Talk:Cricket/Archive 3

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.

|/Archive 3]].


I have updated and improved the ricket (sport) page after the consensus agreed on the cricket/temp page with dmmaus, aloan and elmsworth. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:19, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

Move "Differences" section?

Excellent work, everyone! I've been busy the past few days, but I notice things have bubbled along nicely without me. :-) I still think "Differences between Test matches and ODIs" should be moved down to the "Forms of cricket" section, though. Does anyone have a strong objection? And it's so nice to see that annoying "(sport)" gone once and for all! --dmmaus 06:43, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree and have moved.
I've also made a few tweaks to the images to make them display reasonably well (smaller, the float-clearing line break, a div).
On the "(sport)" thing, there are now about 500 pages linked to the cricket (sport) redirect. Ideally, we would bypass the redirect on all of them, but it would take hours by hand. A bot may be able to do it very quickly - see similar discussion in Talk:Analogue disc record#Eventual move - does anyone know how to go about doing it that way? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:24, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No objection. I have submitted this page for peer review and list of wanted pictures. I have also filled up the red links. User Porge is currently improving the images. Looks like good times ahead. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:06, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Recent changes

From the edit history: "pace bowlers is the politically correct term" - is it? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:37, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've never come across this. In my experience "fast bowler" and "pace bowler" have always been used interchangeably. --dmmaus 22:58, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
In which case I can't see much point in [[fast bowling|pace bowlers]].
I'm also not sure that the wikilinks to the lists of associates and affiliates should be deleted - I don't think they clutter up the page unnecessarily, but I am open to being persuaded otherwise. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've relinked them to the sections of International Cricket Council where the lists appear. --dmmaus 00:37, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
A pace bowler uses mainly "pace (speed)" to to get his wicket. It is used interchangebly but a fast bowler is also known to bowl above 90mph like Shohaib Akthar. By mentioning pace bowlers we can also include medium pace bowlers into this realm. I corrected the fast to pace to avoid any misunderstandings. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:08, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Terminology

I've added a huge list of terms to the cricket terminology page. I found it difficult to express the terms "length" and "fine", so corrections are needed. Also wanted to clarify the chip shot and slice shot (used to describe Anil Kumble's shots mostly). Also wanted to know if bat-pad can be out caught. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:38, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

I've fixed "length", "fine", and "chip shot". Also added some sections to make editing easier by giving us some edit breakpoints. --dmmaus 21:52, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

FAC Nomination

I've nominated this as a featured article. Thorough guide to a most foreign subject to we Americans. Kudos to the authors of it. PedanticallySpeaking 20:05, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like our "mission is accomplished". [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:32, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Structure

I feel that the structure shouldn't be tampered with at this moment. Player designations are batsmen, bowlers and fielders.

But they're not really. As I mentioned, those aren't designations, they're descriptions. Within the Laws of the game, Captains, Runners and Substitutes have defined roles. Anyone can be a bowler, a batsman or a fielder. There's no designation into these classes within the Laws GWO 11:02, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Captains, runners and substitutes aren't a designation

Au contraire. That's exactly what they are.

and so have delinked it. Mentioning it under players and officials gives the wrong idea. Dismissals in cricket should be a major topic, as the match revolves around it.

No, by definition, the match revolves around "The Play Of The Game", or which dismissals are an important part.

Also innings is also used as the singular form. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:42, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

well, that was just wrong... GWO 11:02, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Mentioning captain, substitute and runner so early on loses focus of the game, and therefore should be mentioned later on. Dismissals should be mentioned as early as possible so that 'play of the game' and scoring can be understood better and the flow is maintained. You do say first innings. I don't recall too many people saying first inning. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:44, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
Re: innings. The word is never "inning" in cricket. The singular form is "innings". Only baseball uses "inning". --dmmaus 09:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Batting stance

The "Batting section mentions: Batsmen are required to stand with some part of their body between the batting crease and the wickets behind.

