Talk:Ball of the Century

Untitled
This article consists almost entirely of jargon. I have no idea what a "leg break" is, a stump, leg side, or many of the other terms. I can guess most from context, but that's a rather poor substitute. Parens were invented for a reason. Please insert some so us poor non-cricket players can figure out what the heck you're talking about. After all, this is supposed to be about the "ball of the century", it deserves to be readable by more than just the "fanboys". Maury 12:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That's what the wikilinks are for. You'll find a full explanation of a leg break at leg break. If we were to insert parenthetical explanations of every jargon term, the article would triple in size, since many of the terms used require a paragraph of explanation, and be redundant with the existing articles on those terms. When someone writes an article about a baseball event, it would be silly to expect them to include parenthetical explanations of what a "first base" and a "home run" and a "slider" and a "shortstop" is. Better to link to the relevant articles so people who aren't familiar with the terms can read further, and people who are familiar with them aren't interrupted by a lot of extraneous explanation. -dmmaus 13:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * To be very honest, the leg break article is filled with non-understandable jargon as well. Of course I could read up on those as well but this seems to go into a rather vicious circle. Even at best, I don't want to read up on 3 or 4 articles just to even begin to understand 1 article. Maybe a nice seperate cricket jargon article with terse explanations without using other jargon words would be in order? :: DarkLordSeth 15:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There is such a cricket jargon article at List of cricket terms. I'll redirect cricket jargon there too. -dmmaus 23:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree completely even though I'm unfamiliar with most cricket terms. --Zippanova 14:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikilinks are most definitely not for following definitions. We all know the frustration of hunting around in a dictionary only to find a "see..." definition. Moreover the wiki is not a dictionary.
 * Frankly the "triple in size" claim sounds like hyperbole. Further it seems this sport is particularily jargon filled, and the article written to use much of it.
 * Your example of baseball simply demonstrates this point; anyone even passingly familar with baseball could easily understand the term "first baseman" and "slider" is precisely the sort of thing that could easily be described in a few words in parens. If you really believe this is not the case for the various terms used in this article, I suggest you simply haven't tried very hard.
 * Addendum : I actually followed the links in question. This simply proves my point. The leg break article could not be understood without going to another article about leg side. After reading both it is clear the entire description can be summed up as "a ball that bounces away from the batter to the front". I restate my point, the claim is hyperbole. Maury 16:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I will grant that the article could be rewritten to make it more transparent to people unfamiliar with cricket, and I will attempt to do so in a manner that doesn't disrupt the flow of the text. It may take me a day or two. I certainly can take constructive criticism.
 * However I disagree with some of your assertions. Anyone even passingly familiar with cricket knows what a "stump" is, so by your baseball analogy, I don't need to explain that term - which is one you initially raised - at all. This is precisely like me complaining that a baseball article doesn't have a paernethetical note explaining to me what a "first baseman" is. Your point on "slider" though is well-taken, and "leg break" here is a good analogy. I shall attempt to make that clearer.
 * If I come across as a little defensive, please try to imagine how the baseball Wikipedians would feel if I started posting comments in baseball articles demanding insertion of a parenthetical explanation of a "slider". I'm sure there would be (some) arguments that such an explanation is not necessary and I should simply follow the wikilink if I want to know what a slider is.
 * Thank you for your comments. I hope to make the article better with them. -dmmaus 23:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I sympathize with both sides here, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to stay firmly on the 'fanboy' side of the fence. User Dmmaus is right - there would be way too much to explain to someone who has no idea of the sport. This article is not an introduction to cricket but looks to highlight one of the game's singular achievements. Its bound to be loaded with what looks like jargon to people who don't know anything about the sport. I mean, some knowledge IS required to read the article. Explaining the dynamics of a forward defence padding or wrist and finger spin is just not on. Its like trying to follow reports of a Chess match without understanding the basic language used to denote moves; I mean, what would a Ruy-Lopez opening mean then anyway ? Sorry, but cricket IS a relatively complicated sport that is quite demanding on the average fan. It requires understanding of its nuances for any kind of fulfilling appreciation, or no go. And this is a specifically referential article. As for the leg break : its a slightly faster (but not fast - thats fast bowling)slow ball bowled by imparting a spin across the ball with fingers or wrist that will pitch in front, and a little to the left, of a right-handed batsman (not batter) and then spin away to his right side. Tigger69 22:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, a couple of comments. Regarding the discussion on jargon, I agree that following wikilinks for definitions can soon degenerate into a never-ending adventure. Having said, it is hardly reasonable to expect every discussion on a specialized topic to be completely self-explanatory to a complete novice. And while the fact that cricket novices are apparently reading this article is encouraging, it does beg the question of why are they bothering? I find it difficult to understand why someone who doesn't know even the most elementary cricket terms, would be interested in such an article. My second comment regards the article itself (and here I must apologise to the afore-mentioned cricket novices, as I am going to assume a working knowledge of cricketing basics!). The article describes the ball as pitching "well outside Gatting's leg stump" and then spinning sharply away from him. It may be traditional in cricket to describe a leg break as one that pitches in line with the leg stump, or the batsman, and then spins away. But this is a general description. When discussing a particular delivery, however, it is necessary to take into account the actual circumstances, since whether the ball spins away from the batsman, or towards the batsman, depends on where the ball pitches in relation to where the batsman is standing. In this case, since the ball pitched well outside Gatting's leg stump, and ended up hitting his off stump, it could only have spun towards him (in fact, across him) and therefore not away from him at all! If the batsman is left-handed, a leg break nearly always spins into him, because the only way to avoid this would be to pitch on, or outside, the left-hander's leg stump--which would be very rare. But with a right-hander like Gatting, it depends. If you pitch on the off-stump, it would surely spin away. If you pitch on middle or leg, it probably spins away. But if you pitch outside leg, then unless the batsman is standing in a very peculiar position, the ball spins towards him. (Probably the most neutral way to describe a leg break is to say it spins from the batsman's left to right: from the direction of the leg stump to the off stump for a right-hander, and from the off-stump to the leg stump for a lefty.) By the way, the video is excellent, but I just wish there was a version which could be (a) downloaded, and (b) played in slow motion! --Alistair 16:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Any video anyone can find? I'd like to watch this online. --Bash 19:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

