Talk:Australia national cricket team

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Australia national cricket team was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
December 13, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed

Contracted Players[edit]

I think we should have a standardized way of denoting contracted players for national team. Personally I am in favor of writing them in bold as in New Zealand national cricket team. Anyone for or against?

Lapusneanul (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

re: 2005 Ashes[edit]

Can any side that loses 7 wickets in a run chase for 129 really be considered deserving of a win?

Yes, as stated below the defending team do need 10 wickets to win. No matter how small the chase is that day if they surpase it they deserve to win.

There might also be reasons for the score to be so low. Batting conditions could have been bad while bowling conditions superb. Don't judge something at face value, especially in cricket. Lizzles7272 (talk) 07:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, a list[edit]

Can someone with a better knowledge of Australian cricket than me make this page a legible encyclopedic entry? At the moment, it reads as a solid list. Perhaps it could be, at first anyway, re-written using the same information but in prose?

Slowly, I just added an aboriginal section that predates the first test series. --RolandG 06:45, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I could not agree with you more and I also think this article has been written by a diehard fan. I suggested a weasel words tag at the bottom of this talk page. --StewartM82 15:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I have added a clean up tag as well --StewartM82 14:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

2005 Ashes[edit]

Can any side that loses 7 wickets in a run chase for 129 really be considered deserving of a win?

Yes, since the defending side needs 10 wickets to win. It's all in the Laws of cricket if you'd care to read them, jguk 13:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
That's not the point. Any team that has so much trouble getting such a small total can't truly be said to have 'deserved' to win.
It is the point - any team that sets such a small total to their opposition and then fails to defend it deserves to lose. Average Earthman 13:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Set a small total watch your oppostion chase it down what ever way they chose if that means lose nine wickets for no score than the tailenders win it so be it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.154.136.175 (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

"by Australians"[edit]

User 81.154.203.16 keeps adding this line to the opening sentence (this is the only contribution this user makes - User contributions). I have asked the user to justify this change. Smoddy | Talk 16:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1910-1919[edit]

Australia had an interesting tour of England in 1912 in which there were no Test matches but Australia played perhaps all of the county sides.

The 1912 Triangular Tournament went from May to August 1912, and according to Cricinfo the tour went from May to September. Were the triangular Tests not Tests? -- Iantalk 14:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Australia did not play a single Test match during this period.

This is also completely wrong. There was an Ashes in 1911/12, a series in 1909/1910 apart from the 1912 matches. Tintin 16:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Lists[edit]

When I first read through the article, I noticed that the lists of various top batsmen and such tended to break the continuity of the article. Perhaps these can go into a separate article? I'd also suggest that a list of contracted players be provided instead of having the list of player numbers at the end. The current list contains people like Di Venuto and Higgs, who probably won't have the opportunity to play for Australia in the future, while omitting Warne, who's still an integral part of the test side.

I'd go ahead and make these changes, but being a bit of a n00b when it comes to this, I thought it best to ask the opinion of others first. Omdal 04:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Omdal, and welcome to WikiProject Cricket too!
It's not a great article at the moment, so I recommend you just be bold and go ahead. The worst that can happen is that your changes will get reverted, and that's pretty unlikely if you improve the article!
Note that we do have lists of players and captains at List of Australian Test cricketers, List of Australian ODI cricketers and Australian national cricket captains, so there's no need to duplicate those.
Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Team[edit]

I think it incorrect to say something like:

"Australia is a team having won 365 of the 603 One Day Internationals they have played against other countries."

We shouldn't say "they" - rather we should say "it" as we are referring to the collective unit of the team, not the players. I wont revert the last edits cause I think we should just see what people think first.

