Talk:Cricket/Archive 12

Please add note on composition of ball

I was surprised to see in Bodyline that it's possible for a cricketer to have his skull fractured by being hit by the ball. Cricket explains that the bat is made of wood and that "the hardness of the ball, which can be delivered at speeds of more than 90mph, is a matter for concern", but does not specify the composition of the ball (solid wood? hard rubber? stuffed leather? depeleted uranium?). Please add a note on this to the article. Thanks much. -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Try cricket ball, which is linked in the opening of the Bodyline article. David Underdown (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. We should (quite obviously IMHO) link to cricket ball from the mention of the ball in this article Cricket (why wasn't this done already?).

It could also hardly hurt to include some brief mention of its composition here. -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There is already a description of the ball in the section entitled "Bat and ball". BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The description under "Bat and ball" does not describe the composition of the ball, only that it is leather-seamed. Is it leather all the way through, or have a cork or wooden inner, or what? Cathi M (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

A cricket ball has a cork core that is wrapped tightly with leather and stitched together with a slightly raised sewn seam. Red balls are used in the five day format, but white balls are usually used in day-night matches. This is because red balls are much harder to pick up under lights. In men's cricket, the ball must weigh between 5.5 and 5.75 ounces and measure between 8 13/16th and 9 inches in circumference. Also, Cricket Australia are experimenting with pink leather balls since they offer better visibility under flood lights as well in day night matches. Test or five day matches can then be played under lights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roopk005 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Cricket: state of play

I've gone through the former version and extracted anything I believe to be relevant into the new one. For now, I can't think of anything else that could usefully be included in terms of structure and we must bear in mind the criticism about too many sections and sub-sections previously.

I've tried to tidy up the placing of images and ensure that the ones used are relevant to the content. Again, we need to bear in mind the criticism that far too many images were used previously.

I would say the article is now at the high end of start-class and very close to being B-class again. What it needs are inline citations in all sections and I haven't time to do that for the moment. I have provided many more than were there previously but we need a consistent spread of references throughout the article. If we can accomplish that, I would rate it as B-class again and then we can think about how to fine-tune it for a higher rating.

Thanks to Andrew for his feedback and to Dweller for his initiative. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

One way to improve the article is with respect to the term "overs." It seems to be important, but is not defined. Frank Lynch (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the over is already defined. "The bowler bowls the ball in sets of six deliveries (or "balls") and each set of six balls is called an over." Elostirion (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right, but the first mention of overs is in paragraph four, before they are defined. Frank Lynch (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Cricket: batting gloves

If you put "batting gloves" in the search box wikipedia only links to an article on baseball gloves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnybriggs (talk • contribs) 20:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I could determine from a quick search, through some oversight there seems to be no article on cricket batting gloves. JH (talk page) 20:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"Old Flemish"

Let's use exact terminology. It is a popular misconception to think that Old Flemish is any different from Old Dutch. Flemish is colloquial for Belgian Dutch and is thus linguistically meaningless. Academic literature overwhelmingly agrees. The fact that some sources (no matter how numerous these are) use incorrect or inexact terminology is no reason for wikipedia to copy this blindly, even if in this case it is a common mistake. We can keep the source concerning the etymology but we should use scientific vocabulary. When I corrected it, I did not even go far enough: Old Dutch (wrongly "Old Flemish") ceased to exist in the 12th century. Correct would therefore be "Middle Dutch". Even more reassuring is that the dialect of the County of Flanders was by far the most important contributor to Middle Dutch. So let's keep the source, but correct its terminology. ---Roofbird (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I corrected it again, citing different sources. All use "Middle Dutch". The source of the Bonn professor does not literally say it comes from Old Flemish but that the Flemings played a similar game. When saying their language (refering to "the Flemish"), he actually means the Dutch language. Hereby I think all is clear. Regards, --Roofbird (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Utterly agree with Roofbird. "Old Flemish" is nonsense. --Hooiwind (talk) 07:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we discuss this at WT:CRIC. Leave it with me and I'll set something up but I'm afraid I must log off for now. Regards. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually there's no need to discuss it further. Having read Middle Dutch and spoken to a friend who is into medieval languages, I now accept that this was the language of Flanders when it belonged to the Duchy of Burgundy. I've reverted all three articles back to a clean copy and then edited out "Old Flemish" with an additional footnote to explain that Middle Dutch was the language spoken in Flanders. Some of your edits left the reference structure of History of cricket to 1725 in a bit of a mess and you also introduced a dating error, which is why I went back to much earlier versions in all three cases.

