Talk:Cricket/Archive 1

message: There was a discussion on the Usenet group news:rec.sports.cricket about some errors in :Image:Positions.jpg, and I daresay I agree. The consensus there seems to be that
# gully is in the wrong position (I think :Image:Cricket_positions.png has got it right)
# deep mid-wicket's wrong (AFAIK, deep mid-wicket should be due square of mid-wicket near the boundary)
In any case, why does Fielding positions in cricket link to 2 different images? Hopefully someone with image-editing skills could merge them. Ambarish | Talk 04:10, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on all points. We've been waiting on someone to merge the images and make a single, better image ever since ALoan merged the old Fielder article into Fielding positions in cricket. We just need someone with the time and skills to get around to doing it. --dmmaus 04:56, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Fielding positions image

message: Are there any IRC channels dedicated to cricket? ¶ nichalp | Talk 20:37, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
:Yes, #cricket on the StarLink network. It carries live text commentary of international games. -dmmaus 23:02, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRC 

message: I need to clarify this: 
# One umpire is known as the Square-Leg Umpire, the other is known as?
# Are there any fielding restriction concerning off side and on sides?
# After the 15 over limit is up, how many fielders must be inside the 30 yard circle and how many can be standing right at the boundary (I think upto 5)?
Pictures desperately needed:
# Batsman, bowler
# Ball, bat etc.
# A closeup pic of an ODI match in progress.
¶ nichalp | Talk 19:39, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
: The other umpire is the bowler's end umpire
: Only two fielders may field behind square on the on side, in order to prevent teams using Bodyline.
: 15 overs isn't hard-and-fast, some competitions operate different restrictions.  Answering the question, after the restrictions expire, it is indeed five people outside the fielding circle.
: Hig Hertenfleurst 19:58, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifications 

message: A good start. I'd suggest some changes to this:
:A metamorphous of sorts occurred in 1961, when the regulations of the sport were unofficially tweaked so that a match produced an expedited result. This gained widespread popularity and resulted in the birth of one-day international (ODI) matches in 1971. The new avatar was quickly adopted by the governing International Cricket Council in 1971 and the first ODI Cricket World Cup was held in 1975. Since then, at the expense of Test cricket, ODI matches gained mass spectatorship much to the consternation of cricket purists.
"Metamorphosis" is misleading, as it implies a change from the old into the new, rather than expansion to a new form. And "avatar" is a bit esoteric. Also, "purists" is not NPOV - some would claim people who don't like ODIs are old fuddy-duddies. I'd rewrite as:
:Cricket entered a new era in 1961, when regulations of the sport were tweaked to add a new style of match, that produced a result in a single day's play. This gained widespread popularity and resulted in the birth of one-day international (ODI) matches in 1971. This new form of cricket was quickly adopted by the governing International Cricket Council in 1971 and the first ODI Cricket World Cup was held in 1975. Since then, at the expense of Test cricket, ODI matches have gained massive popularity, much to the consternation of fans who prefer the longer form of the game. As of the early 2000s, however, Test cricket is making a growing resurgence in popularity.
--dmmaus 21:35, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ODI history tweak

message: An excellent start.  Couple of linking niggles:
*please refer to 12th century not pipe link as 12th c. - I think this style of piped link is non-standard
*Edward I is a redirect to Edward I of England so a pipe would be best here - Edward I - and I don't think the "King" is necessary before it
and I prefer dmmaus's text above, but
*I'm not sure the reference to "tweaking" the rules is entirely appropriate - there are just different rules for the new form of the game, as there are for any other form of the game.
-- ALoan (Talk) 00:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: Dmmaus: I'll go with some of your changes. I don't think avatar is esoteric, In my opinion I feel that it fits neatly here. I haven't explained that test cricket lasts for 5 days, that's why I mentioned an expedited result. Since test cricket is the only sport I know of that lasts so long, it would be difficult to explain why it goes on for so long right at the start. Rather, I would mention it later on.
ALoan: Yeah, I'll make the necessary changes in my local file on the niggles. As far as the difference between Tests and ODI cricket, there isn't much to choose by way of rules -- strategies yes, but if you have any objection to the word 'tweaking' please let me know an alternative apposite phrase.
I need to clarify this: 
# One umpire is known as the Square-Leg Umpire, the other is known as?
# Are there any fielding restriction concerning off side and on sides?
# After the 15 over limit is up, how many fielders must be inside the 30 yrd circle and how many can be standing at the boundary (I think upto 5)
Please review the new changes. (I know the 'out' bookmark does not work as yet and the picture is absent.) The changes that I have accepted will be made in my local file, not here, and will be added the next day. 
Pictures needed:
# Batsman
# Ball, bat etc.
# A closeup pic of a match in progress.
¶ nichalp | Talk 19:27, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
:Two things: (1) I think the structure of what you are doing is excellent. This is a much more logical layout of the material than the present page, and it looks like you're proceeding well. (2) I have so many comments about specific things like wording and grammar and so on, that I think the easiest thing is for you to complete your rewrite, and then allow people to copyedit it into better shape. Most notably, I think you're tending to use complicated words (dexter, sinister) where simple ones alone would be just fine (right, left). But please, keep up the good work! --dmmaus 21:32, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I ought say that I wholeheartedly agree with dmmaus - you are doing an excellent job - well done! - but the new article will need a good copyedit/proofread when you are finished to give it a final polish (trusting that that won't compromise its much more logical structure and fluid phrasing). -- ALoan (Talk) 10:22, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  11 August 

