Talk:Cricket/Archive 1

My feeling is that lists in general (of countries, people, and the like) should either be in some particular order, or else in alphabetical order. Thus it would make sense to list:


 * Australia, England, Sri Lanka (alphabetical order)
 * England, Australia, Sri Lanka (historical order - England started playing it first)
 * Sri Lanka, England, Australia (most players first)

or whatever. In this context it's a very minor matter, I guess, but in more controversial areas it probably matters a good deal. I imagine that, somewhere, there is a page setting out policy on this. Tannin

Surely the Ashes are a form of Test Cricket? Seems a bit misleading as it is. Bagpuss 00:57 Jan 6, 2003 (UTC)

Bravo to Lord Emsworth and others for making this page the masterpiece that it now is. Lisiate 07:21, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've moved all cricketer names from this page to List of cricketers. I deleted from this page only those that didn't have an article on them. We need to keep only 4-5 "most famous" names here and delete the rest. The page is too long already and Wikipedia is complaining. Jay 09:35, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Having added some more cricketers before reading this comment, I agree and have deleted them all and just put in a cross reference -- ALoan 11:00, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Is it still two minutes to be timed out in test cricket, I thought it was changed to three. SimonMayer 22:30, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * You are correct; Law 31 provides that 3 minutes be permitted to incoming batsmen. -- Lord Emsworth 02:59, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Indeed - have edited -- ALoan 11:00, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

I have created a website teaching newcomers about how cricket matches are played. The site is http://cricketlearn.tripod.com. If any author wishes to copy content site my site and add it to wikipedia, feel free to do so. I refuse to modify the content of wikipedia due to ethical reasons. Nicholas Alphonso
 * I have emailed the creator of the site requesting confirmation that the above is a genuine post and not someone just claiming to be Mr. Alphonso. Please bear with me whilst I wait for a response. SimonMayer 21:41 30 Jan 2004 (GMT/UTC)


 * The creator of the website returned this email to me

Hi Simon, Yes its true. I have given my permission to add content from my site http://cricketlearn.tripod.com cause I want to help out in the wiki project.

-- Best regards, Nicholas Alphonso'''
 * So it seems like we can use this site whenever. SimonMayer 01:30 01 Feb 2004 (GMT/UTC)

It seems to me that there would be a lot of benefit in separate articles relating to the development of cricket in each of the major countries. I'll have a go at something on Indian cricket. --ALargeElk 17:07, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

''The Champion's Trophy, also known as the ICC Knockout Cup, is held every four years in between World Cups. In the Champion's Trophy, a single loss eliminates a team from the tournament.''

The first ICC Knockout was held at Dhaka 1998, The second 2000 Kenya and The third 2002 Sri Lanka. So the gap is 2 years and not four. Unless there is a new rule about it?!! If there is no change another one should be held in 2004. Let me see...

Ok, got it England will host the 2004 Champions Trophy and India the 2006 trophy. Now I might as well edit the article.

Made a couple of changes to the article:
 * Added a piece about the 5 run penalty for hitting a spare helmet on the field
 * Changed "immigrants of cricketing nations" to "immigrants from cricketing nations" as this seems to make more sense to me - as long as this is intended to mean situations like cricket being played in New York by people of West Indian origin?

Also made a slight change to the part about the informal organisation of Test cricket - certainly used to be the casebut surely this is now inconsitent with the existence of the ICC Test championship.

All in all a great article - be gentle with me as this is my first edit!Baggie 13:18, 8 May 2004 (UTC)


 * It is worth making the distinction between the ball hitting a helmet (automatic 5 run penalty) and hitting another article of clothing (only a 5 run penalty, AIUI, if it counts as the fielder fielding with something "other than his person")? See Law 41. -- ALoan 11:00, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Changed the first para to reflect the fact that South Asian countries do not play cricket in summer as we might understand it - in fact in India the main competitions are played in Northern Hemisphere winter months. It's fair to say that Indians would prefer to play all year round if they could, but for the extreme heat of summer and the monsoon.

