Talk:Batting (cricket)

message: "A batsman's batting average or strike rate are the accepted measures of his ability." I'm not happy about this statement at all. Firstly it implies that average and strike rate are the same thing or at least in some way linked or eqivalent. Secondly a batsman's strike rate is rarely of any importance outside of limited overs cricket and even there its hardly an accepted measure of a batsman's ability. Many of the game's most prolific batsmen would be classed as accumulators of runs rather than free scorers and none the worse is thought of them because of this. Strike rate is however somewhat more significant for a bowler but this is a different strike rate entirely. --LiamE 00:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree somewhat. I've edited to reflect this. -dmmaus 23:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Does Kapil Dev really warrant a mention as a notable batsman? While undoubtly a clean striker of the ball and one of the game's great all-rounders, where he is of course correctly honoured, I can't justify him being listed here. --LiamE 23:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has come to Kapil's defence in 2 weeks so I will remove him. --LiamE 23:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Chris Cairns has scored more 6's in Test's than anyone else. Thats notable in itself. Also the New Zealand line up is not up to the standard of others. I'm inclined to re-include him. Its not like there's 100 Kiwis listed. --LiamE 09:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: For historical players certainly of course but I dont think we can ignore the importance of limited overs cricket these days. I'm a purist but the article, like all others, should be aimed at a general audience. Funny you should mention Bevan, I was going to add him for that very reason. --LiamE (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree on all points. Removing it will also hopefully stop the constant addition of marginal names and reversion that's been going on for ages. Thank you for your boldness. -dmmaus (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable Batsmen

message: Um, what other sort of batsman is there that needs disambiguation? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Batsman (cricket)]]

message: Chasing after a curiousity I idly wondered if an article on batting existed. Lo and behold batting (cricket) already exists and covers everything that is here in much better context and detail, in other words this article was simply a less complete duplicate of that one. I've thus redirected it. Zunaid 17:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect to batting 

message: This article seems to have beem written by someone for whom English is a second language and Cricket is a distant memory. I'd suggest deleting or rewriting.
:"A player who is currently batting is denoted as a batter." He may be in baseball for all I know but in cricket he is known as a batsman. As for the definitions of a Hook and a Pull they must have changed since I played cricket as a young man as they were basically the same shot (no difference in height) but when playing a hook the batsman moved into the line of the ball, with the risk of being hit on the head, to better time his shot, whereas the pull was played outside the line of the ball (no risk of being hit) but more difficult to time correctly.Williamgeorgefraser 07:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I fear you are rather out of date and presumably don't listen to Test Match Special, that home of undeniable experts on cricket. 'Batter' is the preferred term there. The recent development and popularity of women's cricket has made 'batsman' old fashioned. I see no problem with this and I propose to change every reference to 'batsman' or 'batsmen' in this article. treesmill (talk) 06:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is rubbish 

message: There ought to be something here about the difference between batting left- and right-handed. — sjorford++ 15:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  left/right-handed 

message: I have proposed to merge Straight Bat into this article. I don't know anything about cricket so I don't want to do it myself. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Straight Bat]] 

message: Is the scoop played by Tillakaratne Dilshan a new shot? The definition of the Mariller shot on this page sounds near identical however the shot described on Marillier shot sounds more like the scoop over the shoulder. The two main references  I can find for the evolution of the scoop are equally unclear whether the shot was over fine leg or the keeper which appears the major difference between the scoop and the 'Dilscoop'. Any thoughts to clear up the confusion welcome. --Jpeeling (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How do explain the definition of the Marillier shot on this page then? It is identical to the 'unique' Dilshan. The definition of the Marillier scoop shot has been in existence since November 2005 and hasn't been changed, if that definition is incorrect as you claim then why hasn't anybody changed it? --Jpeeling (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry but I still don't quite understand the differences, how is Dilshan's played with a vertical bat, a vertical bat in my mind would see the toe end of the bat facing the sky and the shot being an uppercut. Without a video of the Marillier shot I don't think my creativeless mind can imagine the differences. There do seem to be quite a few sources stating this is a new stroke and with no response from other editors here I'm resigned to allow you to add the information on this shot back into this article. However when you do please make it clear the differences compared to the Marillier shot so layman readers like myself can understand. Thanks. --Jpeeling (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