I'm glad we've been able to resolve the problem. One of the early cricket writers probably assumed that Flemish people spoke a Flemish language and, as is the way of these things, his successors repeated his mistake. All the best. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 16:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for causing problems with the syntax. Now this question is resolved, we can all live happily ever after. Cheers! --Roofbird (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Cricket 'was invented in Belgium' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7919429.stm Bihco (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A theory like many others that have gone before. I must admit that I laughed when I learned an Australian was involved - no disrespect intended. David T Tokyo (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Frankly a theory that bases itself entirely on a single poem's relatively vague reference to cricket really should not be taken too seriously if you ask me, especially when it contradicts all that is known from other sources before it. Elostirion (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The Belgian theory is, for now, no more than a speculative theory. It's notable, and should be included, but it's certainly not definitive and should not be treated as such in a serious reference work. --Dweller (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

David Frith agrees that it is significant. It's also the oldest attestation by over half a century. (The poem was published ca 1533, and so must have been older, though perhaps not by much.) kwami (talk) 11:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No-one disputes it's significant and interesting. It's just very much far from definitive proof of anything and it's certainly highly speculative. --Dweller (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's put things into perspective. This is one research paper with two authors. Yes, it's a significant find, but it relates more to the word cricket, which we already thought originated in Belgium. Nothing has really changed over the origins of the sport itself. Let's see more research on this before we all start saying that the sport of cricket is of Belgian origin. I suspect that this is nothing more than a press release issued by a couple of people trying to promote their research which the press, as usual, have jumped on without thinking about it in search of a story. Let's not get carried away with the latest fad. Andrew nixon (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, i won't contest it if you revert or tone it down. kwami (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see it's already included under the History section. Are you saying that further references are necessary? David T Tokyo (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion regarded whether or not to include the claim, prominently in the Lead. --Dweller (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought so - and, in which case, no. Its inclusion elsewhere within the article has already given it status. However, there needs to be much wider acceptance of this theory before it is highlighted in the lead as a established alternative as to how cricket originated.David T Tokyo (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The Flemish origin theory is *not* based on a single reference in the 1533/4 poem "Image of Ipocrisie" (and the poem is not by John Skelton, who died in 1529 whereas internal evidence ties the poem to 1533/4, although it was republished in a book of Skelton's poems with a caveat). The Flemish origin theory is due to Dr Heiner Gillmeister of the English Department at the University of Bonn, and the various lines of evidence are well summarised in the extended introduction to the book The Language of Cricket by John Eddowes. It actually has quite a lot going for it, so I've simply changed the reference about the theory to point to Eddowes' book rather than the poem. The poem has no bearing on the theory, for the relevant lines insult the Pope, not migrant Flemish weavers (contrary to media reports in February/March 2009). Those lines come from part 2 of the poem subtitled "Against the Pope" and run: Arte thou the hiest pryst/ And vicar unto Christ?/ No, no I say, thou lyest!/ Thou art a cursed crekar/ A crafty upp-crepar/ Thou art the devil's vicar!/ A privye purse pikar/ By lawes and by rites/ For sowles and for sprites:/ O lord of Ipocrites/ Nowe shut upp your wickettes/ And clape to your clickettes/ A! Farewell, kinge of crekettes!/ For now the tyme falls/ To speak of Cardinalles... (Poetical works of John Skelton, ed. Alexander Dyce, London 1843). Note the singular "kinge" (not "kings") of crekettes. Although the juxtaposition of "wickettes" and "crekettes" is striking, both have non-sporting meanings, and no Renaissance Pope is known to have had any interest in or knowledge of the game of cricket, so it is far from clear that this is even a reference to the game - AG, Stockport, UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm..