Also, we can go further than just saying it's the major summer sport in some countries - again in South Asia it's pretty much the only sport anybody cares about, to the extent that newspapers have pages for main news, sport news, and cricket news, not necessarily in that order! Given that this part of the world represents a huge chunk of the global population, doesn't this make cricket a mass popularity sport despite its apparent lack of exposure in some parts of the world?--Baggie 08:03, 10 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Cricket has more followers than any sport in the world except soccer. It is, in a very real sense, the second-biggest sport in the world. The big American sports are much more restricted geographically. dmmaus 02:38, 11 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Have edited slightly - hope my changes are ok? -- ALoan 11:00, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia complains that this page is about 4k too long. To reduce its length, I propose to move Balls per over in Test cricket to Test cricket and to move International structure of cricket to a new page. Not sure if this would be enough to get the page below 34k, but these seem to be the best bits to move. Anyone object or have any better ideas? -- ALoan 11:15, 11 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I was planning to break cricket statistics into a separate page, much like baseball statistics. I think I'll go ahead and do it. :-) I think this cricket page really needs a lot of work on a cleaner structure. Your proposed moves also make sense, especially the balls per over. dmmaus 22:32, 11 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, I moved the balls per over part to Over (cricket) since it makes more sense there. I'm also thinking the ICC Test and ODI championship stuff should be moved somewhere. Might do that after the server maintenance. dmmaus 00:56, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Fine - thanks. Amongst other general tidying, I have deleted most of International structure of cricket and moved to International structure of cricket. -- ALoan 11:02, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Some more big changes today. I've made the introduction paragraph more relevant to the style used in other sports articles, added a photo I took (we need more photos - unfortunately most are copyrighted by media orgs), and moved the origins material to a new History of cricket article - which needs some filling out. Also created off side and leg side articles, which some things needed. Still a lot of work to be done generally tidying up the structure of the main article. The rules explanation is pretty poor, really. dmmaus 00:37, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

The Twenty 20 Cup (is that actually right) section reads like a PR release or an advertisement. Can someone who knows what it means do an NPOV edit? This guy from Kansas probebly isn't right for the job. Rick Boatright 03:59, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I've been looking at that exact section critically for the past few days. I was planning to move it to a separate page, since it's out of place where it is. It's certainly not the only shorter form of the game played in the world, and should probably be listed amongst others such as Cricket Max and the Hong Kong Sixes, and so on, on a page of their own. An NPOV edit certainly wouldn't go astray at the same time. I'll get on it, unless someone beats me to it. dmmaus 08:56, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Started a new page at bat (cricket) - it needs a lot more! - MPF 23:11, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
 * And now I discover it already has a page cricket bat - I'll make mine a redirect . . . but why is there no link to cricket bat anywhere on the cricket page? One should be put in somewhere! - MPF 23:25, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

We seem to be having a bit of a format war for the definition lists of the methods of getting out, the extras, and so on. Personally, I prefer the definition format with the definition indented beyond the lead word: Obviously someone else doesn't! Can we please settle on a format and then leave it? Consider this a vote to return to this definition format. --dmmaus 22:31, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * WordToBeDefined : blah blah blah.
 * AnotherWord : blah blah blah.


 * Indeed - I agree. I have been converting to that format when the opportunity arises since I found that it existed (last week!) - see the changes I made to cricket terminology on 26 May.  -- ALoan (Talk) 10:26, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * It's OK when the heading of a definition is bold, as it should be. But for the terms mentioned under dismissals and extras, the entire definition was bold, too. It made it look unclear and hard to tell one definition from the next. I changed it so that only the heading was bold. I think it looks clearer now.Jam2k 15:11, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a "feature" of the way that definition-style lists with bold text are rendered by different skins. You seem to need to put spaces around the second colon.  Compare:


 * WordToBeDefined : blah blah blah.
 * AnotherWord : blah blah blah.


 * and:


 * WordToBeDefined: blah blah blah.
 * AnotherWord: blah blah blah.