message: Glad to see that the loose bricks have been cemented. Here are some reverts that I have carried out:
# The pitch is predominantly clay - Many pitches in India lack any sort of grass -- I've corrected that.
# ODI cricket in the beginning. I have edited to expedited result. Reason: A person without any knowledge of this sport would be puzzled as to why the match finishes "in a day" as all other sports finish in a day. I've changed it so that that person gets a basic idea that a ODI match finshes a lot quicker than a test match. The duration of the two are mentioned later.
# Origin of the name deserves a seperate heading for clarity or the history will look too bulky. 
The left aligned images look hideous. Please change it. I have included some text on batting strategy in the batting talk page. I need it to be merged. I will also be filling the remainder of the red links tomorrow. ¶ nichalp | Talk 20:16, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
Reverts 1 and 2 are okay. I disagree about the "Origin of the name" section being separate. I now think it should be removed completely, since it's covered in detail in the main History of cricket article, and a separate section for it is really tangential to the point of this article and adds overall bulk. I also like Emsworth's suggested restructure of the sections, listed above, which addresses the concerns I had in my last message. --dmmaus 23:02, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 13 Aug

message: :-)  ----Jack | talk page 18:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's everybody gone? 

message: The rankings are totally wrong. Here's the current status :
Joe is the best cricketer in the world ;)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.146.133 (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine that the rankings in the article are out of date. That's always likely to be a problem. The best solution might be simply to delete that columb of the table, as I'm not sure that current rankings are needed in an overview article like this one. JH (talk page) 10:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jhall1. --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test and ODI rankings 

message: Even as an American, I'm confused as to why this article uses yards and feet as the primary units. Cricket isn't even popular here. You guys can go ahead and switch it to meters? 72.220.125.86 (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Because those are the measurements given in the laws of the game. Plus we're still not completely metric in the UK! Andrew nixon (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not entirely true. The copy of the laws on the Lord's website shows both metric and imperial units. The imperial units obviously preceded metric units as the units of measurement in cricket, and I suppose that's why cricketers still tend to use them to measure the dimensions of the pitch and such (not to mention 22 is easier to remember than 20.12). Elostirion (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Um Units? 

message: In Devon dialect a cricket is a three-legged stool. here is a description of a cricket-like game involving a milking stool. Could there be a connection, and can we put it in without breaching WP:SYNTH? Totnesmartin (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: there's this, but it's another encyclopedia, not a source in itself. There are similar things online that hover around the topic, but I can't find an explicit connection :( Totnesmartin (talk) 12:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: What's the minimal age for playing test matches? Does anybody knows that? 77.23.22.143 (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's ever been thought necessary to specify one. If you're good enough, then you're old enough. JH (talk page) 21:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

text: There is no minimum age, but the physical strength and stamina needed for a five day match is usually beyond anybody under the age of 18. When I was at school (in South Africa), we had matches for under 15's and matches for any schoolboy.  Very few under 15's ever played in the school 1st XI, let alone in full adult cricket, though there was one occasion that a visitng 15-year old took 100 runs off our 1st XI - Barry Richards. Martinvl (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

text: There's no minimum age according to the rules, but the youngest player was Hasan Raza of Pakistan, who was 14 on debut, and many players (particularly from Pakistan and India) made very young debuts -- most notably Sachin Tendulkar (16 yo).  StuartH (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minimal Age 

