Talk:Cricket/Archive 7

message: moved to [] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thugchildz (talk • contribs) 02:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture voting

message: Somebody wrote "it is super gay" on the page.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.155.66.166 (talk) 04:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense 

message: Hamedog 14:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo of AB Devilliers playing a pull

message: I removed the Cricket20 link again because it does not seem appropriate to list links to individual tournaments from this page. JPD 10:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twenty20 link 

message: I think the insect would be used just as often as the sport, so shouldn't this be the disambig page, and the article go to Cricket (sport)? Super Saiyan Plough 02:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. This issue has come up before, and was settled in favour of the current arrangement after much discussion. -dmmaus 04:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We discussed this not long ago (see Talk:Cricket/oldpoll) and decided we'd keep things as they are now, jguk 04:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Well done. Only 6 edits on Wikipedia and you already have a warning for vandalism. Keep up the great contributions. --LiamE 00:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really think cricket is "the second most popular spectator sport on the planet"? That's a laughably Anglocentric view. Cricket is played in Britain and a handful of her former colonies. Basketball is played in virtually every country of the Americas--and is particularly popular in the United States, Brazil, and Argentina (combined population roughly 530 million)--Continental Europe (including 150 million-strong Russia), Africa, and Eastern Asia. And before you play the tired "But India has a population of 1.1 billion and I talked to this IT guy and he says it's really popular there!" argument, let me remind you that China--a basketball-mad country--has 1.3 billion people, precisely zero of whom care about cricket.  If you compare the ratio to the number of people who think of cricket as a game to the number of people who think of cricket as an insect, you will find a far smaller figure than the ratio of the number of people who think of Bill O'Reilly as a commentator than as a cricketer.  (See BlackJack's kneejerk anti-Americanism on that page.)  A few Americans might think their country is the whole world, but many more Englishmen think their country is the whole world minus America.  151.205.96.146 21:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as soon as basketball matches in China get 100,000 plus paying customers through the door the way cricket matches do in India the situation may change. The fact is in China outside the big cities no one has heard of backetball let alone played it or watched it. In India on the other hand, every boy in the country, and many of the men it has to be said, want to be Sachin Tendulkar. Got a source to say basketball is more popular than cricket with the numbers to back up your theory? Just for the record the population of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh easily outnumbers that of China. --LiamE 22:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um...the Chinese Basketball Association is one of the most highly attended professional sports leagues in the world. Most Chinese schools--even the rural ones--introduce basketball (and volleyball and association football, but certainly not cricket) as part of a physical education program.  I highly doubt you've even been to China and suspect you are basing your ridiculous assertion that "outside the big cities no one has heard of backetball" on wishful conjecture; all but the most isolated peasants have heard of Yao Ming.  Sure, the Indian subcontinent outnumbers China, but China plus Russia, the former Yugoslavia, the United States, Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Canada, Italy, Greece, Turkey, and France easily outnumber the Indian subcontinent.  That's not to mention Japan, Korea, Central America, the rest of South America, the rest of Continental Europe, and the countries of Africa that were not former British colonies.  Those are countries where basketball is perhaps not a major spectator sport, but nonetheless an infinitely more popular one than cricket. Sorry Liam.  You lose.  It's time for you and your countrymen to accept it: The (Former) British Empire ≠ The World. 24.199.116.142 13:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't lose. I wasn't in competition. Find some facts and come back with them rather than speculation and original research. Oh and feel free to register. --LiamE 15:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, according to a 2003 New York Times article, "more Chinese now play basketball than soccer or any other sport", and Michael Jordan "became the mainland's premier pop cultural hero -- more lionized, in one poll, than Mao." See this link; registration is required to read the article, but it is mirrored here . The fact is, anyone who thinks cricket is more popular worldwide than basketball hasn't really been in too many places, or he has his head way too far up his arse/ass. Alas, this is, of course, tangential to the point at hand. I can only the imagine the anti-American rhetoric if a quote-unquote "American" sport happened to take precedence over an insect. ("No one cares about the sport in any other country in the world", "why do Americans think they're the whole world", "I refuse to let a member of the animal kingdom the whole world cares about be superceded by a sport only one country cares about", etc.)  Really, this should be a disambig.  Of course, the only people who'll vote on the measure are the cricket (sport) cabal, so it'll never pass, and any unilateral move will be quickly reverted.  I think the best way to overcome this is to get cricket (insect) up to featured status, but some battles are not worth fighting. Or, rather, some people are not worth fighting. Raggaga 14:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly that article mentions "several surveys" without mentioning what ones or who they were by etc, leaving questions open as to their validity and impartiality. Interestingly it goes on to mention the "tepid fan support" so perhaps all is not roses. In any case whether or not cricket comes out as the 2nd most poular team sport or the 202nd the fact remains that people interest in the sport FAR outstrips interest in the bug. The bug article is the same number of clicks away as it would be if it were a disam page so no one loses. If this page were to go to disam, Washington, Boston, Hollywood, Paris, London etc etc all would have to too. There would simply be no benefit to users. --LiamE 03:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You probably got a hit or 2 for George Headley in there too. --LiamE 00:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Here here to those giving good counter-arguments on those that are anti-disambiguation. Those are both excellent examples that prove that those who say Cricket shouldn't go directly to insects. I've tried both of them myself and got both the computer company and the weird nuclear thing. Maybe we should listen to you guys - you obviously have some more logic than the others. Abrynkus 01:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Excuse me were you dropped on your head as a child? It's not obvious. I never look up sports, they're freaking boring. I'd say that an incredibly boring book on bugs would be far more interesting than watching any sport such as this. Why not save your bad opinions for elsewhere? Abrynkus 01:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please, both Abrynkus and Thugchildz, no personal attacks.  Comment on the contribution, not the contributor.  "Excuse me were you dropped on your head as a child?" and "either you are ignorant and dont know much about the sport but still taking shi* about it or you are one of the few wwos who think insects are interesting" are not appropriate contributions to a Wikipedia discussion page.  --RobertG ♬ talk 10:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cricket (sport)]] and [[Cricket (disambiguation)]] 