 * I hope I have fixed the lists in the article so that they work now? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:07, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Going right back to the very first comment on this talk page, I have added a HTML comment to the article above the top paragraph outlining the fact that countries are listed in order of Test status. It seems to be not unusual for people to swap the orders of countries - particularly India and Pakistan - out of a misplaced sense of patriotism. We should keep an eye out for this. --dmmaus 22:13, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fielding positions image
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


 * 1) gully is in the wrong position (I think Image:Cricket_positions.png has got it right)
 * 2) 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)


 * 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)

IRC
Are there any IRC channels dedicated to cricket? &#x00b6; nichalp | [[User talk: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)

FAC
I think this article may be ready for listing on Featured Article Candidates - any views? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:27, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I think the page needs a good overhaul. I still feel it's to technical and parts of it are ambiguous. In my opinion we should fill all the red links and add some more pictures before listing it on the featured articles page. (Give me a week, I shall try and clean up the page). &#x00b6; nichalp | [[User talk:nichalp| Talk ]] 19:04, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with nichalp. I actually think this particular page is one of the poorest we have on cricket. It's long, rambling, disjointed, and obviously a patchwork of stuff thrown together by many people. It needs a concentrated overhaul with an eye to style, consistency, and legibility. I've been too afraid to tackle it on my own, since it's such a full page and because it attracts a lot of "touch-up" edits by readers, adding stuff that is best left on other pages and contributing to the bloated, disorganised feel. Nichalp, if you want to take on this job, by all means please do! --dmmaus 21:41, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Most probabably, I'll do it on Sunday, I'll also be uploading images I created - amaturish, but something is better than nothing. I still have to finish bits on Mumbai topics which I am currently working on, before I undertake the task . &#x00b6; nichalp | [[User talk:nichalp| Talk ]] 20:46, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Fine - I was hoping either for support or for someone to volunteer for the job! There is so much cricket material on Wikipedia, much of it very good, that the main page should in my opinion be Featured. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:31, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Page Upgradation
I am currently cleaning up the cricket page from ground up. The new temp page is where I will be adding the new matter daily till I finish. Please do not edit the new page, instead use the cricket/temp discussion page to suggest changes. &#x00b6; nichalp | [[User talk:nichalp| Talk ]] 19:22, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Clarifications
I need to clarify this:
 * 1) One umpire is known as the Square-Leg Umpire, the other is known as?
 * 2) Are there any fielding restriction concerning off side and on sides?
 * 3) 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:
 * 1) Batsman, bowler
 * 2) Ball, bat etc.
 * 3) A closeup pic of an ODI match in progress.

&#x00b6; nichalp | [[User talk: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)

--from the temp page
This is a temporary page I have created till I finish working on the cricket article. Please do not edit the temp page. Use this space to suggest modifications. &#x00b6; nichalp | [[User talk:nichalp| Talk ]] 19:35, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

ODI history tweak
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)

Links
An excellent start. Couple of linking niggles: and I prefer dmmaus's text above, but -- ALoan (Talk) 00:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 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
 * 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.

11 August
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:
 * 1) One umpire is known as the Square-Leg Umpire, the other is known as?
 * 2) Are there any fielding restriction concerning off side and on sides?
 * 3) 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:
 * 1) Batsman
 * 2) Ball, bat etc.
 * 3) A closeup pic of a match in progress.

&#x00b6; nichalp | [[User talk: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)


 * 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)

12 August
Thanks :). I have finished the basic editing of the page. Please feel free to correct the grammar and spellings if necessary. Please discuss any major changes instead of changing the text. I have carefully tried to maintain the flow of thought so that there is no information overload and is as fluid as possible (pretty difficult task). I have also uploaded some images as you can see (made in MS word). It may look fudgy and drab, but something is better than nothing.


 * Ok, I need you'll guys to help me out. I cannot proof-read (I'll go insane). Also please correct the See also and Main article. Some are bulleted and some are not. I think it needs consistency. Both the tables I have created are horrible and corrections are needed in its syntax. The tests vs. ODI section can be moved lower down too. In the meantime I will be filling up the new red links.