text: To answer your other questions: This will help you start a new page and this for links/references. I'm not sure what you mean in Q1, to respond to comments you have to edit the page or section. --Jpeeling (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dilscoop 

message: The section on unorthodox shots (in fact the whole article to be honest) needs some proper references. Since anyone can play any type of shot at the ball, there are obviously thousands of variations of cricket shot that may be played. Not all of them enter popular usage though. Things like the reverse sweep and slog obviously belong in this section, they have been adopted by many cricketers and can be considered as a genuine, bona fide unorthodox shots. They have also been popular enough to enter common usage in cricket commentary as a descriptive terms i.e. they are part of the cricket lexicon.
Things like the switch hit are a marginal case, having only been used by one player and not in common usage amongst players or commentators thus far. Same with the paddle sweep/scoop, which is simply a variation on the sweep shot and thus does not stand on its own as a separate named and described shot in the cricket lexicon.
The reverse drive and marillier shot I don't consider bona fide unorthodox shots, they have been used very rarely in cricket, to the extent that these descriptive terms are NOT in common usage and are not standard terms used amongst cricket commentators.
Including each and every variation of unorthodox shot that has been played by a batsman at one point or another simply dilutes the effect of trying to explain batting to the encyclopedia reader. Thoughts? Zunaid 09:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unorthodox shots 

message: On 18 January, Jacob Rees-Mogg was discussing amendments he'd put down to the Fixed-Term Parliament Bill. He said he was told by the clerks that he was "open to batting", and Rees-Mogg made it clear this was a cricket reference. As an American, I find cricket a bit bewildering, so can someone help me out in explaining what the gist of the metaphor was? The best I can come up with on my own is that the amendments are not well written so the minister in charge of the bill will be able to score a lot of debating points. Unfortunately, the context doesn't help much. -Rrius (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sort of. I think it makes more sense if the officials were telling him everyone would be batting away his arguments, but yeah. Thank you. -Rrius (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metaphorical use 

message: What exactly is this list meant to add to the article? It just seems to be a list of names chosen almost entirely at random. I'm inclined to suggest that it should be removed, as there is a perfectly adequate list of famous cricketers elsewhere. Py0alb (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, there are no criteria for inclusion. Removed. wjematherbigissue 16:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Batsmen 

message: Compared to the depth of information available about different bowling styles and techniques on wikipedia, this article is extremely thin. I think it needs to be expanded dramatically - particularly the information about the orthodox shots (Curiously, there is more than enough info on the gimmick shots).
A lot of the content is far too oversimplified as to be useful, and several of the pictures are unhelpful (that picture depicting a village cricketer playing something only distantly related to a cut shot for example). The wheel diagram showing the direction of the various shots is completely rubbish. We need firstly to divide the article into seperate sections for front foot and back foot shots and start from there. Py0alb (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: This article desperately needs expanding

message: Can someone add "flick shot" under vertical bat shots with some details and references? 117.192.176.110 (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a couple of lines and an image myself. Expand it if possible. 117.192.176.110 (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flick shot 

message: I noticed @190.83.209.132 removed the reference to strike rate in the lead. First of all, I think there should be a mention somewhere in this article given its importance to the limited overs game, but more importantly, I think we need to develop some consensus on to what extent (and where) batting statistics are discussed. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Batting average/Strike rate 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Batting (cricket). 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20060828035326/http://www.icc-cricket.com:80/icc-media/content/story/211848.html to http://www.icc-cricket.com/icc-media/content/story/211848.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at 
).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/skills/4177934.stm GreekApple123 (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible sources 

message: "French Cut" is a redirect to this article. But "French Cut" is not explained here, not even is mentioned. Meridiana solare (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Meridiana solare: added a section on this. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @YorkshireExpat, thank you. Meridiana solare (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  French Cut