Talk:Cricket/Archive 11

"Second most popular sport"
This claim smacks of special pleading. Either cricket has been shown in a survey to be the second most popular (in which case we can reference the survey and document the measurement criteria) or not (in which case no-one really knows, and no reference could possibly be authoritative). --RobertG &#9836; talk 14:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. None of those references are particularly good. Either way, it is ridiculous to include that many refs - either one ref is good enough, or they are all lousy. Having more lousy refs doesn't make it more believable. At the very least, we would need a ref that is a bit more specific about what it means by "second most popular sport". JPD (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, it could be worded "Cricket is often claimed to be...", in which case a multiplicty of sources is useful, but also shows that none of those claims is particularly defintive. David Underdown 15:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is an encyclopedic approach. Firstly calling it a "claim" is over-egging the pudding: none of the citations is "claiming" anything, they simply mention the "fact" in passing, for which they do not offer a source, because it increases the apparent relevance of what they report.  Secondly, none of the sources is by someone who could be described as an authority on sports popularity.  (I couldn't access the Bartholomew citation - I think it's terminally broken.)  Thirdly this approach begs the question how often cricket is "claimed" to be boring, baffling, impenetrably abstruse or recondite!  I think the most we can say from the references cited is that "cricket has been called the second-most-popular&hellip;", and I think that too weak to put in an encyclopedia article.  I'm sure it doesn't belong in the lead.
 * By the way, the lead currently says "It is the second most popular sport in the world beside Football as more than a hundred cricket-playing nations are recognised by the International Cricket Council. That "as" implies that the popularity follows from the recognition of the nations by the ICC, which is plainly nonsense.  --RobertG &#9836; talk 15:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what we gain by including the claim (I suspect it is true, but proving it would require original research unless a decent reference is found), that makes it worth keeping. The general discussion gives a fair idea of how (and where) popular the game is. Although it might be worth adding a significant measure of popularity (global TV audiences or merchandising sales) if someone has the stats? ReadingOldBoy 16:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

After a bit of online research, I can't see that the claim is justifiable and have removed it. (I did discover lots of interesting stuff along the way. For example, golf it the most played sport in Australia!  I particularly liked the analysis at http://www.johann-sandra.com/popular.htm looking at 15 sports that claimed to be the second most popular!  Unfortunately they had no figures for cricket.  There's a relevant Google Answers page also http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=574061)  129.16.97.227 17:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Loads of ways to demonstrate popularity of a sport; none of them are definitive, even if you could source accurate stats. The claim's not necessary. Stick to facts... how many countries are ICC members, how many people live in countries for which it's a national sport, worldwide TV audience for World Cup final, that kind of thing. I believe the ICC also has some projections on numbers of people that play, possibly in representative cricket, not including recreational. Anyway, my point is, let the reader see for themselves how popular it really is based on unambiguous NPOV factual material. --Dweller 15:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I hope no-one got the impression that I was suggesting that cricket is not a popular sport!  --RobertG &#9836; talk 17:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Gives an estimated 2 billion viewings over a cricket world cup, other than the footy world cup with 37 billion its the second for team sports events if you discount the rugby world cup claim of 2.5 billion which I don't think is remotely credible, the nations involve simply are not populous enough. If the claim or fact is to go back in I think it should be more specific. For example "the cricket world cup is the second most watched international team sporting event" or whatever is credibly cited. It would be interesting to see accurate viewing figures for an India/Pakistan world cup final. I have no doubt that would be hundreds of millions. --LiamE 18:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The second most popular sport claim has been put back in. Can someone take it out again please. (Not saying cricket isn't the second most "popular" sport, it's just that no-one's been able to demonstrate it. So it's WP:OR.)  129.16.97.227 (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed this foolish claim, and the inaccurate references that support it. They just diminish an otherwise strong article. And on what basis is popularity to be determined? Is it the number of people that play a sport, if so in organized competition or casually? Or is it the number of people that watch a sport? Or is it the number of nations registered with the relevant international unifying body? I don't believe there is a consensus on the criteria for determining popularity. FYI, both FIFA (Association Football) and UCI (Cycling) list more than 180 member nations, 50% more again than cricket! Anyhow, to me it is a matter more of quality than quantity. Surely one of the most significant and valid features of cricket's huge worldwide popularity is the considerable role it has played over the decades in uniting Islamic and secular nations? Pskilbeck (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious that there is no proof that cricket is 'the second most popular sport in the world'. In the history of the World Cup for instance, only 2 countries that were not ruled by Britain managed to qualify (Netherlands and UAE). So, actually, although it is clear it is very popular in some parts of the world, the majority of countries doesn't care one bit about it. There are 100 countries in which cricket is played. Great, that's almost also true for petanque. I don't want to dismiss the importance of cricket in some (10?) countries, but that's it. StevenDC (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Cricket world cup doesn't do anything in terms of how popular the sport is. And it's not a random mention, it's clearly the fact that it is thought to be that and that's exactly what the article says. And if you wanted there can about more than 20 legit references that could be brought up but it was previously said it one should be enough so it was cut down to that.