Not even a single picture from Asia in this article. And some blame India for misusing its clout in cricket... --128.211.201.161 (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of unbiased representation, I suggest one image each from England, Australia, South Africa, West Indies, India and Pakistan. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 04:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment. The trouble with images is always the copyright factor. If you have any suitably relevant images that can be inserted into an appropriate section, it will help aas the article still needs a lot of work doing. Thanks. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"The match is won by the team that scores more runs"

Incorrect. True for limited over competitions but untrue for 3 or 5 day competitions where it is perfectly possible to score more runs and only draw the match. David T Tokyo (talk) 06:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point. I've amended the paragraph as follows to try and remove the ambiguity although I wouldn't want to go into too much detail at that stage of the article:

"In simple terms, the objects of each team are to score more "runs" than the other team and to completely "dismiss" the other team. In one form of cricket, winning the game is achieved by scoring the most runs, even if the opposition has not been completely dismissed. In another form, it is necessary to score the most runs and dismiss the opposition in order to win the match, which would otherwise be drawn."

See what you think. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's difficult to explain... Even if I think it is too early in the article to speak about declaration (in that paragraph), it is possible to win the match without dismissing the opposition, if the later has previously declared! Why not "In another form, it is necessary to score the most runs and that the innings of the opposition are completed, generally meaning that they have been dismissed" or something like that? OrangeKnight (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Blackjack. I think it's difficult to get too much into this area without also alluding to the fact that there are different types of cricket. My suggestion would be to keep it at a very basic level (allowing fuller explanations to be placed elsewhere on the page) by including the following paragraph somewhere in the Lead:

"There are several variations as to how long a game of cricket can last. In professional cricket this can be anything from a match limited to 20 overs per side to a game played over 5 days. Depending on the length of the game being played, there are different rules that govern how a game is won, lost, drawn or tied."

Thoughts? David T Tokyo (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It's also possible for the team scoring the most runs to lose the match - i.e. when Duckworth Lewis comes into play for interrupted games. A very recent case in point is the 4th ODI match in the 7-match series between India and England, on 23 November 2008 at Bangalore. It was shortened to 22 overs per team, and India won by 19 runs, having first scored 166/4, with England replying with 178/8 against a par score of 198 to win / 197 to draw. --ikrip (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, as a Yank with limited knowledge of cricket, I don't get this business of "target score" or "par score" and I don't find any explanation here other articles here. I think it needs further explanation, or if such exists here on Wikipedia, perhaps one can direct me. Wschart (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The official version

The Marylebone Cricket Club are the official custodians of the Laws of Cricket. Law 21 (The Result)[1] defines a result in the following way:

1. A Win - two innings match

The side which has scored a total of runs in excess of that scored in the two completed innings of the opposing side shall win the match. Note also 6 below.

A forfeited innings is to count as a completed innings. See Law 14 (Declaration and forfeiture).

2. A Win - one innings match The side which has scored in its one innings a total of runs in excess of that scored by the opposing side in its one completed innings shall win the match. Note also 6 below.

3. Umpires awarding a match (a) A match shall be lost by a side which either (i) concedes defeat or (ii) in the opinion of the umpires refuses to play and the umpires shall award the match to the other side.

(b) If an umpire considers that an action by any player or players might constitute a refusal by either side to play then the umpires together shall ascertain the cause of the action. If they then decide together that this action does constitute a refusal to play by one side, they shall so inform the captain of that side. If the captain persists in the action the umpires shall award the match in accordance with (a)(ii) above.

