Talk:Cricket/Archive 7

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.

Contents

Picture voting

moved to [[1]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thugchildz (talk • contribs) 02:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Nonsense

Somebody wrote "it is super gay" on the page.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.155.66.166 (talk) 04:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

updating, laws etc.

Some updating needs to be done in reference to some of the rules, eg. under dismissals it mentions that a bowler may run-out the non-striker if he leaves the crease before the delivery. "The batsman who is not on strike may be run out by the bowler if he leaves his crease before the bowler bowls". This law was changed but I'm not sure of the official rules, so if someone is they should remove or change that sentence. Moleman 22:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this law has changed recently. Law 42.15 (Fair and Unfair Play states that: "The bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to attempt to run out the non-striker. The ball shall not count in the over. The umpire shall call and signal Dead ball as soon as possible if the bowler fails in the attempt to run out the non-striker." Hope that clears things up. 163.1.176.93 21:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Why not link to the decent explanation on Mankading at The wikipedia article on run-outs
I agree 129.128.67.22 20:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Linked now. Tintin (talk) 08:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought there were actually 12 players in a cricket team. In fact, remembering how often I was chosen as '12th Man' in schoolyard cricket, I'm quite sure there's 12 in a team.

The very first line in the laws of cricket (http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/ Law 1.1) states that "A match is played between two sides, each of eleven players, one of whom shall be captain." Tintin (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, OK. Is the term '12th man' only informal?
Teams usually declare somebody as 12th man. He cannot bat or bowl, but is usually used as a fielder if one of the eleven players get injured. Tintin (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

above to-do list

Is there a need for the above list (here)? Perhaps it could be replaced with a box pointing to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket which has it's own list. -- Ian ≡ talk 01:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

This todo list has information relating to the needs of the cricket page. The wikiproject todo page has information relating to cricket articles in general. User:Nichalp/sg 06:21, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
D'oh!, I knew that! -- Ian ≡ talk 22:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I've added an item: could someone update the page to expand ODI for those of us that grew up in Cricket deprived circumstances.

ODI=One day internationals. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a cricket fans website "cricketvoice.com" can you post it in the links? This is a non-profit website run by indian cricket fans and has a lot of daily analysis, discussion. Thanks

How about a list of cricket blogs out there on the web. There is always a story to be had throught cricket and the cricket diaries/blogs from newspapers/websites always give a good insight to the game, especially with the Ashes upcoming.

Wikipedia is not a repository of links -dmmaus 00:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"Quality photo from bat." what doest it mean? a photo of a bat then its should of a bat or a photo from behind the batsmen?

Photo of AB Devilliers playing a pull

Pull Shot
Pull Shot

Hamedog 14:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The ball hitting obstructions

" Also, if the ball hits any object (including sawdust used by the bowlers) left on the field by the fielding team, five runs are scored. This occurs very rarely but is an official rule."

Do you think its worth rewriting this to mention the tree on the pitch at the St Lawrence ground, Canterbury? I know the old one was badly damaged and needed to be removed but to the best of my knowledge they were going to / have replanted. I know its an unusual case but its the little things like that that give cricket its character. --LiamE 08:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, it may be added in other cricket articles, but not in the main one (Cricket).
Is the comment about sawdust true ? Tintin 08:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
First time I'm hearing of it. User:Nichalp/sg 09:07, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Same here. I've asked BigDaddy727 for a reference. Pak21 10:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
It's not in the Laws. I moved the comment to the section on extras, and added the part about fielding with hats, etc. JPD 10:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
The ball just hit sawdust during the current test and no penalty runs were awarded --Pak21 11:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
The law forbids illegal fielding. If the sawdust had been placed there by the fielders in order to impede the batting side, it would have been illegal. Hitting a tree is by no means the same thing, by the way. That is governed by local regulations. [[smoddy]] 16:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

See St Lawrence Ground.

Which law? I've not heard of five runs for hitting the piles of sawdust: Law 41 (the fielder) specifically refers to the fielding side's protective helments (Law 41.3), and Law 41.2 says "A fielder may field the ball with any part of his person but if, while the ball is in play he wilfully fields it otherwise, (a) the ball shall become dead and 5 penalty runs shall be awarded..." which stops players stopping the ball with something other than their "person". Perhaps Law 41.2 could be applied if the sawdust was considered something that the fielders had "wilfully" left on the field but it seems a bit unlikely, particularly as Law 41.3 has to make special provision for the helmets? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Technically, the sawdust is part of the ground, ie its used to fill in holes. Same goes for the tree. Apparently though, if the ball gets stuck in the tree, the batsmen can keep running until it is retrieved! --PopUpPirate 11:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Absent a specific local rule, if a ball gets stuck in a tree within the playing area and is still visible (so that it is not a "lost ball") you are right, the batsmen can keep running until it is retrieved. The St Lawrence Ground, however, does have a local rule that hitting any part of the tree is four (and dead ball). Though this remains the rule in Canterbury, the new lime tree in the St Lawrence Ground has been planted so that it shouldn't be in the playing area for a major match, jguk 20:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Twenty20 link

I removed the Cricket20 link again because it does not seem appropriate to list links to individual tournaments from this page. JPD 10:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

um...how exactly do you play?

I came to this article and I have absolutely NO idea about how to play cricket - I'm from the USA - and I found that the article is very well written and has lots of details, but is lacking on the fundamentals of the game; what do you do when you hit the ball, run to the other end of the dirt stripe or what? Could anyone try to fix that up a little, or at least move the fundamental parts toward the front of the article?

I know some of you British may think me a bit of a "twit," but then again for me anyone who doesn't understand baseball is a little out there, so...

WindowsWizard12 01:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm no cricket expert, I would have to leave that for the mavens. It's hard to explain baseball to anyone who's never seen it, either. However, maybe this will help. A cricket fancier gave me this explanation some years ago:
It's quite simple. You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that is on the side that is in goes out and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's been out in the field comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get out those coming in. Sometimes you get men still in and not out. Then when both sides have been in and out that's the end of the game.