Also, I think when saying Australia is the leading team in tests and ODIs, its useful to reference the ICC test and ODI tables which say such rather than just the statement. Again I wont revert the edits as I think its worth the debate. This article contains a fair bit of point of view, which we should try to avoid. (Westius 23:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC))

I believe the correct usage in Commonwealth English is pluralisation - e.g. "Australia have won the toss" and "Australia are batting first" rather than "Australia has won the toss" and "Australia is batting first". So it is "they", as a plural combination of players, rather than "it" as a singular entity. Average Earthman 13:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

2005-2006 numbers[edit]

Excuse my ignorance, but what does this table represent? -- Iantalk 07:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is the number on back of the players' ODI shirts. It doesn't really needs mentioning, unless one of the numbers is very significant. GizzaChat © 07:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see, probably worth keeping then. We should explain that's what it is though if it can be verified. -- Iantalk 08:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I still don't get it. From the Cricket Australia website[1]: The numbers on the one-day international players' caps show that they were the xth person selected to play one-day international cricket for Australia since Australia began playing that form of the game in 1970-71. For example, Michael Bevan's one-day international cap has the number 116 he was the 116th player to be selected for Australia.

Michael Bevan is number 12 in the table in the article. Do numbers on caps differ from numbers on shirts? -- I@ntalk 02:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

They probably do, there aren't too many players that have three digit numbers on their backs! If they are the shirt numbers, it will be difficult to verify them unless you check by seeing a photo of a player's backside or watching a match on TV or at the ground. GizzaChat © 02:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
We need to either properly verify this list (and state what it is) or remove it from the article. -- I@ntalk 04:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Verify the list based on this page. Ansell 05:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

An Australian cricketer can be assigned up to three different numbers. The first of these numbers is their test match designation. This is the order in which the particular player was selected to play test cricket relative to all other test cricketers from Australia. So for example players who were selected in the first ever test match side would have the numbers one through 11. The second of the three numbers is the one day designation. As like the test designation this one day number represents the order in which the player was selected to play one-day cricket. ^hese numbers are known as "Cap numbers" (as they are embroidered into the players caps) and do not change throughout the player's career. the third number is the jersey number. Jersey numbers are assigned to all contracted one-day cricket players. A player may have more than one jersey number throughout their career. Also, two players may share the same jersey number as jersey numbers are reused from generation to generation. don't forget that the players test designation will be different to the players one-day designation as test matches have been around longer than one day matches. Also don't forget that it's possible for a player to only have one number the test designation as test match uniforms do not have jersey numbers on them only one-day uniforms. I hope this clears this matter up. --220.237.166.156 12:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad Umpiring[edit]

I'm thinking of adding this paragraph "Some fans, while acknowledging rebuilding is going on within the team, feel Austrlia's current problems have paritally come about as a result of a run of bad umpiring in their matches. While this umpiring does affect both teams in the match the Australians seem to be on the recieving end of the worst of the decisions. Against teams of similar ablity, such as England, this has cost the Australians matches."

    • Simply my opinion, but personally I think the umpires are all strongly pro-Australian except for Taufel, who is excellent.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 08:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • When making edits of this nature, it would be nice if you can get an authentic source to back it up, simply because there would be people who feel the opposite. Tintin (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't do it. POV, OR, etc etc. There's so much POV in cricket articles already, unless there's a burning need for this - ie. there's a standout case that it's true (and I don't believe it is) - it just sends us down a slippery slope and makes NPOV reverts on all the cricketer articles that little bit harder to defend. -- I@ntalk 09:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, it's pretty standard fan whinging. You ask any group of supporters, and you'll always find someone who believes the officials are biased against them. Average Earthman 09:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It is the truth. The Umpiring has been S**T of late and it's been going worse for the Australians then any team they play you only have to look at some of the LBW decisions against Australia of late to see that.
  • Classic stuff mate. Boo hoo!!Mralph72 10:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting though that if I do a "find" on this article for the word "green" it doesn't appear!! The baggy green cap is iconographic-and surely deserves a mention even if we can't find a photo!!

choice of image[edit]

wouldn't the Cricket Australia logo be more appropriate to the top of this page? Why is there just an Australian flag?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.237.166.156 (talkcontribs) 10:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

sorry, I am the person that posted before I just realised that there is a signature button I'll use it now --220.237.166.156 12:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable suggestion. I am copying this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket, because it would be nice to have a standard across all the test teams. At the moment, I see 8 flags, one one day shirt, and a photo of players. JPD (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible weasel words[edit]

I'm not sure it's entirely correct or informative saying

"For quite some time, the common wisdom was that Australia's score in an innings would be "Border plus 100"."

