Talk:Cricket/Archive 10

Wales and EBC

Hello! Just wondered why cricket is described as a major sport in Wales but not Scotland when the Scottish side actually got through to the World Cup! Apologies for not signing and dating my post but I can't remember my damn password and Wikipedia is apparently broken beyond repair anyway so it shouldn't matter too much.

Wales doesn't have its own team in the World Cup because Wales is treated as a combined entity with England for cricketing purposes. The ECB, which runs English cricket is actually the England and Wales Cricket Board. The Welsh county Glamorgan has first-class status and competes in the County Championship. JH (talk page) 08:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

pitch

"Most of the action takes place in the centre of this ground, on a rectangular clay strip usually with short grass called the pitch. The pitch measures 10 × 66 feet (3.05 × 20.12 m)."

This statement is inaccurate, its not always clay, I propose a change to "earth". --Ppj4 (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC) The pitch more often decides how the game is going to go. Some times the pitch is covered with grass,or sometimes it is damp. Thus the conditions of the pitch along with the weather affect the selestion of players and which player can perform to there fullest.

Vandalism

why is this page vandalised so much? It's not exactly a hot political topic like Iraq, North Korea etc. Speedboy Salesman 07:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it's so utterly disgusting - as a sport. The words used "cricket", "wicket", "umpire" sound funny, the rules are confusing... the whole thing looks decadent and stupid. I played with the idea of vandalizing it although I never do stuff like that. Just because it's so idiotic... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.184.157.12 (talk) 03:41, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing decadent about the dirt poor kids in India, Bangladesh and other places who play the sport in the street with makeshift equipment because they love it so much. I can, however, think of other sports I'd apply that adjective to. 62.31.12.18 (talk) 09:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Help with scoring . . .

Hello! I'm an American trying to understand Cricket in order to play the demo for the Mark Lehrer(sp?) International Cricket game for XBox 360. I've always been curious about Cricket as we have absolutely zero exposure to it here in the States (the majority of Amis aren't culturally well rounded and don't really care . . . shameful). I looked here for information and *whew* . . . Cricket is one complicated sport! I've got some of it down pat, however I'm still stumped by scoring (no pun intended!). Whilst playing, the game listed what I assumed to be my score as 22-2. Then, at the game's conclusion, it said that Australia had won (I was England) with a score of 17-0; my score was listed as 16-2. What did I miss? I'm fairly sure I understand the ways the batting team and bowling team can score. I'm not sure what the second number in the hyphenated score stands for . . . I assume the first number to be total runs scored. Is it possible to have points deducted by penalty? I just didn't get how I went from 22-2 to 16-2. I'm totally at a loss! Is there anywhere on the internet that would have clips of a cricket game (other than youtube, which is useless . . . everyone fancies themselves to be the next Stephen Speilberg and create cute montages set to music) that I could watch? Thank you for any help you can provide. I found this site very helpful and informative. Phaedriatica 19:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Simply put - scores always go up, never down. You can't go from 22-2 to 16-2. What you MAY have had (and I've never seen the game so I don't know) was a 2 innings game. In 2 innings games the scores for the 2 innings per team are tallied up, with the highest total winning. Is it possible that you were on 22-2 in the first innings... played for a while and the other team had their inning... you had your second innings and happened to look at the score again at 16-2? Or you might have started the game and/or the innings again by accident. That would also explain how the other team won with 17-0. --LiamE 19:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

One possibility is that the game has a bug. Otherwise I don't see why the score should go down. Incidentally, the answer to the question about the meaning of the number after the hyphen is that it represents the number of wickets lost. From the scores quoted, it sounds as though it was a "limited overs" game, that you managed 16 runs in your allocated overs for the loss of two wickets, but that the other side managed 17 runs without losing any wickets. JH (talk page) 19:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Search for "This is Cricket" on youtube. What should pop up, is a series of 7 or 8 vids by the Cricket Assoc of America that explains the rules and the "how to" really well. Start with "A 4 Minute overview" and watch the others if you want to get into the details. Search for "cricket super slow mo Australia" for a video on the beauty of the game and for "The Ashes 2006 - Second test - Day Five" (picking a match at random... :-) ) for an idea of how the game looks like when played. It's a great game, but really difficult to explain. I'm just trying to work on the German version on WP which is even harder, because Germans don't even have a concept of baseball... --Phlyz 20:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I already beat you to it, I gave him the links to the video. :) --THUGCHILDz 00:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The article really should explain how scores are reported. I wasn't sure whether it would fit best in the Overview or Results sections, but I have put it in the Overview for now. JPD (talk) 10:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In the section "Run scoring" a chart is shown for the different areas of the field and the name of the shots that are associated with hitting the ball in those areas. On the leg side 'hook' and 'pull' are shown as two separate areas one in the straight mid wicket area and one square and behind square. The hook and pull don’t go to designated areas of the field the difference between a hook and a pull is the height of the ball hook being over shoulder height and would often go to the same part of the field in fact they both could go anywhere on the legside. I propose this be changed to hook/pull.

With regrd to your XBox score where Australia won over England - the programmers probably though they could save some lines of code and just hardware the results of England/Australia matches - as Australia ALWAYS beats England. :-)

Scores can certainly go down in Kwik (aka Barrington Rules) cricket which is played by children. Either 5 or 6 runs are deducted from the score for each wicket lost, although the bastsman continues. The starting score is usually 200 to prevent negative scores. Richard 81.158.7.71 14:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Cricket Explained

Hi. I came to this page to try and get a better idea of how Cricket is played but I couldn't much understand it (that's not my complaint). I think it would be a good idea to add this link: Cricket Explained (An American Viewpoint) as I found it helpful. It's from Cricinfo.com which I noticed was already a link. Thoughts? The-bus 19:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Taking a very quick look, it seems like quite a good article, though the hours of play in a Test are typically 6 hours a day rather than 8 to 10 (it works out at about 7 hours if you add in the intervals for lunch and tea). JH (talk page) 20:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro

There seems to be a lot of rules of the game front-loaded into the introduction. Not really neccessary for an overview of the sport. I was about to suggest comparing to baseball or soccer etc. but they suffer the same problem. Vranak

yeah I had noticed that, I'll have a rewrite it in about a week but will try to fit them it somewhere more appropriate as latter on in the article they use cricketing terms which is they are not already mentioned will be hard to understand so yeah I'll give it a go.--THUGCHILDz 00:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is a bad thing. When they weren't there, there were complaints that a reader unfamiliar with the sport gained no idea how the game is played from the intro. What do you expect an encyclopedia article about a sport to contain? JPD (talk) 10:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the intro should be a summary about the sport which is correctly it's not right now. It overwhelms people who wants to just get a little bit of idea. We don't need to go into details in the summary(intro) so I think the first paragraph of the current intro should be merged with the overview and the summary being made little bit simpler.--THUGCHILDz 23:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, the intro should be a summary of the article. The article contains details about how the sport is played, and the intro should contain a (less detailed) summary. Exactly how simple the summary should be is a matter of debate, but there were complaints about the simpler version, with people who didn't know the game saying it didn't give them any idea. There are actually very few rules mentioned in the intro at the moment. What would you leave out, and still leave the reader with an idea of what goes on? Possibly the details about the length of the pitch and the makeup of the wicket and ball, but not much more. The intro is actually quite a good length at the moment. As Vranak says, s/he seems to have a problem with the starts of sports articles in general. I definitely wouldn't suggest cutting down the baseball intro. JPD (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

why are so many terms 'bold'?

Its the first time I hav seen this it looks too 'FORCED'.--KnowledgeHegemony 09:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think because those are the main and basic terms people should know. It's a like a book where the new terms are bold but I would like to ask others before I put it back. So should new cricking terms be "bolded" or left alone like it is now?--THUGCHILDz 17:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep 'em bolded. It's highly likely that a beginner will have to go back to find them in order to understand what's going on. Slac speak up! 01:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sledging ?

