Talk:2008 Indian Premier League/Archive 1

Net Run Rate

Rather than having a run-rate column in the points table shouldn't we have a net run rate table? That is more relevant. The official IPL site is showing Run-rate but it is the Net Run-Rate that will eventually matter, so why not use that in the table?CSumit ^Talk 17:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes it should be Net Run Rate. The IPL Standings at http://iplt20.com/standings.html have the net run rate up now.CtrlDPredator (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

New template for results section

I have created a new template for use in the results section after each match has finished. There were essentially 3 modifications I made to the old format and here they are: 1) I have added flags of the one or two colours of each team 2) I have made sure that the team that bats first is always the team listed in the first column (or "team 1"). I know that this means that the home team is no longer always in the first column, but this issue is dealt with in point 3. 3) I have put a "(H)" next to each home team.

The reasons for the last 2 points are as follows: It is not always possible to tell which team batted first merely from looking at the summary of scores as it stood, with the home team always listed first (eg in a tied game or last ball win by the chasing team). Futher, even if you can determine this by carefully examining the summary for things like runs scored by both teams, number of overs used by each team and whether each team were bowled out or not, this is a laborious process. You should be able to scan the top row of a match summary and instantly see: 1) Which teams were playing 2) Which team batted first 3) Who won and by how much 4) Which team was the home team

The new format achieves all of these aims, unlike the old format.

How to apply the template:

The template is located here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cr-IPL or more relevantly in the "edit this page section" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cr-IPL&action=edit

To fill in the scoresheet for an IPL game, I will demonstrate with an example. If we take an example game between the Deccan Chargers and the Mumbai Indians where Deccan bats first, the value for "team1" should either be Deccan Chargers (if Deccan is the away team) OR (H) Deccan Chargers (if Deccan is the home team). Similarly "team2" should be either Mumbai Indians (H) OR Mumbai Indians. If Deccan wins the game by 26 runs, the value for "result" should be "Deccan won by 26 runs." (with the r standing for result). NOTE: Look at this paragraph in the the SOURCE CODE for this discussion page. Juwe (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly dispute all three modifications made.

1) I can't see the reason why a team's uniform color can be considered its "flag". It's highly inappropriate, out of place and perhaps even borders on Original Research.

2) The argument that the score should be indicative of who batted first is highly irrelevant. Plus these matters come under WP:Cricket. There are number of wikipedia articles noting match scores which strictly follow the rules in which the fixtures are declared. If you intend to contest that, I'd suggest you do so on the project talk page.

Please explain your stand on these issues or I'd suggest we remove all three modifications made here. Thanks. LeaveSleaves (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll start with the "flag" argument. Firstly, I have used the term "flag" loosely. I don't care whether it is called a "flag" or something else. Maybe a better description would be "Team colour icon". I have merely used the colour(s) of the teams as found in the wikipedia articles about individual IPL teams, eg Rajasthan Royals, so it clearly isn't original research. Using such visual identifiers is not unique, eg 2007-08 KFC Twenty20 Big Bash, and it improves the appearance of the page by catching the eye with a quick scan. Sports like rugby league even have a template for such icons called "leagueicon", see Template:Leagueicon. Maybe someone could create a similar template for cricket, but until then the IPL must make do with my clunky attempt.

Now for the point about the order of the teams. You have linked me to WP:Cricket, yet nothing in that page suggests that score summaries should remain in the format which doesn't show which team batted first. As I have already explained, the problem of seeing which team is the home team has also been solved in the new format with the addition of the "(H)" symbol. As for the claim that knowing which side batted first is "irrelevant", I hardly know where to begin with refuting that argument. Aside from the arguments I have already listed about the old format's deficiencies in this area, knowing which side batted first reveals much about the way the match developed. Obviously the first thing is the ability to see which team set the total and which team chased, the tactics of each varying greatly from the other. For example, if a team was chasing what it knew was a low total, a usually fast-scorer might bat at a relatively slow pace and consequently have a lower than usual strike rate. In addition, as every cricket-lover knows, the conditions of the pitch and the atmosphere may change over the course of the match, affecting the level of difficulty of batting. For example, as a match wears on, a pitch might get slower and lower and the air may become more humid, making batting more difficult for the side batting second. As such, knowing which side batted first is one of the MOST relevant pieces of information that a score summary might contain. At any rate, you have given no reasons why the old format has ANY advantages over the new format and reverting something MERELY BECAUSE it is an incremental change on the last model seems to defeat the goal of creating a better wikipedia.

Whoops, forgot to sign the above post Juwe (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favour of the new format by Juwe.

1. I think the "Team colour icons" look good.
2. It seems obvious that it's better for the page to show both who is the home team and which team batted first. LeaveSleeves, could explain your objection in more detail?
3. Someone has edited back to home-team-first order. I will let them know they need to join the discussion here instead.

Andrew Moylan (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, there is no particular need for a "make do" system. Rather than the presentation, it is important that the system you are using is fully representative of the original entity. Secondly, it is no way relevant that the system used by a certain article should in any way taken as appropriate over here. Thirdly, the reason why I mentioned that the edits might "border" on original research is that there is no official or a reliable declaration (as perhaps is the case with your rugby league example) that these color sets represent the franchises as flags or any other symbols. A you said yourself, you have simply taken the uniform color information on each franchise article and used them in the template.