I suggest that we keep this page for another 3 days, invite people to proof-read & suggest changes, remove the chinks, then only update the main page. &#x00b6; nichalp | [[User talk:nichalp| Talk ]] 19:40, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

I've done a big copyedit. I was fairly aggressive in changing sentences, but I've left the structure intact. (I believe "major changes" means things like removing entire sections and rearranging stuff.) The structure is excellent, and I think a bit more polishing of the details will see this be much better than the current page. I've edited more heavily towards the beginning - I got a bit tired near the end and would like to see some more refinement there. One thing in particular I'd like to see is some earlier clarification that Tests and ODIs (which are the main thrust of the article, and that's fine) are not the only form of cricket - at the moment that information is only presented right near the end. I tried to fit it in near the top, but didn't see a good place for it. Anyway, great work nichalp! --dmmaus 01:10, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A few comments: -- Emsworth 01:25, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * In re "Bowling end umpire": I thought the correct form was "bowler's end umpire."
 * "Retired hurt/ Retired out": I've also heard of the terminology "Retired not out" for the former; which is official?
 * Bouncers: The rule was formerly 2 per over per batsman in tests. Has this been changed to 2 per batsman?
 * Should we not put "Dismissal of a batsman" and "Scoring runs" under "Play of the game"?

--dmmaus 04:37, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Mmmm, yes... I think "Scoring Runs" should be merged into "Batting" and "Dismissal of a batsman" into "Bowling", both under "Play of the game"; and move "Tests vs ODIs" below the entire "Play of the game" section, in fact right down to inside the "Forms of the game" section, perhaps even remove it entirely and let the individual Test and ODI articles deal with the differences. That removes the bouncer issue, for one - which is really a playing condition, not a Law, anyway. That would make the article structure flow better I think.
 * "bowling end"/"bowler's end" - I don't think it matters much. It's an informal term - the Laws only refer to "the umpire at the bowler's end" and "the umpire at the striker's end". Perhaps "bowler's end" is more usual.
 * "Retired not out" is the term used in the Laws, but "retired hurt" is much more common in everyday usage.


 * I've added my 2d of copyedit. Nichalp's structure is great - it flows much better than the current page.  And I thought the diagrams were fine - perhaps I am not a diagram person!  My main concern is to make sure that the current content that is not replicated here is copied somewhere - I presume that this will happen when the new pages' red links are filled in?


 * I broadly agree with most of Emsworth's comments and dmmaus's replies:
 * yes, but both terms are used
 * "retired not out" is the official term but "retired hurt" is the term that virtually everyone uses in practice
 * Still two per batsman per over, I think
 * Yes, provided it does not unbalance that section too much.
 * -- ALoan (Talk) 10:12, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Okay, then I propose the following structure: -- Emsworth 18:38, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) History
 * 2) Objective
 * 3) Playing field
 * 4) Pitch
 * 5) Wickets
 * 6) Creases
 * 7) Field placements
 * 8) Players - mention different roles (batsman, bowler, keeper, fielder, runner, sub, captain)
 * 9) Officials
 * 10) Play of the game - include some info now in the section "match structure"
 * 11) The toss
 * 12) Innings and overs - include brief explanation of test/ ODI diff.
 * 13) Batting - include extras, penalty runs
 * 14) Bowling - include info on dismissal of batsmen, also method of bowling; no-balls/ wides
 * 15) Fielding and keeping - include info on fielding restrictions; rules on keeper's movement, etc.
 * 16) Victory - include info now in the section "Victory margin"
 * 17) International structure - ICC, Australia's dominance, etc.
 * 18) Forms of cricket - ''more detail on test/ ODI diff.
 * 19) See also/ References/ Links, etc.