Not one mention of the art of sledging? Granted Wikipedia's sledging page needs a little work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sledging_%28cricket%29 but it still deserves a mention in this article. Phurge 11:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Bat and Ball Sport

I was pretty sure that cricket is defined as a striking and fielding sport rather than bat and ball.

It could be described in those terms as could baseball. They both still use a bat and ball though. --LiamE 10:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't understand

Hello

I don't know much about cricket but the game seems a bit flawed: especially the one day version. What is to stop the man throwing the ball, throwing it in such a way that it is hard for the man with the bat to hit it very far? I mean, if I just chucked the ball at the hitter's toes it would be tough for him to hit it very far wouldn't it. It seems to me that in order for the hitter to score points he has to be able to hit the ball far: he can't if the thrower is throwing rotten.

This seems to be a flaw in your game: relying on your opponent to enable to you do the thing which he doesn't want you to do. Isn't there a conflict of interest?

I would like to know any thoughts on this matter but to my mind this thorny problem means that cricket will always be ranked below tiddly winks as a sport.

Zorro

Surely the point of all sport is for opponents to try and make it difficult for each other? Bowling the ball at the batsman's toes is called a yorker and can be difficult, but if the bowler tried this every time the batsman could anticipate it and move his feet before the ball arrived. Stepping forward and catching the ball before it bounces, for example, allows you to hit the ball high and far. I am interested which sports you think avoid the problem of relying on your opponents play to score points?

That is pretty much the essence of cricket, the bowler tries to deliver hte ball in a manner that is hard to hit and the batsman tries to hit it. I don't know what is so tricky to understand? Most sports involve one team trying to do something and the other trying to stop them.

On the specifics of bowling at the batsman's feet, that is indeed often a useful tactic, although you have to be very accurate and rely on the batsman not being to quick on his feet.ReadingOldBoy 10:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Maybe I'm not explaining myself.

Say you have a one day cricket game with 50 overs and I am the bowling team. The other side need to score 200 points to win the match. If I say to my team "hey guys, I don't care about bowling the other team out so don't try throwing the ball at the three sticks. Just throw the ball over to the side, over the hitter's head etc in such a way that it's hard for them to reach it; that way they'll not have the chance to hit it very far and we'll win". If there's nothing compelling me to throw the ball at the three sticks why should I give the hitter the opportunity to score points.

In other sports, say golf or tennis, what i can do with a ball is entirely up to me: if my opponent doesn't want to play properly I'll beat him. In cricket the most cynical team can win by being unco-operative. Isn't that so? Zorro

Because if the ball is bowled out of the batsman's reach, it is counted as a wide, and the batting team automatically score one run and get an extra ball. Add this to the fact that if you bowl the same all the time, the batsmen will eventually get used to it and adjust his or her game accordingly. Andrew nixon 13:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

And indeed in one-day cricket the standard for a wide is generally much tighter than in other forms of the game (i.e. a ball closer to the batsman may be called a wide in limited-overs cricket compared to where an umpire would start calling a wide in a "standard" match). David Underdown 09:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In tennis your opponent will attempt to hit the ball where you can't return it, how does this difer from a bowler trying to bowl the ball where you can't hit it? ReadingOldBoy 07:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In tennis, if you hit the ball such that its first bounce is outside the legal area, then your opponent scores. i.e. there is a limit on how hard you can make it for your opponent to return. You can't just send it into orbit, and claim a point because it didn't come back. In that sense, cricket and tennis are identical. In cricket the legal area in which the bowler can put the ball is considerably smaller than in tennis. The batsman is not expected to run around all over the field to make contact with the ball. PRB (talk) 09:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Zorro,

in response to your question chucking the ball is a no ball which means the batting side gets 1 run AND the ball must be re-bowled, ie- it does not count. Likewise, for throwing over the batsman's head it is also a no ball, and can also run over the keeper for a bye of 4 runs. Meaning 5 runs + a re-ball Lihaas (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding a link to NatWest Series website under external links

Hi

I saw today that NatWest have a new website - guess it's because their matches start next week. It's actually got some good stuff on it for a bank including a video masterclass section from Michael Vaughan (interviewed by Mark Nicholas). Anyway, I know the 'External Links' section says don;t add anything without asking here first but I've added it anyway and have then dropped you a line in here. Hope this is ok. The link I used is below.

Goonerphil

NatWest Series Cricket Official website of the NatWest Series cricket competition

Hi Gooner. We appreciate your intention, but one of the reasons for that notice is that this article is not in general the place to hav links to websites for individual tournaments (the World Cup seems to be the exception), but for websites about cricket more generally. If we added all websites like this, there would be far too many. JPD (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi JPD. Thanks for the quick response. Understand, no worries. I'm quite new to Wiki so thanks for the feedback. Goonerphil

lead

what's the problem here? Either go by regions or if your going to go by countries why does one gets listed and the other doesn't? And Instead of just reverting it why dont you move it down, since it's to long to be in the lead.--THUGCHILDz 10:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead needs an overview of major cricketing countries and the extent of the sport's popularity in general terms, not a list of every country where it could be called a major sport. It cant' be described in terms of continents, because the popularity doesnt' follow continents. It simply is not true to say that "cricket is a major sport in the countries of Europe, Africa, Asia and in New Zealand". It isn't even true to say it is a major sport in Italy (and it is ridiculous to give as a reference for this a page advertising sports tour which claims cricket is popular in various places in Italy). If more detail is required, then by all means add it to the international structure section, but be careful that it is accurate. JPD (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

go by regions as in south asia, oceania, southern africa, northwestern europe, central america/caribbean --THUGCHILDz 11:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

So you think there is no point to mentioning the test playing nations by name? That is what the list was until someone added Bermuda, with an extra sentence about amateur competition elsewhere. Mentioning them all possibly isn't necessary, but even then, we're left with something like "extremely popular in South Asia, also a major sport in the English speakign countries of Australia/Oceania, southern (and eastern?) Africa, and the Caribbean, as well as the British Isles." Is that better to read/more informative? I don't think so. Sure, we could have more detail about to what extent cricket is played in different parts of the world, but the lead isn't the place for that. JPD (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not use misleading edit summaries. Do you really think vague references to regions are better than mentioning the test playing nations? Is cricket really a major sport in North-West Europe? No. Even Eastern Africa and Oceania are a bit dodgy, and that list makes the also in the next sentence look ridiculous. And please stop using so many reference for the second most popular sport claim. Some of them are rubbish, and any fact should really only need one decent reference. If more than one are needed, it suggest that none of them are any good. JPD (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Either we are going list all the country or we are not, this is about test status or test cricket, it's about cricket doesn't matter test country or associate country.--THUGCHILDz 13:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What are "all the country"? How did you choose your list? The test nations are where cricket is played professionally (whith very few exceptions), and are clearly the best examples to give. Other examples are also given. Now you have added a paragraph to the beginning of the international structure section, not at all integrating it with the information already there, and on top of that it still contains the simply false claim that "cricket is a major sport in the countries of Europe, Africa, Asia and in New Zealand". Can we please stick to the truth? JPD (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I just put the countries that cricket was popular in. The lead is the summary so it is going to contain stuff that is gone over in detailed later, and how is that a false? Is cricket not a major sport in the countries that falls the categories?--THUGCHILDz 13:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you didn't put in the countries that cricket is popular in. You put in a collection of countries (and dependencies, and so on) for which you could find something on the web mentioning the popularity of cricket in that country, no matter what the source actually was or said. So your list was neither accurate nor comprehensive. And no, cricket is not even a major sport in Italy (which you specifically mentioned), let alone "the countries of Europe, Africa, Asia" which your sentence refers to in general. JPD (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That's your presumption, actually no I got the countries because I pay attention to associate and affiliate cricket and know in which one cricket is popular and which one it's not so. I'm sure if you put time into it you could find way more stuff in the web about it so, what your saying is near impossible to do. So are England, South Africa, India, etc not the countries of Europe, Africa, and Asia? If you can reword it better go ahead but i was just trying to group them into regions instead of saying names of countries in random order.--THUGCHILDz 22:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