Who are the holders of the supposedly common wisdom? I haven't seen any citations of scorecards during this period. Is the person that wrote this a huge Allan border fan?

wouldn't a statement like this warrant a weasel words tag?--StewartM82 15:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


All it means is that the batting order was pretty inexperienced and not making a great contribution and the only person who could be relied upon to make any significant contribution was Allan Border - How could this be considered weasel words? It doesn't show some great devotion to Allan Border, merely attempts to illustrate the situation; pointing out that the team was not posting any great achievements during this time.--165.228.217.234 07:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Test/ODI caps[edit]

The list of contracted players confused me hugely. I was browsing them and read that Nathan Bracken had player 300+ games for Australia. So had all the team. Of course, after a while I realised that these referred to the numbers under their badge. Surely though, these columns should be re-named or changed to the number of the games they've played (which would be far more useful). Cap columns normally refer to the number of games they've played. HornetMike 18:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's ambiguous, but it does say "cap" and not "caps". Nice to see Tait has cap number 4, I didn't know he was in the first ever ODI team! 124.176.56.110 07:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible photo Gallery[edit]

can I suggest merging all the images that appear in this article into the bottom to form a photo board. The images I feel tend to make the article looked very messy and Disjointed. More so than it already is. Is anyone oppose this?--StewartM82 13:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

A major edit[edit]

The more and more I look at this page I don't like it. The contents of the most part is fine however there is a lot of redundant information, and information that appears on other pages. The following is a list of all the edits I have done.

  • I have moved the list of significant dates to the bottom of the page.
  • I have removed the lists from the tournament sections. I have replaced them with articles. Most articles I have started and added and expand section tag. if people want a list of the winners they can head to the pages for the tournaments which are linked in the titles. I have purposely left these articles to be expanded at a later date. I have done this because right now I want to focus on this page as a whole, then get into the specifics.
  • I have set up a trivia section at the bottom of this page. I have also converted trivia that appears throughout this page into the correct list format.
  • I have consolidated all the images throughout this article into one photo Gallery at the bottom of the page.
  • Consolidated the 1880 section into a paragraph not three separate lists.

that's enough for now however there is still a lot more formatting work to be done. Since no one else seems to be editing this page to much I will come back later and continue the job. by no means is anything that I'm doing permanent or set in stone so if you have any suggestions please voice them.--StewartM82 14:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are interested in rewriting the whole page, a good reference would be the West Indian cricket team and the History of the West Indian cricket team. Tintin (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the images are much better at the relevant point of the article. Trivia shoudl either be left out, or incorporated in the appropriate section - there is no need for a trivia list. Less importantly, I feel that if a list of dates is necessary at all, it is better at the top. What the article really needs is for the various history sections to be written as interesting prose, rather than simply lists. JPD (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
the images I don't mind in setting throughout the article that's fine. as for the trivia and the list of dates, I challenge you to find me a wikipedia article that does not list the trivia at the bottom all in one section. The list of dates once again, lists tend to go down to the bottom of wikipedia entries. If you don't agree with me that's fine but show me examples.--StewartM82 16:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
West Indies also once looked the way Australia does now (with decades, list and all). Then it was split into two - once dealing with the aspects of the team and the other about the matches. Tintin (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that would be a good move. But even then the history sections would need some filling out. JPD (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree. We do need to separate this article out into two pages. I will do it tomorrow as I am tired and going to bed now. Or someone else do it.--StewartM82 16:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

why is mention of the fielding coach "inappropriate"???[edit]

???? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Kasparov of Sheshbesh (talkcontribs) 00:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

The infobox has a place for the coach. We also mention the assistant coach, which is reasonable but not necesssary. There isn't room to mention more in the infobox, and singling out the fielding coach seems quite strange. JPD (talk) 10:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


JPD, I see your point of view, but i'm willing to bet the fielding coach has a bigger impact on the team (and is more respected by the players) than the assistant coach. Btw, I have nothing against the assistant coach...