Why is this article here?
Why isn't this at Cricket (sport)/temp? RickK 20:05, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Good point - see my recent comment on Talk:Cricket. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:11, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Although it is a faux pas, the page will be having a short life, so no harm done. &#x00b6; nichalp | [[User talk:nichalp| Talk ]] 20:18, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

13 Aug
Glad to see that the loose bricks have been cemented. Here are some reverts that I have carried out:
 * 1) The pitch is predominantly clay - Many pitches in India lack any sort of grass -- I've corrected that.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) 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. &#x00b6; nichalp | [[User talk: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)

Oh, and as for the left-aligned images - they look better that way than staggered next of each other at the right. The problem is there are too many images used in a short space of text. It might be better to combine some of the images into one: the pitch and wicket for example. Or else make the thumbnails smaller. --dmmaus 23:05, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Might I ask what the source of the images is? If this article is to become a featured article, and even otherwise, images need to indicate their sources and licences or copyright status. -- Emsworth 01:13, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

15 August
The images are GFDL, created by me, although I have not explicitly stated due to lack of available time. I think the name origins should be there as it tells us on how the sport originated. The history article has the detailed explaination no doubt, but all matter relevent to the sport should have a separate sub heading. I agree with the point about the left aligned images, but the current image of the wicket, squeezes the sub heading which looks awful.

I need copyediting of the new pages I have created.
 * 1) runs
 * 2) end of an innings
 * 3) bowling strategy
 * 4) fielding strategy
 * 5) captain
 * 6) runner
 * 7) retired hurt
 * 8) types of bowlers
 * 9) scoring runs in cricket

I will also be adding to the toss article. PS. I may not be online tomorrow. &#x00b6; nichalp | [[User talk:nichalp| Talk ]] 19:48, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

Where's everybody gone?

 * -) Jack | talk page 18:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"Cricket was first played in southern England in the 16th century." In Poland, in the Middle Ages was a very similar ball game called "Palant" and was very popular! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.29.164 (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Test and ODI rankings
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)

ICC Test Championship

06 Dec 2009 Team	Matches	Points	Rating India	32	3957	124 South Africa	30	3672	122 Australia	31	3600	116 Sri Lanka	31	3574	115 England	39	4102	105 Pakistan	17	1424	84 New Zealand	25	2001	80 West Indies	25	1910	76 Bangladesh	19	255	13 ICC ODI Championship

29 Nov 2009 Team	Matches	Points	Rating Australia	39	5080	130 India	37	4522	122 South Africa	26	3085	119 New Zealand	25	2789	112 England	33	3606	109 Pakistan	28	3012	108 Sri Lanka	31	3298	106 West Indies	21	1589	76 Bangladesh	28	1548	55 Zimbabwe	32	823	26 Ireland	6	152	25 Kenya	14	28	2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Himanil Raina (talk • contribs) 06:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * I agree with Jhall1. --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Um Units?
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Regarding dismissals, I have moved "hit wicket" to the group of unusual methods of dismissal. Among sports books that offer wagering on live cricket matches,"hit wicket" is customarily offered at odds of over 200-1. Also (see www.cricinfo.com) "hit wicket" accounts for less than 1 out of every 500 outs in first class cricket.Mk5384 (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Name
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)
 * Are there any sources that explicitly make this connection? If so, all is well. If not, it's a problematic. Reyk  YO!  11:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)

Minimal Age
What's the minimal age for playing test matches? Does anybody knows that? 77.23.22.143 (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Misnomer
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

First sentence
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Shall we try and push this up to B Class?
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)


 * 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)
 * As per see my post under Simple one paragraph, agreed... Terrible.. Dancindazed (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Error in overview section
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)
 * Good spot. Fixed.  –Moondyne 03:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Objectives section
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)
 * Having waited, and seeing no disapproval, I am going ahead and making the changes Vinay84 (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Total Neophytes Need More Description
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Or perhaps clearer description. The first paragraph in the article is good. The second paragraph, with all its parenthetical remarks, is practically unreadable. I had to re-read it a couple times before it became clear(er). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.240.38 (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

