.
Bangladesh lose to Australia, and then beat Pakistan. This leaves both Bangladesh and Pakistan on 9 points.
(There are actually other less likely combinations involving ties or rained off games to let Sri Lanka through.)
I haven't worked out how to edit the table to say Sri Lanka are not (yet) eliminated. It says they are already eliminated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holland jon ( talk • contribs) 09:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
The textbox under the picture of Joe Root says he got the first century of the tournament against Sri Lanka which contradicts the prose (and more importantly reality) which says it was against Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.169.10 ( talk) 12:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Has anyone got any photos that they took from the 2019 Cricket World Cup that could possibly be added to the article. HawkAussie ( talk) 01:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2019 Cricket World Cup has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
David Warner’s average is 79.75, not 71, as he has been dismissed only 8 times (not out vs Afghanistan), therefore his average would be 638/8 which is 79.75. Please correct it Wyrden14 ( talk) 09:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Why is it mentioned in the lead? It is misleading and can have people thinking that Australia won the 2019 edition and are the defending champions. You can add it after the tournament ends as "Australia entered the tournament as the defending champions and finished runners-up/semifinalists/defended their title." 117.213.163.106 ( talk) 11:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2019 Cricket World Cup has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change spelling error 'cruse' to 'cruise' in Semi-Finals section. the English would cruse home to a eight wicket victory Beaker511 ( talk) 19:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
References
Is one over of bad umpire decisions a controversy? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me
The page states that this is the fifth time that the Cricket World Cup has taken place in England and Wales, listing all the times it was held in England. Surely it should say that it's the 3rd time it has taken place in England and Wales, but only the second time both countries have hosted it together? Twadebarcelona ( talk) 15:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
How do people feel about a lead with more about the tournament and less about the organisation? There has been a lot of to-and-fro over referencing the text about Associate Nations and full member nations, but in my opinion it doesn't belong in the lead at all, because WP:LEAD says "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents", and I don't think the fine details of associate and non-associate member are the most important contents. For the same reason, I think all 4 semi-finalists should be named. Here is my suggested edit: [2]. Adpete ( talk) 12:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2019 Cricket World Cup has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Reliable source (1): https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2019/07/15/earth-did-england-win-world-cup-final-fine-margins-umpire-error/
Reliable source (2): https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/cricket-world-cup/114259984/cricket-world-cup-final-from-a-top-exumpire-england-should-only-have-got-five-runs-not-six-after-that-overthrow
Request change as detailed below, as the detail as it stands makes specific reference to the actual act, with no reference to post-match expert analysis which bears directly on the runs awarded. Given its significance, the analysis should therefore be included for context.
Original:
After New Zealand won the toss and chose to bat first, Henry Nicholls' first half-century of the tournament and a further 47 from wicket-keeper Tom Latham helped the Kiwis to a total of 241/8 from their 50 overs, as Chris Woakes and Liam Plunkett each secured three wickets for the hosts. [1] Defending a middling score, the New Zealand bowlers bowled effectively, hampering England's top order, with only Jonny Bairstow managing more than a start with 36. With the loss of their top order, England fell to 86/4 in the 24th over; however, a century partnership between Ben Stokes and Jos Buttler for the fifth wicket got them back into the game before Buttler was caught. But with five overs to play, England still required another 46 runs and the bottom order were forced to bat more aggressively. Stokes managed to farm the strike and, more crucially, score runs, leaving England needing 15 to win from the final over, two wickets still in hand. After two dot balls, Stokes first planted a six into the stands at deep mid-wicket, before a deflection off his bat as he was coming back for two that would go to the boundary for an additional four. The final two deliveries went for a run each, but England lost their last two wickets going for a second run each time. With the scores tied at 241, the match went to a Super Over. England returned Stokes and Buttler to the crease, and they handled Trent Boult's bowling to accumulate 15 runs without loss. For New Zealand, Martin Guptill and James Neesham went up to face Jofra Archer needing at least 16 runs to claim the title. Archer's over started badly, beginning with a wide, and a steady accumulation of runs along with a six left New Zealand needing two from the final delivery. Guptill hit the ball out to deep mid-wicket and tried to scamper back for the winning run, but Roy's throw in to Buttler was a good one, and Guptill was run out well short of his crease. New Zealand finished with 15 runs, the Super Over tied, but England's superior boundary count (26 to New Zealand's 17) meant they claimed the World Cup title for the first time after three previous final defeats. [2]
References
Suggested change:
After New Zealand won the toss and chose to bat first, Henry Nicholls' first half-century of the tournament and a further 47 from wicket-keeper Tom Latham helped the Kiwis to a total of 241/8 from their 50 overs, as Chris Woakes and Liam Plunkett each secured three wickets for the hosts. [1] Defending a middling score, the New Zealand bowlers bowled effectively, hampering England's top order, with only Jonny Bairstow managing more than a start with 36. With the loss of their top order, England fell to 86/4 in the 24th over; however, a century partnership between Ben Stokes and Jos Buttler for the fifth wicket got them back into the game before Buttler was caught. But with five overs to play, England still required another 46 runs and the bottom order were forced to bat more aggressively. Stokes managed to farm the strike and, more crucially, score runs, leaving England needing 15 to win from the final over, two wickets still in hand. After two dot balls, Stokes first planted a six into the stands at deep mid-wicket, before a deflection off his bat as he was coming back for two that would go to the boundary for an additional four.
