Talk:2005 Ashes series

Name change

What do you think about moving the article to: The 2005 Ashes? --Commander Keane 06:08, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Don't think I'd mind too much - the article name as it stands is a bit unwieldy and unnecessary (given that there's only going to be one Ashes this year) Sam Vimes 08:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I have moved it, and will fix up any double redirects soon (at the moment I think I am waitng for a cache to purge for a template to update or something) --Commander Keane 16:38, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Upcoming match layout

All of the basic foundations for match summaries for the last three Tests have been completed. Simply plug in data and you're all set and ready to go...hope you don't mind.

Referee appointments have been added for the Third, Fourth and Final Tests straight off the ICC website. It is accurate as of 7:04 AM Mountain Daylight Time, Sunday, August 7, 2005.

Cheers, anonymous IP address. ;) Sam Vimes 16:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate match summaries

I have noticed that match summaries are duplicated on this article and at a specific test match artcile (eg England v Australia 21-25 July 2005). Which one will be deleted eventually? --Commander Keane 14:53, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Probably the England v Australia 21-25 July 2005 one. That's the plan, anyway. Sam Vimes 14:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Third test

Fellas the match is on in Manchester, I've plugged in the first stats for the test at Old Trafford so far onto the main page, and did a little cleanup work on the whole page as well. I hope you like it...Anonymous IP adress, batting out.

Wow! Thanks a bunch - that's something off my workload for the week. For future reference, I moved the English innings details to the top, since they batted first (there is logic in that template! ;)) So, if you intend to continue writing about cricket matches here, please stick to that format. Cheers anyway! Sam Vimes 06:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, you must forgive me then, I'm still a bit of an amateur cricket fan myself, being from Canada and all...I am doing my very best to keep up. :)

Hehe, welcome from another "amateur", then :). I'm from Norway, as you can see from my user page. Sam Vimes 13:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice to add the comment by Vaughan at the end of match - something like "look at that, 5 or 10 years ago you would have never seen an Australian team celebrating a draw with England." The comments can be heard on the extra DVD released by Channel 4, but I won't have access to my copy for a couple of months. If people agree, could someone add the reference?

212.84.97.143 20:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Fourth Test Updates

Well fellas it seems the English have the game in hand...so let's move on to the issue of test 4 at Trent Bridge. Perhaps may I suggest a regular updating schedule, rather than having everyone update after ever 10 or 15 overs...? J L C Leung

Maybe we could try an internet chat, like ICQ, to coordinate. --Commander Keane 11:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Fifth Test POV

Erm, the article states baldly that the ball which dismissed Geraint Jones "kept low". No doubt this is his POV, however we should give some consideration to the possibility that he just misread the length and it was too quick for him. Perhaps it would be better to say "decisively bowled when he played a rapid Tait delivery as if it had kept low". --DominicSayers 14:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead and edit it, then :) Sam Vimes 14:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge summary pages for now

I think having the match summaries on this article and individual pages hampers their development. I recommend having all the summaries on this page until the Ashes are over, and then move them to their own pages after that. In the mean time we can put a notcie on the individual pages like "Summaries are currenyly at The 2005 Ashes". Any objetions? --Commander Keane 10:46, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I would make a small objection. I don't quite see the advantage in pulling them together now - what would you like to do with them that you can't do when they're on separate pages? And the advantage of having each match summary on a separate page is that they can appear on pages like 2005 English cricket season (1-15 August). Sam Vimes 15:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I won't move anything. It was just that when I visited earlier today, a match summary for day 5 of the most recent Test wasn't on this article (but it was at the idividual page). I think having all the summaries on the this artilce during the series encourages more editing (I know form my 2005 Tour de France experience). Maybe for next time (two years, I know) we won't make the separate summary artilces until the series is finshed. --Commander Keane 15:21, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that last points - I've come to the conclusion myself that the method used for the English cricket season games isn't terribly efficient, strains resources on servers, and can nearly as easily be done by means of subst commands. Just to your point that a match summary on day 5 wasn't on this page but on the individual page - that comes from a quirky server thing. People should purge the server cache of the 2005 Ashes page after they do updates - use this link to purge the cache.