(c) If action as in (b) above takes place after play has started and does not constitute a refusal to play (i) playing time lost shall be counted from the start of the action until play recommences, subject to Law 15.5 (Changing agreed times for intervals). (ii) the time for close of play on that day shall be extended by this length of time, subject to Law 3.9 (Suspension of play for adverse conditions of ground, weather or light). (iii) if applicable, no overs shall be deducted during the last hour of the match solely on account of this time.

4. A Tie The result of a match shall be a Tie when the scores are equal at the conclusion of play, but only if the side batting last has completed its innings.

5. A Draw

A match which is concluded, as defined in Law 16.9 (Conclusion of match), without being determined in any of the ways stated in 1, 2, 3 or 4 above, shall count as a Draw.

When I played the game as a boy, I was always taught: "The winner is the team that dismisses the opposition twice (with a declaration counting as the team dismissing itself)"

I am not sure of the protocol with respect to including something like the above, but I throw it open to discussion as to whether we should use the official definition. MrFadedGlory (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)MrFadedGlory

Dismissal

"Note that it is usually the striker who is out when a dismissal occurs but the non-striker can be dismissed, invariably by being run out." Not invariably as htb, otf and timed out can also affect the non-striker. Article is protected for some reason.

It is invariably in practice because those other three instances, though quite valid, are extremely rare. I'll reword and change "invariably" to "usually" which is a better choice of word. The article is protected because of recent vandalism by a handful of infants who like to show us all how mature they are. Thanks for your feedback which is useful. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I reworded it as follows:

In the vast majority of cases, it is the striker who is out when a dismissal occurs. If the non-striker is dismissed it is usually by being run out, but he could also be dismissed for hit wicket, obstructing the field, handling the ball or being timed out.

The non-striker can also be out for hit wicket, though again this is rare. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? I'd already removed the reference to hit wicket before reading your commont. I thought a batsman could only be out hit wicket in the instance of playing a stroke (to include taking evasive action), and by definition that can only be the striker. A hit wicket dismissal is credited to the bowler, which would make no sense for a dismissal of the non-striker. JH (talk page) 10:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Playing a stroke or setting off for the first run I believe, so the second option could presumably be applied to the non-striker. David Underdown (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

However, checking the laws (!), they state "The striker is out Hit wicket[...]", and there is no reference to this law being applicable to the non-striker. David Underdown (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure now. What decision is given if the non-striker somehow hits the wicket with his bat, falls onto it, runs into it, etc.? Surely he would be out? But he has not actually been run out if he has broken the wicket. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 17:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Not out (unless he deliberately threw his bat at the wicket). A book I've got at home somewhere describes an incident when Barrie Leadbeater was umpiring a county match. The striker played the ball, and set off for a run before realising a sharp peice of fielding would leave him in trouble. The batsman turned to get back into his crease, as he did so the bat slipped out of his hand and broke the wicket. The fielder returned the ball which hit the stumps. The fielding side appealed and Leadbetter ruled not out. The batsman was not out Hit Wicket since he was neither playing a shot, nor setting off for the first run (but rather attemtping to return to the crease), he could not be out Run Out, since the wicket was already broken. Nor was he out Obstructed the Field, since the act of the bat slipping from his hand was not deliberate. David Underdown (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You can still be out run out if the wicket is already broken. If the bails are off you knock a stump down, if the stumps are down you pick one up and hold the ball to it. --LiamE (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, well. You learn something every day. I suppose the law as written does actually imply a not out in that circumstance because it talks about the striker making a stroke and it is when the ball is in play. It must be an extremely rare occurrence for the non-striker to break his wicket. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we don't go into too much detail about the methods of dismissal for an article that it presumably aimed primarily at those unfamiliar with the game. I think we could be in danger of putting them off. It might be better only to cover the main forms of dismissal: bowled, caught, lbw, stumped, run out and perhaps hit wicket, and then say that there are some other - very rare - forms of dismissal, providing the appropriate links to where descriptions of them can be found. Even for the ones we do cover, I think the descriptions could perhaps be simplified, again with links to fuller descriptions. Alternatively the detail could be relegated to footnotes. JH (talk page) 10:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Under what legislation is the 11th man out? if it is not one of the aforementioned 10 ways of being out then surely there must be 11 ways to be ruled out! Just a thought... Chilkoot (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Number 11 in the batting order can be out in any of the normal ways of being out. If you mean the 11th man after the other ten have been dismissed, then he obviously is not out. Andrew nixon (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean but he must be out as he cannot bat anymore so to refer you to my original point... under what rule is he out? Chilkoot (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