(Insert): Former leading umpire Simon Taufel has confirmed that England should only have been awarded five runs – not six – as a result of the deflection off that fourth ball of the final over, but the International Cricket Council is leaving matters as they finished on the pitch. Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2019/07/15/earth-did-england-win-world-cup-final-fine-margins-umpire-error/
The final two deliveries went for a run each, but England lost their last two wickets going for a second run each time. With the scores tied at 241, the match went to a Super Over. England returned Stokes and Buttler to the crease, and they handled Trent Boult's bowling to accumulate 15 runs without loss. For New Zealand, Martin Guptill and James Neesham went up to face Jofra Archer needing at least 16 runs to claim the title. Archer's over started badly, beginning with a wide, and a steady accumulation of runs along with a six left New Zealand needing two from the final delivery. Guptill hit the ball out to deep mid-wicket and tried to scamper back for the winning run, but Roy's throw in to Buttler was a good one, and Guptill was run out well short of his crease. New Zealand finished with 15 runs, the Super Over tied, but England's superior boundary count (26 to New Zealand's 17) meant they claimed the World Cup title for the first time after three previous final defeats. [2]
Mauri mahi mauri ora ( talk) 01:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC) Mauri mahi mauri ora ( talk) 01:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Taufel is a member of the ICC committee that oversees cricket's rulebook so his standing is current and relevant. But what he does is shine a light on the rule. If he is disregarded, look at the rule itself. "Rule 19.8: Overthrow or wilful act of fielder. If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be — any runs for penalties awarded to either side — and the allowance for the boundary — and the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress *** if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act ***." It is what it is - simply factual. The current read: "before a deflection off his bat as he was coming back for two that would go to the boundary for an additional four" ought to be put in proper balanced context, if a fair and accurate record is a priority. Mauri mahi mauri ora ( talk) 02:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
|answered=no I'm not sure if I've re-opened the request successfully, I'm a novice, but quite right TandemTriumphans. No one's blaming England but if the article sees fit to speak to the shot, the deflection, and the runs coming from it, for sake of completeness the scale of the umpiring error deserves a mention too. The trophy actually came down to zero runs. As it stands, Wiki is looking like a biased page that's scared of the truth of the matter. Can someone do the right thing by the facts? Mauri mahi mauri ora ( talk) 22:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
References
Hi HawkAussie, comments from the copyedit will go here.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ianblair23 ( talk · contribs) 11:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
with both teams scoring 241add runs
Ireland also missed the competition for the first time since 2003link 2003 Cricket World Cup
The top four teams from the group stage progressed to the knockout stage. If teams were tied on points, then the number of wins and then the net run rate was used to separate them.add ref
A similar format was previously used in the 1992 Cricket World Cup, though that tournament featured nine teams instead of ten.add this ref
the West Indies bowled out Pakistan for just 105add the lowest completed innings score of the tournament ( ref)
At the Oval, in the fifth match of the group stage→ The Oval
as South Africa fell short by 21 runstechnically South Africa fell short [of their target] by 22 runs but they lost by 21 runs.
The following day saw Pakistan cause an upset over one of the tournament favourites, as they beat England by 14 runs at Trent Bridge. This was despite Joe Root (107) and Jos Buttler (103) both scoring centuries in the chase, as they became the first and second batsmen to score hundreds at the tournaments.add that England became the first team in World Cup history to lose despite having two century-makers. [6] also add this ref which explicitly lists Root and Buttler as the first two to score a century in this World Cup.