Also, I'm not quite sure what you're proposing to do - as I understand it, you want to copy the content from the individual pages onto here, and then keep them on the 1st Test, 2nd Test etc. articles as well? Sam Vimes 15:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I was proposing, for the next series, that articles like First Test: England v Australia (21-24 July) are not created until a couple of weeks after the completion of the entire series, and that all content goes in the The 2005 Ashes article until then. This way there will not be cache issues. I am a little confused though, how is the info from First Test: England v Australia (21-24 July) updated on The 2005 Ashes. I assumed it was a manual process, but maybe not. --Commander Keane 15:49, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realise that we were using templates! Much of my conversation is redundent then. Sorry 'bout that. --Commander Keane 15:52, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Main headers

I have removed the main section header for "Matches", since there are no longer two major sections to the page...it is just for a bit of a touchup to this page. --J L C Leung 22:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Test Ranking

"whilst England at one point had sunk as low as 7th in the test team rankings ahead of only Bangladesh and Zimbabwe." -- there's 10 test teams so either the first or second parts are wrong--josh 22:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I've ploughed through the ICC archive of Test rankings and all I can find is fifth - they may have been seventh on the Wisden rankings at one point, but I don't know where to get those. Sam Vimes 05:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm.. may have been wrong here. I remember reading this on the BBC website, but I can't find it either now. My (possibly faulty) memory is that the nadir was sometime in the late Atherton era, prior to Bangladesh being given test status, so 7th is possible, being ahead of Bangladesh is not. However, I'd stand by the sentiment. England were frankly an embarrassment in the 90s. Jonathan

Found some more "definitive" info: Ratings graphs. There are several low points: 6th of 7 in 1990-91, 6th of 9 from 93 to 98. Never lower than that in the professional era. I'll change the main article. Jonathan

That site works its own figures out by its own system - it's not a reflection of the ICC/Wisden rankings. For example in December 2004 they had South Africa in second whereas the ICC had them sixth. There might've been a lower point for England by that system. --Cherry blossom tree 11:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the ICC ranking system only started in May 2001[1]. The Wisden had ranking system going back to 1996, which the first ICC rankings were based on but have since changed the system. So any rankings before 1996 are completly unofficial.--josh 14:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The Wisden rankings were unofficial. After the Eng-NZ 1999 series, which England lost 2-1, England were ranked 9th out of nine. However, by the time they played their next match, they were back in 8th, and had risen to 3rd by March 2001, at which point the official ICC rankings were introduced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.206.240 (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Post-Ashes status of page

Well gents and ladies, this has been a wonderful series. I will soon pull up the Current tag like Bowden and Koertzen did with the stumps after bad light. So what will happen to this page? Will there be any sort of way we can protect this page from further edits (unless necessary) so to prevent any overzealous fan from trying to "rewrite" history and undoing all of our fine work? --J L C Leung 17:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Oi! That's not wiki - or, indeed, not cricket. If there's something we've forgotten, something that's flatly wrong, or something that ought to be rephrased, anyone should be able to. That's the way wikipedia works, after all. Sam Vimes 19:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

True, in a sense...I guess I'm just being a tad paranoid I guess! So much work that should not be ruined or vandalized is contained here. But like I said, should we keep an constant eye on it for vandalism? (Dang, I should've said the V word on the first go) --J L C Leung 20:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, of course. Just like most other articles, I expect. It'll remain on my watchlist, anyway :) Sam Vimes 20:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The page is actually far too long, given that each match has its own page. --Henrygb 01:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

That is very true; and not to mention there will be at least another month of bickering in Australia to summarize after this (and maybe a bit of English gloating...and perhaps even a knighting or two! My money's on Sir Freddy.)

Name, revisited

This article should be brought in line with the naming conventions, which recommend against page names beginning with articles like "the". The main exception is for cases which need the "the" because it is part of a title, e.g. The Guardian is an article about the newspaper.

The Ashes, in my view, is OK. It's a borderline case (it's a title in a sense; but see America's Cup for a precedent going the other way); but in the end, what tips the balance in favor of including "the" is the need for ashes to be an everyday page, not a specialized one. (It's like The Telegraph, which is a newspaper, as opposed to telegraph, which is an invention.)

