Talk:Tied Test

Untitled

I think the intro should do more to distinguish between a usual draw and a tie. A draw is a very common occurence, but in most other sports there is no distinction. A tie is a type of a draw, correct? Perhaps it should say that the result of a tie is a draw.

No, in cricket a tie is not a type of draw. See the result in cricket. --Ngb 08:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It says this has only happened twice in professional test cricket but I know it happened once, additionally, in a gentleman vs players match. ScroogeMcDuck —Preceding undated comment added 23:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC).

Proposed split

I think this article has reached the stage where it should be split into two articles, one for each match. Both have sufficient content (and potential for expansion) to justify an stand-alone article. I am happy enough to do this but some consensus on names would be useful.

Both are commonly referred to as the "Tied Test" and context is usually sufficient to disambiguate. On the basis of WP:COMMONNAME therefore I suggest Tied Test (1960) and Tied Test (1986) with Tied Test as a disambiguation page.

Alternative names could be First Test, West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1960–61 and First Test, Australian cricket team in India in 1986–87.

Thoughts of others are welcome. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Title

Should be Tied test, no? Mglovesfun (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No. See WP:CRICKET#STYLE. Capital "T" for Test cricket, always. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 08:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Zimbabwe

Shouldn't matter that at the time the Test occurred the place was still the colony of Rhodesia? Certainly it was subsequently renamed, but why should this be retroactive? If it should, then I suggest the Siege of Leningrad be renamed as the 'Siege of St. Petersburg'. 2600:1004:B167:FE15:0:52:ECC9:2501 (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)