World's second most popular sport? Really?
BBC News gives that honor to basketball: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11348053. In the Wikipedia article, reference #4 states "Cricket, which its fans say is the world’s second most popular sport" obviously has a problem of bias. The claim in reference #5 is from a guy who wrote a book called "“Batting on the Bosphorus: A Liquor-Fueled Cricket Tour Through Eastern Europe" -- liquor-fueled enthusiasm generally doesn't inspire my confidence. And, lastly, reference #6 supports the second place claim by stating that its popular in India which has a population of 1.5 billion. I would think the popularity of the sport is based upon viewership, attendance, club revenue, rather than the assumption that an entire nation sits glues to the TV for every game. Extremely popular in China, I would gather that basketball gets far more of those markers than cricket, which under the same false premise balances out India :) ... At any rate, I'm not trying to prove something for basketball, just that this claim about cricket and its references in this Wikipedia article are suspect, at best. 99.22.228.93 (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This was actually removed from the article in the distant past due to the lack of good references, so it must have sneaked back in. I suspect that in terms of team sports we can safely say that soccer is way out in front, but the second most popular team sport is a little more hard to pin down. It probably is between basketball and cricket though! Andrew nixon (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I would agree with that last statement. And it would be incredibly difficult to prove either way, involving lots of assumptions. If there is a very reliable source which claims that one or the other is number 2, then that would be worth using, but I haven't seen that source yet. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's high up the list of popular sports by number of players/fans, because of its popularity in South Asia - but as for "number of countries played in" it falls down - most of Europe, the Americas and the Middle East hardly know of it. When cricket is an olympic sport things may change. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * PS - I've just been searching online to find out how many people in the world play cricket. The only answer I could find was 3 billion, from the highly dubious Yahoo! Answers. Is there a Reliable source out there? Totnesmartin (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * These are the countries that (for the most part) still play Cricket: British Empire - that doesn't include countries which once had a large British influence, such as Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, etc. India and Pakistan also play Cricket (and very successfully too), and I suggest a look at their respective populations to see the likely number of people playing the game. Unsigned, by some bloke
 * That wouldn't come up with anything we can put in the article. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH would stymie us. The best we could do would be to have a list of registered players from every country. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just added this back as I found a lot of references indicating this - http://www.topendsports.com/world/lists/popular-sport/index.htm, http://www.buzzle.com/articles/most-popular-sports-in-the-world.html, http://www.sportingo.com/all-sports/a11587_worlds-top-most-popular-team-sports, http://www.mostpopularsports.net/. Please feel free to remove this if the references are not convincing (these are the first few links on Google). Abhask (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, those references are not convincing. Just because something is published (and it pains me to use the word in this context) on the Web, this does not give it worth or authority.  I think this was removed again, as I could not find it.  If it is not, please remove it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.228.93 (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Is the popularity of a sport defined by the number of people who follow/watch it, or who actually play it? This leads to some interesting situations - I think in the UK a lot of people play or have played basketball casually, but I don't think many people follow a team or watch it (I've never seen it televised outside of the olympics), whereas I think a lot of people follow cricket who have never played it. 82.69.94.215 (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Appeals:
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)

Not true - Law 27.1 1. Umpire not to give batsman out without an appeal Neither umpire shall give a batsman out, even though he may be out under the Laws, unless appealed to by a fielder. This shall not debar a batsman who is out under any of the Laws from leaving his wicket without an appeal having been made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.11.185 (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Types of matches
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)


 * Strong support to the Last suggestion Vinay84 (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Attempt started at User:Vinay84/Template:Professional CricketVinay84 (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Very Poorly Written
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) American Dood


 * 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)

I agree. A sentence like "Early cricket was at some time or another described as ..." with a reference and no further explanation is gibberish. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Photograph required: Uniqueness of each field section
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)


 * 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)

Sorry, but - I feel a simple introduction is still missing
Could it seem that this carefully crafted and formerly featured article might be an intricate task to read one's way into for the utterly uninitiated? While many will be perfectly familiar with the concept of bat-and-ball team sports, some may lack this familiarity. For those, and to save them having to read up on it in other articles, I feel a very brief explanation at the beginning might come in helpful, stating the general workings of a game of Cricket in simple (if much simplified) words, such as the game being about (if you forgive me) destroying the batting party's wicket with the ball while they in turn attempt to protect it from being destroyed by batting the ball away and, intermittently, running across the (sorry) field as (sorry) often as possible without failing their task.

This might be considered a delicate change by some participants so I dont't dare be WP:bold enough to try an implementation right away. Comments and execution welcome.

Thanks everybody involved for your consideration.

--217.226.56.244 (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * OK How about this as a suggestion?