Is this true? I have seen some batsmen in international matches (usually ODI) taking guard a foot outside the crease. --ashwatha 06:12, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

They can, if they don't mind getting out. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 19:23, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
Nonsense. You can't stand out of your crease when the 'keeper is standing up (because you will get stumped), but quality batsmen regularly stand outside the crease to quick bowlers, at all levels of the game. GWO 15:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think the word "required" is too strong. I'm being bold and changing it. --dmmaus 09:27, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Good call GWO 15:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Structure

I will be making major structural updates in about 22 hours time. As of now matter has to be cut down as the page is approaching 32 kb. Also I will be incorporating some changes as suggested in the FA. Please refrain from making structural changes or reverts. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 20:56, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Fine - I see that you have taken out my rather dumbed-down introductory paragraph. I am not particularly attached to the text, which overlaps with the section entitled "Objective" anyway, but there have been several requests for a broad overview of how it all works (admittedly rather difficult without using cricket terminology) so I think something like it needs to appear in the first section (perhaps the "Objective" section should be renamed "Overview"). I look forward to seeing what you produce :) -- ALoan (Talk) 22:09, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

New updates

After considerable excogitation, I have modified the structure of the page. Of course it is not easy for those who have knowledge of the game put themselves in the shoes of those without any knowledge of the sport; hence constructive criticism is always a bonus. Many parts of the page are difficult to really construct as it becomes the classic case of the chicken and the egg. Anyways, I hope my edit has touched on all the points suggested and acquiesced by all.

  • The TOC is the bone of contention amongst many. Although I have tried to please those objecting, I don't suppose that further sections can be removed as they are either internally bookmarked or integral to the game.
  • The next objection was by Pd30 on the sections and summary. I have included a summary along with the objective keeping in mind his constructive suggestions. Also clubbed batsman & scoring runs, bowling and taking wickets. I hope P3d0 and Taxman are now satisfied.
  • The field & its diagrams are extremely important and should be placed before the match structure.
  • The lead-in should be left untouched. I feel that having a summary there is like placing the cart before the horse.
  • Moved the history lower down to reduce the scrolling.
  • Removed the detailed differences between tests and ODI as it is better suited on a new page. Have also purged the roles of the ICC to save on page size.
  • Also improved on the suggestions by anon.
  • Emsworth: "Follow-on" is an aberration to the play rather than the norm seen in matches. Mentioning it out here is putting a little too much detail. The cricket ball colour is also unwarranted, as a detailed page is dedicated to the ball for those interested. Forfeiture of innings and pace of play in both forms of cricket are mentioned in the main articles.

[[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:37, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

The start of the article is now a much more gentle introduction than before, and it addresses the objections I raised. I would have preferred the more radical restructuring I mentioned described in the Fratured [sic] Article Candidates page, but that's a personal preference, and you have certainly made it clear enough now that I can't object. --P3d0 02:33, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Glad to rope you over. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 21:00, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Somewhere, this article should touch upon the difference between bowling and throwing -- i.e. the non-straightening of the arm in the delivery. GWO

Chucking

Quoted text: A bowler delivers the ball toward the batsmen, using what is known as a bowling action, i.e. his arm must not straighten during the delivery at the elbow. If he straightens his arm in any manner, it is an illegal throw and the delivery is called a no-ball.

I feel that this is misleading. It would seem that a bowler is allowed to have have his arm bent at the elbow, but not straighten it.

That's exactly the case. Normally, it would be a distinction without the difference, since physiologically it's practically impossible to hold your elbow bent and whip your arm over without it straightening. However, there's Muttiah Muralitharan, arm is locked in a bent position, due to a birth defect. Video has shown that his arm does not straighten, and he has been repeated passed as an acceptable bowling action Darryl Hair(sp?) not withstanding. GWO 08:52, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As far as my knowledge goes:

  1. He is not allowed to bend his ebow at the time of his delivery (mentioned above)
The laws say:
3. Definition of fair delivery - the arm:
A ball is fairly delivered in respect of the arm if, once the bowler's arm has reached the level of the shoulder in the delivery swing, the elbow joint is not straightened partially or completely from that point until the ball has left the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from flexing or rotating the wrist in the delivery swing.
So, the ban is on straightening the elbow, and everything else is permissible
  1. His elbow cannot be bent at an angle greater than 5° during the delivery action.