By what measure do you mean popular? In the test-playing nations, cricket has a relatively high media profile (in the UK for example, there'll be some mention of cricket in the main newspapers virtually every day, even if only one para), the random man (or woman) on the street could probably name a couple of reasonably recent players, that's posibly the case in Kenya as well, but I suspect that outside of those countries the chances of that rapidly decrease - unless you happen to pick someone with an active interest. In the assoicate and affiliate countries there may well be some subset of people who are keen, and can occasionally mnage to get some press interest, but it's at nowhere near the pervasive level it is elsewhere. In Europe, yes the UK cricket is generally reasonably popular, but France, Germany, Italy, not really. Holland you might have a bit more chance, and Denamrk has had a couple of players in county cricket, but that's hardly Europe as a whole. Southern africa you might just about get away with, but it all needs too much qualification to be really meaningful. David Underdown 08:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My presumption was giving you the benefit of the doubt, as I didn't believe you would be silly enough to think that you "know in which one cricket is popular and which one it's not so", which would be quite presumptuous on your behalf. Yes, I am claiming that listing all the countries cricket is popular in is near impossible, if only because it is not well defined. That is why you shouldn't try to do it. On top of that, knowing where cricket is popular requires more than simply following associate and affiliate cricket - it requires knowing about the countries themselves. You obviously don't know much about Italy if you think cricket could be called a major sport there. No, at least in my version of English, England, South Africa, India, etc are not the countries of Europe, Africa and Asia. I think the original wording was much better than anything that has been proposed, and don't quite see why you want to change it. Cricket follows historical boundaries, not regional ones, and I don't see why a random ordering of regions is any better than an ordering of countries followign the same random order of regions. The current ordreing also separates out the South Asian countries first, rightfully pointing out the remarkable place of cricket in their culture. While the statistics can be used to argue that it is also the most popular sport in Australia, it is actually quite misleading to say that in this context, ignoring the regional variations that result in that statistic, and implying that it is similar to the situation in the subcontinent. JPD (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)In response to David's comments, I will point out that even though when looking at the support that cricket in Holland does have you might think it is fairly significant, if you actually talk to a Dutch person, they will probably be very surprised that anyone in the Netherlands plays cricket. In contrast, it is fair to say cricket is popular in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, since their lower standard is simply due to the fact that they are small (and not even countries). Mentioning these smaller places is fair, but not really appropriate for the lead. JPD (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article as a whole, by the very nature of test status, cricket is "strongest" in those countries which hold that status so it doesn't seem too unreasonable to privilege them in the lead, then mention some of the stronger associate members, and then give a total for ICC membership. More detail can then be given in the relevant section of the article (International Structure), but even that is effectively a summary of other articles and s this is an overview article there is no point listing abosutley every article here. The hsitory of cricket means there can be no meaningful "regional" summary of the areas where it is strong. David Underdown 13:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The most meaningful summary is "mainly current or former Commonwealth nations". I also think that the "second-most popular sport" claim fits much better into the flow of the paragraph when it comes at the end, especially since the paragraph begins with a generally descriptioin of where cricket is popular, which the rest of the paragraph exapnds on. I would like it to be moved back to the end of the paragraph, but will not make a big deal of it, as this is a matter of style, not fact or even length. JPD (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Cricket in Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Curacao, Venezuela and Myanmar (Burma)

Does anyone know anything substantial about cricket in these countries/territories? So far on the internet the only facts I've found are that there is one cricket club in San Juan (called the Puerto Rico Cricket Club) and that there is no Puerto Rico Cricket Association (due to the lack of at least 2 other clubs on the island). It also seems that Puerto Rico's sole cricket club also participates in South American tournaments (alongside Guyana, Argentina, Brazil and Peru). I was wondering if Puerto Rico's cricket club was autonomous or not, but I can find no hard information to support this. I have come across mention of Puerto Rico as falling in the Southeast cricketing region on the USACA's website (along with Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas), but in the list of cricket associations for the Southeast region the only ones are from Florida (plenty of them too) and Georgia - no mention of the Puerto Rico cricket club. For the Dominican Republic, cricket was apparently known (and introduced) early on by the West Indian immigrant labourers, but was then supplanted by baseball introduced from Cuba. There still seems to be a team for the Dominican Republic however. I've also seen reference to Venezuela playing a match against Curacao and reference to a Myanmar cricket team (which would make sense since the sport would have been introduced by the British - but then the anti-British and anti-Indian sentiments around the time of the separation from British India and independence might have dampened enthusiasm for the sport).Does anyone have any more info about cricket in these countries? Enough to start articles perhaps?72.27.29.124 01:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Scratch the bits about Myanmar, forget that they (unlike the others) are already affiliates and just read the article about their team.72.27.29.124 04:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC) I believe howstat.com has an a page in which Myanmar was all out for 10 and nepal won by 10 wickets,and there is a source which called it one of the most one-sided matches of all timesShanbhag.rohan 11:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanbhag.rohan (talk • contribs)

Some things about pointing system

I am translating to portuguese the Cricket World Cup article and the results of the teams like 291 for 8 (60 overs) or 183 all out (54.4 overs), I'd like to know what are these for some number and the number after the dot inside the overs, thx. Maxtremus 03:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

First one means the batting team has scored 291 runs at the loss of 8 wickets in 60 Overs. Second figure translates to - batting team has scored 183 runs losing all it's 10 wickets, hence there was an end of innings in 54.4 overs. Each over consists of 6 consecutive deliveries. So 54.4 would mean 54 overs and 4 deliveries(which is an incomplete 55th over;incomplete because innings came to an end). And one more thing. It's called the scoring system and so the "pointing system" may not be the exact term in use. Gnanapiti 03:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Page Move