He's not out - the last batsman is always referred to as such. He can't bat anymore because there's no-one for him to bat with, you must always have a batsman at each end of the pitch, so his side's innings is over. David Underdown (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So why do the score cards at the end of a game say "All Out" if they are not all out? There must be a rule to say he cannot bat anymore or am i missing the point here... Just to point out that I argued this question in a pub quiz about the 10 ways of being out at cricket.... nearly caused a pub brawl but my point is under what rule is the 11th man out? ... Can anyone quote me the rule please... that's all I need to know. Cheers and all the very best and keep up the good Wiki work ... Chilkoot (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The side is "all out" because they have no else left to go in. The final man is always "not out". The rule is that he must have someone to bat with so the innings is completed, but he is not dismissed. It's just a quirk of terminology. David Underdown (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you sir ... you cleared it up for me .. cheers. Chilkoot (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Tom Smith / Laws / Umpiring / Scoring

Is it worth mentioning the indispensable Tom Smith's New Cricket Umpiring and Scoring [2]? --ikrip (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)--Ikrip 23:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC).

There is no mention of Penalty runs in Extras section.

possibilities to win a cricket match

Dear all
 Any one of you kindly answer my following questions.
 1.3 balls yet to be bowled
 2.7 runs to win the match 
 3.2 batsmen who have scored 94 notout

What are all the possibilities to win the match, and the both batsmen get century and the batting team win the match

send me the answers immediately

thanks Muralidaran.M —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.134.248.246 (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, but as you're new, I'll give you the answer. Batsmen 1 hits a six, bringing the scores level. He then goes for a single from the next ball but is either run out or caught with the batsmen crossing, bringing batsman 2 on strike who then hits a six to win the game. I've also removed your e-mail address - never a good idea to put it on a site as popular as this one if you want to avoid spam. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sections as separate articles

Just a small query: There may be a good reason for this, but why are some of the sections cut-down versions of separate articles? Namely: Dismissals, Innings closed and Results. Can't the separate articles be included in the main article, making it one piece? Perhaps it has been done this way because the separate articles were written by different people? --ikrip | talk page

It's more to do with article size limitations than anything else. For example, dismissals is already a sizeable article and potentially has scope for further expansion. The purpose of cricket is to provide a necessary introduction to the sport which must include at least a definition of each type of dismissal (and result, extras, etc.) but without going into too much detail. The detail can be found via a link to the specific article (in theory!). Hope this helps. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. (Apologies for not signing my original query - have done so now.) --ikrip | talk page 07:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

More generally, it's called WP:Summary style. David Underdown (talk) 10:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Gonads

"... and a "box" inside the trousers (for the more delicate part of the anatomy)."

I so want to remove this and replace it with something that just isn't so goddamn British, but I'm so taken aback by its PC nature that I don't know if I'd be violating someone's attempt at encyclopedicality. But I mean, come on. Seriously? Dextrose (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It did need rewording but surely even a goddamn American can see it was a joke (admittedly a very tired one). Why not just be WP:BOLD and make the change without making a scene? ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted. I'll try to be more goddamn bold from now on. Dextrose (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'll take a look at that. --Dweller (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be wrong to replace it with something that isn't so goddamn British, see: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Strong_national_ties_to_a_topicPRB (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Good one.  ;-) ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