Also I'm sorry for redirecting you to WP:CRIC for the said discussion. It can instead be found on Template talk:Limited Overs Matches. You can join the discussion there, I see no reason to discuss this issue on this talk page. The method you mentioned would be in contradiction to all the articles that use the said template and against the general consensus.

Finally, I truly respect your intentions of improving the article. That's the reason why I'm discussing the changes (incremental or otherwise) here instead of simply reverting your edits. Thanks. LeaveSleaves (talk) 05:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As suggested, I have copied over this discussion to the discussion page for the template for Limited Overs Cricket here Template talk:Limited Overs Matches. Please post any future replies there. Juwe (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Home team or team which batted first in first column?

I notice that someone has already changed the order of teams back to having the home team as the first team, rather than the team which batted first. From my above posts, it is clear that I prefer the format of listing teams in batting order (with a "(H)" next to the home team). This allows for having BOTH pieces of information in the first line of the summary, rather than the other format, which merely has the home team information. For a more in-depth explanation, see my above posts. Would people please give their opinions on this issue? Thanks. Juwe (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the result makes it abundantly clear which team bats first and which team bats second. The current format should not be changed merely for the sake of change.CSumit ^Talk 06:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. I have already mentioned some instances where it is not able to be determined at all (in the old format) from looking at the summary, eg a tied match. Juwe (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Another example where it is unclear is in certain Duckworth-Lewis situations (eg where one team is bowled out and the other team EITHER chased down the total, but rain stopped play with this team in front on DL OR the team HAD SET a target in less than 20 overs (due to rain), and the "1st team" had been bowled out chasing the target)...in this case it might be unclear who had batted first because the result might be "Team A won by 20 runs (DL)". This example might be a bit confusing, but it demonstrates that ambiguities can arise under the old format. Juwe (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why are you still conducting this discussion over here. This clearly concerns all those articles and matches that use the said template. There are certain guidelines set for usage of this template, and your argument obviously concerns alteration in this usage. LeaveSleaves (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi LeaveSleaves. I do intend to post a response to your earlier post and to follow your suggestion on posting elsewhere. However I don't have time just at the minute. I thought I had better answer the point made here though, considering I could do that quickly and easily. Thanks Juwe (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As suggested, I have copied over this discussion to the discussion page for the template for Limited Overs Cricket here Template talk:Limited Overs Matches. Please post any future replies there. Juwe (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixtures and result table.

I made some addition to the table today and it got reverted with a very harsh remark. For person like me (who is visiting the article first time) how will I know if the vertical team names are for home or vice versa? There is nothing written. Some knowledgeable people - please add this info to the section so that people can understand which cell should be updated based upon the venue of match. --gppande «talk» 13:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gppande,

I'm sorry if my remark seemed a little harsh. I was not trying to criticise you, merely trying to ensure that further errors, however understandable, did not enter the table. In fact I was just about to post the following message when I noticed your post here:

I have noticed that a few results have been incorrectly placed in the "home and Away Results Grid" due to people placing the result in "Team A vs Team B" rather than "Team B vs Team A". In other words, they are not taking notice of which team is the home team of the match. The grid is set out so that the column of teams down the left represents the home teams and the row of teams across the top represents the away teams. However, it does not explicitly say that anywhere in the table. Maybe someone more skilled than I am could use the blank space at the top left of the grid, and insert the words "Home" and "Away" towards the bottom and towards the right of that box respectively. This may help to clear up the confusion.

Juwe (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That still doesn't make it clear that the listings to the left of the diagonal are of the home matches and those to the right are the away matches. How about color coding them, and including a legend at the bottom? --soum ^talk 14:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Soum,

Every single match in the table is both a home match for one team, and an away match for another team. Each box in the grid represents a match between a home team (the team on the same horizontal row as the box) and an away team (the team in the same vertical column as the box). My suggestion was aimed at labelling the teams on the left as the home teams, and the teams on the top as the away teams.

Juwe (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

However, the idea you raise does contain merit. I suppose the background for the column of teams on the left could be made one colour, and the background of the row of teams on the top could be made another colour. Then a legend could be applied, as you suggest.

Juwe (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I was talking of something like this. --soum ^talk 14:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say your version is overly simplifying. Just putting Home and Away in left top column seems sufficient. LeaveSleaves (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Think about it from the point of view of a first time visitor, who doesn't have any idea of the conventions followed here. How is s/he supposed to know that the results are listed according to where (home ground/away ground) the match was played unless we make that information explicit? Just saying who the home team might be enough in hindsight, but at a first glance does not make it apparent. --soum ^talk 14:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the information is explicit enough with a single comment. We're here to represent information in clear and lucid fashion and not to educate visitors. Overly simplifying might also be unimpressive towards an expert. LeaveSleaves (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you are probably right. --soum ^talk 15:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've inserted a footnote in order to resolve the confusion. Plus, I have removed all the cricinfo links. These are already in the match description and I see reason to create an entire table full of these external links. Further, I propose removing the group stage from this page and creating new page for that. As the matches progress this section will become extremely large and is better handled separately. The table is sufficient on this page for summary. Further insert a color code for win/loss and remove the team name from result in the table. LeaveSleaves (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - that looks good and simple. But the note added at bottom is in small letters and also people would not read the bottom of the table first as they scroll "down" the article. I think this should be at top of the table. --gppande «talk» 16:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The table certainly looks a lot better now. Regarding the proposal to create a seperate page for the group stage, I disagree with this suggestion. I do not see that the page will become too unwieldy if kept in the format it is in now and the ladder and results table hardly take up much room at all. In addition, there are 56 matches in the group stage of the 2008 IPL and only 3 subsequent knockout games. It doesn't make sense to me to split the competition into 2 pages, one dealing with the first 56 matches and the second dealing with the final 3 matches. If we keep it as one page it will have the benefit of being the one self-contained wiki page for the 2008 IPL, with all matches locatable on this one page.