Sri Lanka got off to a good start in their game against Afghanistan in Cardiff, reaching 144/1 in the 21st over. This was before three wickets in five balls from Mohammad Nabi provided the catalyst for a collapse that saw Sri Lanka bowled out for 201. Kusal Perera top-scored for Sri Lanka with 78, while Nabi took another wicket to finish with four for the innings. Rain reduced Afghanistan's innings to 41 overs, but by the 14th over, they had already fallen to 57/5. A partnership of 64 from Najibullah Zadran (who top-scored with 43) and Gulbadin Naib steadied the innings for Afghanistan, but it was not enough, with Nuwan Pradeep taking two quick wickets as Afghanistan fell 34 runs short of their revised target.At five sentences long, this is longest summary for any match in the group stage. Suggest trimming this one back.
the Black Caps went from 160/2 to 191/5 chasing 244New Zealand's target was 245
with Australia having an early batting collapse to fall to 38/4 early in their innings against the West Indiesearly is mentioned twice, suggest removing the first
In Taunton, a five-wicket haul from Kiwi bowler James Neeshamadd it was his maiden ODI five-wicket haul [7]
In the run chase, Australia were behind the required run rate for much of their innings, despite half-centuries from David Warner, Steve Smith and Alex Carey, and were bowled out for 316, Bhuvneshwar Kumar and Jasprit Bumrah taking three wickets each.Split this long sentence.
after going off after the eighth over→ after leaving the field in the eighth over
This was thanks to a century from Bangladeshi all-rounder Shakib Al Hasan, who scored 124 from 99 balls as they chased down the target of 322. In the West Indies' innings, Shai Hope top-scored with 96 runs from 121 balls as he and Evin Lewis (70) got the West Indies to 321/8 from their 50 overs.Reverse these sentences as the West Indies batted first and also add that this was Bangladesh's highest successful run chase in ODIs and that this was the second highest successful run chase in World Cup history
leading the hosts to a total of 397/6, the highest total of the tournament so farremove 'so far' as it ended up being the highest [8]
Hashmatullah Shahidi managed 76 in response for Afghanistan, but they were always behind the required rate and fell 150 runs short, managing 247 from their 50 overs.Afghanistan fell 151 runs short of their target for victory and move ref 68 to the end of this sentence.
Week four saw David Warner score 166, aided by a score of 89 from Usman Khawaja in Nottingham. Australia's total of 381/5 proved out of reach for Bangladesh, despite Mahmudullah and Mushfiqur Rahim getting them within 48 runs of the target.Expand on this to included that Warner's 166 was the highest individual innings of the tournament [9]; that Bangladesh's 333/8 was their new highest total in ODIs surpassing the record they set against South Africa 18 days earlier; [10] and that the 714 runs scored is the highest match aggregate in a World Cup match. [11]
Stokes, who was left stranded on 82*replace asterisk with 'not out'
England fell 20 short all out21 runs short
saw Afghanistan fall 11 runs short12 runs short
within five runs of the targetsix runs
caught by Trent Boult at long onlink Fielding (cricket)#Fielding position names and locations
as New Zealand won by only five runsremove 'only'
The fifth week of the tournament started with India demolishing'demolishing' is peacock term
out for only 143remove 'only'
Starc became the first player to get three five-wicket hauls at a World Cup→ Starc became the first player to take three five-wicket hauls at the World Cup and link to List of Cricket World Cup five-wicket hauls
before a century partnership between Khawaja and CareyUsman Khawaja and Alex Carey
New Zealand managed just 157remove 'just'
saw Afghanistan set 228 against Pakistan227 [12]
Pakistan home to a three-wicket victory with only two balls to spareremove 'only'
Despite Bangladesh losing the match, Shakib Al Hasan finished his tournament with 606 runs, surpassing Sachin Tendulkar's record for the most runs in the group stage of a World Cup. Shakib's record would very soon be surpassed by Rohit Sharma and David Warner by the end of the group stage, with former top-scoring in the group stage with 647 runsRef 79 needs to move to end of the first sentence and this ref needs to be added to end of the second sentence.
India cruised to a seven-wicket victory over Sri Lanka off the back of centuries from K. L. Rahul and Rohit Sharma as they chased down a target of 265 runs with seven wickets to spare.'seven wickets to spare' is redundant
Angelo Mathews scored his third ODI century for Sri Lanka, all of which had come against India.this is not supported by ref 91. But this ref does
India finished topfirst or top of the table
the victory by only 10 runsredundant
All times are in British Summer Time (UTC+01:00)no times are listed
If any match ended in a tie, a Super Over would be used to determine the winner; each team would select three batsmen and a bowler, with the full team available to field. There would be no penalty for the loss of a wicket, but the loss of two wickets would end the Super Over. If the scores in the Super Over were also tied, the winner would be determined by the two teams' overall boundary count, including both the match itself and the Super Overthis is not supported by ref 95.