... but cricket ceased to be British long time ago :-) Rest day (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but Cricket is British. Well, it's in British English :-) --Dweller (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Defualt cricket article

I think that maybe the insect's article should be "cricket", and this one should be "cricket (sport)". I'm a 33 year old American who's known what crickets were as long as he can remember, but I only just stumbled on this article now and learned that cricket is not in fact the same game as croquet, and I don't recognize anything I see in the pictures. -- AvatarMN (talk) 08:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You might want to have a look through the archives, where this has been discussed several times before. The conclusion in every case has been that the primary usage of cricket in the English language (not just American English) is for the sport, hence Cricket goes directly to the sport and at the top it has a link to the article for the insect along with a link to the disambiguation page for other uses. Andrew nixon (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Page views for the sport and the Orthopteran. Hope this helps. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the proposed move for the reasons I've previously typed here on too many occasions.

This is a FAQ, so it might be helpful if we could add a box to the top of this page, with links to all the various discussions of this page move proposal, in the way we do with old AfD noms? Does anyone have the technical skills to do it? --Dweller (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I'm fairly certain that everyone knows what the insects are, and probably mostly only the British know what the game is, so believe it would be reasonable to think that the insect is known among a much larger number of worldwide English speakers. Obviously the game would generate more passion and interest than the insect, leading to page views. As would the fact that the game is the default so anyone looking for the insect would be forced here first. But if this issue has been brought up many times, I'll concede it. -- AvatarMN (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Click the image for the key

The article's currently in poor condition, as it's being massively reworked, so there's no way you'd know it but cricket is a game of massive world interest, not just British. See the map I've posted for more information... it's buried at the foot of the article. You've inspired a proposed improvement to the article - see the next subsection - so thanks! --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Dweller, cricket is one of the most global sports in existence, without meaning any disrespect I think it is less "mostly only the British know what the game it" and more "America is one of the countries of the minority who don't know much about cricket" :) SGGH ^speak! 12:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added a FAQ for it, so hopefully it will be clearer in the future, feel free to tinker with it :) SGGH ^speak! 12:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If that map indicates a relative awareness of cricket, it would indicate that the USA is one of the countries who have a second-level awareness of it, rather than the virtually nil awareness it actually has. It gives the appearance that America is as aware of cricket as Ireland and Scotland, which can't be true. Virtually everyone must know the insect, so it does feel kind of odd to me that the consensus seems to be that '"only" the most most populous English-speaking nation and third most populous nation overall isn't aware of it, so it's more known than the insect. People care about the sport more, it gives them an inflated idea of it's importance, and apparently that's kept the insect from winning requests for move. Everyone who knoes what the game is knows what the insect is, and on top of that so does the third most populous nation and most populous English-speaking nation. But I, like everyone else, don't really care that much about crickets so this'll be it from me...  ;) -- AvatarMN (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The map shows affiliation to the International cricket council. --Dweller (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You might also be interested in the more to the point (and close to Featured quality) List article, List of International Cricket Council members --Dweller (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be pedantic, but what's your sample size to say that awareness of cricket in America is virtually nil? There are plenty of leagues, and while the game may not enjoy as high a profile as baseball etc, there is still enough interest in American cricket for a competent, though troubled, national team. As for an inflated importance, the sport was arguably a factor in ending apartheid in South Africa. Nev1 (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Affiliation to the international cricket council doesn't say anything about the general awareness of the sport in those countries. The number of page visits of the insect vs. the sport especially means nothing when the default has been set to the sport. My guess that awareness of cricket in America is exceptionally low is based only on the fact that I'm a very ordinary, average American of 33 years of age, and thought it was the same game as croquet until yesterday. However famous cricket may be, the issue is whether or not crickets are even more famous, especially among English speakers. Does anyone argue that it's not likely that every English speaker who knows the sport also knows the insect? Does anyone argue that America has an exceptionally low awareness of the sport? Does anyone argue that most Americans are aware of the insect? Does anyone argue that America is not the most populous English speaking country? -- AvatarMN (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The number of page visits of the insect vs. the sport means something even if the default has been set to the sport. In November, 150000+ people have visited this one, and "only" 25000+ have visited the page on the insect. That is to say, even if everyone who wanted to visit the insect page first went on the sport one, 125000+ people wanted to see the sport page. OrangeKnight (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Your arguement still appears to revolve around the fact that Americans aren't particularly aware of the sport of cricket. Remember, Americans constitute a minority of the world, and I would hazard to guess that those who are aware of cricket actually form a larger population. It is the number one sport in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Carribean and possibly Zimbabwe, ranking joint first with Rugby in Australia and New Zealand and arguably England. It is one of the oldest national sports of many of those nations, and its cultural impact around the world is significant given its affiliation with the Empire. Furthermore, I suspect that the input into the international community of cricket as a sport far outweighs that of the insect. Also, I would not argue that America has an exceptionally low awareness of the sport. My partner lives in New England, and there is a strong awareness of it there, and particularly in New York City, and America began playing cricket many many years ago. Also, your statement that "America is not the most populous English speaking country" is something I would take issue with, as the populations of all the non-English speaking countries who play full Test cricket would most certainly out-number that of the USA (which, as I have said, does not have the exceptionally low awareness of cricket that you suggest).