Juwe (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

LeaveSleaves,

What are the details of your proposal for a win/loss colour code for the table? Do you mean one colour for a home team win and another colour for an away team win? Or do you mean using a colour for each of the 8 teams to use for each fixture that they win? A colour coding system could work, but I don't see a reason why the text, as it stands, should be removed. It is already concise and the provision of a few brief words (eg "Delhi, 9 wickets") might be useful to someone scanning the table.

Juwe (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I just say that it's a really nice looking table. Good job. MrAngy (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

In the results table, for example take the match between RCB and CSK, can't we simple write "lost by 13 runs" (instead of mentioning the winning team and the result). The result text "won/lost by xx runs/wickets" will correspond to the home (horizontal) team always. Also we can provide different colors for won and lost matches to quickly check the teams performance.--Eastern Sphinx (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Implicitness isn't a good idea. First time visitors wouldn't know that. So we need to make another note at the bottom. And reading up instructions how to read a simple thing as a table isn't fun. --soum ^talk 19:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, it is not clear how the teams are sorted in the results table.--Eastern Sphinx (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The order of teams listed in this table isn't important. --soum ^talk 19:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reordered the table so that teams are now in alphabetical order.

Juwe (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Secn break (table coloring)

Sorry for taking so long to respond. First of all I'd like to say that I find the current system just fine. However, my suggestion for color codes is somewhat related with point raised by Eastern Sphinx. I was going to propose that instead of writing name of winning team, we could use a color for whether the home team won or lost (somewhat on line of Premier League 2007-08).

As for the group stage details, I'd reiterate my point that the section be converted to a separate article, particularly considering the increasing size of this article. LeaveSleaves (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The color system seems to be a good idea. I am doing a draft. But splitting off the fixtures ain't going to solve the problem. Except the fixtures, the rest of the article isn't too big. So splitting just the fixtures would make this article almost empty, but wouldn't make the fixtures article easily manageable. What we require is probably a section break every 7 matches or something. I will try to do that. --soum ^talk 20:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the colour codes of the English Premier League, this format looks good and their choice of colours is good as well. However, I still don't see the need to eliminate the team names from the boxes. There are 2 main differences between the EPL and the IPL:

1) In the football example, a score of 1-3 (eg) already tells the reader that the away team won without needing to look at the colour code legend.

2) There is no room to fit more than a scoreline in the EPL page due to the large number of matches, unlike the IPL boxes.

It is not of huge importance either way, but I think the table would be better with the team text as it is now.

I should also note that the current linking of the results in the table to the score summaries is an excellent feature of the current table.

Juwe (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I took a stab at implementing the color schemes, requesting reviews. At first glance, however, it looks less informative. Unless the color scheme is fixed in your head, it is not readily apparent who the winner is. I am for a revert though. --soum ^talk 21:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole idea behind using the color scheme is that the table would become more compact, efficient and of course there would be no need to write the winning team's name. Accordingly I feel a non-team name table would fine. LeaveSleaves (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The more implicit we make things, the more we are forcing people to either remember stuff or promoting instruction creep. Sure, it might make things more compact visually but an explicit one is more easier to use. Here are two versions of the colorful table, one with team names, the other without. I don't think the one without team names is any easier to use. You have to remember the color codes without an iota of doubt (no "wasn't red the home team?" moments at all; I was the one who spent hours doing this and still I am having those moments!) or else you have to hunt around to find the legend and verify. The color scheme doesn't fit in with any widely used metaphor to help either (for example, using the third umpire's decision metaphor, we could use red to indicate that the home team is "out", but then the analogy wouldn't be readily apparent. I can't think of an any more natural metaphor). For first time users things would be even more confusing. IMO, what we are gaining is coming at too high a price. I would still say the explicit version is a lot easier to read. And if we are going to use the explicit version, the color coding actually becomes absolutely redundant, if not distracting. Somewhere below you mentioned "The article shouldn't primarily be educative or presentable but rather informative to every type of visitor of the page". What you are suggesting here is going against what you are preaching! You are artificially imposing a steep learning curve for new readers before they can make use of the data present in the article. --soum ^talk 03:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your work on the alterations to the table, but I think that the size and shape of the table was better when it was less stretched-out. Maybe having the table like that but with the present colour coding would work well (I still think that retaining team names is a good idea though). Also, the order of teams in the table should probably be in alphabetical order so that it reads better, although I know that all of these fixes can be a bit of a pain.