85 off just 65 ballsremove 'just'
After two dot ballslink Glossary of cricket terms#D
despite the Laws of CricketLaws of Cricket should be in italics
Stokes left unbeaten with 84*remove asterisk
Shakib Al Hasan (pictured in 2009) became the only cricketer in the World Cup history with 600 runs and 10 wickets.specify that this was in a single World Cup. But to a wider point, the image is included in the Week 5 paragraph which is where he broke 500 runs. So reader as I went down it mentions 600 which I thought was an error. It is not until you reach the Week 6 paragraph that you find that he actually scored 600 runs. So I suggest that the caption is changed to list 500 runs or move it down to the Week 6 paragraph.
@ Ianblair23: Right I have gone through and done the modifications as you suggested but I have left out some of those thoughts.
Hi HawkAussie, thanks for making these changes. Please see my review below:
This
edit request to
2019 Cricket World Cup has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Chris Gayle had two overturned decisions go his way before he was dismissed." should be amended to "Chris Gayle had two overturned decisions go his way before he was dismissed of an umpiring error when a no-ball the previous delivery by Mitchell Starc was missed by the on-field umpire." 108.31.96.111 ( talk) 05:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/icc-cricket-world-cup-2019-1144415/australia-vs-west-indies-10th-match-1144492/ball-by-ball-commentary Anubhab030119 ( talk) 19:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Check out at 10.3 overs...I hope cricinfo is a relaible enough source for you. Anubhab030119 ( talk) 19:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Why arent we allocating Wales to the list of host nations if we continually keep saying the 1999 and 2003 were given a myriad of nations when the main hosts were England and South Africa and for pure marketing, media and other purposes was called England 99 and South Africa 2003? If we are going to be silly by listing all nations the 1983's should have Wales and the 2003 2015 Rugby World Cup should be Wales, England, Scotland, France 1999 then Wales and England 2015? It is pedantic and ridiculous plus clutters up the boxes with too many flags and listed nations. Just place a NOTE and stating "multiple venues in..." instead.-- Auxodium II ( talk) 18:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the rankings, can't we interactively act with the official ICC website so that rankings get updated automatically? SheikhAzizulHakim ( talk) 14:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Having added a load of information on fixtures today, I have realised that the linked reports state that the fixtures still need to be approved by the main ICC board. There is nothing on the ICC website about this either. Should the fixtures be deleted as WP:CRYSTAL until an official announcement is made? From cricinfo :"...the schedule, were approved by the ICC' chief executives committee (CEC) during the ICC's quarterly meetings on Monday and Tuesday. The ICC Board, which meets on Thursday, is yet to ratify the CEC's decisions." Spike 'em ( talk) 11:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
136.2.16.184 ( talk) 17:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2019 Cricket World Cup has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Points table has already divided in 2 groups, which is not correct. 136.2.16.184 ( talk) 17:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Do we really need 2 tables showing the same information? The only difference seems to be that 1 has the number of matches, the other a fairly unhelpful photo. Spike 'em ( talk) 13:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Just because other articles fail to follow clear guidelines, it does not mean it has to be accepted here. Please explain why WP:DUPLINK and WP:OVERLINK don't apply to this article. Please try to avoid WP:OTHER and show some clear discussion which lead to a consensus to ignore these guidelines. There is no discussion of this on the 2015 article, so please tell me where it is. Spike 'em ( talk) 19:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
It says "Worst world cup ever" for some reason. How do we change that? Linkiscool99 ( talk) 10:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved per snowball clause . Also see Talk:2015 Cricket World Cup/Archive 1#Requested move. ( closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
2019 Cricket World Cup → 2019 ICC Cricket World Cup – This is the official name of the tournament and I just do not understand why we have to use the term “2019 Cricket World Cup” to indude the ICC within the title as the main title when other articles use the official name of the tournament ie “2018 FIFA World Cup” so why not “2019 ICC Cricket World Cup 2A02:C7F:5622:2000:E583:FB32:ED78:ED8E ( talk) 11:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't "Teams that do pass the league stage" read "do not"?
Although see www.icc-cricket.com/media-releases/1221724 "do not" makes more sense? As teams 5 through 10 (6 teams) wouldn't be known until 1 through 4 qualify for the semi final? I think the ICC web page is wrongly worded!
Sorry very new to this - I believe I have just corroborated your statement - it's best to keep to the facts!
