Talk:Cricket/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are correct; Law 31 provides that 3 minutes be permitted to incoming batsmen. -- Lord Emsworth 02:59, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
Indeed - have edited -- ALoan 11:00, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

I have created a website teaching newcomers about how cricket matches are played. The site is http://cricketlearn.tripod.com . If any author wishes to copy content site my site and add it to wikipedia, feel free to do so. I refuse to modify the content of wikipedia due to ethical reasons. Nicholas Alphonso

I have emailed the creator of the site requesting confirmation that the above is a genuine post and not someone just claiming to be Mr. Alphonso. Please bear with me whilst I wait for a response. SimonMayer 21:41 30 Jan 2004 (GMT/UTC)
The creator of the website returned this email to me

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

-- Best regards,

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

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

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

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

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

Made a couple of changes to the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cricket has more followers than any sport in the world except soccer. It is, in a very real sense, the second-biggest sport in the world. The big American sports are much more restricted geographically. dmmaus 02:38, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
Have edited slightly - hope my changes are ok? -- ALoan 11:00, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

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

I was planning to break cricket statistics into a separate page, much like baseball statistics. I think I'll go ahead and do it. :-) I think this cricket page really needs a lot of work on a cleaner structure. Your proposed moves also make sense, especially the balls per over. dmmaus 22:32, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I moved the balls per over part to Over (cricket) since it makes more sense there. I'm also thinking the ICC Test and ODI championship stuff should be moved somewhere. Might do that after the server maintenance. dmmaus 00:56, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Fine - thanks. Amongst other general tidying, I have deleted most of International structure of cricket and moved to International structure of cricket. -- ALoan 11:02, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

Started a new page at bat (cricket) - it needs a lot more! - MPF 23:11, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

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

We seem to be having a bit of a format war for the definition lists of the methods of getting out, the extras, and so on. Personally, I prefer the definition format with the definition indented beyond the lead word:

WordToBeDefined 
blah blah blah.
AnotherWord 
blah blah blah.

Obviously someone else doesn't! Can we please settle on a format and then leave it? Consider this a vote to return to this definition format. --dmmaus 22:31, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Indeed - I agree. I have been converting to that format when the opportunity arises since I found that it existed (last week!) - see the changes I made to cricket terminology on 26 May. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:26, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It's OK when the heading of a definition is bold, as it should be. But for the terms mentioned under dismissals and extras, the entire definition was bold, too. It made it look unclear and hard to tell one definition from the next. I changed it so that only the heading was bold. I think it looks clearer now.Jam2k 15:11, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
This seems to be a "feature" of the way that definition-style lists with bold text are rendered by different skins. You seem to need to put spaces around the second colon. Compare:
WordToBeDefined 
blah blah blah.
AnotherWord 
blah blah blah.
and:
WordToBeDefined
blah blah blah.
AnotherWord
blah blah blah.
I hope I have fixed the lists in the article so that they work now? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:07, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

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


Contents

Fielding positions image

There was a discussion on the Usenet group news:rec.sports.cricket about some errors in Image:Positions.jpg, and I daresay I agree. The consensus there seems to be that

  1. gully is in the wrong position (I think Image:Cricket_positions.png has got it right)
  2. deep mid-wicket's wrong (AFAIK, deep mid-wicket should be due square of mid-wicket near the boundary)

In any case, why does Fielding positions in cricket link to 2 different images? Hopefully someone with image-editing skills could merge them. Ambarish | Talk 04:10, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree on all points. We've been waiting on someone to merge the images and make a single, better image ever since ALoan merged the old Fielder article into Fielding positions in cricket. We just need someone with the time and skills to get around to doing it. --dmmaus 04:56, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

IRC

Are there any IRC channels dedicated to cricket? [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:37, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, #cricket on the StarLink network. It carries live text commentary of international games. -dmmaus 23:02, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