All in all, I would find it very difficult to imagine that when people search for cricket on wikipedia they mean the insect more than the sport. That's my several cents anyway :) SGGH ^speak! 20:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A sample size of one is a poor model for a country of 300,000 people. 300,000 out of a world of 6.5 billion is only a minority, and just because en.wikipedia is English speaking doesn't mean it should have an American bias. I came across something which I think puts into words why the sport is more important than the insect: "Cricket often stands for something beyond itself. It has been the symbol of an empire and the symbol of the colonies striking back. Cricket matches are seldom bereft of symbolic content; the baggage of history ensures that. No India-Pakistan series, for example, can ever be about the cricket alone. The game takes the shape of the vessel it is poured into - the vessel made from the prevailing political and social thinking of the period. Today in India it stands for anti-terrorism. It is a heavy responsibility". [3] Nev1 (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose yet again. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Really, my arguement doesn't hinge on America's ignorance of the sport so much as our relative ignorance to the sport and our complete awareness of the insect. Seriously, everyone who knows what the sport is also knows what the insect is, plus a whole lot more. However important, widely known, and notable the sport is, which is surely a lot more than I realized, the insect has even wider awareness. -- AvatarMN (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I dunno - there may be a billion or so people on and around the Indian subcontinent who don't know the word "cricket" for the insect, but are highly aware of the sport, but even if you ignore that argument, the case is what people are most likely to be searching for. Page views and edit counts both show the sport easily dominates the insect. --Dweller (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

For god's sake, Indians don't speak English. This is the English Wikipedia. -- AvatarMN (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

A lot of this rests on what are people likely to be search for when they type Cricket into the search box. Previous discussions, if you'd care to read them, have all come to the consensus that it's more than likely to be the sport. In addition to the several English speaking countries where the sport is going to be the primary usage, there are several people for whom English is a second language (eg. India and Pakistan) who are more likely to be looking for the sport. I'd say that people looking for information on the insect are more likely to type "crickets", as the insect is almost always in the plural form, whilst the sport is always the singular. Indeed, Crickets DOES redirect to Cricket (insect). For those looking for information on the insect who do type "cricket", the first link they'll see in the article is for the insect article, which is what it would be if Cricket redirected to a disambiguation page. Andrew nixon (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It isn't that people know the insect more often than the sport, it is that the majority of the dicussion involving the term "cricket" in the world will be discussing the sport, as more people discuss and refer to the sport than discuss and refer to the insect, as it is a larger entity. SGGH ^speak! 22:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

For god's sake, Dweller, Indians don't speak English. This is the English Wikipedia. Whatevs. -- AvatarMN (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, English is one of the two official languages of India and around 90 million people there speak it as a first or second language. Try getting your facts straight. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

According to our articles, taking India, Bangladesh and Pakistan alone (because they're Test-playing countries) there's 109m-118m English speakers, depending on how you interpret the statistics.