Juwe (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The size and shape of the table is the least of worries now. We first have to decide whether we will retain the color coded table or go back to the previous version. Layout can be fixed antime (I changed it in the first place because when the teams names are not put, BRC was wrapping over to the second line, weirdly distorting the consistency of the table). I also think the winning team names should be retained; without that the table is getting harder to read. But then I also think the color coding is of no use when the team names are present. May be we should revert the changes I made. --soum ^talk 06:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it such a problem that BRC wrapped over to a second line in the old version though? I don't think it looked bad at all and the box sizes were still exactly the same size for all matches (and for all listed teams). As it is now, there is exactly the same situation with BRC except that it occurs in the top row rather than in the left-hand column. My point was that the table might appear easier to read if it did not look (as I see it) unduly stretched. I think that then the colour coding might appear more natural/useful, as it would be easier to scan across a row or down a column to see if a team was winning most of its home/away matches. I agree that the name of the winning team should be retained though.

Juwe (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You can see a partially colored table with the old dimensions here. Only one row that wraps looks odd, when the rest of the rows do not. Obviously it won't be a problem if the teams are listed, as then all rows will wrap to the second line. Thats why I said, let's decide the other things first. Dealing with the dimensions would be much simpler. --soum ^talk 07:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Basically this means that if we want colour coding we have to have either team names, a stretched table, or both. I think we both agree (and maybe others do too) that the stretched table with colour-coding but without team names doesn't really work. This means that team names must be retained, either with or without the colour-coding. If we assume that there must be team names then there is no longer any need for the stretching. In that case the only decision left is whether we have colour-coding (in an unstretched table with team names present) or not. My preference would be to have colour-coding, as I think it would work much better in an unstretched table.

Juwe (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent): Yeah, the question is pretty much whether we want color coding or not. I guess will first have to do it and then only we will be in a position to decide. --soum ^talk 10:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Secn break (Fixtures)

Soum, For the fixtures section you said "What we require is probably a section break every 7 matches or something." I suggest that every 8 matches would be a natural choice for section breaks, as blocks of 8 have each team playing twice. There are some exceptions (eg Mumbai played 3 times during the 2nd block of 8 but will only play once in the 3rd block), but on the whole this rule holds pretty well. Juwe (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of something like this (see the first 5 match summary). It is not fully done yet, and functionality-wise ain't perfect. But should give you an idea of what I am trying to achieve. --soum ^talk 16:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Which of these counts as better bowling figues?

In the Bangalore Vs Rajasthan match, Munaf Patel is listed as having the best bowling figures during the Bangalore batting innings for his 2/20 off 3 overs. In the same innings, Shane Watson took 2/20 off 4 overs. In instances like this I would have thought (but don't know) that Shane Watson's figures were regarded as hierarchically better, as he had a better economy rate for the same wickets taken and runs conceded (in the same way that for batsmen a better strike rate for the same runs scored is regarded as a hierarchically better score). I know that hierarchically better figures don't necessarily mean better figures in actuality (eg 2/100 (4 overs) is "hierarchically better" than 1/5 (4 overs) even though the latter figures would be almost universally more sought after). However, I can't see any reason (such as greater number of wickets) why Patel's figures would outrank Watson's. Who's figures actually are "hierarchically better"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juwe (talk • contribs) 19:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess Watson's. --soum ^talk 03:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

When everything else is even, a better economy rate will always prevail. 2/20 off 4 overs is always better than 2/20 off 3 overs. However sometimes bowlers are hilighted because of when they bowled or whom they dismissed, both of which I believe is subjective and should be ignored in instances like this Lympathy ^Talk 15:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In the first innings of Delhi DareDevils vs Chennai Super Kings match, the bowling figures of Albie Morkel and Lakshmipathy Balaji are as follows:

Bowler              O M R  W Nb Wd Eco 
Albie Morkel        4 0 35 2 2  0  8.75 
Lakshmipathy Balaji 4 0 35 2 0  0  8.75

I was wondering, "Which one of these counts as better bowling figures?"
Amit Munje (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how those could be split. I suggest putting both bowling figures on one line, like this:

• "Lakshmipathy Balaji 2/35 (4 overs), Albie Morkel 2/35 (4 overs)"

If that won't fit then just use an extra line.

Juwe (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say Balaji would be shown on merit due to fewer extras, however it is simple enough to include both and in this instance I agree both should be included. Lympathy ^Talk 12:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Fewer extras also means more runs off the bat though. I would think that a no-ball followed by a dot ball is equivalent to a single. In any case, we agree that both sets of figures should be included. Juwe (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Stats

Why do we have Teams in the first column as opposed to the Players? I think every place any one sees individual statistics, the Player's name comes up first rather than the Team.167.131.0.194 (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be better if the team colors appear along with the Team name in the "team" (second) column rather than with the player name.--Eastern Sphinx (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally prefer graphics to be at the beginning or the end, keeping it in the midst of a row is distracting when reading the row from left to right. But I won't edit-war over it. :-p --soum ^talk 18:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask you this, how relevant and important do you think it is to use graphics here? Can't you simply state the name of the player, team, other details and be done with it? LeaveSleaves (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Too much text makes a list rather monotonous to read. Splashes of colors take that monotony away, even if no other purpose is served. :-) --soum ^talk 21:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I should reiterate the same I mentioned in one of the sections above. The article shouldn't primarily be educative or presentable but rather informative to every type of visitor of the page. LeaveSleaves (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Presentation is actually very important, but it shouldn't come at the cost of the core functionality (which is what you said). When that purpose is made, adding up spices in a way that does not degrade the value - sure I prefer that but wouldn't be spending hours arguing when it is not there. --soum ^talk 03:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

How about adding 4's and 6's columns to the "most runs" table? And a separate table for most sixes by a player in the tournament? --Eastern Sphinx (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the statistics section of the article could be split off into a seperate page much like this page, if tables showing a variety of other statistics and records were included (such as highest individual scores, best bowling figures, highest team scores...)