Wahkeenah 01:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

  • On the other hand, maybe it would be better for a novice to give the overview, since the game is so obvious to its fanciers that they might have a tough time explaining it simply. It's a bat-and-ball game, a cousin of baseball. There are 11 players on each team. The center of the field contains two wickets, 66 feet apart, with a batsman from the batting side at each end. A fielding side player called the bowler (analagous to the pitcher in baseball) bowls the ball from near one of the wickets toward the other wicket. (NB: note that the bowler must not throw the ball and must not overstep a mark or the delivery will be called no ball by the unpire; a no ball concedes a penalty score). The batsman tries to hit the ball with his bat, in order to (1) defend the wicket and (2) score runs. If the bowler knocks the bails off the wicket, the batsman is out. If the batsman hits the ball, he may try to score a run by trading places with the other batsman one or more times. Each time they trade places, it counts as one run. If one of them fails to get back to his wicket before a defender knocks the bails off the wicket with the ball, he's out, and the next batsman in the lineup takes his place. Unlike baseball, an innings normally consists of all 11 batsmen taking their turns. Once 10 wickets are taken, the innings ends, and the single batsman remaining is "not out". The innings can end earlier if (1) the team was batting last and has outscored the opponent and won the game; or (2) the game is played under a special set of rules with a fixed number of legally bowled balls. How's that for starters? Wahkeenah 01:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, you run to the opposite end. Simultaneously the other batsman on the non-striker's end will run in the opposite direction. This fetches the batsman (who hit the ball) 1 run. Do you want me to expand it further? User:Nichalp/sg 13:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The main issue is, could someone who had never seen a cricket match understand the game from the article? I know baseball very well, and know enough about cricket to get by, and I question that premise for both articles. The first paragraph in each article needs to say simply that cricket is a bat-and-ball game, and that the objective of the game is to win by scoring more runs than the opponent, and that the way a run is scored is... etc. That would nicely supplement and reinforce the photo of the bowler throwing to the batsman, which is the start of each play (a great photo, which the baseball article lacks an equivalent of). Once it's clear how the ball is put into play and how runs are scored, then the novice hopefully has a clear mental picture of the bare fundamental of the game, and then you can start layering on the details and the technicalities and the history. Wahkeenah 15:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, the baseball intro is better than I thought, but it could stand improvement... and the cricket article's intro could stand looking rather more like the baseball intro. Wahkeenah 15:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Well we've put up some image requests above. How a run is scored is mentioned under =Batting and scoring runs#Run scoring=. The rules of cricket are complicated and to put it down in a logical and structured format was a big challenge. I'd always thought the page is well written, (and I still believe so), because we hardly get any doubts on this page. When this was in peer review and FAC, one of the main objections was that it the playing area needed to be visualised before going into match details. User:Nichalp/sg 06:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
        • The baseball article says in its first sentence that the fundamental of the game is that a ball is thrown to a batter who tries to hit it. The second sentence explains in a general way how scoring is accomplished. That immediately conjures up at least a vague image of what the focus of the game is. In contrast, the first sentence of the cricket article says that it's a team sport with 11 players on a side. Then it starts talking about its history and the complicated scenarios on the length of a match. After two paragraphs, the casual reader still has no idea what the game is about. The essence of cricket is the same as baseball: a ball is thrown and a batsman tries to hit it, and runs are scored by the batsmen running back and forth. Those facts are necessary to understanding the basic nature of the game, and are way much more important than the standard number of players and the origins of the sport. If no one griped about it before, maybe it's because only those who already understand the game had read it. My complaint about the baseball intro is that there is too much time spent in the first paragraph describing the equipment. Regardless, in the cricket article, if you would start off with a two-sentence explanation of the basic nature of the game, and point to that photo of the bowler delivering to the batsman as reinforecment, the casual reader would instantly have some sense of what the game is about. I agree the rules are complicated (though I daresay the rules of baseball are rather more so) but you have to get into those complexities with a layering approach. The reader who asked the original question clearly did *not* understand the essence of the game from having read the article. If he's still reading this, I'd like to know if he "gets" it yet, after all this discussion? Wahkeenah 11:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I would also move the photos of the equipment up, to be the second and third photos in the article, under the excellent leadoff photo. I would drop the photo called "action at the centre of the ground" unless you can explain exactly what's going on. It is rather small and looks like a bunch of guys just wandering around. Wahkeenah 11:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
          • WP:BB. Please go ahead. User:Nichalp/sg 18:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
            • You're telling me to mess with the article? Hmmm... well you can always hit your "revert" key if you don't like what you see. :) Wahkeenah 20:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
            • OK, I done did it, I added an intro paragraph to try to explain the essence of the game without having to wade through the entire Cricket Lawbook. I hope the original questioner will comment on the explanation, and offer improvements as needed. d:) Wahkeenah 04:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
            • Someone doesn't like the word "throw". Well, how would *you* describe the delivery to someone who doesn't know the technicalities of the rules? Furthermore, I'm sorry, but the bowler does "throw" the ball, in the common sense of the word. It's just that the manner in which he has to throw it is prescribed by the rules, something I didn't want to get into too much in the intro because it's confusing. I could say "throws the ball in a style prescribed by the rules, but I still think that's too technical for the first paragraph. Wahkeenah 06:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
              • I appreciate you trying to modify the text, but I didn't know you'd modify the lead so much, I'd thought you'd only add a sentence. I'll modify it later. "Throwing" means something else in cricket: "bending the elbow", which is essentially illegal. User:Nichalp/sg 06:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
            • Yipe. As much as you're trying to be helpful, Wahkeenah, your additions do need to be vetted by people with a better understanding of the game. Calling the action of bowling a "throw" is confusing to those who know what that term means in the context of cricket. Also, the "offensive" and "defensive" terminology is not used in cricket and the way around you had them would have been wrong in any case. The batsman is more of a defensive role, while the bowlers play an attacking or "offensive" role. Not that we don't appreciate the help and non-expert advice on how to improve the article! You're certainly welcome to make changes as yousee fit, but please expect them to be modified if necessary. -dmmaus 07:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