videos/photos?
Any videos/photos of this?? Would be a really good addition to the article.doles 21:40, 2005 August 15 (UTC)


 * I have a video, but as it's copyrighted by the media agency who shot it, it can't be uploaded to Wikipedia. I plan to make an animation or something. Less than ideal, but that's the best we can do, I'm afraid. -dmmaus 23:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess the animation on the page currently is the end result of your efforts. It is an excellent and important addition to the article, however I feel it should be updated to include te curve of the Magnus effect.  This was the vital factor in Gatting's befuddlement, and crucial to the description of this delivery.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.225.60 (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

A googling - haha, get it? :p - revealed this http://loadup.dr.ag/s/Warne_Vs_Gatting.wmv.HtMl / http://rapidshare.de/files/562647/Warne_Vs_Gatting.wmv.html --Paul 12:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[anonymous reader comment moved from the article by dmmaus 01:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC):] if u r reading this please try to put a weblink of the video (downloadable, preferably)of this ball. btw the so-so picture is available at http://www.lgm.com.au/productdetail.asp?catid=2&productID=219&typ=framed


 * I have added a link to the famous photograph of the dismissal. It is a truly superb image - Gatting's expression, the bail flying above his head, everything is just perfectly framed. I have tried and failed to track down the photographer's name - I remember seeing it in a newspaper a few weeks ago with the name credited but I can't find it now. All I know is that it is copyright Getty Images. Can anyone help with the photographer's name? 143.252.80.110 13:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Answering my own post here - I tracked it down on the Getty Images site and the photographer was Steve Lindsell. A better link to it might be this one on the Getty site but it is a search result so I am not sure if it will continue to work?  143.252.80.110 13:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Both those Getty Images pictures are dead links so I'm removing the one that's present in the article. Tempshill 01:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

An animation, or even a diagram, would be a fabulous addition. Pcb21| Pete 07:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

http://www.impressionsgroup.com.au/prodimages/cricket005l.jpg

BAD EDIT
Sorry folks, the link to YouTube video was ABSOLUTELY NOT of the "ball of the century", so being bold, I figured, "delete that", but I accidentally deleted the (rather poor) google video too, and I don't know how to revert / re-edit. Anyone able to fix it up please?

I did a bit of tidying up on the 'aftermath' section, some seemed to be rather over doing the reaction of Gatting as though he hadn't believed he'd been bowled 'for a few seconds'. This of course is all very subjective, but I believe if you watch the video footage this simply doesn't happen, and seems to be very biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunsnroses15 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm confused - no recent edit appears to include such a deletion - in fact there hasn't been a link to video for a while. Someone has put a comment in the article to the effect that all video is copyright and WP should not link to it.  TrulyBlue (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Left hander?
Moved comment from Talk:Ball of the Century/Comments where it would probably not be seen Astronaut (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The description of the ball is wrong in almost every respect. For a start, Mike Gatting is described as right handed when in fact he was left handed. Therefore it was his right leg he moved forward, not his left. I suspect the article has been sabotaged, especially as it is topical at the moment.
 * You should read the Mike Gatting article. It clearly says he is right-handed.  Astronaut (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)