"The 2005 Ashes," on the other hand, isn't OK. So here are some alternatives:

• 2005 Ashes
• 2005 Ashes series
• The Ashes 2005

(A note on this last one: by putting a functional adjective between "the" and "ashes" in the 2005 Ashes we are not treating "the ashes" as a title, since titles are untouchable. Hence the "the" doesn't belong. But by moving the "2005" to the end, we keep "the Ashes" together, which can be interpreted as a title — in which case the "the" can stay. This is not my preferred solution, however.) Doops | talk 19:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

2005 Ashes sounds ok to me - it'll be a bit like 2003 Cricket World Cup and 2005 NFL season (although the football has it the other way around, with Football World Cup 2006). Sam Vimes 19:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I like #3 as well, but we can redirect all of the aforementioned pages to the newly-renamed page. It works. :) --J L C Leung 20:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Um, isn't there a Women's 2005 Ashes? (I hope we have a page somewhere - England won it for the first time in 42 years - [2].) Isn't "The Ashes 2005" or "The 2005 Ashes" a mite POV? Scondly, why does this series break the standard "[Team A] in [Country B], [season]" format? -- ALoan (Talk) 01:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Because we have Australians in England in 2005, too - it's just better hidden (you can get to it from the International cricket template, among other things). This page just contains the 5 Tests, Australians in England contains all matches played by the Aussies. As for point about Women's 2005 Ashes that should redirect to Australian Women's Cricket in England in 2005 (and when you say the Ashes, it's pretty obvious that you talk about the lads, although there might be a dab notice on top) 06:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC) (this was written by Sam Vimes)

Right-ho - added a redirect, although is there a reason for two articles for the men but only one for the women (other than that no-one has written it)?

That's the way jguk formatted it at the start of the season. Sam Vimes 12:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Thinking further, is the standard format broken? Australians in England in 2005 is a bit odd: the women are also "Australians in England in 2005" and, presumably there are a few Australians in England in 2005 who will not be playing first-class cricket. Assuming that we agree that the men's team is better known, should they not be at Australian cricket team in England in 2005 with a dab to the women, who should be Australian women's cricket team in England in 2005 (without the funny capitalisation), and this format should be used for earlier years. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

That's probably the best way, yes, the names of the [Team A] in [Country B] in [Season] is a bit odd, and there was a discussion at New Zealanders in Zimbabwe in 2005 about it. It's more accurate to mention cricket team in the title, I think. 12:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the main article on the Ashes can legitimately have a "the" in it, but I've never been too keen on the title of this page. I would prefer "2005 Ashes series" or "2005 Ashes". — Trilobite 09:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I think 2005 Ashes series is the best, with a dab to the women's series. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Vote?

OK, there are a lot of name issues being discussed. Sticking to main question, I'd like to take a straw poll so I can figure out which name will have the most support for Wikipedia:requested moves. Please vote for your favorite option below. Doops | talk 00:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

1: The 2005 Ashes (no change)
2: 2005 Ashes

• • Doops | talk 00:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC): simplest option is best. I would also be OK with options 3 or 4; the only option I oppose is 1.
    

3: 2005 Ashes series

• • Trilobite 08:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC). Option 2 would also be fine, option 4 I'm less keen on, and I oppose option 1.
  • Loganberry (Talk) 10:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC). I'd also be reasonably happy with option 2, though I think it looks nicer with "series" in the title. I certainly think the year should go first, so I'd oppose either the status quo (option 1) or option
  • As above. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, looks better with series. Sam Vimes 14:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm in on this one. --J L C Leung 00:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

4: The Ashes 2005

• • This seeems to be much the most common reference accordingly to google, is how The Times and the Guardian generally refer to the series, and is furthermore most consistent with the 'parent' article. "2005 Ashes series" and "The 2005 Ashes" both turn up WP as top hit (unless my wikidiction is just totally skewing google's pagerank algorithm for me...), which is always slightly concerning, as well as getting an order of magnitude or fewer hits. Alai 13:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I would go with this one. josh 19:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

5: None of the above (please specify alternate suggestion)

OK, this is a workable consensus. I'm listing this page on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Doops | talk 17:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

England/English and Australia/Australian

Shouldn't most of the references to 'English' and 'Australian' actually be to 'England' and 'Australia'? You would say "the England cricket team", not "the English cricket team" and "the England coach" not "the English coach", and the "the England bowlers" not "the English bowlers". There are many examples of this throughout the article. I would change them, but there are a lot of changes to make, so I thought I'd check here first. Carcharoth 02:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Decisively yes. "The English coach" could, in fact, refer to any coach who hailed from England. Please edit away! [[smoddy]] 22:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Fixed the text of this page, and the text for the First Test. Not had time to do the other four Tests. Can someone else do this, please? Carcharoth 23:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

English is more natural and better except where it would cause confusion. CSMR 05:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

"Australia were perhaps rather braggardly indicating that a 5-0 win in the series was a serious possibility."