              • Apart from issues about wording, I'm a bit concerned about how it fits in with the rest of the article. It really should be quite brief, leaving the detail for later where it can be dealt with properly. More importantly, if this is in the intro, should the objective and summary section go, or retitled to focus on the possible results? JPD 10:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
                • I would prefer that the old version be retained plus Wahkeenah's one line suggestion. I'm currently working on some cricket related images, so will give this page a facelift after I finish. User:Nichalp/sg 10:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
                  • If you put it back the old way, then it goes back to the original problem... that someone who is unfamiliar with cricket has no idea, after the first two paragraphs, what the game is about. And I insist that in the generic, normal way the term is used, the ball is "thrown" by the bowler. It's not rolled along the ground, it's not dropped from the sky, it's thrown. I am well aware that cricket has a specific definition of what the terms "throw" vs. "bowl" are. But you don't want too much info in the first paragraph. Maybe you could say "delivered" or "propelled" or "tossed". Maybe you could even say "bowled" with a link to explain it, since to the average user, bowling is an underhand roll of a large ball down a bowling alley. Anyway, this all started because one guy said he couldn't figure out how the game is played from the article. And if I didn't already have some general concept of how the game is played, I couldn't either. You need to address that problem, rather than quibbling over what the term "throw" means. Wahkeenah 17:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
                    • You're way ahead of me. It looks good. Now, if the guy who raised the original question would weigh in, we could tell if it works or not. Regarding "offense" and "defense", in sporting terminology the "offense" is the side trying to score, so in that sense the batsman is most assuredly on the "offense". However, if those terms are not used in cricket at all, in contrast to baseball, then obviously you have to leave them out and it's simply inferred by the activities described. Anyway, it looks good to me, and I'll move on to the next puzzlement. Thank you for your assistance in refining the verbiage. d:) Wahkeenah 17:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
                      • It's a quibble at this point, but I can't let it go unanswered that in sporting terminology the "offense" is the side trying to score, so in that sense the batsman is most assuredly on the "offense". This may be true in American sports, but it is not true in general, and trying to apply such a definition to cricket is misleading and fundamentally incorrect. You cannot simply generalise such things. The bowling team in cricket is often referred to as "the attack" and the primary job of a batsman is to defend his wicket. It's less than useless to swap the terminology based on an erroneous assumption that it should conform to American sports terminology, it's actively misleading. It's a similar problem with the word "throw". -dmmaus 00:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I've edited the introduction to make it cleaner and hopefully explain the most important details of the game play in a simple manner. It's a little longer now, but I believe it gets across the most important features of the game in a way that novices can get a good idea, and that doesn't conflict with what seasoned fans know. Thanks to Wahkeenah for starting this - I think we needed a small kick in the pants to get this done! :-) -dmmaus 00:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
      • (Blush!) It's looking excellent. My concern was that a novice such as the original questioner could not understand the game. Thanks to the help of you and others, this intro is now not only a concise and understandable explanation of the game, but is also now significantly superior to the Baseball intro which was kind of the initial model for starting this intro. Maybe you could help out on that page, too? d:) Wahkeenah 00:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Obviously a lot of effort has gone into coming up with this new intro to Cricket, but this new intro is only meant for people who know nothing about Cricket. For someone who knows about the game, the intro is, well... lame! I am sorry but with the current style of writing I can not see this as a featured article. May I propose that the explanation for a novice be put somewhere else - in the cricket portal for example, or in wikibooks, or in simple language version of wikipedia. I'll like to assert again that think the introduction is rather uninteresting. Use something like this before the intro
For information regarding the insect, see Cricket (insect). For other uses, see Cricket (disambiguation).
For more coverage of cricket, see the Cricket portal.
For a very basic introduction to cricket <do this>.
          • That is precisely the point, sir. If you already know about the game, why would you be reading the article, other than to look for typographical errors? The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform. The article as it was before, failed that test. Wahkeenah 07:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
            • Well, I look at an Encyclopedia as something which you would refer to gain more knowledge than you already have. Anyway, I think you are right. I just thought the article was more interesting without the new introduction. That is why I proposed the middle path where a layman is pointed to some other page while those who know about cricket can directly move to more interesting stuff. If you like the new intro, let it be. I have to agree with you because, sometimes I go to a technical article and if I am not well versed in the subject I end up frustrated after the first few lines.
              • I understand what you're getting at. Ideally, in an encylopedia, you want a short introduction for the novice, and then get into more detail. That seems to be the general pattern in wikipedia. The problem with the article before was that it was of no help to someone who knew nothing about the sport. The guy who led off this now-lengthy section made that point. The intro was re-written, but I think the rest of it, with its relatively microscopic view of the sport, was left pretty much intact for those who want to learn more once they "get" the basic idea, or if they are already familiar with the game. It really comes down to how to structure wikipedia. There are myriads of cross-references to other places, which too often just re-state what was said in the article. But I guess that's necessary somehow. To make it totally non-redundant might drive a reader crazy. Wahkeenah 10:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, man, google around and look for some cricket matches in your 'hood. You may feel awkward being the only native-born American there, and you may not understand what they're saying to each other, but folks are super-friendly and will totally get you dialed in to all the local cricket events - trainings, games, etc. (When I tjecked out a match in Detroit, they gave me some tips on bowling and totally hooked me up with Indian rice + chicken  : ) Nothing helps - and is as much fun - like getting to see a real game live, and it's a lot cheaper than pay-per-view Tests, too. Wiki Wikardo 07:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