Juwe (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

FLY KINGFISHER FAIR PLAY

Do we include them in the stats too? Only catch is that there no immediate update available. The IPL website is slow in updating.67.189.40.226 (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like no one is bother about this one - so forget it.67.189.40.226 (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It is part of the tournement. So I think they should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.110.147 (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I think it should be included Nadesai (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Best Economy Rate (and Bating Strike Rate)

I am not sure that I understand the logic behind having minimum 2 overs per match played by the team (including the matches not played by this bowler) as the qualifying criterion for this table. It seems overly complicated.

Does it mean that a bowler's performance is excluded if he only bowls 1 over in a match in which he plays? Does it means that he is excluded because he averages less than 2 overs per match (i.e say he joins in his team's 5th game and bowls 4 overs in game 5, 4 overs in game 6 and 4 overs in game 7 but averages 12/7 = 1.7 overs for those games so we therefore ignore his stats?).

Would not a better criterion just be to say that a bowler's performance is eligible if he bowls, say, a minimum of 8 overs (or 10 or 12 or whatever) in the entire tournament? Kind regards--Calabraxthis ^(talk) 06:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Surely the purpose of having such a filter is to prevent an extremely part-time bowler, who happens to bowl 1 over in the tounament for 3 runs, from topping the "economy rate table". An appropriate filter that allows enough averaging to weed out statistical anomalies would be, like you say, "minimum (some number) of overs bowled in the tournament".

Juwe (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I added Strike Rate to this since even that applies the same logic. It may not make sense since for some teams with big wicket margin wins, not all batsmen get to play full part in the match. May be a cut off of say 150-200 runs per player will help to filter it better and give chance to include other batsmen who did not get to bat in every single match for their team (for e.g. Symonds did not get to bat in Mumbai match).67.189.40.226 (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

On second thought may be even bring it down to say 50-100 runs as it is not even halfway through the tournament. May be in second half we can filter on 150 plus scores.67.189.40.226 (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Michael Hussey be removed now since he has scored 7 runs less than the cut off (Chennai has played their 7th match and the qualifying total by the criteria is 7*25 = 175), and may be in a few days even McCullum will be dropped out. I would suggest a cut off of 200 runs. Otherwise by this criteria, at the end of the league phase a batsmen has to score over 350 (14*25) runs to qualify and even more if his team reaches semi's and final's. That is somewhat too much and only leave chances for mostly openers to be there at the top of the strike rate table.167.131.0.194 (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that the tournament is nearly over, we can see what a reasonable cut-off for number of runs scored and wickets bowled is, in order to be eligible for our tables. For the batting strike rate, under the current condition of needing to have scored at least 25 runs for every match a player's team has played, only 12 batsmen qualify. I think we should start phrasing the criterion simply in terms needing to have scored more than some number of runs (rather than more than some number per match) as it is simpler and it reads better. Additionally, I agree with 67.189.40.226's suggestion of 150 runs scored as a cutoff point for batting strike rate eligibility. This would mean that currently about 30 batsmen are eligible for the table, with that number probably rising to 40 or 50 by the end of the tournament. I think that 150 runs is an adequate filter to weed out statistical flukes (eg Umar Gul having 8 runs off 4 balls). For the bowling economy rates, I suggest that 20 overs bowled is a sensible cutoff point. For a reasonably economical bowler who conceeds 7.5 runs per over (about 30 bowlers are currently achieving this economy rate or better), this would amount to at least 150 runs being scored off that bowler, which ties in rather well with the batting strike rate condition. Juwe (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If no-one replies reasonably soon then I will implement my proposed changes. Juwe (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Juwe (talk) 12:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(Conversation just transferred from my talk page) Juwe (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC):

Hi, I am the person who initially put these tables on that page (and had thought of those unnecessarily convoluted filters). I do agree that for bowling the filter proposed by you is better just because it is much simpler, and achieves the same thing that was intended in the first place (i.e. someone shouldn't be high on this list at the end of the tournament just by having 1 or 2 good performances). 20 overs cutoff ensures that the bowler has bowled in at least 5 matches, which seems a big enough sample to decide whether he REALLY was economical overall and not just on one bad pitch/against one bad opposition.

This, however, is not true for the batting filter if we just say that everyone over 150 runs qualifies. A single great performance (by McCullum, Symonds, Hussey etc) which might've been the result of a really good batting pitch and/or a weak bowling attack ensures that you will be high on this list even at the end of the tournament. That does not seem ideal to me.

So, in my opinion, either 150 runs is just too small a limit for this table and should be raised to maybe 200. But, probably more appropriately, we could make it something like at least 7 innings (considering that 14 matches is the minimum that every team gets to play) or maybe a combination of both (at least 5 innings and at least 150 runs, perhaps?).