message: Does someone have a source for the material recently added to the History section about being the patron sport of the Royal Navy. The Australian stuff in particular seems a bit dodgy, since Captain Cook didn't land anywhere that would normally be referred to as the "north shore". JPD 16:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History - Royal Navy 

message: Why does the image :Image:Cricket shots.svg show two "off drives' but no 'on drive'?  Astrokey44 05:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly an error on the author's part ;) Since its an SVG image, anyone can correct the error. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: um, which side should it go on? (dont know much about cricket terms) Strange because it looks like its been edited - the font on the light blue off drive is slightly different to the rest of the writing - but the image on commons had no history Astrokey44 08:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, its fixed now. The diagram is drawn for a right-handed-batsman, for a leftie, the mirror image applies. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it? the image still looks the same for me Astrokey44 15:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes its corrected. You'd need to Purge the cached version. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On drive 

message: About this caption under the cricket ball
:As One-Day games are often played under floodlights, a white ball is used to aid visibility.
I thought the reason for using a white ball has to do with coloured kits. A red ball can not be distinguished from a West Indies bowler's dress for example. In England for example they can not hold day and night matches due to fog, yet in the 1999 world cup the white ball was used. I am not sure about the reason because I did not read it anywhere just heard it from someone. How is a white ball more visible than a red one under floodlights?
:I think you are right that the change to a white ball generally followed the use of coloured clothing, rather than the use of floodlights. However, when a few Sheffield Shield (first class) matches were played under lights in 1998/9 and 99/00, orange balls were used, suggesting that there is some sort of problem with the red ball under lights. Also, they do play day-night games in England these days. JPD 18:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A red ball is terrible under lights. It becomes invisible against the sky when a high catch is hit, for example. I always thought the coloured kits were introduced to contrast with the ball after they found it necessary to use a white ball at night back in World Series Cricket days. But perhaps it's a combination of both reasons - the white ball solved both the problems of night visibility and visibility with coloured kits that were introduced mainly to add colour to the game. We really need a bit more research here. -dmmaus 21:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cricket Ball 

message: Hamedog 14:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another cricket shot and ball being bowled 

message: Re the categorization of cricket as a pub game: this is correct - see Pub Games of England by Timothy Finn (Oleander Press). Cricket is related to pub games such as Bat and trap and was itself a game played outside pubs (though not of course exclusively so) for a long time. Ben Finn 15:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pub game 

message: This situation requires something more useful to readers than a generic  tag. Because a large fraction of readers are looking for the insect, it should be separately mentioned in the disambig notice, and it is not immediately obvious what is meant by the 3 words "for other uses" to non-Wikipedians. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-8 19:10
*We discussed this a while ago, and I think the majority was in favour of what Brian's suggesting - but really this is all a storm in a teacup, and I don't think it makes too much of a difference, jguk 19:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree with Brian. A link to the insect on the main Cricket page would definitely be useful to readers. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also agree it should be in there. I think it was removed because of excessive stickliness for the "rule" about disambig links. This is a good case for where the primary disambig is common enough to justify an explicit one-click link. -dmmaus 22:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree that the insect should take precedent.  I was looking for the bug.  Reboot 03:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A quick look in :Category:National cricket teams will reveal more than 100 cricket playing countries. Andrew nixon 01:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cricket (insect)]] in disambig