This
edit request to
2019 Cricket World Cup has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Zimbabwe despite hosting the qualifying tournament failed to reach the final and will miss the World Cup for the first time since 1983." to "Zimbabwe who hosted the qualifying tournament failed to reach the final and will miss the World Cup for the first time since 1983." 117.198.247.103 ( talk) 19:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Why to mention about the political incident of Pulwama? if you include this then there are several incidents related to the worldcup. This is yet another cheap attempt to defame Pakistan. This is also against the ethics of ICC. Further International hockey already accused India of associating political matters with sports by not issuing visa to players. Hammad ( talk) 14:11, 07 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.114.67 ( talk)
I can't find anything in the article about
...unless I haven't read closely enough. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2019 Cricket World Cup has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Separate to, but linked with previous: add an edit-notice (i.e. Template:Livescores editnotice) for the remaining duration of the event. 107.190.33.254 ( talk) 13:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The 'potential venues' is limited to test/ODI stadia but shouldn't it be expanded? Last time England hosted it I think all 18 county grounds plus venues in Scotland, Ireland and Holland were used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Villafancd ( talk • contribs) 09:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
As we see the matches are are not played due to rain so you could change venue where there is no rain in England only Pavan1224 ( talk) 05:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
"Innings break" is not a proper result (and in any case it ceases to be accurate only a few minutes after being added...); also editors should refrain from adding live scores in any case; this has been discussed and resolved for football, see Template:Editnotices/Page/2019 FIFA Women's World Cup - the same should apply for cricket or any other sport, really. 107.190.33.254 ( talk) 13:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Discussion at WT:CRIC#Live scores started, so see there for wider comments Spike 'em ( talk) 14:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
For the love of organisation, someone please put a cross table in there that shows which teams have already played which team and the results, akin to this :
/info/en/?search=2018%E2%80%9319_Premier_League#Results — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.48.4.222 ( talk) 19:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Pos | Player | Pld | W | D | L | Pts | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Australia | 8 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 14 | — | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||
2 | India | 8 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 2 | — | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||
3 | England | 9 | 6 | 0 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 2 | — | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
4 | New Zealand | 9 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 1 | 0 | — | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
5 | Pakistan | 8 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | — | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | ||
6 | Sri Lanka | 8 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | — | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | ||
7 | Bangladesh | 8 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | — | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||
8 | South Africa | 8 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | — | 1 | 2 | ||
9 | West Indies | 8 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | — | ||
10 | Afghanistan | 8 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
^^ Here we go. In fact if I can NRR in, it could replace the main table. Adpete ( talk) 11:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Who is the highest wicket taker in in worldcup 2019 ? Mrtiwary01 ( talk) 17:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
On what basis are the sections ordered? After "Tournament summary" section, there is "Warm-up matches" and then again a "Group stage" section which describes the format of the tournament. Totally illogical. 2402:3A80:CD2:EE03:5463:85B1:1A81:52B8 ( talk) 15:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
So I have slowly being working on the summary for the tournament as we are having this tournament. So my question is do you want to have a tournament summary for this page for people who doesn't want to look through every scorecard. HawkAussie ( talk) 06:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Bangladesh MD-Razu Khan ( talk) 22:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Bangladesh can't place in Qualification table!!!!!! Padmanabha Dhala ( talk) 03:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
The "Group stage" weekly summaries are very arbitrary - some matches are mentioned, other are not. Instead, all verbal game summaries should be moved to 2019 Cricket World Cup group stage. Once the group stage is complete, this could be replace by a 1-2 paragraph summary of the entire group stage (Australia did well, SAF did unexpectedly poorly, etc). Adpete ( talk) 04:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2019 Cricket World Cup has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
103.118.79.106 ( talk) 05:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Broadcast Partner in Bangladesh Maasranga Television
Isn't it still possible for Sri Lanka to climb to 4th place if the following unlikely combination of results all occur?
Sri Lanka have 2 more big wins, improving their RR above England, and their points to 10.
England lose to NZ, staying at 10.
Bangladesh lose to Australia, and then beat Pakistan. This leaves both Bangladesh and Pakistan on 9 points.
(There are actually other less likely combinations involving ties or rained off games to let Sri Lanka through.)