Perhaps I have this stupid knack of coming up with convoluted filters when a simpler one will do the trick. If you can think of something better that will take care of this problem then please let me know about it. The problem I am speaking of is this couple-of-good-days-and-you're-top-of-the-heap nature of the 150 runs filter.

Thanks Rtyags (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rtyags.

I suppose the fundamental problem with those 2 tables is that they require filters at all, unlike the "most runs" and "most wickets" tables, and that it is potentially better for a player to have played fewer matches. For the "batting strike rate" table, when I changed the old filter to the new one, I was essentially trying to avoid the situation of having the table consist of the fastest scoring 5 batman out of the 9 or 10 highest scoring batsmen (as well as simplifying the filter to the reader).

Your point about single performances being responsible for most of the 150 runs is a good one, although I don't like the idea of the qualification being just "at least 7 innings" as this could lead to some tailender having scored (something like) 50 runs off 22 balls over 7 innings and being at the head of the table. Maybe your idea of a combination of runs and innings is the way to go. I think "7 innings and 150 runs" might be appropriate, as "5 innings" could still easily lead to McCullum-type situations (he had 4 innings). At the moment, this combination has 26 eligible batsmen, which I think is a large enough pool, especially given that this will probably rise somewhat by the tournament end.

Finally, I don't think your filters were bad to start with. There were 2 things that made them more appropriate earlier on in the tournament:

• Much less than the full quota of matches had been played and so it would be ridiculous to have a filter that said "at least 7 innings" when each team had only played 5 matches, or "at least 150 runs" if only 3 batsmen had yet surpassed this number of runs.
• We didn't know what sort of runs totals batsmen would end up with for the tournament. I think that at the start of the tournament, I expected far more batsmen to have passed 200 runs and 300 runs by now.

So in summing up, I think that "7 innings played and 150 runs scored" is a good solution. What do you think? Juwe (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think 7 innings and 150 runs seems a good enough filter that should give desirable results even at the end of the season. And as you mentioned, we might go with a modified version of my original filters for the initial part of every season. Rtyags (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good Juwe (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(End of conversation from my talk page) Juwe (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Bangalore team name

Is it Royal Challengers Bangalore or Bangalore Royal Challengers? Both names are used interchangably in IPL and related wikipedia articles. We should standardize one usage. --soum ^talk 19:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest RCB because thats used everywhere in TV and print media. Plus the article here is titled so. In fact, I am being WP:BOLD and changing the {{Cr-IPL}} accordingly. --soum ^talk 19:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Logos in point table

I have removed them. They made the rows too tall, which necessitated scaling of the fonts, and those two combined made the table look F ugly. Plus the logs had different vertical sizes which made the table rows of different heights. Strive for a little consistency, will you? And finally, and most important of all, at 50 px, many of the logos - such as Rajasthan and Kolkata - were barely discernable. The images are either JPGs or GIFs, which scale very badly. Shrunk to 50px, they were just botches of colors, and thus fail to serve their purpose. As such, there is no point keeping them here until someone vectorizes them. They are better off in team infoboxes. Or may be a short infobox-style intro here before the match results. I will take a stab at the latter sometime later. --soum ^talk 03:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - I still think the table's too hard to read right now with the colours though, especially for the top four - I'm going to have a go changing it to something similar to the tables on 2007 ICC World Twenty20 and 2007 Cricket World Cup. Quack 688 (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Btw, with the batting and bowling stats at the bottom, do people think it's easier to read those tables when they're as wide as the whole page, or when they're more compact? I prefer a more compact look, but I'm not worried enough to change it myself. Quack 688 (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

A full width isn't necessary. But the same width across all table, IMO, looks better. --soum ^talk 04:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Purple cap award

I notice that with the "most wickets" table, players level on wickets are sorted according to who has the better bowling average (as cricinfo does). However, according to the news article cited for the purple cap award, "In the event of a tie at any given time, the holder will be determined by superior economy rate." Thus potentially the person at the head of the table (in its current format) will not be the wearer of the purple cap. I suggest rearrangement of the table so that it is sorted by wickets then economy rate rather than wickets then average. Presumably, similar reasoning is true for the orange cap award for most runs (and should thus be sorted by runs then strike rate). Juwe (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

They are manually sorted anyway, so it won't effect who is at the top, but yes it should be in order of how it is actually calculated.--58.111.134.228 (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My point was that it was currently being (manually) sorted so that "best average" was a tie-breaker in cases of equal wickets rather than "best economy rate". This would mean that if Zaheer Khan and Sreesanth had each taken one more wicket, our table would have had Sreesanth at the top (and in purple) even though Zaheer would be the actual wearer of the purple cap. Or maybe we would have had Zaheer on top based on economy rate, but the rest of the table sorted on averages - not very nice. Anyway, I've switched a few of the columns around now so that it is clearer that economy rate should be used as the tie-breaker. Juwe (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Table legends