Well, I don't really see the need for the assistant coach, either, but even if you're right, it's not a reason to put him in the infobox. JPD (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enoughThe Kasparov of Sheshbesh 05:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedic?[edit]

I shall edit this entry to make it appear more encyclopedic when I have the time, does anyone with to corroborate with me? I will adopt Tintin's suggestion of using the West Indian cricket team as a reference. This article has too many time based events (ie. recent tours). --Rchan89 12:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Federation Cricket[edit]

Okay, this is a nice article, but it leaves me puzzling over the state of Australian cricket (i.e. Australian national cricket, not intercolonial cricket) between 1877 and 1905. Cricket Australia (formerly the Australian Cricket Board) was formed in 1905, four years after Federation and Australia has been a Test nation since 1877. Thus prior from 1877 to 1901 the Australian cricket team represented a number of colonies (rather like the West Indies cricket team did originally in 1928 and like how the Irish cricket team represents two entities,though non-colonial, today). My questions are:

  • what body oversaw the Australian cricket team between 1877 and 1905?
  • and what flag, if any, was used to represent Australia between 1877 and 1901 (since the Australian flag was only adopted in 1901 and I don't imagine that they would pick the flag of only one colony to represent all the Australian colonies)?72.27.8.49 02:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you are overestimating the amount of organisation that went on at the time. I don't know the details of how the early Australian teams were managed, but the early Test tours were each organised separately, often at the initiative of individuals, and home teams were often selected by the club hosting the matches. The teams were not often fully representative, and it is only in hindsight that these mathces have been labelled "Test matches", a term which was first used in 1885.
There is no reason why any flag would necessarily have been used to represent the team, and if any flags were used, they probably varied from tour to tour if not match to match. The only mention I have seen of any such flag was in the Sydney Morning Herald's Column 8 in September 2002:
"For six years Dover Heights vexillologist George Poulos has searched vainly for one of Australia's earliest national flags. In 1899, two years before the Federation, England was toured by an Australian cricket team flying a green and gold flag. He says green and gold were chosen because they were not used by any of the colonial teams squabbling over the colours. "But not even the Australian Cricket Board has any idea what the flag looks like... I am aching to see it." He hopes a descendant of the players has a picture tucked away."
The old coat of arms of the ACB was already also used on that 1899 tour. It was one of many similar unofficial Australian coats of arms at the time, roughly based on the NSW arms. JPD (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the old coat of arms of the ACB basically green and gold (with a few other colours thrown in)? Might it be possible that the "green and gold flag" that the Australian team flew in 1899 was just the old ACB coat of arms on a green field? I know nobody has found it or knows what it looks like, but that would seem the most likely possibilty, unless it was a simple green and gold flag with the southern cross stars.72.27.170.227 19:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Title[edit]

Apparently, this article was once known as "Australian national cricket team", but has been renamed/moved to "Australia national cricket team". Why? This seems a somewhat backward step, grammatically speaking. -- JackofOz 11:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been done for consistency throughout all the national cricket teams - to differentiate between countries that are the only members of a cricket team under their name: ie Australia only encompasses Australia, thus is the Australia national cricket team, whereas England encompasses England and Wales and thus saying national would be somewhat insulting. Same occurs with the Ireland one. This would also apply to the term English, hence why there was differentiation. AllynJ 20:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Belated thanks for the above answer. I'm a huge fan of consistency. For the sake of internal consistency, we need to not refer to the "Australian national cricket team" or similar expressions, all the way through the text, including the very first words of the lede. It really jars on this set of eyes to see an article titled X, but introduced in the lede as Y, even if they differ in only one letter. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm a huger fan of gramatical correctness and verification (which makes me cringe reading what I just wrote!). In almost every case, almost every reliable source refers to the Australian cricket team. For some obscure (soccer related?) reason WP has gone against this common usage for the sake of consistancy. If you want to use Australia, rather than Australian, then it should be National cricket team of Australia. Nothing else is gramatically correct... but we have as much chance of winning this argument as the team has of making 500 on an overcast swinging day in England!.The-Pope (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Your Holiness's post points out the absurdity of this consistency-for-its-own-sake approach where it clashes with common sense. Nobody's game to talk, in the body of the article, about the "Australia cricket team", because that defies common usage and common sense. Yet, we're supposed to be happy to have the article called that. It's a very uneasy marriage, and I see a divorce looming. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Are the Territories represented by CricketAustralia and Australian cricket team?[edit]