message: I think it is worth providing a definition of "cow corner" somewhere along the line here. It is a term which most armchair fans may not have heard of, but is used fairly commonly by players (in Australian club cricket, at least, I hear it quite frequently).
Do you think it is deserving of it's own page? That would be helpful if we were to discuss the origin of the term. Or else we could find somewhere to embed it within one of the existing pages.
Qarnos 08:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already listed at List of cricket terms, complete with a possible origin. I can't see it being worth a page, but I'll set up a redirect. -dmmaus 09:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops - didn't see that. Thanks. Qarnos 09:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cow Corner 

message: Someone on WP:AFC requested an article on this and I'm surprised I couldn't find any details about Cricket equipment in this article or anywhere else. Am I missing something? Please leave a quick note on my talk if you answer. - Mgm|(talk) 10:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cricket pad]] 

message: Does a one wicket win describe any match where the team which got more runs caught up to another team and beat it when they did it with less wickets in hand?  The other day South Africa got 9/438 beating Australia's 4/434 - it just seems strange that theres a difference of 5 between them and its called a win by 1 wicket. if the no. of wickets were reversed i.e if south africa got 4/438 beating 9/434 it would have been described as a five wicket win? -- Astrokey44|talk 21:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the question you have to ask is how many more South African wickets Australia needed to take. The number of wickets Australia lost in the first innings is irrelevant. If South Africa had scored 0/438, they would have won by ten wickets. At 1/438, they would have won by nine wickets, and so on, all the way down to 9/438, i.e. their last two batsmen together, when they won by one wicket. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ah that makes sense, thanks - does that mean the 9th match of the VB Series 2005-06 should be a win by 6 wickets not 5 (they won with 4/225) -- Astrokey44|talk 22:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted. Actually, they did win by 5 wickets because they got 224/5 not 225/4. Fixed. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  one wicket win? 

message: Why is there no mention of Plank Cricket on this page? It is becoming extremely popular in England, so I feel it warrants inclusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.179.105 (talk • contribs) .
:Does http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22plank+cricket%22 answer your question? See also WP:V and WP:NFT. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plank Cricket 

message: http://www.cricinfo.com/columns/content/story/245528.html
*I found two more - Martin Williamson's column about the 1897 riot and the complete biography of Edmund Barton. This is great ! Tintin (talk) 07:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia in cricinfo Bibliography 

message: I have started a page on  pitch care and borrowed one of the pictures from this section.I wondered if anyone would care to look in and advise.It is in a very early stage but would really appreciate any feed back.
IndianSunset 15:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pitch care

message: Possibly being too pedantic but couldn't let this pass:
From the article:
"It is also a prominent minor sport in countries as diverse as the Netherlands, Israel, Nepal, and Argentina"
I follow Cricket closely, and even keep an eye on minor nations. As far as I know there is only a very small scene in Argentina.  Doubtless some people play Cricket in Israel, but I've heard absolutely nothing about it ever, neither have most Israelis I suspect. A link would be useful.  Is calling Cricket "a prominent minor sport" in these countries damaging the sports credibility somewhat?  As a Cricket fan I certainly think so.  It's not as if we can't replace them. Kenya, Malaysia, The United Arab Emirates and Ireland are equally diverse. All of them have well established club competitions, and in all of them Cricket is a well known sport.
Also shouldn't the larger West Indian nations, Jamaica, Trinidad, Guyana etc. get a mention? Individually they've certainly given the Cricketing world a lot more than Zimbabwe. Or indeed Israel??!!!!???!!!!
Does anyone object to me tinkering with this paragraph a bit? As it stands its a tad misleading I think. 
Shane1 21:29, 07 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying a "prominent minor soprt" may be a bit misleading - it's not really clear what that means. As for the West Indian nations, they are mentioned, just not by name. Since they compete as one team, with one membership of the ICC, this is probably fair. JPD (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor nations