message: A common misnomer has crept into the article, appearing under the heading "Weather". Under this heading, the article implies that the terms "wicket" and "pitch" are interchangeable. They are not and indeed are defined under the Laws of Cricket as quite separate things.
Also under this heading is an implication that the weather only affects the condition of the ball as a result of the ball bouncing on the pitch (referred-to as the "wicket").
Firstly, the surface upon which the ball lands in the bowler's delivery of the ball is the "pitch", not the "wicket". This surface is known in the Laws of Cricket (Law 7 specifically) as the "pitch". See Law 7.1 where it states: "1. Area of pitch
The pitch is a rectangular area of the ground 22 yards/20.12m in length and 10ft/3.05m in width. It is bounded at either end by the bowling creases and on either side by imaginary lines, one each side of the imaginary line joining the centres of the two middle stumps, each parallel to it and 5ft/1.52m from it.". Source: http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-7-the-pitch,33,AR.html.
There are two "wickets" on a cricket field (Law 8 refers). These wickets each comprise of three stumps and two bails. There is a wicket at each end of the pitch and during each "over" one of those wickets forms the prime target for the bowler to aim at, hoping to break the wicket with the ball and so to "bowl out" the batsman. See Law 8.1 where it states:
"1. Width and pitching
Two sets of wickets shall be pitched opposite and parallel to each other at a distance of 22 yards/20.12m between the centres of the two middle stumps. Each set shall be 9 in/22.86cm wide and shall consist of three wooden stumps with two wooden bails on top.". Source: http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-8-the-wickets,34,AR.html.
Secondly, the weather will affect the condition of the playing surface of the whole ground (more than, and not just, the pitch). This whole-ground playing surface condition (specifically if it is wet) will affect the condition of the ball far more than will the pitch condition, especially as most turf pitches (the ones most likely, if at all, to be affected by weather conditions) these days are covered in inclement weather while the rest of the ground is not covered at all. The ball spends minimal time in contact with the surface of the pitch compared with its time in contact with the rest of the ground surface, particularly if runs are being scored.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepthought2006 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's better to use "pitch" in an article like this to avoid the risk of confusing readers who are unfamiliar with the game, but "wicket" has been used as a synonym for "pitch" for a very long time so cannot really be called a misnomer. JH (talk page) 16:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree with JH. For the purposes of this article use pitch where pitch is meant to avoid confusion but wicket is most certainly used to mean both the pitch and the wicket in common usage. Terms like sticky wicket would make no sense if pitch and wicket werent synoyms. Just to add to confusion wicket is also used as a synonym for dismissal but that is going to be harder to avoid. If we havnt got a note on the multiple uses of wicket we need one. --LiamE (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misnomer 

message: Not to make too big a deal out of it but the first sentence does not properly introduce the topic as required by WP:LEAD. I had tried to offer an improvement but one editor didn't like my suggestion. So I'll just tag the article for now and let those of you more involved debate it. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The last significant discussion on the lead here was in March/April 2009 at which time it looked like this.  There seemed to be a consensus then that it was deficient and didn't properly explain what the game actually was, per WP:LEAD. On that basis I'm being bold and adding my own tweak.  –Moondyne 04:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's incorrect Moondyne - the version you quote was the agreed version.  Prior to that the Lede was wordy and very bloated.  IMO it's fast heading that way again.  David T Tokyo (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: Hey everyone! Shall we attempt a collective effort to push this article to the lofty heights of B level on the Wiki scale... I was thinking that referencing of some more legitimate Cricketing sources like Wisden could help... What do we think? Geoff (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you crazy?  The lede is incomprehensible to someone who doesn't already know the game.  I'd rather read an article on some arcane math subject.  I thought I cold learn enough about the game to understand sports articles about it (which never give background), but I gave up trying to get through the lede:  innings,  overs huh?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.179.19.14 (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As per see my post under Simple one paragraph, agreed... Terrible.. Dancindazed (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Shall we try and push this up to B Class? 

message: This is taken from the introductary section (second paragraph):
"In one version of Indoor Cricket, matches include just 6 players and last for 12 overs.[2]"
According to the cited reference, this should read '6 players per side' which would mean that the matches include 12 players total.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.107.74 (talk) 04:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good spot.  Fixed.  –Moondyne 03:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Error in overview section

message: Hi, I was comparing the article with baseball article which is an FA and found we could learn something from it's structure.
* I suggest that Objectives section be renamed Rules and game-play or something similar because things like pitches, umpires etc. aren't objectives.
* Also, I believe it is better if History section is topmost.
* I also suggest we add a Statistics section mentioning wisden and cricinfo.
* A cricket in popular culture section will be good where we can mention the many movies stories ... about cricket.
* Uniqueness of each cricket ground eg. hitting a six in MCG v/s say in Singapore and Swing in england v/s spin of subcontinent deserves mention. 
Since, article was a former fa ,i will no go ahead and make changes without other editor's opinion.
Vinay84 (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Having waited, and seeing no disapproval, I am going ahead and making the changes Vinay84 (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Objectives section