While I did not join Wikipedia strictly to compliment articles that helped me understand a subject that was previously a complete mystery to me, I prefer that I can do so and not be anonymous. I did not have a deep-seated need to understand Cricket but now, if asked, I can say that I have read a very good explanation of the game. Thank you. JimCubb 21:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Cricket (sport) and Cricket (disambiguation)

I think the insect would be used just as often as the sport, so shouldn't this be the disambig page, and the article go to Cricket (sport)? Super Saiyan Plough 02:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Okay, I just googled "cricket", and the first 39 results were about the sport, and the 40th one was some really random thing 1 not even the insect, so i take back my previous comment. Up to result 62, which is about a robot called Cricket, still havnt seen the insect... result 67 isnt even about anything... 74 is a micro-processor... 84 is a band called fiddling cricket.. 91 is "cricket hill garden"... aha! result 100 is about the insect! well indirectly... it has a whole bunch of sound clips, including one about an cricket chirping. I think the sport wins the Cricket page hands-down. sorry for wasting your time. Super Saiyan Plough 03:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
No problem. This issue has come up before, and was settled in favour of the current arrangement after much discussion. -dmmaus 04:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
We discussed this not long ago (see Talk:Cricket/oldpoll) and decided we'd keep things as they are now, jguk 04:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this descision is garbage. There are hundreds of other similarly named things linked to a disambugation page, why is it so much trouble to change it? Glolt 19:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well done. Only 6 edits on Wikipedia and you already have a warning for vandalism. Keep up the great contributions. --LiamE 00:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Cricket as a sport is a major topic that nearly all English-speaking people outside America relate to, whereas a chirping insect is not something that so readily comes to mind. Cricket is the second most popular spectator sport on the planet after football (i.e., played with a round ball). And finally the whole thing has been discussed time and time again by many Wikipedia members whose names are not redlinked. --BlackJack | talk page 19:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think cricket is "the second most popular spectator sport on the planet"? That's a laughably Anglocentric view. Cricket is played in Britain and a handful of her former colonies. Basketball is played in virtually every country of the Americas--and is particularly popular in the United States, Brazil, and Argentina (combined population roughly 530 million)--Continental Europe (including 150 million-strong Russia), Africa, and Eastern Asia. And before you play the tired "But India has a population of 1.1 billion and I talked to this IT guy and he says it's really popular there!" argument, let me remind you that China--a basketball-mad country--has 1.3 billion people, precisely zero of whom care about cricket. If you compare the ratio to the number of people who think of cricket as a game to the number of people who think of cricket as an insect, you will find a far smaller figure than the ratio of the number of people who think of Bill O'Reilly as a commentator than as a cricketer. (See BlackJack's kneejerk anti-Americanism on that page.) A few Americans might think their country is the whole world, but many more Englishmen think their country is the whole world minus America. 151.205.96.146 21:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Just as soon as basketball matches in China get 100,000 plus paying customers through the door the way cricket matches do in India the situation may change. The fact is in China outside the big cities no one has heard of backetball let alone played it or watched it. In India on the other hand, every boy in the country, and many of the men it has to be said, want to be Sachin Tendulkar. Got a source to say basketball is more popular than cricket with the numbers to back up your theory? Just for the record the population of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh easily outnumbers that of China. --LiamE 22:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Um...the Chinese Basketball Association is one of the most highly attended professional sports leagues in the world. Most Chinese schools--even the rural ones--introduce basketball (and volleyball and association football, but certainly not cricket) as part of a physical education program. I highly doubt you've even been to China and suspect you are basing your ridiculous assertion that "outside the big cities no one has heard of backetball" on wishful conjecture; all but the most isolated peasants have heard of Yao Ming. Sure, the Indian subcontinent outnumbers China, but China plus Russia, the former Yugoslavia, the United States, Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Canada, Italy, Greece, Turkey, and France easily outnumber the Indian subcontinent. That's not to mention Japan, Korea, Central America, the rest of South America, the rest of Continental Europe, and the countries of Africa that were not former British colonies. Those are countries where basketball is perhaps not a major spectator sport, but nonetheless an infinitely more popular one than cricket. Sorry Liam. You lose. It's time for you and your countrymen to accept it: The (Former) British Empire ≠ The World. 24.199.116.142 13:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't lose. I wasn't in competition. Find some facts and come back with them rather than speculation and original research. Oh and feel free to register. --LiamE 15:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, according to a 2003 New York Times article, "more Chinese now play basketball than soccer or any other sport", and Michael Jordan "became the mainland's premier pop cultural hero -- more lionized, in one poll, than Mao." See this link; registration is required to read the article, but it is mirrored here [2]. The fact is, anyone who thinks cricket is more popular worldwide than basketball hasn't really been in too many places, or he has his head way too far up his arse/ass. Alas, this is, of course, tangential to the point at hand. I can only the imagine the anti-American rhetoric if a quote-unquote "American" sport happened to take precedence over an insect. ("No one cares about the sport in any other country in the world", "why do Americans think they're the whole world", "I refuse to let a member of the animal kingdom the whole world cares about be superceded by a sport only one country cares about", etc.) Really, this should be a disambig. Of course, the only people who'll vote on the measure are the cricket (sport) cabal, so it'll never pass, and any unilateral move will be quickly reverted. I think the best way to overcome this is to get cricket (insect) up to featured status, but some battles are not worth fighting. Or, rather, some people are not worth fighting. Raggaga 14:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly that article mentions "several surveys" without mentioning what ones or who they were by etc, leaving questions open as to their validity and impartiality. Interestingly it goes on to mention the "tepid fan support" so perhaps all is not roses. In any case whether or not cricket comes out as the 2nd most poular team sport or the 202nd the fact remains that people interest in the sport FAR outstrips interest in the bug. The bug article is the same number of clicks away as it would be if it were a disam page so no one loses. If this page were to go to disam, Washington, Boston, Hollywood, Paris, London etc etc all would have to too. There would simply be no benefit to users. --LiamE 03:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As for that guy who said he used Google to look up cricket - you have terrible logic on priorities. In a similar incident I was looking up Atlas to find some maps to actually find out where my birthplace is (long story, I've moved a crazy amount of times in my life). The first hit related to some Nuclear engineering project in europe. Then a few hits later - the greek mythological figure. Then finally at some point far down the list - actual maps. By your logic we should put Atlas towards something none of us have even heard of. Instead of the other two mentioned which are probably more well known. Also in my opinion a species that has existed far longer than any country that plays a sport with the same name should take priority. Most children also read the Italian story Pinochio featuring a cricket long before they play a sport such as that. I didn't learn what that crazy looking European sport with the weird looking bats was until I was well over the age of 10.

You probably got a hit or 2 for George Headley in there too. --LiamE 00:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that Cricket should be a disambiguation page. The insect is used as often as the sport, if not more. If we use Google results as basis, apple would be about the hardware company. DHN 01:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Here here to those giving good counter-arguments on those that are anti-disambiguation. Those are both excellent examples that prove that those who say Cricket shouldn't go directly to insects. I've tried both of them myself and got both the computer company and the weird nuclear thing. Maybe we should listen to you guys - you obviously have some more logic than the others. Abrynkus 01:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

this is a stupid argument, its obvious peole will look for the sport and not the insect...more people are interested in sports then insects. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thugchildz (talk • contribs) 7 December 2006.