message: I notice there is no article on continuous cricket, that fun old game at school where the ball never stops moving - you hit, run (usually to one of three different locations for different numbers of runs), while the fielding team attemts to get the ball back to the bowler to bowl the next ball. If you're not there to defend your wicket, too bad. If you go out, the next player immediately comes in, and can be bowled out before facing a ball if not careful. Sometimes played with soccer ball and feet instead of bat and ball. Anyone? :) Stevage 14:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest a redirect to Beach cricket, and maybe expanding the sub-item on tip-and-run. In my culture it was called non-stop cricket. I don't think there is any room for informal forms of the game in the main article other than a one-line link. dramatic 19:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Stevage was only suggesting that someone right an article, not that t be included in this article. I also think it is a separate thing from beach/backyard cricket, and deserves a separate article. JPD (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuous cricket 

message: do u think that we should make a small mention under one-day cricket pro-40. for example the article currently says:
"but the innovation was the limiting of each side's innings to an agreed number of overs (nowadays usually 50)"
and make it something along the lines of:
but the innovation was the limiting of each side's innings to an agreed number of overs. Nowadays this is usually 50 though in english domestic cricket they r "experimenting" with Pro-40 cricket. This is a limited overs match of 40 overs, with the aim of eliminating what many regard as boring sequences of play where the run rate slows; this usually occurs in the middle 10 overs of the innings. The 40 over concept is implemented with the hope of sustaining a higher run rate and to encourage the "big hitters" of the game to try for more boundaries rather than weathering this spell.
Pratj 23:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's called Twenty20, and it's already covered, immediately below the sentence you quoted. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's 40 overs a side. However, I don't think this really needs to be spelt out in the article. English domestic cricket has had a few different limited overs competitions with different length innings for a long time. The Sunday League was 40 overs until 98, and 45 overs until last year. As the article says, limited overs games can be any length, and are still usually 50 overs. JPD (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro40? 

message: The ins and outs of cricket, by Wikipedia.
Did we write this?  Much of the content is very familiar.  Does "by Wikipedia" count as citation? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Toronto Sun

message: The Basil D'Oliveira affair has been added to the intro as the most notorious example of cricket giving rise to diplomatic outrage. While in a sense this is true, I think the original point of the statement concerning diplomatic outrage was that it has on occasion been caused by on-field tactics and incidents. The D'Oliveira affair was political in nature to start with, and not quite the same thing. JPD (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diplomatic incidents 

message: do u think we should add something small about the incident on 20th august when the paskistanis staged a protest by staying in their dressing room. the england batsmen and umpires returned too the field but the umpires removed the bails, thus pakistan forfeited (the first time in test match history). then the pakistan team retuned to the field; but the umpires did not, as in their eyes pakistan had forfeited.
Pratj 07:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not important enough for this article. It is covered in Pakistani cricket team in England in 2006. Tintin (talk) 07:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest the first forfiet in history is pretty important.Kearney6 07:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of about the same importance as the first tied Test in history, which is not mentioned in the article. Current events always seem more important than they are in later context. I agree it should not be mentioned here. -dmmaus 08:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well perhaps the first tied test should be.Kearney6 08:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the article is long enough as it is. Sam Vimes | Address me 09:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  England v Pakistan 4th Test incident 

message: The above to-do list requested information for "Powerplay". That's a piece of info specific to ODIs, shouldn't it be included in the One-day international page instead of the main-page here (which it already is)?--Alexio 11:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that the one day section could do with including a mention of fielding restrictions in general, as another difference between the limited overs game and the longer form. This could include a link to powerplay. I am not happy with the change that I must have missed at one poin, restricting the forms of cricket section to international cricket. At least a paragraph on how it is played at lower levels was a good thing. JPD (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about something like: "The ICC introduced various playing conditions to increase the attacking nature of limited-overs cricket, such as fielding restrictions and the Powerplay." If this looks ok feel free to whack it in. As for the description being limited to international cricket, I hear ya, but I can't figure out how to fix it yet without exceeding my daily coffee limit, so I'll leave it to the learned :)--Alexio 14:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Powerplay? 

message: Pretty confident that indoor cricket isn't a rouse, not sure but seemed like a ligit add, probably would need a cite for most people to believe, yet most people are stupid.Kearney6 04:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the information about indoor cricket that was added should cite references whether it is believable or not. More to the point is the fact that indoor cricket is so different from the forms of cricket mentioned that it doesn't really belong in that list. JPD (talk) 10:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Indoor Cricket

message: I found part of the following sentence hard to follow: "If the team batting last reaches their target, they are said to have won by n wickets, where n is the number of wickets the opposition still needed to take in order to dismiss them."  I got stuck on the word "target".  Would it make more sense to say: "If the team batting last gets ahead on total runs, they are said to have won by n wickets, where n is the number of wickets the opposition still needed to take in order to dismiss them."  Thanks. --Rhurwitz 20:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing language?