Why are people moving around this article to different title and disambig all of a sudden? Please discuss whether the page move should be done or not before making such severe decision. I'm OK with moving this article to new title Cricket (Sports), but Cricket should be redirected to Cricket (Sports) with a link to disambig page on the top. Gnanapiti 16:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cricket should be redirected to the disambiguation page. Cricket refers to many different things, not just the sport, therefore the sport should be on Cricket (sport), not here. Malamockq 16:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Move opposed. The great majority of people specifying "cricket" are likely to be looking for the game. There are far more cricket followers than there are entomologists. You might as well say that "London" should be a redirect to a dab page because people might want London, Ontario rather than London, England. JH (talk page) 17:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: if this move were to be agreed, then surely Cricket should become the disambiguation page, and we would lose Cricket (disambiguation) altogether? No point having "Cricket" redirect to "Cricket (disambiguation)". Also, I think people may like to know that such a move has been discussed here before. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. As someone pointed out in that link provided by RobertG, "sport seekers have to make an extra click and insect seekers receive no benefit". We already have a link to Cricket (insect) on top of the page. This page move is of no use. Gnanapiti 17:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a vote. It's a discussion. A vote here is pointless, since users here are fans of the sport, and would favor it. Right now you have to give good reason that Cricket should direct here to the sport. Whichever is most popular is irrelevant. Something like a citation that proves that the sport Cricket was named as such before the insect would be good argument. However, I don't believe that is true. Right now, I'm in favor of keeping things fair by making this page redirect to the disambiguation page, and moving this article to Cricket (sport). Malamockq 18:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No one is treating this as a vote. Whichever is most popular is relevant and should be the deciding factor for page move. It's not the question of being fair but a matter of being reasonable. Gnanapiti 19:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how fairness comes into it. The deciding factor should be what is more likely to be useful to those who come to the page, in other words how many are likely to be looking for information on the sport and how many on the insect. I don't think that which usage is older is relevant either. After all, Boston, Lincolnshire was founded long before Boston in the US, but I don't think that anyone would object to the US city having primacy. JH (talk page) 19:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe your argument is relevant to this discussion. What I'm asking is if you have a citation that indicates that the sport was named "Cricket" before the insect. Malamockq 20:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That argument is completely irrelevant. By those standards, Washington should redirect to Washington, Tyne and Wear, the original place name. Andrew nixon 20:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No you didn't understand. The argument of using examples on wikipedia, to justify your argument that "what ever is most popular is what it should be called" is poor. I can't dictate how other articles are written, and what name should take priority. Nor is the name they are redirected to, necessarily correct. That's not my place to judge those. We aren't talking about Washington or Boston. We are talking about cricket, both the insect and the sport. I ask you to stick to this topic please. Now I ask if you have a citation that indicates that the sport was named cricket before the insect. If you do not, I would like you to concede that point please. Malamockq 20:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you don't understand. What I, and others, are trying to tell you is that which was called cricket first is irrelevant. Andrew nixon 20:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are merely filibustering now. Malamockq 20:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not an argument that we are creating for the sake of it. Using popular names is the official policy and guideline followed in Wikipedia and that's it. Gnanapiti 20:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair point however, the insect is also extremely common and well known to the average person. Indeed, in America, the average person associates cricket, with the insect rather than the sport. However, I'm aware that wikipedia represents a world view, I'm merely saying that popularity isn't a strong point in this discussion because both are very popular. Thus, we should go other points to decide this. Malamockq 20:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The "first use" argument is a total non starter and goes against wiki policy. Think it through for a moment. Where would the Paris article point? What most poeple expect, the French city or the important but less looked up Greek hero? What would be served by the change? I'm sure the Trojan's would be pleased but with a move but no other use would be served. The only real question is "is there a primary use?" While I agree that it may seem odd to American readers that the worldwide primary usage is not their own, it remains true that other than in the USA and Canada, the word cricket makes people think of the sport. Primary usage in wiki terms is "to be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings." Now I havn't counted up the links but there are 1000's of cricket articles. It is utterly overwhelming. Consider also repeat interest. Sports fans come back time and time again to the cricket articles - can the same be said for the bug? Just to put this gulf in popularity in perspective, there are more cricket articles than there are words on the bug's page, and the bug is unlikely to get a hit in the top 100 of a google search. --LiamE 05:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The change would only have negative impact. As it stands, the majority of people entering "cricket" get the page they want first time. If cricket were the disambiguation page, everybody would have to retrieve two pages. As a measure of significance, Wikipedia has between 250 and 500 pages linking to cricket(insect). For the sport, I gave up counting at 20,000 (all of which would have to be edited if the move went ahead) dramatic 20:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should take editor's laziness into account when deciding to move something or not. I will help clean up links if the move took place. I encourage others to do so too. Wikipedia's policies don't include not correcting something just because it would take too much work to fix. Malamockq 20:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Based on the History of cricket article, it seems obvious that the insect was named "Cricket" before the sport. I believe that is a strong case to at least redirect this page to a disambiguation page. Malamockq 20:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No this isn't a strong case as you claim. This isn't even a case. Gnanapiti 20:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That is merely your opinion justified by pointing out other wikipedia articles. A poor method of refuting points. We have already established that both the insect and the sport are popular in the common person's mind. We must go on other points to decide this. This I believe is a strong point in favor for the move. Malamockq 20:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you quote a Wikipedia guideline that says that the older meaning of a term should have (or usually have) priority when naming articles? JH (talk page) 20:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I don't study all the guidlines Wikipedia has so I don't know if it does or not. But I do believe I make a strong point. In any case, like I said before both the insect and sport are both popular so thus neither have a major priority over the other. That is why I ask for this page to be moved to the disambiguation page. I'm not asking for this page to become the insect's page. Malamockq 20:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I know it's not the best argument, but if you do a google search for cricket you get the game for the first ten pages - that's all I could be bothered to check. I know it's not definite proof, but I think it goves an indication to the games superior popularity. M A Mason 20:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) We have already established something? Where? Say Cricket in google and you have to crawl to third page to hit one link on insect.(Except for wikipedia article in second page). Say Cricket game and Cricket insect and we can see huge difference in number of hits. User:Dramatic pointed out difference in number of page links in Wikipedia. So what have we established? Gnanapiti 20:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If you said before that both subjects are popular, then I must have missed it. But I would suggest that the sport is the more popular of the two by an order of magnitude, and hence is the topic on which more people will be looking for information. You claim that which meaning is the older is important, That is something that I, and several other commenters, don't accept. I think that you are going to need to find a guideline supporting your opinion if you are to have much hope of "winning". JH (talk page) 20:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Number of google hits is not sufficient enough to determine this. Popularity and understanding of, are two different things. Obviously Cricket fans outside of America are going to be searching for the game, and there might be more websites devoted to it. I don't know of too many fans of insects or crickets... Nor am I one of them. But lots of people are familiar with what crickets are, and many associate the word with the insect. It doesn't matter if they "like" it or not, the point is, they know what it is. An insect. So it's pointless to determine which is more "popular". The common person's understanding of the word is what is more important. I strongly support redirecting Cricket to the disambiguation page for cricket since neither has clear precedence over the other. Malamockq 22:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

As it stands, the Cricket(sport) article is not friendly to dial-up users, thus it is inconvenient to visit. I support the use of a disambig page. Ideally Wikipedia should be case sensitive and send Cricket to this article and cricket to the disambig page. I don't care if the game of Cricket is all the rage outside of North America, an encyclopedia should present all meanings of ambiguous terms and not make assumptions based on popularity. Pendragon39 22:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ahh, the annual attempt to move the cricket page. We've been through this at least three times that I can remember. Look at talk archive 7 for the 2006 edition. The current solution to include "This article is about the sport. For the insect, see Cricket (insect). For all other uses, see Cricket (disambiguation)." as the first line was arrived at after a long period of discussion and debate and should not be abandoned. Oh and I strongly doubt that the majority of English speakers (or common people as Malamockq calls us) think of hte insect ahead of the sport when they hear the word cricket. Lisiate 00:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"They know what it is" is not at all a criteria for page move by any stretch of imagination. People know lot of things. People know about India, India and India. But that doesn't mean India should be a disambig page because "common people" know things above. So what's next? Redirecting Football to American football because "common people" think of the latter ahead? Gnanapiti 00:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone enters an ambiguous term into an encyclopedia, and they are presented with search results or a disambiguation page - how shocking! The word cricket has two meanings that are commonly known. Shouldn't this be the priority for an encyclopedia to convey? Obviously if Wikipedia prefers to be about what are most people searching for when they enter a word then Hilton ought to go straight to Paris Hilton. No doubt most people would find that very convenient. (Hey, instead of a Go button, change it to Surprise Me) Pendragon39 01:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Gnanapiti, enough with the analogies. That's not how you prove your points. Give solid reasoning to why Cricket should not redirect to the disambiguation page. I have given ample reasoning behind my motivation to move the page. Lisiate, all we have to go on is your opinion against mine. I believe many people do think of the insect when they hear the word "cricket". This is especially the case where the game cricket is not popular. You may think otherwise, but it's really just your word against mine. In any case, it appears that most of the users here are biased in favor of the sport because they are fans of it. I do not believe that just because you are a fan of the sport makes for good rationale behind keeping Cricket directed here. Also keep in mind, I'm not a fan of crickets (the insect), nor do I even like them. I simply want to fix what I believe to be wrong. This is one of those cases. I already addressed the claim that the sport is more popular, and I pointed out that the insect was named "cricket" before the sport. Do you have any good reason for keeping Cricket directed to the sport, other than you are a fan of it, and want it here? Malamockq 02:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Coming from India, I do follow the game, I admit. But I'm not a fan of Cricket or anything like that. The only reason for this page to find a place in my watchlist is that some Cricket related article appeared in main page a while ago and lot of IP vandals became active in this article. So I was busy reverting vandalisms the whole day and the page just remained in my watchlist. Proof? Check article history. I don't have even a single edit in this article, except may be reverting some obvious vandals. I'm also discussing here for the same reason as you are, to fix what I believe is wrong. I've already provided lot of good reasons like Wikipedia policies, Google hits and all such things, but still if you want to go with your own argument completely neglecting Wiki procedures, please go ahead. But I'm afraid you'll have very hard time convincing other contributors. Gnanapiti 03:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Malamockq, have you read the archived discussions? This point has been raised before and the solution adopted was to put a link to the insect and disambiguation pages in the very first line. All of your arguments have been raised before and the consensus was the situation we now have. This move will not 'fix' anything and will inconvenience those who are after our article on the game. Lisiate 05:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Putting aside whether age of usage is actually relevent to this argument I don't think it is particularly obvious which is older. Looking at the OED both current usages seem to have emerged in the 16th Century. If we want Cricket to redirect to the original meaning someone needs to write a page on mythical salamanders. ReadingOldBoy 07:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Leave it as it is. I think that the sport is the basic meaning in current English. It certainly is in England and Australia, at times it almost seems to be an alternative religion (which I don't follow particularly myself). If there were an animal called a baseball, with no obvious connection to the sport, I doubt that anyone would suggest replacing the baseball article with a disambig or a redirect to one. Andrewa 09:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