I haven't worked out how to edit the table to say Sri Lanka are not (yet) eliminated. It says they are already eliminated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holland jon ( talk • contribs) 09:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
The textbox under the picture of Joe Root says he got the first century of the tournament against Sri Lanka which contradicts the prose (and more importantly reality) which says it was against Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.169.10 ( talk) 12:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Has anyone got any photos that they took from the 2019 Cricket World Cup that could possibly be added to the article. HawkAussie ( talk) 01:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2019 Cricket World Cup has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
David Warner’s average is 79.75, not 71, as he has been dismissed only 8 times (not out vs Afghanistan), therefore his average would be 638/8 which is 79.75. Please correct it Wyrden14 ( talk) 09:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Why is it mentioned in the lead? It is misleading and can have people thinking that Australia won the 2019 edition and are the defending champions. You can add it after the tournament ends as "Australia entered the tournament as the defending champions and finished runners-up/semifinalists/defended their title." 117.213.163.106 ( talk) 11:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2019 Cricket World Cup has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change spelling error 'cruse' to 'cruise' in Semi-Finals section. the English would cruse home to a eight wicket victory Beaker511 ( talk) 19:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
References
Is one over of bad umpire decisions a controversy? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me
The page states that this is the fifth time that the Cricket World Cup has taken place in England and Wales, listing all the times it was held in England. Surely it should say that it's the 3rd time it has taken place in England and Wales, but only the second time both countries have hosted it together? Twadebarcelona ( talk) 15:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
How do people feel about a lead with more about the tournament and less about the organisation? There has been a lot of to-and-fro over referencing the text about Associate Nations and full member nations, but in my opinion it doesn't belong in the lead at all, because WP:LEAD says "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents", and I don't think the fine details of associate and non-associate member are the most important contents. For the same reason, I think all 4 semi-finalists should be named. Here is my suggested edit: [2]. Adpete ( talk) 12:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2019 Cricket World Cup has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Reliable source (1): https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2019/07/15/earth-did-england-win-world-cup-final-fine-margins-umpire-error/
Reliable source (2): https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/cricket-world-cup/114259984/cricket-world-cup-final-from-a-top-exumpire-england-should-only-have-got-five-runs-not-six-after-that-overthrow
Request change as detailed below, as the detail as it stands makes specific reference to the actual act, with no reference to post-match expert analysis which bears directly on the runs awarded. Given its significance, the analysis should therefore be included for context.
Original:
After New Zealand won the toss and chose to bat first, Henry Nicholls' first half-century of the tournament and a further 47 from wicket-keeper Tom Latham helped the Kiwis to a total of 241/8 from their 50 overs, as Chris Woakes and Liam Plunkett each secured three wickets for the hosts. [1] Defending a middling score, the New Zealand bowlers bowled effectively, hampering England's top order, with only Jonny Bairstow managing more than a start with 36. With the loss of their top order, England fell to 86/4 in the 24th over; however, a century partnership between Ben Stokes and Jos Buttler for the fifth wicket got them back into the game before Buttler was caught. But with five overs to play, England still required another 46 runs and the bottom order were forced to bat more aggressively. Stokes managed to farm the strike and, more crucially, score runs, leaving England needing 15 to win from the final over, two wickets still in hand. After two dot balls, Stokes first planted a six into the stands at deep mid-wicket, before a deflection off his bat as he was coming back for two that would go to the boundary for an additional four. The final two deliveries went for a run each, but England lost their last two wickets going for a second run each time. With the scores tied at 241, the match went to a Super Over. England returned Stokes and Buttler to the crease, and they handled Trent Boult's bowling to accumulate 15 runs without loss. For New Zealand, Martin Guptill and James Neesham went up to face Jofra Archer needing at least 16 runs to claim the title. Archer's over started badly, beginning with a wide, and a steady accumulation of runs along with a six left New Zealand needing two from the final delivery. Guptill hit the ball out to deep mid-wicket and tried to scamper back for the winning run, but Roy's throw in to Buttler was a good one, and Guptill was run out well short of his crease. New Zealand finished with 15 runs, the Super Over tied, but England's superior boundary count (26 to New Zealand's 17) meant they claimed the World Cup title for the first time after three previous final defeats. [2]
References
Suggested change:
After New Zealand won the toss and chose to bat first, Henry Nicholls' first half-century of the tournament and a further 47 from wicket-keeper Tom Latham helped the Kiwis to a total of 241/8 from their 50 overs, as Chris Woakes and Liam Plunkett each secured three wickets for the hosts. [1] Defending a middling score, the New Zealand bowlers bowled effectively, hampering England's top order, with only Jonny Bairstow managing more than a start with 36. With the loss of their top order, England fell to 86/4 in the 24th over; however, a century partnership between Ben Stokes and Jos Buttler for the fifth wicket got them back into the game before Buttler was caught. But with five overs to play, England still required another 46 runs and the bottom order were forced to bat more aggressively. Stokes managed to farm the strike and, more crucially, score runs, leaving England needing 15 to win from the final over, two wickets still in hand. After two dot balls, Stokes first planted a six into the stands at deep mid-wicket, before a deflection off his bat as he was coming back for two that would go to the boundary for an additional four.