Excuse me were you dropped on your head as a child? It's not obvious. I never look up sports, they're freaking boring. I'd say that an incredibly boring book on bugs would be far more interesting than watching any sport such as this. Why not save your bad opinions for elsewhere? Abrynkus 01:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

i surely wasn't but you probably have thinking insects are more interesting than sports...thats why over 2 billion people or real close that watches the sport? how many billion people care about insects? either you are ignorant and dont know much about the sport but still taking shi* about it or you are one of the few wwos who think insects are interesting..there more normal people that scientists/ science interest people Thugchildz 02:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, both Abrynkus and Thugchildz, no personal attacks. Comment on the contribution, not the contributor. "Excuse me were you dropped on your head as a child?" and "either you are ignorant and dont know much about the sport but still taking shi* about it or you are one of the few wwos who think insects are interesting" are not appropriate contributions to a Wikipedia discussion page. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

History - Royal Navy

Does someone have a source for the material recently added to the History section about being the patron sport of the Royal Navy. The Australian stuff in particular seems a bit dodgy, since Captain Cook didn't land anywhere that would normally be referred to as the "north shore". JPD 16:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

On drive

Why does the image Image:Cricket shots.svg show two "off drives' but no 'on drive'? Astrokey44 05:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Certainly an error on the author's part ;) Since its an SVG image, anyone can correct the error. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
um, which side should it go on? (dont know much about cricket terms) Strange because it looks like its been edited - the font on the light blue off drive is slightly different to the rest of the writing - but the image on commons had no history Astrokey44 08:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, its fixed now. The diagram is drawn for a right-handed-batsman, for a leftie, the mirror image applies. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Is it? the image still looks the same for me Astrokey44 15:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes its corrected. You'd need to Purge the cached version. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Cricket Ball

About this caption under the cricket ball

As One-Day games are often played under floodlights, a white ball is used to aid visibility.

I thought the reason for using a white ball has to do with coloured kits. A red ball can not be distinguished from a West Indies bowler's dress for example. In England for example they can not hold day and night matches due to fog, yet in the 1999 world cup the white ball was used. I am not sure about the reason because I did not read it anywhere just heard it from someone. How is a white ball more visible than a red one under floodlights?

I think you are right that the change to a white ball generally followed the use of coloured clothing, rather than the use of floodlights. However, when a few Sheffield Shield (first class) matches were played under lights in 1998/9 and 99/00, orange balls were used,[3] suggesting that there is some sort of problem with the red ball under lights. Also, they do play day-night games in England these days. JPD 18:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
A red ball is terrible under lights. It becomes invisible against the sky when a high catch is hit, for example. I always thought the coloured kits were introduced to contrast with the ball after they found it necessary to use a white ball at night back in World Series Cricket days. But perhaps it's a combination of both reasons - the white ball solved both the problems of night visibility and visibility with coloured kits that were introduced mainly to add colour to the game. We really need a bit more research here. -dmmaus 21:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I searched it, and this [4] says "The white ball has been favoured because it is easier to see, particularly under floodlights and on television". This too [5] says "White balls are used in one-day matches ... under floodlights ... a white ball is easier to see than a red one". So the original reason has got to be the use of floodlights, being suitable with coloured kits being a side effect.

Scorers

Surely scorers deserve a mention on a Cricket page? —preceding unsigned comment by 84.92.44.41 (talk • contribs) 29 November 2005

Another cricket shot and ball being bowled

Gillies bowling
Gillies bowling
backfoot drive
backfoot drive
backfoot defence
backfoot defence

Hamedog 14:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/hamedog Here are some photos. It said up top you need some batsmen playing shots, well there you are.

Pub game

Re the categorization of cricket as a pub game: this is correct - see Pub Games of England by Timothy Finn (Oleander Press). Cricket is related to pub games such as Bat and trap and was itself a game played outside pubs (though not of course exclusively so) for a long time. Ben Finn 15:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Cricket (insect) in disambig

This situation requires something more useful to readers than a generic {{otheruses}} tag. Because a large fraction of readers are looking for the insect, it should be separately mentioned in the disambig notice, and it is not immediately obvious what is meant by the 3 words "for other uses" to non-Wikipedians. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-8 19:10

  • We discussed this a while ago, and I think the majority was in favour of what Brian's suggesting - but really this is all a storm in a teacup, and I don't think it makes too much of a difference, jguk 19:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not as concerned with having a majority of editors support my view as with readers easily finding what they're expecting. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-8 20:15
  • I agree with Brian. A link to the insect on the main Cricket page would definitely be useful to readers. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Also agree it should be in there. I think it was removed because of excessive stickliness for the "rule" about disambig links. This is a good case for where the primary disambig is common enough to justify an explicit one-click link. -dmmaus 22:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this article should be moved to Cricket (sport) and Cricket (insect) should take take precedence. There are crickets chirping away in a hundred countries, while only a dozen-or-so countries play the silly game!
I agree that the insect should take precedent. I was looking for the bug. Reboot 03:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

but take into account its by over billion of people and in 97 countries. Thugchildz

A quick look in Category:National cricket teams will reveal more than 100 cricket playing countries. Andrew nixon 01:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Cow Corner

I think it is worth providing a definition of "cow corner" somewhere along the line here. It is a term which most armchair fans may not have heard of, but is used fairly commonly by players (in Australian club cricket, at least, I hear it quite frequently).

Do you think it is deserving of it's own page? That would be helpful if we were to discuss the origin of the term. Or else we could find somewhere to embed it within one of the existing pages.

Qarnos 08:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It's already listed at List of cricket terms, complete with a possible origin. I can't see it being worth a page, but I'll set up a redirect. -dmmaus 09:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Whoops - didn't see that. Thanks. Qarnos 09:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Cricket pad

Someone on WP:AFC requested an article on this and I'm surprised I couldn't find any details about Cricket equipment in this article or anywhere else. Am I missing something? Please leave a quick note on my talk if you answer. - Mgm|(talk) 10:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Who screwed this page up? - user:JaymzSpyhunter

Batsman hitting ball...

