Talk:Australia in South Africa, 5th ODI, 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

An entry from Australia in South Africa, 5th ODI, 2006 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 17 March 2006.

Contents 1 1st news reports 2 Page title 3 DYK 4 what links here 5 Conditions info 6 Dippenaar 7 Greatest ever? 8 Links 9 Trivia section

[edit] 1st news reports

noticed a few results on google which show the first news report that came out - that australia smashed the record, but then they redirect to the updated article. "Aussies smash record" for most of these redirects to "Proteas do impossible" [1] -- Astrokey44|talk 13:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page title

Is there a better title for this page? It's a bit cryptic at the moment, but I can't think what to use instead without making it excessively wordy. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably need something from a cricinfo article. Australia in South Africa, 5th ODI, 2006 isn't really good enough for a match that will be remembered in history.Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

I proposed this page at Template talk:Did you know#March_14. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what links here

Greatest cricket match and Greatest match redirect here.. they might be better being directed to The Greatest Game Ever Played (disambiguation) -- Astrokey44|talk 02:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The latter one is particularly arrogant. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conditions info

Could we add some extra information about:

• The type of pitch (is the ground renowned for high scores etc)

Yes i would say - 2003 WC Final, Australia scored 350+

• The temperature, ground conditions etc

Fast outfield, look pretty hot, blue sky at start, clouds towards the end, no rain.

• Time of play - was it day/night?--Commander Keane 11:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Day match. --Hamedog^Talk|@ 13:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dippenaar

"The early loss of Boeta Dippenaar for 1 didn't help the cause" I'm not sure I agree with that. I'd argue that the early loss of Dippenaar was instrumental in South Africa's win. :) I mean it really was the early Smith/Gibbs partnership that enabled South Africa to be in a position to win the match and it was very important that Gibbs started his innings so early in the game. There's no way to verify this but I think it's highly doubtful that Dippenaar would've been able to have such a partnership with Smith. 203.212.133.70 13:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greatest ever?

This seems a bit POV, and I think to claim this in the first paragraph because a few tabloids said this is a bit of a joke. I don't have much faith in tabloid newspapers, because I think they are more interested in glamour, so they would jump to the conclusion that MANY SIXES = THE BEST. There is no way to verify that the standard of cricket skill in the game was one of the highest ever seen - reasons for a high score could include - pro-batsman conditions (small ground, perfect pitch, more powerful cricket bats), and possibly - bad bowling. eg Hayden's 380 and Lara's 401 are not regarded as the best ever batting performances, because they were considered to be made under highly favourable conditions for batting (and weak bowling in the case of Hayden). Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC).

Cricinfo also said this to be the greatest match - http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005-06/AUS_IN_RSA/, look underlatest news - South Africa win the greatest game. Cricinfo is easily the best cricket website on the internet. 202.74.165.162 03:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There is however a tendency for the media to value new things above old ones. I personally think the tied world cup semi-final was a better game. But in the article we only say that many commentators are reporting it as the greatest game, which is undeniably true, and we also mention the semi-final as another candidate later on. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the reaction section balances this out a little (there are probably more quotes or viewpoints that could be sourced to expand here on the points you make). But perhaps the leading paragraph needs to be qualified a little. Regarding "The match broke many records,", what other records besides highest score & highest chase did the match break? Should we restrict this statement to breaking run scoring records? WhiteCat 07:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

See The Records Section!--Hamedog^Talk|@ 08:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Apart from being record breaking it was also a thriller, I agree with the idea of it being the greatest match ever played. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

I tried the first two links in the list. Number one is a dead link. Number two is a ball by ball commentary of an old semi final world cup match between SA and Australia which isnt relevant to this match. I fear for the remaining list of links. Tyhopho 07:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Number two is a reference for the claim "Some followers of the game consider this to be the greatest game of all time [1][2]." in the background paragraph, which is why it's relevant. Number one has now been replaced with a link that's working for me, at least. Sam Vimes 07:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia section

What do other people think about the Trivia section of this article? I removed it on the grounds that no doubt lots of people made lots of comments which could later be interpreted as predictions, and only the most accurate ones were remembered. This is especially true of the South African team trying to encourage each other that they could just win. But worst of all, most of the "eerily precise prognostications" are actually surprisingly imprecise. If they happened as reported, one of the four was accurate, two were inaccurate, and one was very non-specific and was only said after the conclusion of the match. Is that really the best they could come up with from four hours of conversations? It seems to me that it's the kind of thing which is interesting for a newspaper article, but doesn't really stand up to serious scrutiny.

Anyway, the (I think) original author just restored it on the grounds that it was credibly sourced (which I don't dispute) and that the facts will linger in the collective memory about this match (which can't be proved or disproved yet; I'm slightly skeptical, but I can't judge from here how much currency these predictions have in South Africa now).

So after all that, I thought I'd bring it here. What do other people think?

Thanks,

Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I was the original author and can see your point, but would argue that such "trivia" will be exactly the kinds of 'cute' anectdotes people will remember about this game in the years to come. Yes, many of the player's bold "predictions" were slightly imprecise (and perhaps "precise" should be changed to something more, uh, precise), but we could certainly say the same about Nostradamus (he mispelled Hitler's name for instance), yet the man is still held in high regard in some corners for his "eerily precise prognostications" (or, at least, approximations of such). At the end of the day, I don't see how the "Trivia" section detracts from the article (which it would if it was improperly sourced), yet it certainly does something to the "story" of this game. It is information in which some people are interested and so I can't really see why you want to deny access to that information. I'm not sure also what you mean by "serious scrutiny". What exactly is the difference between what should go in to a newspaper article and what should go into Wikipedia?

--140.247.246.121 10:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)