(Insert): Former leading umpire Simon Taufel has confirmed that England should only have been awarded five runs – not six – as a result of the deflection off that fourth ball of the final over, but the International Cricket Council is leaving matters as they finished on the pitch. Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2019/07/15/earth-did-england-win-world-cup-final-fine-margins-umpire-error/
The final two deliveries went for a run each, but England lost their last two wickets going for a second run each time. With the scores tied at 241, the match went to a Super Over. England returned Stokes and Buttler to the crease, and they handled Trent Boult's bowling to accumulate 15 runs without loss. For New Zealand, Martin Guptill and James Neesham went up to face Jofra Archer needing at least 16 runs to claim the title. Archer's over started badly, beginning with a wide, and a steady accumulation of runs along with a six left New Zealand needing two from the final delivery. Guptill hit the ball out to deep mid-wicket and tried to scamper back for the winning run, but Roy's throw in to Buttler was a good one, and Guptill was run out well short of his crease. New Zealand finished with 15 runs, the Super Over tied, but England's superior boundary count (26 to New Zealand's 17) meant they claimed the World Cup title for the first time after three previous final defeats. [2]
Mauri mahi mauri ora ( talk) 01:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC) Mauri mahi mauri ora ( talk) 01:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Taufel is a member of the ICC committee that oversees cricket's rulebook so his standing is current and relevant. But what he does is shine a light on the rule. If he is disregarded, look at the rule itself. "Rule 19.8: Overthrow or wilful act of fielder. If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be — any runs for penalties awarded to either side — and the allowance for the boundary — and the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress *** if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act ***." It is what it is - simply factual. The current read: "before a deflection off his bat as he was coming back for two that would go to the boundary for an additional four" ought to be put in proper balanced context, if a fair and accurate record is a priority. Mauri mahi mauri ora ( talk) 02:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
|answered=no I'm not sure if I've re-opened the request successfully, I'm a novice, but quite right TandemTriumphans. No one's blaming England but if the article sees fit to speak to the shot, the deflection, and the runs coming from it, for sake of completeness the scale of the umpiring error deserves a mention too. The trophy actually came down to zero runs. As it stands, Wiki is looking like a biased page that's scared of the truth of the matter. Can someone do the right thing by the facts? Mauri mahi mauri ora ( talk) 22:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
References
Hi HawkAussie, comments from the copyedit will go here.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ianblair23 ( talk · contribs) 11:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
with both teams scoring 241add runs
Ireland also missed the competition for the first time since 2003link 2003 Cricket World Cup
The top four teams from the group stage progressed to the knockout stage. If teams were tied on points, then the number of wins and then the net run rate was used to separate them.add ref
A similar format was previously used in the 1992 Cricket World Cup, though that tournament featured nine teams instead of ten.add this ref
the West Indies bowled out Pakistan for just 105add the lowest completed innings score of the tournament ( ref)
At the Oval, in the fifth match of the group stage→ The Oval
as South Africa fell short by 21 runstechnically South Africa fell short [of their target] by 22 runs but they lost by 21 runs.
The following day saw Pakistan cause an upset over one of the tournament favourites, as they beat England by 14 runs at Trent Bridge. This was despite Joe Root (107) and Jos Buttler (103) both scoring centuries in the chase, as they became the first and second batsmen to score hundreds at the tournaments.add that England became the first team in World Cup history to lose despite having two century-makers. [6] also add this ref which explicitly lists Root and Buttler as the first two to score a century in this World Cup.
Sri Lanka got off to a good start in their game against Afghanistan in Cardiff, reaching 144/1 in the 21st over. This was before three wickets in five balls from Mohammad Nabi provided the catalyst for a collapse that saw Sri Lanka bowled out for 201. Kusal Perera top-scored for Sri Lanka with 78, while Nabi took another wicket to finish with four for the innings. Rain reduced Afghanistan's innings to 41 overs, but by the 14th over, they had already fallen to 57/5. A partnership of 64 from Najibullah Zadran (who top-scored with 43) and Gulbadin Naib steadied the innings for Afghanistan, but it was not enough, with Nuwan Pradeep taking two quick wickets as Afghanistan fell 34 runs short of their revised target.At five sentences long, this is longest summary for any match in the group stage. Suggest trimming this one back.
the Black Caps went from 160/2 to 191/5 chasing 244New Zealand's target was 245
with Australia having an early batting collapse to fall to 38/4 early in their innings against the West Indiesearly is mentioned twice, suggest removing the first
In Taunton, a five-wicket haul from Kiwi bowler James Neeshamadd it was his maiden ODI five-wicket haul [7]
In the run chase, Australia were behind the required run rate for much of their innings, despite half-centuries from David Warner, Steve Smith and Alex Carey, and were bowled out for 316, Bhuvneshwar Kumar and Jasprit Bumrah taking three wickets each.Split this long sentence.
after going off after the eighth over→ after leaving the field in the eighth over
This was thanks to a century from Bangladeshi all-rounder Shakib Al Hasan, who scored 124 from 99 balls as they chased down the target of 322. In the West Indies' innings, Shai Hope top-scored with 96 runs from 121 balls as he and Evin Lewis (70) got the West Indies to 321/8 from their 50 overs.Reverse these sentences as the West Indies batted first and also add that this was Bangladesh's highest successful run chase in ODIs and that this was the second highest successful run chase in World Cup history
leading the hosts to a total of 397/6, the highest total of the tournament so farremove 'so far' as it ended up being the highest [8]
Hashmatullah Shahidi managed 76 in response for Afghanistan, but they were always behind the required rate and fell 150 runs short, managing 247 from their 50 overs.Afghanistan fell 151 runs short of their target for victory and move ref 68 to the end of this sentence.