FAC

I think this article may be ready for listing on Featured Article Candidates - any views? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:27, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think the page needs a good overhaul. I still feel it's to technical and parts of it are ambiguous. In my opinion we should fill all the red links and add some more pictures before listing it on the featured articles page. (Give me a week, I shall try and clean up the page). [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 19:04, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with nichalp. I actually think this particular page is one of the poorest we have on cricket. It's long, rambling, disjointed, and obviously a patchwork of stuff thrown together by many people. It needs a concentrated overhaul with an eye to style, consistency, and legibility. I've been too afraid to tackle it on my own, since it's such a full page and because it attracts a lot of "touch-up" edits by readers, adding stuff that is best left on other pages and contributing to the bloated, disorganised feel. Nichalp, if you want to take on this job, by all means please do! --dmmaus 21:41, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Most probabably, I'll do it on Sunday, I'll also be uploading images I created - amaturish, but something is better than nothing. I still have to finish bits on Mumbai topics which I am currently working on, before I undertake the task . [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:46, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

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

Page Upgradation

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

Clarifications

I need to clarify this:

  1. One umpire is known as the Square-Leg Umpire, the other is known as?
  2. Are there any fielding restriction concerning off side and on sides?
  3. After the 15 over limit is up, how many fielders must be inside the 30 yard circle and how many can be standing right at the boundary (I think upto 5)?

Pictures desperately needed:

  1. Batsman, bowler
  2. Ball, bat etc.
  3. A closeup pic of an ODI match in progress.

[[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 19:39, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)


The other umpire is the bowler's end umpire
Only two fielders may field behind square on the on side, in order to prevent teams using Bodyline.
15 overs isn't hard-and-fast, some competitions operate different restrictions. Answering the question, after the restrictions expire, it is indeed five people outside the fielding circle.
Hig Hertenfleurst 19:58, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

--from the temp page

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

External links

Nice, format is better then the current version of Cricket (sport).

Suggestion:
Maybe sort the external links section from largest website (Cricinfo) download to smaller sites (Like ones hosted to Geocities, Tripod etc.)

squash 23:26, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

ODI history tweak

A good start. I'd suggest some changes to this:

A metamorphous of sorts occurred in 1961, when the regulations of the sport were unofficially tweaked so that a match produced an expedited result. This gained widespread popularity and resulted in the birth of one-day international (ODI) matches in 1971. The new avatar was quickly adopted by the governing International Cricket Council in 1971 and the first ODI Cricket World Cup was held in 1975. Since then, at the expense of Test cricket, ODI matches gained mass spectatorship much to the consternation of cricket purists.

"Metamorphosis" is misleading, as it implies a change from the old into the new, rather than expansion to a new form. And "avatar" is a bit esoteric. Also, "purists" is not NPOV - some would claim people who don't like ODIs are old fuddy-duddies. I'd rewrite as:

Cricket entered a new era in 1961, when regulations of the sport were tweaked to add a new style of match, that produced a result in a single day's play. This gained widespread popularity and resulted in the birth of one-day international (ODI) matches in 1971. This new form of cricket was quickly adopted by the governing International Cricket Council in 1971 and the first ODI Cricket World Cup was held in 1975. Since then, at the expense of Test cricket, ODI matches have gained massive popularity, much to the consternation of fans who prefer the longer form of the game. As of the early 2000s, however, Test cricket is making a growing resurgence in popularity.

--dmmaus 21:35, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Links

An excellent start. Couple of linking niggles:

and I prefer dmmaus's text above, but

  • I'm not sure the reference to "tweaking" the rules is entirely appropriate - there are just different rules for the new form of the game, as there are for any other form of the game.

-- ALoan (Talk) 00:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

11 August

Dmmaus: I'll go with some of your changes. I don't think avatar is esoteric, In my opinion I feel that it fits neatly here. I haven't explained that test cricket lasts for 5 days, that's why I mentioned an expedited result. Since test cricket is the only sport I know of that lasts so long, it would be difficult to explain why it goes on for so long right at the start. Rather, I would mention it later on.

ALoan: Yeah, I'll make the necessary changes in my local file on the niggles. As far as the difference between Tests and ODI cricket, there isn't much to choose by way of rules -- strategies yes, but if you have any objection to the word 'tweaking' please let me know an alternative apposite phrase.