So far I have not heard any good reasons for keeping Cricket directed to the sport instead of a disambiguation page, other than Cricket fans just want to keep it here, and they think it's more popular (that point I already addressed anyway). So far, arguments have merely been analogies comparing this situation with others to justify keeping Cricket directed here. You don't prove points through analogies. Prove points with valid arguments. Both the sport and the insect are common usages of the word Cricket, therefore a disambiguation page must be used to provide differentiation between the two. Malamockq 02:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Malamockq you haven't addressed any points at all. You claim that the popularity argument is just opinion but other users have demonstrated that the game is far more commonly used than the insect. Arguments based on analogy are valid in this case (have you even read the article on analogy?). Your argument consists of two assertions - that the word cricket has two common meanings and one predates the other. The status quo arguments are that the game usage is vastly more common and therefore the majority of users who type cricket in the search box will wish to go this article. The minority who seek the insect (or indeed any other usage) are catered for by a link at the very top of the page. Changing this situation will inconvenience the majority and provide no benefit to the majority (as the insect seekers will still need to click through from the disambiguation page anyway). Once again I ask that you read the prior discussion on this issue and give up this silly attempt to move the article. Lisiate 03:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised that you consider me a cricket fan, particularly as I explicitly said I didn't follow the game. There are many other arguments I could have put, but I thought they had been well put above.

To summarise, WP:DAB#Primary topic reads in part When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article and If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic. This emphasis is not mine, it's in the guideline. What we're saying is that the sport is the primary topic. You're disagreeing. The object is to arrive at a consensus if possible, so what would you consider a valid or good argument? Andrewa 09:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

<sigh> I can't remember how many times we've had this discussion, but as ever, I'm against the change from previous consensus. I particularly liked the London metaphor brought by JHall, above. --Dweller 10:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This is extremely silly. Leave it as it is. Nick mallory 10:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, you mean I'll have to click twice rather than once to find the insect? Utterly unacceptable... The Rambling Man 11:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(Pre-emptive strike) Please read irony before replying to The Rambling Man. --Dweller 11:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Proponents of the move seem to be saying that opponents must prove a case against it. I would like the poponents to explain precisely what benefits would arise from the move: As far as I can see, there are none. People searching for information on an insect will still have to visit two pages (don't talk about page size - browsers have stop buttons!) - they are no better off. People looking for the sport are worse off. So is there any benefit to be had? dramatic 11:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. The Rambling Man 11:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Must say I tend to agree with Dramatic: I don't see any benefit, while the considerable annoyance that the overwhelming majority of our readers would have to deal with, that of not reaching at the first strike the topic almost all of them will be searching for.--Aldux 14:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dramatic, I already covered this. Both are popular terms, therefore neither should have priority over the other. Both should be listed on the disambiguation page where Cricket should direct to, or should become. Ease of use is fine, but when you choose one popular usage over another popular usage, it becomes biased. Both usages of the word "cricket" are common, and in America, the insect is by far more common. Wikipedia represents a world view, which is fine, but the fact remains that both usages are common. Malamockq 23:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Another point, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Cricket Dictionary.com lists the insect as the primary definition. Origin: 1275–1325. The sport is listed second, and its origin is 1590–1600, which is later. So two points, Dictionary.com lists the insect as the primary definition, and its origin was earlier. Both of these points are strong enough to argue for redirecting Cricket to a disambiguation page instead of the sport. Malamockq 23:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Britannica lists game as the first search term. As so many editors have already said early origin is not a criteria at all and should not be considered. Gnanapiti 23:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look carefully you'll notice that Britannica is..... British. Its origins are British if nothing else. Therefore of course it would list the sport first, Cricket originated in Britain. Also that was merely a search result. It's not a listing like Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com listed the primary usage first, which is the insect. And no, I believe early origin is indeed a valid argument considering both usages are extremely popular. Malamockq 23:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? - Gnanapiti 21:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahemm...Maybe you don't know, but Britannica is actually American, and since quite a lot of time. Also, don't forget that the USA is only the 5% of world population, while cricket is the most popular sport among a quarter of world population.--Aldux 00:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to prove how American Britanica is these days may I their quote article on The Don..."One of the greatest run scorers in the history of the game, in test (international) matches Bradman scored 6,996 runs for Australia and set a record with his average of 99.94 runs per match. In 1948 he was captain of the Australian team that was victorious in England, four matches to none. He retired from first-class cricket in 1949 and was knighted in the same year. Bradman is often judged the greatest cricket player of the 20th century." Where do I start.... --LiamE 01:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Britannica isn't American. Look it up here, and check the location compared with dates. You can also look up the word "color" and see what spelling it prefers. Malamockq 15:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'check the location compared with dates'? Doing that tells me that EB has been American for over 100 years. Reading the article then tells me that it has kept British spelling despite being American. I don't see how this backs up your assertion that it IS British? ReadingOldBoy 20:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Return Cricket to Cricket (sport) and move Cricket (disambiguation) to Cricket. Clearly there is question about the primary usage here. For me I think of the insect and the magazine. Sports tends to get better coverage from the fans (fanatics). If your country was in the old British empire, then the sport is likely the first thing you will think of. Vegaswikian 19:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Pointing out Wikipedia procedure: Page moves need to be achieved through consensus. It is abundantly clear that there will not be a consensus to move this page as suggested. So this page may not be moved without a request for Wikipedia arbitration and a decision. If you wish to pursue this requested move further, you should approach Wikipedia administration with a formal arbitration request, rather than continue to argue here. If you're so confident of your case, then you should have no trouble making a convincing argument to an arbitration request. I'm not trying to dismiss you - if you succeed then good luck to you - I'm just pointing out the only avenue that has even a possibility of succeeding. Continuing to argue here is a pointless waste of everyone's time. -dmmaus 21:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The question is at what point does the popularity of a term outweigh the importance of its meanings. Popularity and interest affect usage of a term, not actual meaning. My disagreement is with Wiki policy giving too much weight as to what Google would do (usage), rather than weighing the relative obscurity of one meaning to another. I have argued on the disambiguation guidelines talk page that Wikipedia needs a Dabs button or a change in the Search button to force disambiguation pages to appear for those who so choose. This is a basic function an online encyclopedia should have, whether one types 'cricket' or a generic term like 'london'.