Week four saw David Warner score 166, aided by a score of 89 from Usman Khawaja in Nottingham. Australia's total of 381/5 proved out of reach for Bangladesh, despite Mahmudullah and Mushfiqur Rahim getting them within 48 runs of the target.Expand on this to included that Warner's 166 was the highest individual innings of the tournament [9]; that Bangladesh's 333/8 was their new highest total in ODIs surpassing the record they set against South Africa 18 days earlier; [10] and that the 714 runs scored is the highest match aggregate in a World Cup match. [11]
Stokes, who was left stranded on 82*replace asterisk with 'not out'
England fell 20 short all out21 runs short
saw Afghanistan fall 11 runs short12 runs short
within five runs of the targetsix runs
caught by Trent Boult at long onlink Fielding (cricket)#Fielding position names and locations
as New Zealand won by only five runsremove 'only'
The fifth week of the tournament started with India demolishing'demolishing' is peacock term
out for only 143remove 'only'
Starc became the first player to get three five-wicket hauls at a World Cup→ Starc became the first player to take three five-wicket hauls at the World Cup and link to List of Cricket World Cup five-wicket hauls
before a century partnership between Khawaja and CareyUsman Khawaja and Alex Carey
New Zealand managed just 157remove 'just'
saw Afghanistan set 228 against Pakistan227 [12]
Pakistan home to a three-wicket victory with only two balls to spareremove 'only'
Despite Bangladesh losing the match, Shakib Al Hasan finished his tournament with 606 runs, surpassing Sachin Tendulkar's record for the most runs in the group stage of a World Cup. Shakib's record would very soon be surpassed by Rohit Sharma and David Warner by the end of the group stage, with former top-scoring in the group stage with 647 runsRef 79 needs to move to end of the first sentence and this ref needs to be added to end of the second sentence.
India cruised to a seven-wicket victory over Sri Lanka off the back of centuries from K. L. Rahul and Rohit Sharma as they chased down a target of 265 runs with seven wickets to spare.'seven wickets to spare' is redundant
Angelo Mathews scored his third ODI century for Sri Lanka, all of which had come against India.this is not supported by ref 91. But this ref does
India finished topfirst or top of the table
the victory by only 10 runsredundant
All times are in British Summer Time (UTC+01:00)no times are listed
If any match ended in a tie, a Super Over would be used to determine the winner; each team would select three batsmen and a bowler, with the full team available to field. There would be no penalty for the loss of a wicket, but the loss of two wickets would end the Super Over. If the scores in the Super Over were also tied, the winner would be determined by the two teams' overall boundary count, including both the match itself and the Super Overthis is not supported by ref 95.
85 off just 65 ballsremove 'just'
After two dot ballslink Glossary of cricket terms#D
despite the Laws of CricketLaws of Cricket should be in italics
Stokes left unbeaten with 84*remove asterisk
Shakib Al Hasan (pictured in 2009) became the only cricketer in the World Cup history with 600 runs and 10 wickets.specify that this was in a single World Cup. But to a wider point, the image is included in the Week 5 paragraph which is where he broke 500 runs. So reader as I went down it mentions 600 which I thought was an error. It is not until you reach the Week 6 paragraph that you find that he actually scored 600 runs. So I suggest that the caption is changed to list 500 runs or move it down to the Week 6 paragraph.
@ Ianblair23: Right I have gone through and done the modifications as you suggested but I have left out some of those thoughts.
Hi HawkAussie, thanks for making these changes. Please see my review below:
This
edit request to
2019 Cricket World Cup has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Chris Gayle had two overturned decisions go his way before he was dismissed." should be amended to "Chris Gayle had two overturned decisions go his way before he was dismissed of an umpiring error when a no-ball the previous delivery by Mitchell Starc was missed by the on-field umpire." 108.31.96.111 ( talk) 05:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/icc-cricket-world-cup-2019-1144415/australia-vs-west-indies-10th-match-1144492/ball-by-ball-commentary Anubhab030119 ( talk) 19:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Check out at 10.3 overs...I hope cricinfo is a relaible enough source for you. Anubhab030119 ( talk) 19:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)