[[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:08, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:21, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Headings and table

Subheadings should be marked as such. The table of contents should be exactly that - if the article is long then so is the TOC - so what? It can be hidden if you really don't want it. If they're important enough to be made sub-headings they're important enough to be in the TOC. Secondly, as I've discussed with User_talk:Gareth_Owen putting a float:right table around a ground of images is uneccessary in the new skin. This was a huge issue with the older skins where people were constantly trying to space images out so they wouldn't overlap (which would screw up when you made the window wider of course). Now that is has been fixed - this style of just putting images next to each other and having them auto-stack is being used all over the place. The solution is not to find all these cases and use the table hack - but to get the old skins fixed. ed g2s • talk 11:02, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Where does one go to get the skins fixed? GWO
You could ask the developers (#mediawiki on irc.freenode.net) - but I'm pretty sure they'll tell you to just use monobook, which you can then customise to your liking. ed g2s • talk 18:00, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

explaination of cricket

Here's another explaination for all those who trawl this page the first time. It is in terms of basketball.

Two friends Jay and Kay are playing basketball in these two formats.

ODI

Jay is given 50 consecutive attempts to get as many points as he can. However if he commits 10 fouls, it's all over for him and its Kay's turn. Kay meanwhile has to try and block Jay from scoring and also try to make Jay foul. After setting the target the roles are reversed and Kay has to beat the set target.

Here:

  • 50 attempts = 50 overs of an innings
  • 10 fouls = 10 wickets
  • Kay being the fielding team
Test'

Jay has an unlimited number of consecutive attempts. If he has mustered a large total without getting 10 fouls, he may stop and ask Kay to play. Kay may declare if he overtakes Jay's score by a huge margin. After a declaration or 10 fouls, Jay may try and first clear up the deficiency (if any) and then try to post a challenging total. After Jay is done, by way of fouls or declaration, Kay tries to overtake the set total. Total time given is 50 minutes. If after 50 minutes, the game is not over, it is drawn.

[[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 20:24, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

National Sport

I remember watching an episode of Mind your Language sometime in 1997 and during the talks about soccer when the Itallian and Spanish guys were fighting the talk shifted to UK's national sport. The English teacher said (with pride) Cricket is UK's national sport (or was it England's.) So is it not? I could not find UK's national sport anywhere. What is it? --Ankur 07:47, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, we don't have an official national sport, but the most popular is easily football. The football season runs from mid-August to early May (concurrently with the rugby union season). Cricket is, however, the most popular *summer* sport, with the season running from April to September (semi-concurrently with the professional rugby league season, although it is markedly less popular than cricket). Hig Hertenfleurst 14:52, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hi Hig Hertenfleurst I just visited Britannica. Well the first line on Cricket reads like this: England's national summer sport, which is now played throughout the world, particularly in Australia, India, Pakistan, the West Indies, and the British Isles. Well then Cricket is the national sport of England, No? --Ankur 18:35, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Is it just England or the entire United Kingdom? [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 18:46, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
Just England, Scotland seems to love some other games. It seems either England has multiple national sports or none. One article on Gaurdian states Fotball is the national sport, another in BBC talks about Rugby, anyway Robbo at BBC says it should be [Morris dancing] :-D. Many more resources outside UK suggest it is Cricket. In fact Tennis too seems to be the national sport of England. My conclusion, there are many uninformed people out there. I remember knowing from my childhood too that Cricket is England's national sport. Anyway I think the answer lies in this. There probably is no Official National Sport. National sport is any sport played at national level. Mind your language first aired circa 1970. At that time Cricket might have been the most popular game so everyone thought it is cricket. When the British left India they left behind a lot of things among them English phrases that are not used anywhere in the world except in India or in England of the 40's 50's. Cricket is the national game too must be one of those thing they left behind in India and in the 70's. --Ankur 20:38, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
On this point, I changed the intro to say that cricket is the national sport of Australia because it really is. It is more than just the Australian "national summer sport" because the country is split between two main winter sports (Australian Rules football and Rugby League) and several others (Rugby Union, soccer, etc). Whereas my experience of living in England for two years tells me that soccer is the most popular sport in England by far. Grant65 (Talk) 23:06, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

45

What is the exact fielding position that most commentators refer to as 45? is it point ot square-leg? [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 20:06, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

"The 45" or "on the 45" refers to being at a 45-degree angle, usually behind square on the leg side. It's considerably finer than backward square-leg. Hig Hertenfleurst 20:37, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)