--THUG CHILD z  23:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This whole argument is a storm in a teacup. It doesn't matter if cricket is the first, second, third or fifteenth most popular sport on the planet. What does matter is that it is a major world sport as are (association) football, athletics, swimming and a few others. I think these sort of claims detract from the objectivity and readability of the article and from the credibility of the cricket project. Leave it out. BlackJack | talk page 08:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should leave it out and it seems to be the concensus (all but one), although I would rather call it a major Commonwealth sport than a major world sport, but that's ok. StevenDC (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If it's cited it should stay. That is policy. Wikipedia reports the facts presented in second party sources. It's not for editors to analyse whether they think it is correct. The claim is based on the number of spectators so it should the 'second most popular spectator sport'. -- neon white talk 15:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because something is verifiable does not mean it is credible and, for your information, it is consensus that decides if something should stay. The cricket project will decide if this "information" should be included (see WT:CRIC) and it looks at present as if the consensus is to exclude it.  BlackJack | talk page 18:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A consensus that is only based on personal view will unlikely stand very long and i do not see a consensus on this issue, there are reliable second party sources for this and it's hardly that contentious. You might continue the discussion by stating why you think the New York Post is not verifiable. -- neon white talk 21:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a fact that it is thought to be the 2nd most popular sport and it's verifiable and credible because the bottom line is it is thought to be that. Soccer does the same thing in that article and it's not just a commonwealth sport FYI though it's really popular there. And also the cricket project doesn't own the article.--18:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on this page and on WT:CRIC is that this opinion should be excluded. If you persist in your edit war, I will ensure that consensus is enforced. BlackJack | talk page 19:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus on this page. Claiming a false consensus is considered disruptive. -- neon white talk 21:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My problem is information being removed before an solution has been reached. Leave it as it was until it's solved without acting like people own the article. And as to what reason should the information which is a fact, similar to the fact of soccer being the most popular sport staying on its respective article, be excluded?--THUG CHILD z  19:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't even heard of this sport, until I stumbled upon this article! 24.242.35.217 (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Field Positions diagram
Somebody please change the cricket field positions to a different format than SVG because it dosent work with all browsers I'd do it my self but I dont know how to edit pictures on the main page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.43.96 (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * SVG has been a standard for 7 years (!) now, might I suggest using a 21st-century browser instead of lowering the quality of images for everyone to suit some obsolete software? 193.190.253.144 (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Request explanation in Nature of the Pitch section
This sentence is incomprehensible to me: "Dry pitches tend to deteriorate for batting as cracks often appear, and when this happens spinners can play a major role." What is a dry pitch? What are cracks? Presumably a spinner is a spinning ball? 142.151.152.210 (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Spinner" is usually used to refer to the type of bowler who specialises in delivering spinning balls. As for the pitch, the business area is similar to a grass court in tennis, being soil covered by very close-mown grass. Depending on the weather prior to the match and the amount of watering done by the groundsman, the amount of moisture in the soil will vary. Since watering is not allowed once a match has begun, and the pitch is covered overnight and if there is a break in play for rain, the pitch will tend to get drier as a match progresses, especially in a match of more than one day. When soil dries out, it tends to contract and thus hairline cracks may appear in the surface. If a ball lands on a crack, it may bounce unevenly or deviate from a straight line. In fact even without cracks, a dry pitch tends to assist spin bowlers, as the ball gets a better "purchase" on impact and thus the spin takes effect more readily, helping the ball to deviate to a greater extent. Cracks tend to help all types of bowlers if they become pronounced, as the ball will bounce to an unpredictableextent on hitting one. How all that could be included in the article reasonably concisely, I don't know. JH (talk page) 17:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

slight misspelling
utlized should be utilized ... hey, how's that for catching errors? cheers, Rob (Netherlands)
 * Actually is should be utilised as that it is correct Commonwealth English. --Roisterer (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think both are acceptable, actually: the OED usually gives -ize(d) forms. However, the -ise(d) forms are nevertheless much more common in British English at least. Loganberry (Talk) 12:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Team members
Shouldn't be "11 at a time" in the info box - rather, it would be more appropriate to state "11 per team" or "11 fielding, 2 batting at a time", because as it is, one might think that there are either 11 or 22 men on the field. Stamford Raffles (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A history of cricket surmised from legal terms and the rules of cricket and a history of the Inquisition