I am curious as to the position of the major territories of Australia in terms of cricket. On CricketAustralia's website the member associations are all State Associations, while the Territory associations (Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory) are just associated and the Norfolk Island Cricket Association isn't even mentioned? Since the territorial associations aren't members of CricketAustralia and CA governs cricket in Australia and oversees the team, does that mean that the territories are separate from Australia in cricketing terms? Or does their association with CA mean that that CA governs cricket over all of the Australian mainland and that the mainland territories are also represented by the team? In that case is Norfolk Island not represented by the Australian team?72.27.175.251 22:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the issues of members as opposed to non-member associations is simply to do with the political structure of CA. CA definitely acts as the custodian of the game throughout the country, including tournaments with ACT teams, test matches in Darwin, and so on. As for the national team representing the territories, it can definitely include players from those territories, but they are unlikely to reach that level without first playing for a first class team, that is, one of the states. So Damien Martyn plays for Western Australia and Michael Bevan played for NSW before he was in the national team. The lack of reference to Norfolk Island may say something about how much CA is actually involved in cricket on the island, but shouldn't affect islanders eligibility for the national team - whatever their association's status, I would say they are eligible, but have to play at a higher level before being considered! JPD (talk) 10:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, so the mainland territories are rather like the minor counties in English cricket, while the Australian States are like first-class counties, correct? Thus the Aussie team represents all of the states and mainland territories, but for any players from the territories to be in the national team they need to move on to a state team first. I guess the Norfolk Islanders (being Australian citizens) could also follow this route, but an article on cricinfo ([2]) from 2001 indicates that the Norfolk Island Cricket Association (NICA) was "pushing on with plans to seek Affiliate status with the International Cricket Council." If this is true, and Norfolk Island hasn't been rejected yet for being Australian, then what would happen if Norfolk Island became a separate ICC member? Considering that Scotland and England have separate membership despite having a single citizenship then similar rules might come into play between Australia and Norfolk Island. So do you know if any of the mainland territory teams might get first-class status in Australian cricket? What if Northern Territory becomes a State (as it almost did and most of its inhabitants want)?72.27.170.227 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
In terms of teams and so on, rather than administration, the minor counties might be a good analogy. Norfolk Island could become a separate member of the ICC, and as such would definitely not be represented by Cricket Australia, but that shouldn't stop a Norfolk Islander playing for Australia if they were good enough. Eligibility rules are fairly relaxed when a player from a non-Test nation playing for a Test nation. The player would be making a choice, though - having played for Australia, they would have to re-qualify for NI before playing for them again. I don't think first class status would be directly linked to statehood, although it may have some effect. The real issue is whether the territories are considered to be able to support a first-class quality team, given their population and resources. JPD (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, thank you for the information...perhaps we should look at including it in the CricketAustralia article or the Cricket in Australia article. Oh and does the Northern Territory have a cricket team? I've seen articles on all the Australian first-class teams and the ACT's Canberra Comets, but nothing on a Northern Territory team (or a Norfolk Island team for that matter). If Northern Territory does have a team, what do they call themselves? Northern Kookaburras or something like that? It would be interesting if Norfolk Island became an affiliate. Just imagine an Australia v. Norfolk Island match....would be odd. On the other hand, the other Pacific teams would actually have a team composed of Australians that they might be able to beat.72.27.170.227 19:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

A little more on this. Kane Richardson, in the Australia Under-19 squad for their tour of Malaysia and Pakistan, although born in South Australia has played all his representative cricket until now for the Northern Territory. Andrew nixon 18:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

Greetings, cricket lovers. I'd just like to draw your attention to this edit [3] by User:PIO who seems to think cricket isn't one of the national sports of Oz. I've reverted it, but if he tries it again, perhaps you should drop him a message, one and all, to point him onto the right path. Hope you're all enjoying the stuffing India are getting. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Here you go. He's done it again: [4]. You might want to put him straight on this one. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Players Say in Advertising[edit]

Does anyone know if an Australian cricketer could refuse to advertise for a specific company even if the National Team had a deal with that company?

I notice that Cricket Australia has a deal with KFC, and part of this uses every player in a series of television adverts. If one player was opposed to the company, could that player refuse to wear a shirt with 'KFC' on the front of it?