message: I read half-way through this article without figuring out how a run is scored.  Yes, I'm American so I can't update the article reliably, but in a way I'm the target audience (barely knowing how cricket is played, that is).  There should be at least a description of scoring units in the lead paragraph.  It makes no sense to scroll down the TOC, jump to Objectives and then come back to the top for an account of history.  As it stands, the lead paragraph does not give a good summary of how the game is played. Trashbird1240 (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As you might have noticed, the section entitled "Runs" describes how runs are scored. The problem is that it is difficult to describe the ways in which runs are scored concisely in just one or two sentences, and that doing so might prompt one to attempt to describe other things (like how a ball is bowled, or how batsmen can be dismissed). There was a discussion many months ago (years?) about how descriptive the lead should be with regards to such things, and the conclusion was that only a cursory description of the game should be included, as anything more detailed would inevitably create a bloated and unwieldy lead paragraph. Having said that, perhaps we can find some way to make that information more easily obtainable. At the moment there seems to be a link to the article Runs in the lead paragraph for the curious who would like to know more about runs (eg. how they are scored). Elostirion (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have added a sentence to try at say how a run is scored. This lack of a "how a run is scored" description has appeared often in comments. Other editors are welcome to modify.Vinay84 (talk) 07:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd keep it even simpler - In simple terms, a run is scored when batsmen run the length of the pitch without being dismissed. HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Total Neophytes Need More Description

message: The article states:
'Before the umpire will award a dismissal and declare the batsman to be out, a member of the fielding side (generally the bowler) must "appeal".'
This is not technically true - all bowled dismissals and the vast majority of caught dismissals never involve an appeal at all - or, indeed a decision by the umpire. Reading the article, it would be easy to make the common misapprehension that every dismissal must be both appealed and awarded. Perhaps something like: 'If the legitimacy of a dismissal is in any doubt, it is the umpire's responsibility to decide upon the outcome. Before the umpire will award a dismissal and declare the batsman to be out, a member of the fielding side (generally the bowler) must "appeal".' would be better. 213.70.98.2 (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeals: 

message: This section requires serious editing.
Format: Cricket can be divided into timed games - in which the total length of the match is decided in advance, but no stipulation is put on the length of the innings of one side; and overs games, in which the maximum amount of overs faced by each team is stipulated. A combination of the two is rare but not unheard of.
Cricket can then be subdivided into one innings or two innings games - but there is no reason why it should be assumed that timed games always have 2 innings and limited overs games always have one innings. At an amateur level in the UK, both single innings timed games and double innings limited overs games are perfectly common.
"Major and minor" cricket are not standard terms, and should therefore be removed - we might as well talk about "big boys" and "little boys". If we are talking about international cricket, then we should talk about the ICC awarding games full test status or full ODI or T20 status.
If we are talking about domestic cricket - we should discuss the awarding of "first class status" for 2 innings timed games, and "list A status" for limited overs games by the national governing body.
The article also appears to suggest that all two innings games are automatically "first-class cricket", which is very misleading. Perhaps we could have a little box listing all the various first class and list A leagues and tournaments around the world?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.70.98.2 (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong support to the Last suggestion Vinay84 (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Attempt started at User:Vinay84/Template:Professional CricketVinay84 (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of matches 

message: I have been reading this article for over 30 minutes and I still have no idea how one scores and what the object (details not just "dismiss the batter") of each side is. 95% of people reading this article are going to want to know what this sport is all about and what the objectives are, this should be included in the begging of the article, instead of obsessing over the dimensions of the wickets. This article gets a D in my book. Fix it!
24.24.82.172 (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: will try to score as many runs as possible :it is there at the top para of the Intro.Vinay84 (talk) 04:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very Poorly Written 

message: Can anyone get a picture of any of the Field s with quirks of their own. If we can have one showing the slope at Lords, or size of MCC vs a small ground , it would be greatVinay84 (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Does Canterbury still have the tree in outfield?  That's one hell of a quirk!!! 78.146.12.164 (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Photograph required: Uniqueness of each field section 

message: In the section, Rules and Game-play, it says:
:"A run is scored when the batsman has run the length of the pitch after hitting the ball with his bat, although as explained below there are many ways of scoring runs"
The section referred to describes (at a quick count) seven ways to score runs.  Seven does not count as "many", by any stretch of the imagination.  A better phrase would be:
:"... although as explained below there are several ways of scoring runs"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.13.218 (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not "many" but "several" ways to score a run 

message: To much emphasis on Cricket ranking and something called Cricketing Index (which are quite useless to say the least since cricket is not judged like chess). But no mention about world champions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.8.76 (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at the section labelled Limited overs. HiLo48 (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: No mention of World Champions!