If taking this dispute to the administrative level will result in a decision based upon a vote, then there is no pragmatic reason to do so. Cricket sports fans and Google convenience enthusiasts outnumber Encyclo-purists by a large margin Pendragon39 22:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it then your argument is that wikipedia should aim to educate rather than be convenient for users. That would need a change in policy so you'd do better taking a generalised argument to the policy page rather than entering into a specific discussion here. I have to say I disagree with you. Someone looking up a subject wants to find it, and is unlikely to have interest in subjects related by name only. For instance someone interested in Paris, France or London, UK is unlikely to have an interest in mythical Trojans or cities of Ontario. To my mind poeple looking up a subject but wanting to know more will always be far better served by the inline links and see also sections. --LiamE 00:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to take this up with Wikipedia arbitration. I have made my arguments quite clear, and I believe I make a good argument for making Cricket become a disambiguation page, and moving the sport to Cricket (sport). Malamockq 15:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

After talking to an admin, I don't believe this issue is serious enough for arbitration. I'm going to take steps to broaden the discussion, and perhaps request mediation. Malamockq 18:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment moved from WP:RM

If this move were to be agreed, then surely Cricket should become the disambiguation page, and we would lose Cricket (disambiguation) altogether? No point having "Cricket" redirect to "Cricket (disambiguation)". Also, this move has been discussed before. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC) [copied here by Stemonitis 08:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 06:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

'cricket' as a search term

The results are marked according to 'relevance'. It appears that for Wikipedia relevance is based on what is popular and not the possible meaning of words. Entering 'crickets' as a search term still yields the game of Cricket as being 100% relevant. This is where we disagree as to what an encyclopedia should do Pendragon39 02:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Out of date

This page clearly needs updating. I think it demonstrates the major weakness of the Wikipedia concept. 24.44.93.65 15:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So, fix it! --Dweller 15:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Metric system

Why does the article not primarily use the metric system with the imperial units in brackets to start with and then drop the imperial upon repetition of data. The original may have been in imperial, but today all test playing nations use the metric system, so why doesn't this article, when the majority of other sports such as field hockey do. --Lucy-marie 10:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is about the sport, not the countries (and England could barely be said to "use the metric system"). The Laws still use imperial units first. It would be misleading to use metric measurement for things which are defined in imperial units. The cumbersome conversions would only be appropriate when they are the primary definition in the laws. JPD (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The world has moved on from the 1800's when the laws were codified. Officially England does use the metric system I live there, the only things not metric are road signs and horse racing, everything else from greyhound racing to the building trade is metric. Also before you bring it up a "pint" of milk or beer it is sold as 560ml. Why not move this article into the 21st century and out of the 19th century and use metric first. with the imperial in brackets.--Lucy-marie 13:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I live in England too, and if you say it uses the metric system, then you obviously haven't lived somewhere where it is actually used! Anyway, that is completely beside the point. This article should "move into the 21st century" exactly when the Laws do. Cricket, wherever it is played, is played by the Laws, which use imperial units. Even people such as myself who have grown up using metric units will use imperial units when talking about the length of the cricket pitch, because that is how it is defined. If you wish to move the game "into the 21st century", then speak to the MCC, don't try and preempt the change here. JPD (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

A slight tangent, but draught beer for immediate consumption MUST be sold in multiples of half an imperial pint (a pint being 568.26125ml) according to the Weights and Measures Act, glasses must be certified to ensure this is the case. ReadingOldBoy 14:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No Sachin?

Why is it that an article on cricket has absolutely no mention of Sachin? I'm no jingoistic India cricket-team supporter, and i'm not arguing that he is (or has been) the greatest batsman playing, but the sheer popularity of the man in the country which has the strongest influence on cricket makes it seem odd that there's no mention of him at all! Amit 18:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

True. But the article also doesn't mention Shane Warne, Viv Richards, Garfield Sobers and Ian Botham. Makes it even, do you think? Gnanapiti 19:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I just had a quick flick through - only names I could see were WG, Dolly and Bradman. WG historical role in the game is immeasurable... he made the sport what it is. The Don and Dolly were both pivotal figures when cricket crossed over into politics. To my mind those are the first 3 that need to be mentioned and I can't really think of a reason to add to that list. --LiamE 01:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, OK. I think I only got upset on seeing Pontig's pic and none of Sachin's, hehe. Amit 05:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

A few players are there in the pics... but they tend to come and go as better pictures are found. I have to say though the Ponting pic looks pretty good. --LiamE 13:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree Amit@Talk 14:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Shortened sections

I have restored the dismissals section, since as it was, the article did not even once say that the batsman can be out if a bowled ball hits the stumps, or is caught. Since we have had complaints that the article as a whole and the intro in particular do not give much of an idea to readers unfamiliar with the sport, we should consider restoring some examples of dismissals to the introduction, the deleted paragraph to the bowling section, if not the deletion from the extras section. Yes, these are covered in more detail in other articles, but a reader should come away from this basic article with an idea of what goes on. JPD (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

agreed. change of clay to earth has been made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.196.113 (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Update

I added "and was won by India" to the sentence "The first 20-20 world cup was staged in South Afric". Yippee! I was the first to update it :-D (Childish grin) Amit@Talk 16:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really - the result had already been added (and removed as not relevant) three times. However, your simple addition is much more appropriate! JPD (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"French cricket"?

I may be ignorant, but this "French cricket" thing is entirely new to me. Amit@Talk 16:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Does a link make a new thing more understandable? It's getting away from cricket as we know it, but it's quite a good game! JPD (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

History: bails

The history section doesn't mention when the bails were added. ISTR early versions of the game were played without bails. That they were added to make it more obvious when the stumps were hit. Does anyone know anything about this, or is it just legend (or leg end)? -- SteveCrook 20:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems that there have always been bails, though only one back when there were only two stumps. Here's the information, gleaned from the article "Dates in Cricket History" in the 1978 Wisden:

• year Stumps Height Bails Breadth
• c. 1700 2 22 inches 1 6 inches
• c. 1776 3 22 inches 1 6 inches
• 1785 3 22 inches 2 or 1 6 inches
• 1798 3 24 inches 2 or 1 7 inches
• c. 1819 3 26 inches 2 7 inches
• c. 1823 3 27 inches 2 8 inches
• 1931 3 28 inches 2 9 inches †

• †Optional till 1947.

JH (talk page) 21:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks JH, that's another myth laid to rest :) -- SteveCrook 22:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

cricket clubs in United States

Can I add some links to the main cricket article for Clubs in America? This will help American people become more aware and also help promote this great sport! Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vimal6 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure any exist...lol, well there has to be some. I would imagine that it is very rare though. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation Problem

There is some kind of problem with this page vs. the disambiguation page. If you type in just the word "cricket", you are brought to this page with no disambiguation. If however you type in, say, "cricket insect", you are taken to the cricket insect page. And if you type in "cricket disambiguation", you are taken to the disambiguation page. Shouldn't typing in just "cricket" take one to the disambiguation page automatically?

This has been discussed for a long time. The argument for keeping it as it is is that someone typing in "cricket" is far more likely to be looking for information on the game than on the insect. JH (talk page) 09:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ball Size

I'm not sure if in the article it was mentioned at all about how large in size the ball is and in other countries what they might use as the ball (via different materials) maybe it was in there i just missed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.58.79 (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If the article attempted to cover everything in detail, it would be impossibly long. Hopefully it containss a link to cricket ball, whiich article should answer your questions. I don't think that there'a any variation in materials between countries, except of course that when children play informally they may use a tennis ball or any other ball that's available and roughly the right size. JH (talk page) 09:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed

I note that a couple of (in my opinion) obvious and uncontroversial statements in the overview have acquired 'citation needed' tags. Unless I have missed it there is no explanation here as to why these statements need citations. Does anyone know why they were added? ReadingOldBoy 11:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the need for citations for uncontroversial statements and basic elements of the game confuses me. The full laws of cricket can be found at http://web.archive.org/web/20070517083726/www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/ Perhaps someone with a little more wiki experience can tidy up this articles need for citations. Mylobuy (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are people active all over Wikipedia who demand citations for obvious facts. I would not be surprised at all if I were to come across "The sky is blue.^{(citation needed)}" Roger (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

handling ball

im sure more than 1 batsman have been dismissed this way. Please change it.