McGrath suggested this; I am not sure that anyone else did.

Hayden had his moments, too: "I'm not trying to be arrogant when I say this, but I don't really care about them. We know that if we are playing to the best of our ability then England will not come close to us." Jonathan

Requested move

Please see the "name, revisited" § above for discussion on the new name. Doops | talk 17:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Discision

Page moved per request. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 12:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Photos

I could take some screencaps from the Ashes DVD. I don't entirely understand the fair-use rules, but I believe this would be OK? HornetMike 16:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think it would. Screencaps are only permitted to illustrate "the work in question", and I think that could be rigidly interpreted as the actual Ashes DVD, not the Ashes series itself. Strict rules, but understandable, since people want to protect their copyright. Sam Vimes 09:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Last wicket at Edgbaston

Not wishing to create any Anglo-Australian tension here but I think the assertation that Billy Bowden's decision to give Kasprowicz out was 'incorrect' is a little misleading. It's harsh on Bowden - it looked out to me and I'm sure it did to everyone watching - and TV replays have been inconclusive. Ericatom 00:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I've rephrased it a bit - it's a fact that BBC reported is as "the dismissal should not have been given", though, so I think it's best to mention that even though it wasn't exactly what was on everyone's mind. Sam Vimes 09:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

'Gilos Ashes'?

This is the first time I have ever heard anyone refer to this series as "Gilo's Ashes". I think the statement referring to this series as such should be removed. If anything, the series will be remembered as "Freddie's Ashes".Robruss24 10:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

MBEs and OBEs

Just as a matter of interest, if Australia win the Ashes in 2006/2007 (and we will) should our team also receive MBEs and OBEs as the English team did (She's our Queen, too)? Are they going to make a practice of it? And were they only given to the English team anyway as an overreaction to an undoubtably excited England? Apterygial 05:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the Australian cricket team should receive MBEs and OBEs though, you were favourites to beat us! I'm sorry, but the England team didn't get MBEs and OBEs because of an 'overreaction to an undoubtably excited England'. They got them because they beat all odds, and worked incredibly hard, to beat an incredibly good Australia. This last Ashes series, Australia breezed through an underperforming England. Of course, if you do get them, you'll have to wait until the end of the year. So I agree with the handing out of MBEs and OBEs. That doesn't explain why she didn't give MBEs and OBEs to every Liverpool F.C. player after they (against all odds and 3-0 behind at half-time), won the UEFA Champions League

On a topic related to the main article, can anyone change the thing that says Michael Clarke (cricketer), to just Michael Clarke? Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 08:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Fail

Unfortunately, this article is not ready for GA status at this time. Referencing is a major problem. Entire sections lack references, and many quotations (including those from world leaders such as Tony Blair) lack sources. Aside from the referencing, a few other problems come to mind:

1. It is full of jargon. A few examples: "16-ball duck", "four-hour unbeaten knock", "went into the tea break on 72", "Marcus Trescothick and Andrew Strauss made hay".
2. Some of the writing is point of view: "leaving Australia perilously placed at 175 for 9", "the third, which dismissed Damien Martyn lbw, was a poor decision", "(Ironically, Jones learned most of his cricket Down Under!)", "Strauss was freakishly dismissed for 35".
3. Reference 29 doesn't work.
4. References are not formatted consistently.
5. Copyediting is needed. Some writing errors (eg. ending sentences without punctuation) should have been caught before the nomination.