Image:Ponting SCG 12Feb06.jpg
100px

... I noticed this pending task, so I went to Flickr and left a comment on some pictures. One of the person who read it left a picture of Mutiah Murlitharn bowling in a D/N ODI, on the cricket page (though not the full size image [6] like I wanted him to) and another person left a message that he was fine with the image being used at wikipedia [7]. Its a photograph of Ponting [8] If you use the image and have a flickr account please leave a thank you note there, with a link to let him know - or else I'll do it.

Alas, we cannot use these photos, although we'd like to. The Flickr website says the images are licensed under the creative commons non-commercial 2.0 deed. (see link at bottom of flickr screen on rhs under additional information). Non-commercial licensed images such as these need to be tagged {{Cc-by-nc-2.0}} but will be deleted - see Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Non-free_Creative_Commons_licenses. The alternative is to get the creator to upload to WP with a {{GFDL}} or {{PD-self}} or an unrestricted creative commons license like {{Cc-by-2.0}}. Otherwise, I'm fairly sure that Flickr allows the owner to change individual image or default licensing to an unrestricted cc license if he wants to. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Image:Odi_dn_gabba.jpg was relicensed here under a weaker licence, by-sa-2.5. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Probably a dual licence. GFDL goes without saying, no?!! Oh wait, by-sa2.5 is fine at wikipedia, if you want better license you can talk to him [9]
Another thing, this image here Image:Andrew-Strauss-Cricketer-detail.jpg is a nice image for "a batsman hitting a ball". You already have one. Though, the Ponting image can be used in Ponting's page. Your pending tasks with respect to images are complete now.
can these pictures be used on the cricket page for the batting section?Ricky121

one wicket win?

Does a one wicket win describe any match where the team which got more runs caught up to another team and beat it when they did it with less wickets in hand? The other day South Africa got 9/438 beating Australia's 4/434 - it just seems strange that theres a difference of 5 between them and its called a win by 1 wicket. if the no. of wickets were reversed i.e if south africa got 4/438 beating 9/434 it would have been described as a five wicket win? -- Astrokey44|talk 21:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the question you have to ask is how many more South African wickets Australia needed to take. The number of wickets Australia lost in the first innings is irrelevant. If South Africa had scored 0/438, they would have won by ten wickets. At 1/438, they would have won by nine wickets, and so on, all the way down to 9/438, i.e. their last two batsmen together, when they won by one wicket. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
ah that makes sense, thanks - does that mean the 9th match of the VB Series 2005-06 should be a win by 6 wickets not 5 (they won with 4/225) -- Astrokey44|talk 22:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Well spotted. Actually, they did win by 5 wickets because they got 224/5 not 225/4. Fixed. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Discouraging external links

People keep adding new external links, and I keep removing them: there are thousands of cricket sites, so if we add any except the very top ones, it will get completely out of hand. (See Wikipedia:External links).

To discourage people, I've borrowed an idea from the article on Google Maps, and put the following at the top of the External Links section:

<!-- ATTENTION! DO NOT ADD LINKS WITHOUT DISCUSSION ON THE TALK PAGE. THEY WILL BE REMOVED. -->

I hope that's OK with everyone.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added cricket.name link, as found it shows one view of all Internation scores around the world.

I have reverted it for the time being, please get the consensus here before readding it. Tintin (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
There are dozens of sites which do that — what's so good about this one? We already have a link to Cricinfo which has text commentary of international matches, and live scorecards of domestic matches. What additional value would your link bring? Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Crickinfo is a big site, that is disadvantage when we want to see just score. Many times when I try to access a match live on crickinfo, it becomes unavailable because of heavy traffic.They don't provide concise view of all international matches, they do commentary or scorecard of view. Which is frustating in all exciting matches because of speed or interruptions. And I am not aware of 10 other different websites that do minimal score view of all on going international series.
How about http://www.cricinfo.com/frames/desktopscores/frameset.html? Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Plank Cricket

Why is there no mention of Plank Cricket on this page? It is becoming extremely popular in England, so I feel it warrants inclusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.179.105 (talk • contribs) .

Does http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22plank+cricket%22 answer your question? See also WP:V and WP:NFT. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia in cricinfo Bibliography

http://www.cricinfo.com/columns/content/story/245528.html

Too much detail?

An anonymous editor has just re-instated the ODI top-score record which I removed as too much detail. Can we agree whether I was right to remove it, or whether the info should stay, please? My reason for deleting it is that it doesn't help to explain cricket, once we let one record in all the others will follow, and the information is easily accessible anyway by following the main article link to find List of One-day International cricket records. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed here - it's more of a thing you'd find in a "history of cricket" article. The sentence before that which is inserted is also dodgy, IMO:
The quick scoring, gravity-defying fielding and accurate bowling often necessary for success in ODI cricket often make this form more invigorating than two-innings matches
At best debatable, and certainly POV. Sam Vimes 15:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Definitely agree with RobertG, I've reverted it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with RobertG, and also with Sam. JPD (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Pitch care

I have started a page on pitch care and borrowed one of the pictures from this section.I wondered if anyone would care to look in and advise.It is in a very early stage but would really appreciate any feed back. IndianSunset 15:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Minor nations

Possibly being too pedantic but couldn't let this pass:

From the article: "It is also a prominent minor sport in countries as diverse as the Netherlands, Israel, Nepal, and Argentina"

I follow Cricket closely, and even keep an eye on minor nations. As far as I know there is only a very small scene in Argentina. Doubtless some people play Cricket in Israel, but I've heard absolutely nothing about it ever, neither have most Israelis I suspect. A link would be useful. Is calling Cricket "a prominent minor sport" in these countries damaging the sports credibility somewhat? As a Cricket fan I certainly think so. It's not as if we can't replace them. Kenya, Malaysia, The United Arab Emirates and Ireland are equally diverse. All of them have well established club competitions, and in all of them Cricket is a well known sport.