Hi Soumyasch,

In your recent edit you said "For consistency with other tables on this page, float the legend to the right." I can understand this point, but it seems that the legends are actually all located so that their right edge corresponds to the right edge of the relevant table (eg the "Standings" table). For full width tables this amounts to the same thing. I think it looks better to have the legend underneath the table it refers to, rather than off to the right hand side under a blank space. Additionally, you said "The centered version also unnecessarily wraps to a second line." I appreciate this point and I didn't like the wrapping either, but I couldn't see another way to do it and I still thought it looked better the way I modified it. If someone is able to modify the table without the wrapping, that would be ideal. Any comments? Juwe (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have solved the wrapping problem, so I am going to reinstate the move of the legend now. Juwe (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It still wraps on a non-widescreen screen layout. I am taking a stab. --soum ^talk 04:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done. But I don't have access to a widescreen monitor right away. Please verify. And how does the entire table scale on widescreen monitors when it is made a full width table? On 4:3 monitors its okay. --soum ^talk 05:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a 16:10 monitor and there is no wrapping problem. However, the 2 notes are indented about twice as far as desirable and the right edge of the legend box is about level with the right edge of the Rajasthan Royals column. Juwe (talk) 05:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so the percentages won't work. Sizes needs to be hardcoded. --soum ^talk 05:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

How does it look now? --soum ^talk 06:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The indentation of the notes is fine, but the legend is right next to them (right edge is level with the middle of the Kings XI Punjab column) and the legend is almost too small to read. Juwe (talk) 06:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The text size was an unfortunate mistake. Sorry about that. Please take a look at how it looks currently. Its too hard to edit blind. :-P --soum ^talk 06:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Good work. Juwe (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Franchise and team details

I do not think the Standings table is a good place to disseminate that information from. The results tally should be to the point and as succint as possible. Anything but the points tally is information overload.

Since there has been much disagreement over how franchise and team details should be presented, I think we should have a discussion here and figure it out once and for all. I think details such as how much the franchise sold for et al are not necessary in this article. It is aptly covered in Indian Premier League. If at all, only the team name, owner name and logo should be enough. And may be captain and coach. And that should not be stuffed into any existing table. The tables are fine as they are. If teams are needed, there should be a different section for them, where the list may be presented in something like side-by-side infoboxes. --soum ^talk 18:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There could be a section "Teams" section with a few basic details before the "Standings" section, but this shouldn't include stuff that is not specifically relevant to the 2008 IPL (such as how much each franchise cost). There already are team infoboxes on each of the team pages, so I suppose those could be used with a few of the details omitted. Juwe (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Logo sizes up for discussion. --soum ^talk 19:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. One thing I notice though is that Adam Gilchrist is down as the captain of Deccan, whereas the appointed captain is VVS Laxman. I will change that in the table, but should we include notes to say "Adam Gilchrist captained Deccan in some matches" and "Harbhajan Singh and Shaun Pollock were also used as captains by Mumbai in some matches" (but worded better)? Is that too much detail? Are there any other examples of fill-in captains? Juwe (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess that may be added as footnotes. Anyways, I added Adam Gilchrist as captain because Laxman has been ruled out of the entire series and Gilly named captain for the remainder. If you think it should be changed, I have no objections. --soum ^talk 04:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

How about adding nationality flags to captains and coaches (no extra columns, just before the names)? Eastern Sphinx (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me. Juwe (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Summary

There should probably be a section for a summary of how the tournament has gone so far in a fairly broad way. Something which mentions how teams have fared, the main factors behind this and how performances have compared to pre-tournament expectations. For instance Rajasthan have obviously gone extremely well so far and this has been a surprise to most observers. By contrast Bangalore and Deccan have struggled, due to lack batsmen suited to twenty20 cricket and lack of consistency in the batting respectively. Mumbai started out with 4 consecutive defeats but have rebounded with 4 consecutive victories, largely on the back of Shaun Pollock's recent performances but due in part to Jayasuriya's explosive knock in the last match. They have also been missing Harbhajan Singh and Sachin Tendulkar for large periods for different reasons.

The summary should mention players who have performed well (eg Shane Watson, the Pathans, Shaun Marsh, Rohit Sharma, Gautam Gambhir, Brendon McCullum at the start etc...), as well as those who have come in for criticism (eg Jacques Kallis, Shahid Afridi for his batting...). Some referenced quotes from some notable commentators would be useful. Maybe also some words on how the tournament itself has gone, ie how successful it has been from various points of view. Juwe (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, a relevant picture or 2 wouldn't go amiss. Juwe (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be good. Maybe an "Overview" section or something. --soum ^talk 17:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Net Run Rate listings

Where are the NRRs listed in the article sourced from? For some teams they are differing from the televised NRRs. True Sony Max airs them upt two significant decimal points but here its upto three. But on rounding them to two decimal pts., the values should be same. As of May 17, Punjab, Delhi, Mumbai and Decan do not match with the TV airings. Which one to trust? --soum ^talk 19:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Soum,

The nrr that you reverted a few minutes ago are from cricinfo. They disagreed with your figures for 2 teams. One of the teams was Deccan. I have just gone through all the runs and overs (including counting all out as equivalent to using 20 overs) for all the matches involving Deccan and my calculations agree with the cricinfo site in every detail. Also, the table has nrr to 3 decimal places and as such should have 3 decimal places for all teams. For example, if the nrr was -0.320000 for a team, this should be listed as -0.320 (not -0.32) as -0.32 implies a smaller degree of precision than -0.320 and the degree of precision should be the same for all teams. In short, I say we should use the cricinfo figures (they seem to be reliable) and we should list nrr to 3 decimal places on every occasion.