203.36.108.27 (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.36.108.27 (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Fascinating stuff. However, we know from Ye Olde Churche records that the stool known as a wicket had four legs.  Sorry.  ;-) BlackJack | talk page 19:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * An interesting theory. However it seems more likely that the standardisation of the length of a cricket pitch at 22 yards derives from the widespread use in England of Gunter's chain for measuring distances. That happened to be 22 yards in length, JH (talk page) 19:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Black Jack, Three legged stools were used on unstable barn floors (earth or log rings) by agricultural workers from whom most of the arrested witches came from. And JH, Gunter's chain was invented in the early 1600's which is 150 years after the time I am proposing that the length of the pitch was established. Perhaps the cahin derives from the pitch length and not the other way round. Why do you keep deleting my posts and why couldn't I move this over to history of cricket where I think it is more suitablly positioned ? Sim seasons (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But do you have any evidence that the length of the pitch was established that early? It seems more likely that for a children's game (as cricket seems to have been in its easrliest days) the players would simply use what seemed to them to be a suitable distance, as is still done to this day in inpromptu children's games of cricket. The earliest code of Laws that we know of dates to the early 1700s, I think, and it seems likely that it was only then that the length of the pitch was set at 22 yards. It was a suitable length because instances of Gunter's chain would be readily available for measuring purposes. (And Gunter's chain seems to have been the length it was because it corresponded to a length of four rods and also to a tenth of a furlong, which made for a convenient unit of length.) JH (talk page) 08:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No JH I don't have any hard evidence as I am hoping that some enterprising researcher may uncover it now that I have put the notion out there, so to speak. But it occured to me when researching (a long time ago I am sorry to say, so I have lost all my original notes and referances and have posted the above 'history' from a surving draft of a book I was writing) about the origins of the word 'pitch' and 'yard' that they were intimately linked by the game of cricket. 'Pitch' seems to have been a flammable substance before it was lent to an object being thrown and then the length of a particular distance to do with cricket. Similary 'yard' seems to have been a walled enclosure before it became a unit of measurement. That they became linked in the ancient rule of cricket '22 yard pitch', seems to incicate the possibility that the rule was formulated with an entirely differant meaning to the one that we give it today. That then led me to research what '22' was, as an independant notion distinct from yard and pitch and that's when i found that in 1422 a French Pope enacted the 4th and last edict against witchcraft. When I put them together and read the rule as a constructed piece of contempory slang (as children playing games tend to do the world over and throughout history) that's what made me think that perhaps '22, yard, pitch' is actually a sequential descriptor of the fate of a witch after 1422. Don't forget that such a game based on the horrific circumstances of a public execution would have to be sen in the context that these executions would have been carried out over the previous two centuries since the founding of the inquisition and so would have been quite familiar public knowlege. The great and terrible innovation was the that the 1422 edict literally overturned the authority of the principalities in europe and and so would have struck a renewed terror into the hearts of the public. Children still have to cope with the fear of their parents and so the game may have begun with children associated to lawyers who would have definately understood the ramification of the new 'guilt by association' laws.

Traces of cricket history refer to it being invented in the south of France which corresponds to the vicinity of the French popes seat before the return to rome. I then surmised that the game may have been imported into England with french lawyers as at the time all things french were considered more authentic and desirable especially around the area of Engalnd considered as the place of crickets invention by those who believe it was invented in England. I say Lawyers because the rules and forms of the game seem to match pretty closely the form of an inquisitorial trial and mainly because of the codification in Henry the 8th time to a field of '11 and a twelth man' which replaced the literal 'mob' which we know used to originally attend a game. To my mind this so obviously reveals the legal origin of the game that I think my supposition as to it legalistic origins is a fair one to make. Though obviously lacking in research vigour (I lost so much is a minor personal disaster that i gave up thinking about such things) I am hoping someone else can take up the challenge from here on in as I recently heard that our new Pope has opened up the files of the inquisition, which is the main reason I pulled out my old book and posted what I have roughly found out. Thankyou for your replies.Sim seasons (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Sim seasons (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Now can I cut and paste this discussion into the 'history of cricket' section?Sim seasons (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you need to be made aware that this is not a forum for discussing the topic, it is a page for discussing improvements to the article. Original research is not permitted on wikipeda and, whilst your theory is certainly interesting, this is not the place for it, nor is the history of cricket article or talk page. Andrew nixon (talk) 06:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No original research is the policy to which Andrew refers. Please read it. Moondyne 06:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Good job
I didn't read anything beyond the lead, but the lead finally taught me, a Yank, what cricket is. --NE2 01:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)