You are allowed to change it yourself, though I can't find anywhere in this article or the articl on handled the ball that says only one batsman has been given out that way. Andrew nixon (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

All out

I have just had an edit reverted.

Old version: The team has only one batsman left who can bat, one or more of the remaining players being unavailable owing to injury, illness or absence; again, the team is said to be "all out".

My suggestion: The team has only one not-out batsman left who can bat, the remaining players being unavailable owing to injury, illness or absence; again, the team is said to be "all out".

I think my suggestion is an improvement for two reasons. First, the former is incorrect because it specifies that only "one or more" of the remaining players be unavailable. In fact, all the remaining players should be deemed unavailable, or it is counted as a declaration. Secondly, the dismissed batsmen are prevented from batting again by the laws, not ability: so it is not clear to specify that they "can't bat". Therefore, arguably, even if all the dismissed batsmen "can bat" they do not count for this purpose: only the not-out batsmen who "can bat" count, and we should say so. Yours pedantically, RobertG ♬ talk 16:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, your edit says that "the remaining players being unavailable owing to injury, illness or absence" which is clearly incorrect in the context of the article. Do you really think having ALL other batsmen injured, ill, etc, is more correct than one or more? How often does it happen? Andrew nixon (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[1]. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Although the original version isn't technically correct it does describe the typical procedure and is probably sufficient for the overview. Adding more detail is possible, but adds more confusion to what is already a fairly detailed overview. Maybe it would be better to explain the situation when the matter of injured batsmen is discussed later in the article? ReadingOldBoy (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"Compromise", yes please… it's not a big deal in the wider scheme of things, and I agree with Andrew that my suggestion is not the last word in clarity. I think there is definitely room for improvement over what it currently says, however, without the reader becoming bogged down in detail. And I think technical correctness is a virtue, particularly in a Wikipedia featured article. How about this: The batsmen who have not yet been dismissed are prevented from batting by injury, illness or absence; again the team is said to be "all out". This would include the remaining fit batsman, who is indeed prevented from batting by injury, illness or absence (but not his own injury, illness or absence). --RobertG ♬ talk 17:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Robert. The way it's written now is nonsense. For the team to be all out then all of the remaining players (implying those who had not yet batted) must be unavailable. To say one or more without clarification is clearly wrong. I'd change it myself, but the page is protected. 129.16.97.227 (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

(Further, the way the article is now could easily be interpreted as saying that if whoever's on the card at number 3 is unavailable and one of the openers gets out, then the team's "all out".) 129.16.97.227 (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The section is being taken out of context. It refers to being all out in the event of a batsman being unavailable through injury only, and hence Roberts's rewrite in which he says that all other batsman must be unavailable due to injury is clearly wrong. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree that Robert's latest suggestion is clearest/most appropriate, but apart from his comments about dismissed batsmen, any claim that the current wording is incorrect is just silly. It quite clearly says it is talking about when there is only one batsman left who is able to bat. This is clearly not true in the situation the anon raises, and the "one or more" is simply explaining how it could happen without ten wickets having fallen (comparing with the previously mentioned case). As Andrew says, it helps to read it in context. JPD (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

New External Link?

Hi all,

Came across a page which helps people follow a test match. It's different to other guides on the net because of the way it's written - it tries to put the reader in the shoes of the various players. I think this is important because for people new to the game there a lot of "uh.. why did he do that?" or "why didn't he try to hit that" etc. So I suggest that that link be added to the external links section.

The link: How to watch Test Cricket

LGD3 23:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Another New External Link?

Hi all,

The link: Coaching Cricket Excellence

This site has some of the best tips and advice on the web concerning coaching and playing cricket. It's written by an ex middlesex cricketer. It's ad free and surely adds to the quality of the material?

A Solution to the Name Problem

I think I have the solution to the name problem. Read it all before you pass judgement. First, we move Cricket to Cricket (sport). Then, Cricket becomes a redirect to Cricket (sport). What do you think?-Link (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I like pie. --LiamE (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't see the advantage. Those who want Cricket to be a disambiguation page still wouldn't be happy. JH (talk page) 10:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Cricket should be the disambiguation page. The primary meaning differs depending on where you are in the world, not like London and Paris and other examples that were given. The sport cricket is fairly unknown and unpopular outside of past and present Commonwealth nations. I was interested in the insect and having to load the page about the sport would have been inconvenient if my connection were bad. 193.172.164.121 (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yawn, not this again. Boothy m (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

IOC recognizes cricket

The IOC has conferred the status of "recognized sport" - a status given to non-participating sports which comply with certain Olympic standards of youth promotion and anti-doping laws. The status is valid for 2 years, and is expected to be made permanent in 2009. See refs in the article page for details.

Pizzadeliveryboy (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this really relevant enough to be included in this article? JPD (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

australia vs india test series 2007/08

australia won the first test series against india by 337 runs.

second test: australia made 376 run in his first innings with the century of andrew symond not out 137 runs. brad hogg made also half century

by madhav in kathmandu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhavinwiki (talk • contribs) 08:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

whats the use of that to Wikipedia? Sai2020 03:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

The wrong 'its' is used in the following context "the International Olympic Committee conferred the status of a recognized sport, on the basis of it's youth promotion and anti-doping policies[28]". Its should be 'its'. When this is done please reove this remark. Grammar still matters.

I think you might be looking for Indian cricket team in Australia in 2007-08. JPD (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Copy editing

This article is not in great shape. The intro section alone has numerous run-on sentences and a number of missing articles and questionable grammatical constructions ("150 countries are affiliated to ICC", "Cricket is popular on Indian subcontinent," etc.) The last time I tried to edit a cricket-related page for copy errors I was reverted and pilloried so I will not attempt it again, but would someone who knows cricket please give this a once-over?-69.127.18.205 (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You should join WP as a member (it's free and still anonymous). People who edit using an IP address only do tend to be reverted. Members immediately suspect vandalism or agendas when they see that an IP address edit has occurred; and with justification because it is so common.

I've just given the article a quick review to make sure it is fit for purpose and it is. I've removed the inevitable tiresome "sources required" tag as there are NO specific requests for citations and the sources noted in the article are sufficient. I accept your point that some sentences could be improved but personally I haven't time to go down to that level of detail.

The best thing about the article is its objectivity, mainly because I can see only three players' names in the main text. Two of those names I would insist on seeing while the third is necessary given the context. I dreaded finding examples of hero worship, but thankfully there is none. Objectivity extends itself to treatment of teams too.

All the key topics of the subject are included and are discussed accurately and concisely. There are useful and proper links to detailed studies elsewhere such as History of cricket. The explanation of the basics of the game is particularly good.

In all, I think this is a very good article. --The Ghost | ^séance 10:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with The Ghost's comments about the article's quality. But can I assert that not all "members" who see an edit from an IP address "immediately suspect vandalism or agendas"? Of course some edits are obviously vandalism, mischief or newbie-testing, and IP address edits tend to receive slightly more scrutiny than edits from established users. Many of us are, however, inclined to treat anonymous edits as being in good-faith unless the evidence is to the contrary: indeed I believe Wikipedia policy is that we should do so. Good faith edits do, in practice, unfortunately sometimes get removed with disparaging comments - but that has happened to many of us, not just anonymous IP editors. I am absolutely certain that feeling "reverted and pilloried" after editing an article in good faith is not reserved for anonymous IP users! --RobertG ♬ talk 11:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Why the difference?

This article lists 10 ways of being dismissed, but Dismissal (cricket) lists eleven. Is there a reason for this? 222.153.65.172 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.82.108 (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"Retired - out" is not really a dismissal, although it does count as a wicket. JPD (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Greatest Sportsman Ever?