I need to clarify this:

  1. One umpire is known as the Square-Leg Umpire, the other is known as?
  2. Are there any fielding restriction concerning off side and on sides?
  3. After the 15 over limit is up, how many fielders must be inside the 30 yrd circle and how many can be standing at the boundary (I think upto 5)

Please review the new changes. (I know the 'out' bookmark does not work as yet and the picture is absent.) The changes that I have accepted will be made in my local file, not here, and will be added the next day.

Pictures needed:

  1. Batsman
  2. Ball, bat etc.
  3. A closeup pic of a match in progress.

[[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 19:27, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Two things: (1) I think the structure of what you are doing is excellent. This is a much more logical layout of the material than the present page, and it looks like you're proceeding well. (2) I have so many comments about specific things like wording and grammar and so on, that I think the easiest thing is for you to complete your rewrite, and then allow people to copyedit it into better shape. Most notably, I think you're tending to use complicated words (dexter, sinister) where simple ones alone would be just fine (right, left). But please, keep up the good work! --dmmaus 21:32, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I ought say that I wholeheartedly agree with dmmaus - you are doing an excellent job - well done! - but the new article will need a good copyedit/proofread when you are finished to give it a final polish (trusting that that won't compromise its much more logical structure and fluid phrasing). -- ALoan (Talk) 10:22, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

12 August

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

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

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

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

A few comments:

  • In re "Bowling end umpire": I thought the correct form was "bowler's end umpire."
  • "Retired hurt/ Retired out": I've also heard of the terminology "Retired not out" for the former; which is official?
  • Bouncers: The rule was formerly 2 per over per batsman in tests. Has this been changed to 2 per batsman?
  • Should we not put "Dismissal of a batsman" and "Scoring runs" under "Play of the game"?

-- Emsworth 01:25, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

--dmmaus 04:37, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've added my 2d of copyedit. Nichalp's structure is great - it flows much better than the current page. And I thought the diagrams were fine - perhaps I am not a diagram person! My main concern is to make sure that the current content that is not replicated here is copied somewhere - I presume that this will happen when the new pages' red links are filled in?
I broadly agree with most of Emsworth's comments and dmmaus's replies:
  • yes, but both terms are used
  • "retired not out" is the official term but "retired hurt" is the term that virtually everyone uses in practice
  • Still two per batsman per over, I think
  • Yes, provided it does not unbalance that section too much.
-- ALoan (Talk) 10:12, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Okay, then I propose the following structure:

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

-- Emsworth 18:38, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why is this article here?

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

Good point - see my recent comment on Talk:Cricket. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:11, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Although it is a faux pas, the page will be having a short life, so no harm done. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:18, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

13 Aug

Glad to see that the loose bricks have been cemented. Here are some reverts that I have carried out:

  1. The pitch is predominantly clay - Many pitches in India lack any sort of grass -- I've corrected that.
  2. ODI cricket in the beginning. I have edited to expedited result. Reason: A person without any knowledge of this sport would be puzzled as to why the match finishes "in a day" as all other sports finish in a day. I've changed it so that that person gets a basic idea that a ODI match finshes a lot quicker than a test match. The duration of the two are mentioned later.
  3. Origin of the name deserves a seperate heading for clarity or the history will look too bulky.

The left aligned images look hideous. Please change it. I have included some text on batting strategy in the batting talk page. I need it to be merged. I will also be filling the remainder of the red links tomorrow. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:16, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Reverts 1 and 2 are okay. I disagree about the "Origin of the name" section being separate. I now think it should be removed completely, since it's covered in detail in the main History of cricket article, and a separate section for it is really tangential to the point of this article and adds overall bulk. I also like Emsworth's suggested restructure of the sections, listed above, which addresses the concerns I had in my last message. --dmmaus 23:02, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

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

15 August

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

I need copyediting of the new pages I have created.

  1. runs
  2. end of an innings
  3. bowling strategy
  4. fielding strategy
  5. captain
  6. runner
  7. retired hurt
  8. types of bowlers
  9. scoring runs in cricket

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