 * Cricket is a bat-and-ball team sport.


 * One team bats and the other fields. All of the players on the fielding team are present on the field - one of whom (the bowler) bowls a ball towards a wooden wicket. The batting team have two players (the batsmen) on the field, one of whom stands in front of the wicket and tries with his bat to prevent the ball from hitting the wicket.


 * If the batsman succeeds in hitting the ball some distance, he then may decide to run, that is to run the 22 yards from the wicket he is defending towards a second identical wicket. If he does run, then the other batsman, who will have been waiting by the second wicket, needs to run in the opposite direction at the same time


 * While the batsmen are running, the fielding team will try to retrieve the ball and throw it at the wicket.


 * If the wicket is hit by the ball, either as a result of the batsman failing to hit the ball away - or as a result of the ball hitting the wicket before a running batsman has reached it, the batsman is dismissed from the field, and the next member of the batting team takes his place. A batsman is also dismissed if the ball he hits is caught by a fielder before it touches the ground, or if his body (rather than the bat) prevents the ball from hitting the wicket.


 * The object of the game for the batting team is to score as many runs as they can. The object of the game for the fielding team is to dismiss all the batsmen from the batting team as quickly as they can.

94.172.24.194 (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Any summarised explanation in the lead will exclude something that someone thinks is important. Yours places an emphasis on running between the wickets, but doesn't tell us what a wicket is. Batsmen rarely run 22 yards. It doesn't explain what bowling is. (Everywhere else that word is used it means something very different.) It doesn't explain a field. Just simple examples. I suggest that, rather than producing a set of words, those who want a change contribute to a list of what they think are the key points about the game that should be in the lead. I guess mine are italicised above. HiLo48 (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Good luck ;) My newest attempt is as follows:


 * Cricket is a bat-and-ball team sport. Variations exist, but the most popular form is played on an oval-shaped outdoor arena known as a cricket field at the centre of which is a rectangular 22-yard (20.12 m) long pitch that is the focus of the game. A game (or match) is contested between two teams of eleven players each. One team of batsmen will try to score as many runs as possible while the other team bowls and fields, trying to dismiss the batsmen and limit the runs scored by the batting team. All eleven of the fielding team and only two of the batsmen are on the field at any one time as well as two umpires who adjudicate dismissal decisions and control other aspects of the game. A run is scored for the batting team after a bowler from the fielding team bowls a ball towards one of the two batsmen who hits the ball with his bat and runs to the opposite end of the pitch.  The batsman's partner will run from the bowler's end of the pitch while the striking batsman is running.  The bowler's action is distinct from a conventional throwing action in that the bowler's arm is required to be held straight at the elbow.
 * A batsman may be dismissed (given 'out') in a number of ways. These include: the batsman hits the ball which is retrieved by one of the fielders and it is thrown back and hits the wicket while the batsman is still running; the ball is hit by the batsman and caught by a fielder before it hits the ground; the batsman misses hitting the ball while it is in flight from the bowler, and it then strikes the wicket; or the ball hits the batsman's body when the ball would have otherwise carried through and hit the wickets.  When the batsman is dismissed he leaves the field and another member of his team comes on to take his place.  The teams switch between batting and fielding at the end of an innings, which occurs when ten of the eleven batsmen are dismissed.
 * –Moondyne 02:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I read almost half of the article, but still wouldn't have much idea of how the game is played without the above two descriptions. (I found the first more useful.) I don't think this belongs in the introduction; that would be too long. But how about a section near the beginning that gives an explanation of play that is common to all or most versions of the game, without going into differences and distinctions and much specific terminology. A diagram could be inserted with it to give enough information about the field. Then use hyperlinks to later sections to describe what things like wickets and bats are like in detail instead of loading it all in the text. I'll check back in a few weeks to find out the "many" or "several" other ways to score points. I've run out of time for today.Another-sailor (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Another-sailor - This is too detailed for the intro, but it a very valuable overview of the rules of the game. --Boy.pockets (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Not "many" but "several" ways to score a run
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)

No mention of World Champions!
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)
 * Have a look at the section labelled Limited overs. HiLo48 (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)