There is a precedent for this, albeit related to South Africa rather than Aus: Hashim Amla wears shirts without the logo of the team sponsor, Castle Lager, due to his devout Islamic views. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Squad tracker[edit]

This lists all the cricketers who have played for Australia in the last year, and in what forms. I'll keep it updated, although if anyone else wants to chip in feel free to do so. HornetMike (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Name Test ODI Twenty20
Bollinger, DougDoug Bollinger 7 January 2009 3 May 2009
Bracken, NathanNathan Bracken 1 May 2009 7 May 2009
Casson, BeauBeau Casson 16 June 2008
Clark, StuartStuart Clark 1 December 2008 1 May 2009
Clarke, MichaelMichael Clarke 22 March 2009 3 May 2009 29 March 2009
Ferguson, CallumCallum Ferguson 3 May 2009 7 May 2009
Geeves, BrettBrett Geeves 9 April 2009 27 March 2009
Haddin, BradBrad Haddin 22 March 2009 3 May 2009 7 May 2009
Harris, RyanRyan Harris 18 January 2009
Harwood, ShaneShane Harwood 13 April 2009 29 March 2009
Hauritz, NathanNathan Hauritz 7 January 2009 3 May 2009 7 May 2009
Henriques, MoisésMoisés Henriques 15 February 2009
Hilfenhaus, BenBen Hilfenhaus 22 March 2009 3 May 2009 7 May 2009
Hodge, BradBrad Hodge 26 May 2008
Hopes, JamesJames Hopes 3 May 2009 7 May 2009
Hussey, DavidDavid Hussey 27 April 2009 7 May 2009
Hussey, MichaelMichael Hussey 22 March 2009 17 April 2009 27 March 2009
Hughes, PhillipPhillip Hughes 22 March 2009
Jaques, PhilPhil Jaques 16 June 2008
Johnson, MitchellMitchell Johnson 22 March 2009 17 April 2009 27 March 2009
Katich, SimonSimon Katich 22 March 2009
Krejza, JasonJason Krejza 21 December 2008
Laughlin, BenBen Laughlin 3 May 2009 29 March 2009
Lee, BrettBrett Lee 30 December 2008 6 July 2008 7 May 2009
Marsh, ShaunShaun Marsh 22 April 2009 13 January 2009
McDonald, AndrewAndrew McDonald 22 March 2009
McGain, BryceBryce McGain 22 March 2009
North, MarcusMarcus North 10 March 2009 3 May 2009 7 May 2009
Ponting, RickyRicky Ponting 22 March 2009 17 April 2009 29 March 2009
Ronchi, LukeLuke Ronchi 6 July 2008 13 January 2009
Siddle, PeterPeter Siddle 22 March 2009 13 February 2009 15 February 2009
Symonds, AndrewAndrew Symonds 30 December 2008 3 May 2009 7 May 2009
Tait, ShaunShaun Tait 1 February 2009 13 January 2009
Voges, AdamAdam Voges 15 February 2009
Warner, DavidDavid Warner 6 February 2009 29 March 2009
Watson, ShaneShane Watson 23 November 2008 3 May 2009 7 May 2009
White, CameronCameron White 10 November 2008 13 February 2009 29 March 2009

Charles Bannerman[edit]

I refer to the following statement in this article under the "Batting" section: "Charles Bannerman faced the first ball in test cricket, scored the first runs in test cricket and scored the first test century and half-century." This has a [citation needed] flag added and this discussion will attempt to remove that flag.

It strikes me that there are four different points being made here which may need different references:

  • 1. That Bannerman faced the first ball in Test cricket. This is also stated on the Charles Bannerman page but no specific reference for this is given there either.
  • 2. That Bannerman scored the first runs in Test cricket. Highly likely but unreferenced again.
  • 3. That Bannerman scored the first Test century. See notes to follow.
  • 4. That Bannerman scored the first Test half-century.

My discussion here relates to points 3 and 4. An examination of the first Test scoreboard [5] shows that Australia batted first in the match and that the only score of more than 18 was that by Bannerman, who scored 165 (retired hurt). It therefore strikes me as fairly obvious that points three and four above are implied by the scorecard. The question is, is this sufficient or is some further explanation required, as this constitutes original research?