I'm new to cricket and I think this is a great article overall. However, the caption under Bradman's picture says, "Sir Don Bradman...is, by some statistical measures, the greatest sportsman ever." I read the source and it does support the claim that Bradman was the greatest batsman in cricket. It doesn't say anything about him being the greatest sportsman ever, a claim that I don't think could be supported by statistics anyways. You'd have to get experts to agree on the difficulty of certain sports achievements (e.g. a homerun in baseball v. a four in cricket), assign weights, etc, a process that seems very unlikely to occur and would exclude sports that are not stat heavy (e.g. football or maybe tennis). Regardless, the source doesn't cite such a study and I think the inclusion of the "greatest sportsman ever" claim mars an otherwise informative article. I plan on removing it if there aren't reasonable objections.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 22:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually The Don's statistics do support the claim, in that his batting averages are head and shoulders (i.e. roughly 50%) above his nearest rivals. No bowler comes close and I'm not aware of a comparable example from any other sport.

A possible rival is Jim Thorpe, who won gold medals in decathlon and pentathlon, and was a professional American footballer and baseballer. Grant | Talk 01:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the claim made by the study is that statistically Bradman is better than other cricketers by a larger margin, than any other sportsman is in his sport. It doesn't attempt to make comparisons across sports. I don't understand exactly how the calculations are done, and haven't attempted to. Tintin 05:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I saw. It's clear Bradman was the best cricketer ever, but no claim is made about him being the best sportsman across all sports (i.e. "greatest sportsman ever"). Extrapolating from the source's stats that since Bradman so dominated cricket more than any other athlete has ever dominated their sport (which isn't proven/claimed in the source), he is the greatest sportsman ever, is original research and is, to me, an indefensible claim. You'd have to show that Bradman did indeed dominate cricket more than any other athlete dominated their sport (a very subjective thing), and even then, as I mentioned earlier, you're likely relying on statistics to prove your claims and you are basically excluding non-stat heavy sports. The claim just sticks out like a sore thumb to me. The article is very good apart from it and I think removing it would make the article better.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 18:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The claim is no doubt referring to the study which did use a statistical measure to say that he dominated cricket more than any other athlete dominated a sport. I don't think a reference to this study (if someone can find it) is out of place, as long as something along the lines of "by some statistical measures" is retained. Obviously there is more to sports than statistics, so it needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but it is a remarkable fact about Bradman. JPD (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As I say, while it isn't possible to make one-to-one comparisons of performances from one sport to another, Bradman's stats are extraordinary. Compared only to other batsmen, he has an average that is ~150% that of his nearest rival. Is there anyone in another sport who has equalled or bettered this? It is extraordinary to a degree that marks him out among all sports people. Sport scientists are only now in the process of working out how he did it. That is the basis of the "greatest" claim. Grant | Talk 03:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That might be the basis, but there's no verifiable source right now. It looks like LiamE found a source for the claim. My whole point was that there wasn't a source, it seemed to just be contributors looking at how Bradman dominated and making an unsourced claim. Maybe they had heard of the study LiamE mentions but couldn't remember where they heard it to source it.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 05:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The caption tips a hat to Charles Davis' book "The Best of the Best" where Davis statistically compares sportsmen across sports and comes to the conclusion that Bradman is the greatest sportsman ever. Whether he is right or wrong is not really here nor there, the claim has been made and is credible and so can be used. --LiamE (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Then someone should cite that source. I just wanted to make the article better. I couldn't imagine that someone had done the legwork to make a such a claim. I'm glad someone did so we can source it and leave the claim in the article, because Bradman was a great athlete and, at the very least, the claim and source will spur debate about his performances.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 05:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't we just reference this claim to this link for the time being just so the reader knows what the caption is talking about? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Bradman#World_sport_context - NP10 NP10 (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Even that link doesn't have the study. It links to an article (a somewhat poorly written article IMO) that mentions the study. It seems from the link you gave that someone has seen Davis' book since the table there is more detailed than the mention in the cited article. Anyways, I'd rather have a citation for the book, but I can't find it and the link you gave does explain a bit more than what we have now. I also don't know the policy though, is a Wiki source (itself with RSes) a RS for another Wiki page?--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 18:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The caption should be changed to "greatest batsman ever", which he was. He was not even the greatest-ever cricketer, let alone greatest-ever sportsman. The greatest-ever cricketer was William Gilbert Grace, who was probably the second-best batsman of all time but was additionally a world-class bowler and a world-class fielder. The Don was no bowler and not even a noted fielder. This is before you even consider WG's impact on the sport and his enormous influence, without which Don Bradman would have been a great player in a minor sport. I would agree that Jim Thorpe is a strong candidate for greatest-ever sportsman. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I should of course add that, like Thorpe, WG was a top-class athlete. He also excelled at other sports such as bowls and tennis. I believe Bradman played a fair game of golf, of course. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk about damning Bradman with faint praise. For a mere colonial, Bradman was a fairly decent cricketer nonetheless although not up to English standards of course. He also very nearly chose tennis as his sporting career and in later life was able to win a South Australian squash championship. Not bad for someone who wasn't an athlete! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say he wasn't an athlete, but he wasn't a top-class athlete. The point about Grace and Thorpe is that they were top-class performers in more than one sport, as was Denis Compton, for example. If there had been Olympics when WG was a young man, he might well have won a gold medal.

Except that he wouldn't have competed if it was strictly amateur ;-) --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Status of cricket in Australia

I have changed the following

Cricket has been an established team sport for hundreds of years and is thought to be the second most popular sport in the world (after Football (soccer)).[2] More than 100 countries are affiliated to the International Cricket Council, cricket's international governing body. The sport's modern form originated in England, and is most popular in the present and former members of the Commonwealth. In many countries including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Australia, and the English-speaking countries of the Caribbean, which are collectively known in cricketing parlance as the West Indies, cricket is the most popular sport. It is also a major sport in England, New Zealand, South Africa, Zimbabwe . [sic]

to

Cricket has been an established team sport for hundreds of years and is thought to be the second most popular sport in the world, after football (soccer).[2] More than 100 countries are affiliated to the International Cricket Council, cricket's international governing body. The sport's modern form originated in England, and is most popular in the present and former members of the Commonwealth. In many countries including Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the English-speaking countries of the Caribbean, which are collectively known in cricketing parlance as the West Indies, cricket is the most popular sport. In Australia, while other sports are more popular in particular areas, cricket has been described as the "national sport" and has had a role in forming the national identity.[3] It is also a major sport in England, New Zealand, South Africa and Zimbabwe.

Leaving aside the typos and grammatical error in the original, it is controversial to say that cricket is the most popular sport in Australia. Three codes of football (Australian rules, rugby league and soccer) get far bigger attendances at the grounds and TV audiences. In terms of participation, cricket is overshadowed by sports like swimming, golf and soccer. The Sweeney survey positing "more interest" in cricket is rather thin evidence and goes against commonsense opinion in Australia.

The truth, IMO is that cricket has a unique and unusual status/role in Australia, i.e. unique among sports in Australia and unique among cricket playing nations. That is what I have tried to reflect with the short and referenced sentence "In Australia, while other sports are more popular in particular areas, cricket has been described as the "national sport" and has had a role in forming the national identity." Cheers, Grant | Talk 04:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

None of the sports the are saying they are the most popular though? It's saying that it gets more attendance and participation, nothing more than that, you are inferring from that. What about the people that don't play sport but follow it?--THUGCHILDz 22:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The situation in Australia does need a special explanation as per Grant's text which is backed up by a verifiable reference. In my opinion, cricket is not the most popular sport in Australia but I take TC's point about people who follow it and it is true that football, league and no rules are effectively regional sports whereas cricket has a nationwide following. Even so, I would admit Grant's text in the article because of the need for explanation.

Actually, I'm no longer sure if cricket is the most popular sport in the West Indies. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jack.

TC, read what I have said here and on your talk page: cricket does not get the highest attendances, TV audiences or participation of sports in Australia, not even close. See Sport in Australia. It's something of a paradox that the Australian team is so dominant in a sport which is not in the top three in Australia. Grant | Talk 15:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Modesty

Cricket is a Zen Koan designed to teach the English humility. It works.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 08:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)