Also shouldn't the larger West Indian nations, Jamaica, Trinidad, Guyana etc. get a mention? Individually they've certainly given the Cricketing world a lot more than Zimbabwe. Or indeed Israel??!!!!???!!!!

Does anyone object to me tinkering with this paragraph a bit? As it stands its a tad misleading I think. Shane1 21:29, 07 June 2006 (UTC)

Saying a "prominent minor soprt" may be a bit misleading - it's not really clear what that means. As for the West Indian nations, they are mentioned, just not by name. Since they compete as one team, with one membership of the ICC, this is probably fair. JPD (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Continuous cricket

I notice there is no article on continuous cricket, that fun old game at school where the ball never stops moving - you hit, run (usually to one of three different locations for different numbers of runs), while the fielding team attemts to get the ball back to the bowler to bowl the next ball. If you're not there to defend your wicket, too bad. If you go out, the next player immediately comes in, and can be bowled out before facing a ball if not careful. Sometimes played with soccer ball and feet instead of bat and ball. Anyone? :) Stevage 14:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest a redirect to Beach cricket, and maybe expanding the sub-item on tip-and-run. In my culture it was called non-stop cricket. I don't think there is any room for informal forms of the game in the main article other than a one-line link. dramatic 19:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I think Stevage was only suggesting that someone right an article, not that t be included in this article. I also think it is a separate thing from beach/backyard cricket, and deserves a separate article. JPD (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Pro40?

do u think that we should make a small mention under one-day cricket pro-40. for example the article currently says:

"but the innovation was the limiting of each side's innings to an agreed number of overs (nowadays usually 50)"

and make it something along the lines of:

but the innovation was the limiting of each side's innings to an agreed number of overs. Nowadays this is usually 50 though in english domestic cricket they r "experimenting" with Pro-40 cricket. This is a limited overs match of 40 overs, with the aim of eliminating what many regard as boring sequences of play where the run rate slows; this usually occurs in the middle 10 overs of the innings. The 40 over concept is implemented with the hope of sustaining a higher run rate and to encourage the "big hitters" of the game to try for more boundaries rather than weathering this spell.

Pratj 23:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It's called Twenty20, and it's already covered, immediately below the sentence you quoted. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
No, it's 40 overs a side.[10] However, I don't think this really needs to be spelt out in the article. English domestic cricket has had a few different limited overs competitions with different length innings for a long time. The Sunday League was 40 overs until 98, and 45 overs until last year. As the article says, limited overs games can be any length, and are still usually 50 overs. JPD (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Toronto Sun

The ins and outs of cricket, by Wikipedia.

Did we write this? Much of the content is very familiar. Does "by Wikipedia" count as citation? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Diplomatic incidents

The Basil D'Oliveira affair has been added to the intro as the most notorious example of cricket giving rise to diplomatic outrage. While in a sense this is true, I think the original point of the statement concerning diplomatic outrage was that it has on occasion been caused by on-field tactics and incidents. The D'Oliveira affair was political in nature to start with, and not quite the same thing. JPD (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

England v Pakistan 4th Test incident

do u think we should add something small about the incident on 20th august when the paskistanis staged a protest by staying in their dressing room. the england batsmen and umpires returned too the field but the umpires removed the bails, thus pakistan forfeited (the first time in test match history). then the pakistan team retuned to the field; but the umpires did not, as in their eyes pakistan had forfeited.

Pratj 07:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not important enough for this article. It is covered in Pakistani cricket team in England in 2006. Tintin (talk) 07:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
To be honest the first forfiet in history is pretty important.Kearney6 07:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Of about the same importance as the first tied Test in history, which is not mentioned in the article. Current events always seem more important than they are in later context. I agree it should not be mentioned here. -dmmaus 08:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Well perhaps the first tied test should be.Kearney6 08:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
No, the article is long enough as it is. Sam Vimes | Address me 09:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Cricket page really needs to go to the insect

Cricket should definitely be reserved for the insect with a link for cricket (sport) and cricket (disambiguation) at the top of that page. I know there was a poll conducted previously and the current status is the result of that poll, but somehow certain issues were overlooked.

  1. The use of the term for the insect is the first entry in dictionaries.
  2. The use of the term for the insect predates the use of the term for the sport. The insect derives from Middle English and from Old French before that. The use of the term for the sport began in the 16th century.
  3. The insect group is worldwide in distribution and directly pertains to almost all of the 6.5 billion humans on the planet.
  4. Heavy interest in the sport is restricted to members of the Commonwealth. At most this value represents 2 billion people. None of these would be surprised to find themselves at the page for the insect when they did a search for the sport. The remaining 4.5 billion would be surprised to find themselves at a page that pertains to a sport when they went looking for an insect. This not only pertains to North Americans, but I think it particularly pertains to non-native speakers.
  5. The google test will invariably find more popularity for any sport over any animal. Google will also find that the term spears will turn up primarily sites about Britney and bush will turn up sites for George W. The web is mostly about popular culture. There are a lot more sports fans and gossip fans making and visiting websites than there are general information sites about an insect, shrub, or even a weapon.
  6. One of the primary criticisms about wikipedia is its emphasis on pop culture rather than encyclopedic content. The sport certainly belongs in an encyclopedia, but the notion that a popular sport trumps one of the most common animals in the world only plays into that stereotype.