Points 1 and 2 above appear to be supported by the History of Test cricket from 1877 to 1883 article which, under the section for the First Test, uses "Meredith 1990, p. 61." as the reference. Does anyone know the title and rest of the details for this reference? --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Page review[edit]

I'm becoming a bit dubious about the content of this page and have decided it stems from what seems to be a lack of overall direction for the article.

Currently we have the following:

  • An introduction giving a basic outline of the Australian cricket team's history and current status - which needs work if only because of the number of citations needed.
  • History of the team - brief intro with a link to the main article History of the Australian cricket team, and then varying levels of detail regarding tours and series dating from "Pakistani Tour 2004-05". Most of the series mentioned have main articles already associated with them. Those that don't probably should have.
  • Personnel - tables showing the currently contracted or chosen Australian players.
  • Significant dates.
  • Test Match records.
  • One Day international records.
  • Under the Southern Cross I Stand.

Back in August 2006 Tintin wrote the following (on the discussion page under the "A major edit" section): "If you are interested in rewriting the whole page, a good reference would be the West Indian cricket team and the History of the West Indian cricket team."

So following up that advice I had a look at the West Indies cricket team page and notice that while the two pages are similar, the West Indies version appears to be: a) better laid out; b) doesn't detail recent series; c) mentions the national women's team; d) lists the constituent countries (where are the First Class States mentioned on the Australian page?); e) lists major history and honours; f) lists venues and g) lists major players from the various decades and all captains of the Test team.

All in all I get a better view of the West Indies national team from that page than I do of the Australian team from its. I'm not saying that all sections of the West Indies page should be transplanted directly into the Australian page but it doesn seem to be moving in a better direction.

I can understand how this page got to this point but I think it now needs a clean-up. You'll start noticing some changes from me over the coming weeks. Please feel free to comment and help out where you think it appropriate. If you think I'm also partly - or even completely - mistaken please also feel free to say so. My aim here is to get this page into a better state. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggest that all the recent tour information is merged into a 2000s-section that provides a general overview and then links to "Main Articles" on the tours etc. A similar approach can be taken then in summarising earlier periods so giving a better overall overview. Flage (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

All fixtures & results[edit]

Where can i get a list with all test matches, ODIs & Twenty20s Australia ever played (with results)? Could anybody help me, please? Thanks! 77.20.120.88 (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Team colours section - a disaster[edit]

Started fixing this up because it looks like it was written by someone for whom English is a fourth language. the structure and grammar are so appalling. I gave up when I bumped into dates without years for change of sponsors. Does anybody else know enough to help? HiLo48 (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Australia number 1 in tests[edit]

"Australia is ranked the number-one team overall in Test cricket in terms of overall wins, win-loss ratio and wins percentage." Please provide me reference of this line written in second paragraph of introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitish.game (talkcontribs) 02:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This Cricinfo table shows all of the above to be true. IgnorantArmies 08:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Australia national basketball team which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 15:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Starc as an all-rounder[edit]

This seems rather unfounded. He has no first-class hundreds and an average in the early 20s. I propose to move him if there's no objection. --Dweller (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but given his current series averages are 100.00 (bowling) & 36.25 (batting), I'm not sure which section he should be moved into... The-Pope (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Lol. Given the injury problem that's become apparent, and the fact that his f-c career is more statistically relevant than three Tests in India, I think you rest assured that if fit, he'll terrorise England's batting at some point in 2013, but is less likely to have an Ashes average in the middle 30s with the bat. --Dweller (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistencies[edit]

Under the section Test Match Records >> Batting there are two occurrences where the record holder in this case Ricky Ponting doesn't have the relevant number of innings listed however players mentioned after him in the same line do. For example Ricky Ponting record runs but no innings listed Alan Border & Steve Waugh both have innings listed. Also Ricky Ponting most centuries no innings listed Steve Waugh however has innings listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathaniel73 (talkcontribs) 10:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

3nd[edit]

"Adam Gilchrist holds the record of 3nd fastest hundred ..." Did you mean 3rd (with an r, not an n)? I couldn't find it in the reference, and Adam Gilchrist has every number except 3. Art LaPella (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Resolved: Art LaPella (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)