Juwe (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That settles it then. :-P No, it should not be settled this easily. :-D Cricinfo is not officially affiliated with the series. Any stats they maintain is not going to be used by BCCI/IPL should the need arise. We should instead use (and link to) the iplt20.com stats instead of the Cricinfo ones. (That they are same is a different matter, though).

I know the difference between 2 and 3 places of precision. My edits were meant as placeholder till we could find the "correct" NRR. --soum ^talk 20:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Btw, do we need so much rain details for the delhi/punjab match? --soum ^talk 19:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I wasn't trying to imply anything about your knowledge of precision - sorry if it came out that way. It was just something that occurred to me as I saw the 2dp figures for some teams and I thought I'd better make a note of it.

I put all of the details in because when overs are lost to rain is relevant to Duckworth-Lewis calculations. As it turns out, I initially put in an erroneous detail (which has since been removed), but I believe that it is important to mention all occasions of overs lost to rain.

Finally with the cricinfo thing, I (obviously) think we should use the correct figures. Determining which figures are correct is not controversial as it merely involves simple, objective calculations. NRR calculation is not something intrinsic to the official IPL organisers. I see your point about use by the BCCI, but I somehow think that if there was a controversy over what the NRR was and who qualified for the semi-finals, there would be enough of a stir for the correct figures to be determined and agreed upon once and for all. Essentially what I am saying is that we should use a reliable source for the nrr figures, and I think cricinfo is that. Additionally, while the official IPL site is improving day by day, it still isn't the highest quality of site and if there was a conflict between figures on cricinfo and figures on the IPL site, I would think it highly likely that the error was on the IPL site. That is my opinion anyway :-) Juwe (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Country flag for West Indies players

In my opinion the country flag for West Indies players should be flag of West Indies cricket board (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:West_Indies_Cricket_Board_Flag.svg) and not of their actual countries. This is applicable to all IPL related pages. Eastern Sphinx (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The players aren't playing for the West Indies and the West Indies is not a country but a group of countries. Considering they are playing in the IPL rather than representing their "national" team, I think the flag of the player's nationality (eg Trinidad and Tobago) is appropriate. Juwe (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think nationality is a redundant column out here. The correct one would be teams represented, similar to what cricinfo has. Ninadhardikar (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that a cricinfo player profile (for a West Indian player) displays most prominently "West Indies" because this is the team that the player represents at the highest levels (ie in International cricket) throughout their whole career. However, for the IPL, players are not at any time representing (ie playing for) the West Indies or any other Test playing nation. They are only playing for (for example) the Kolkata Knight Riders. Incidentally, all the West Indian players do represent the teams of their respective nationalities (see eg Guyana national cricket team) as well as the West Indies Cricket team (and such teams are also shown on the cricinfo player profiles). Juwe (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Eliminated teams

Should a team have a red background in the tourmanet table if they can no longer make the finals. I believe it is now mathematically impossible for decan to make the finals, since they only have 3 games left to play and even with 3 wins, 4 teams already have more points than them. Same thing will happen to Royal Challengers if they loose tonight.--210.49.89.135 (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I was bold and did it, someone revert if im wrong. --210.49.89.135 (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont think its necessary. Pretty soon two more teams will be "out". And the bgcolor would lose its significance. --soum ^talk 08:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

On other sports pages once the 4 places are decided the red changes to a darker grey. But while its up in the air, the red is good because it can show who can't make it anymore.--210.49.89.135 (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Form Guide

It might be useful to have a form guide table, something similar to this: National Rugby League season 2008#Ladder Progression, but maybe with "W" and "L" (with green and red backgrounds respectively) instead of the points totals each team was on after each match. There are not "rounds" in the IPL, and so one team may have played 2 matches more than another team at any one time, but each team will end up playing 14 group matches. It would show at a glance how each team's season has progressed eg Mumbai starting with 4 losses but then having 6 consecutive wins. Juwe (talk) 08:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Might be a good idea but not sure of it. Am taking a stab though. --soum ^talk 19:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done --soum ^talk 19:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I modified the table to link the scores to the summaries of the respective matches. Please verify that the linkages are correct (I verified Chennai and Kolkata). --soum ^talk 05:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done. All links seem to be OK Juwe (talk) 07:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Logo usage in "Teams" section

The eight team logos cannot be used on this page. They are all WP:Non-free images, and their respective fair-use rationales only allow their usage on individual team pages. For example, Image:Mumbai Indians Logo IPL.gif can only be used on the Mumbai Indians article but nowhere else. I realize that the table is more aesthetically pleasing with them included here, but that is against Wikipedia policy for legal reasons, and is being strictly enforced all over the wiki. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If its so then i have removed the team section as it was not looking good without logos...and i appreciate your progression table. Harryroger (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Knockout stage "graphic"

I think the "graphic" that summarizes the progression of the knockout stage ({{IPL Knockout}}) should be moved up the page to, maybe, below the Results table. Just below the current position of the graphic table, the match summaries are already present. Summarizing it again seems redundant. Instead if it is moved up, the summary will be easily accessible to people - even those who do not want to scroll down to almost the end of the article to see the summary of the knockout stage.

To that end, I changed the template used to create the graphic. The previous one had could not render the results for the semi finals/final matches. --soum ^talk 21:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No one objected. I am moving it up. --soum ^talk 04:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)