This article needs quite a bit of work before it is ready, so I am going to fail it. I believe that it needs copyediting and thorough referencing before it is renominated. Having someone from outside of the cricket wikiproject look over it would also be a good idea, as I don't believe that this article is accessible to many readers without a thorough knowledge of the sport. The League of Copyeditors might be your best bet. I also see that the last peer review was in 2005, so a new one might help identify some issues that should be addressed. Please get in touch if you have any questions about this review. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of "evidence" to suggest Michael Kasprowicz was not out on the final day

I've removed the note that suggests that Michael Kasprowicz was not out since it hit his hand for two reasons. First, because there is contrary evidence from other sources which interpret the wicket was justified. Second, because if you set this precedent then we can go through all dismissals - all of which are vital, when considered carefully - and interrogate their plausability, using different interpretations as evidence. Here, it sounds like the editor was unhappy with the result, a condition which the umpire is more or less immune to. Third, such ambiguity did not represent the spirit of the game, nor its commentary - it was felt a fair decision, as I remember --81.155.117.79 (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Phil

Cricinfo references

There are a number of references in this article to comments (mostly opinions, not facts) made by Cricinfo commentators. Why are their opinions considered relevant? If they are, then shouldn't we also be referencing comments made by TV commentators on Sky? Or the BBC.com commentators? I can only understand referencing cricinfo for statistical data.

Examples of comments in the main body are:

Harmison, coming back for a second spell, was wicketless in his first two overs but after drinks he took 2.2–0–7–4 as Australia were all out for 190. He finished with five for 43, and was commended for his control of length by Cricinfo journalists S Rajesh and Arun Gopalakrishnan.

They started positively, riding their luck and good favour with the umpires; Aleem Dar turned down four leg before wicket (LBW) appeals off Shane Warne, though the Cricinfo commentator only claimed that one of them should have been given.

Australia had to field Michael Kasprowicz as replacement, and Cricinfo correspondent Will Luke claimed that "Australia ha[d] missed him" after the first day's play.

The quick scoring and the first Test result led commentators such as Cricinfo's UK editor Andrew Miller to believe that England's total "might have been 550 and more with a bit of top-order application".

UnwedUnfed (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)UnwedUnfed

I agree. You might as well quote the opinion of some guy in the crowd. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I recommend the following changes to the above-mentioned sections:

Harmison, coming back for a second spell, was wicketless in his first two overs but after drinks he took 2.2–0–7–4 as Australia were all out for 190. He finished with five for 43. Comment - control of length was only one of the factors that went into his spell (including line, pace and bounce). As such, it seems pointless to specifically include that point.

They started positively, riding some favorable umpiring decisions; Aleem Dar turned down four strong leg before wicket (LBW) appeals off Shane Warne. Comment - the cricinfo commentator's opinion of the decisions is completely irrelevant.

Australia had to field Michael Kasprowicz as replacement, and missed McGrath's superior control and wicket-taking abilities in the match. Comment - this was an opinion held by almost everyone (not just Will Luke), so I think the opinion should stay, but the reference should be removed.

England's total could have been significantly higher with a bit more top-order application, especially given the high scoring rate. Comment - Again, everyone agreed it could have been higher, but not everyone agreed it could have been "550". So the opinion stays, but the quote goes.

If no one has any issues with these changes, I will make the updates.

UnwedUnfed (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC) UnwedUnfed

"One-one, you Aussie bastard"

I added Flintoff's comment (as recounted by Lee) and it got reverted. This is well-sourced as part of the "story" of the end of the Edgbaston test, and Wikipedia really should include this amusing detail. Thoughts? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If Flintoff said it, it was clearly not in the spirit that the recent edit to this article made it out to be. Whoever made the addition made it sound like Flintoff was being vindictive, but that was not the impression given by his body language nor by Lee's reaction. If we are to mention this alleged quote, at least mention it in the same spirit in which it was made. – PeeJay 22:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Well I made that edit, but I don't know if Flintoff was being "vindictive"; in fact we don't know anything about the tone used (one might guess: self-aware friendly joshing). However, this is something that's been reliably reported so the article needs to include it. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 02:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Excellent source material

([3]) --Dweller (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Source material

Smashing stuff about the second Test here: [4] --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2005 Ashes series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150606084913/http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4431.asp to http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4431.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2005 Ashes series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0%2C8659%2C25581096-5009880%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051217073958/http://live.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005/AUS_IN_ENG/SCORECARDS/AUS_ENG_T3_11-15AUG2005.html to http://live.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005/AUS_IN_ENG/SCORECARDS/AUS_ENG_T3_11-15AUG2005.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)