--Aranae 04:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. As you note, the matter has already been settled. Further argument is unproductive. It seems clear you will never agree with the current consensus, and neither will the consensus change to agree with you. -dmmaus 07:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that may have come across as somewhat sarcastic - it was not intended to, I am not dismissing your opinion out of hand. I just wanted to point out that raising the issue here is extremely unlikely to result in any change. If you feel strongly enough about it to pursue it further, I suggest you will probably have to raise it for Wikipedia administrator arbitration. Arguing your points here (whatever their validity) is most likely just wasting your time. -dmmaus 08:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The real question is not "how many people are familiar with the insect or the sport?" but "what are people more likely to be searching for when they type cricket in the search box and hit Go?". It's hard to prove that, but I think it's more likely to be the sport. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's have this debate when the insect is a featured article. Sam Korn (smoddy) 09:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't it just go straight to a disambugation page? Most articles with similar names do.
Actually, I tend to agree with you. I find that tends to be more common on the articles I've tried reaching that share a common name - the disambiguation page is the first to come up. To me, insect or sport is irrelevant - the fact that it gets questioned repeatedly is a strong argument for making the disambiguation page the default. --67.168.14.198 23:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree. Usually Wikipedia prioritizes articles of the same name in a way I would expect but in this case I was very surprised to not find the insect here. I don't see why it matters that this is a featured article. Owen 21:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Hah hah hah hah. Here we go again. If there was a bug called the baseball do you think that should take precedence over a sport that attracts massive interest from millions? Google cricket for heavens sake. Last time I looked the insect is lucky to get a single hit in the top 100. Bear in mind that the numbers of English speaking people that follow cricket dwarfs ALL others sports bar football - and possibly even that too due to the vast number of cricket fans in the subcontinent where it is almost a religion. And by that I mean association football. For every time someone types in cricket meaning the bug there will have been 1000 looking at the sport. Try going to the the cricket article and clicking the what links here button... --LiamE 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I feel like another laugh. I'll take on the arguments one at a time.

  1. The use of the term for the insect is the first entry in dictionaries. -- Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
  2. The use of the term for the insect predates the use of the term for the sport. The insect derives from Middle English and from Old French before that. The use of the term for the sport began in the 16th century. -- And? if first use has anything to do with it you better go point the Paris article at the Greek hero. Oh and just a few placenames in the USA have European precursors. Boston for instance would point at that lovely Lincolnshire town. How about Washington? Wikipedia is not a game of who got there first.
  3. The insect group is worldwide in distribution and directly pertains to almost all of the 6.5 billion humans on the planet. -- Funny how they are all called grasshoppers round here. But I digress, English language wikipedia article naming is determined by those that speak English which as you point out yourself below is not 6.5 billion but perhaps 2 billion or so - the VAST majority of whom live in cricket playing nations.
  4. Heavy interest in the sport is restricted to members of the Commonwealth. At most this value represents 2 billion people. None of these would be surprised to find themselves at the page for the insect when they did a search for the sport. The remaining 4.5 billion would be surprised to find themselves at a page that pertains to a sport when they went looking for an insect. This not only pertains to North Americans, but I think it particularly pertains to non-native speakers. -- English Wikipedia is here exactly for the 2 billion not for the other 4.5. Most of the people that speak English as a first or second language live in what could be described as the commonwealth countries. The English language was spread around the world by the British along with cricket. The 2 overlap VERY heavily.
  5. The google test will invariably find more popularity for any sport over any animal. Google will also find that the term spears will turn up primarily sites about Britney and bush will turn up sites for George W. The web is mostly about popular culture. There are a lot more sports fans and gossip fans making and visiting websites than there are general information sites about an insect, shrub, or even a weapon. -- So by your own admission more people using the web will be interested in the sport. Good argument.
  6. One of the primary criticisms about wikipedia is its emphasis on pop culture rather than encyclopedic content. The sport certainly belongs in an encyclopedia, but the notion that a popular sport trumps one of the most common animals in the world only plays into that stereotype. -- Got a source for those critisms? I think you'll find that being populist does not detract for its usefulness in any way whatsoever. In fact its a veritable asset. 1000's of people contribute to 1000's of cricket articles here and 1000's more read them, the same simply cannot be said of the bugs article can it? Are you by any chance a zoologist or something with a blunt axe to grind? --LiamE 22:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The 2 billion people in the Commonwealth pretty much make up the entire English-speaking world. Your argument about the other 4.5 billion being stumped when they search "cricket" on Wikipedia is poor given that the USA is the only English-speaking country that doesn't care about cricket at all. Please do not be ignorant about the fact that the other 85% of English Wikipedia users, all of whom live outside the USA, think of "cricket" immediately as a sport. --mdmanser 22:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm Canadian, and when I think of cricket, I think of the insect. Please do not be so ignorant about the fact that many English speakers outside the USA think of cricket as something other than a game.24.199.116.142 15:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Cricket isn't the national sport over there, but it is certainly gaining popularity. I do apologise for my mistake if you believe it to be so. I'll amend the percentage to say that 83% of English Wikipedia users, all of whom live outside the USA, think of "cricket" immediately as a sport. --mdmanser 10:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Powerplay?

The above to-do list requested information for "Powerplay". That's a piece of info specific to ODIs, shouldn't it be included in the One-day international page instead of the main-page here (which it already is)?--Alexio 11:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the one day section could do with including a mention of fielding restrictions in general, as another difference between the limited overs game and the longer form. This could include a link to powerplay. I am not happy with the change that I must have missed at one poin, restricting the forms of cricket section to international cricket. At least a paragraph on how it is played at lower levels was a good thing. JPD (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
How about something like: "The ICC introduced various playing conditions to increase the attacking nature of limited-overs cricket, such as fielding restrictions and the Powerplay." If this looks ok feel free to whack it in. As for the description being limited to international cricket, I hear ya, but I can't figure out how to fix it yet without exceeding my daily coffee limit, so I'll leave it to the learned :)--Alexio 14:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Indoor Cricket

Pretty confident that indoor cricket isn't a rouse, not sure but seemed like a ligit add, probably would need a cite for most people to believe, yet most people are stupid.Kearney6 04:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the information about indoor cricket that was added should cite references whether it is believable or not. More to the point is the fact that indoor cricket is so different from the forms of cricket mentioned that it doesn't really belong in that list. JPD (talk) 10:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Confusing language?

I found part of the following sentence hard to follow: "If the team batting last reaches their target, they are said to have won by n wickets, where n is the number of wickets the opposition still needed to take in order to dismiss them." I got stuck on the word "target". Would it make more sense to say: "If the team batting last gets ahead on total runs, they are said to have won by n wickets, where n is the number of wickets the opposition still needed to take in order to dismiss them." Thanks. --Rhurwitz 20:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a preceding sentence defining the use of target would achieve the same result? Lisiate 21:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

My first thought was to go to the Cricket Terminology page and lookup "target", thinking it was a term of art. Since there was no definition for it on that page, I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that it was a usage issue and not a terminology one. --Rhurwitz 21:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)