But really, as I said above, less relevant than that is the number of people choosing either to view or edit the two articles. --Dweller (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Indians don't speak English? Have you actually ever met any Indians Avatr MN? Do you know anything of its culture or history? The idea that because you personally don't know much about cricket means the whole article must be renamed is rather illogical. Why don't you just read the article? Learning new things is what wikipedia is all about. This whole topic has been debated many times, usually by people who didn't bother to read the past debates before starting it all over again. Cricket is a major world sport, watched and played by numbers which dwarf that of, to pick a random example, baseball. There doesn't seem any likelihood that this article is going to be moved. Nick mallory (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Im not sure if rugby and cricket are the most popular sports in england. im pretty sure association football is way more popular than both in England. Second, cricket was an insect before it was a game. third, im not sure how much the numbers of people who watch and play cricket "dwarf" those of people who watch and play baseball. The US, Japan, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. are all countries were baseball is more popular than cricket. Even cricket playing nations like south africa, australia, and the netherlands sent teams to the world baseball classic (baseball's world cup). Baseball's world series draws high numbers of worldwide viewers that challenge or maybe even surpass any single test series. Please don't base arguments on specious logic and your own conclusions. base them on facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eper1709 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How many teams participate in the world baseball classic? I can't find anything to suggest that more than 16 countries are involved at any stage in the competition, whereas around 100 participate in qualification for the Cricket World Cup (including the USA). 91.109.153.157 (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

-The World Baseball Classic does have 16 participants. According to Wikipedia, the Cricket World Cup has 19 participants. Thats pretty close. Im not arguing the merits of one vs, the other, I was just disappointed to see a cricket fan feel the need to deride a sport I love for the sake of argument, without fact or statistic to back it up. This entire discussion displays ignorance and bias, and Im really sorry to see that. I checked this discussion out because I remember wanting to learn about the sport some time ago and seeing Cricket (insect) was the default page. I wanted to find something else about the sport out, and I noticed it became the default page. I got my answer, and it makes sense, but I am saddened to see so many Brits use this discussion as a forum for anti-American sentiments, particularly given the long relationship between the two nations. And yes, Indians do speak English, and I know that. However, there are crickets (insect) in Asia, so im sure many Indians also know what the insect is. Also, cricket has been referred to as the number one sport in the Carribean, when in fact baseball and association football could very well be. Its also not the most popular sport in England. Football is, and the stats prove it. Im from New York City and I've never seen anyone play cricket here, so im not sure how 'well known' it is here. I know one trinidadian who occasionally watches matches on satelite televsion, wheres baseball is played, watched, and discussed everywhere in nyc. The experience of reading this page made me very angry. Im not even patriotic, but hearing america and basball derided repeatedly really got under my skin. On the baseball discussion page, i didnt see anything anti-british, criticising the legacy of coloniaslim, imperialsim, margaret thatcher, etc. Yet this discussion is full of spurious anti-american and anti-baseball rants. If thats what cricket represents, then im glad its not more popular in my country. Shame shame, cricketers.

Erm 91 countries played in the last world cup and its qualifiers. --LiamE (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The Cricket world cup has 19 participants in the finals, after 72 have been eliminated in qualification. The world baseball classic doesn't have a qualifying competition. The fact is, the popularity of cricket around the world does dwarf that of baseball, whether you like to hear it or not. 86.21.225.156 (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Article lead

I suggest that the article should be opening with the tiniest of descriptions (team game/bat and ball game) followed by an assertion of notability.

Currently, you could read a long way down the article and think it's no more significant than tiddlywinks or, indeed, croquet as mentioned by the editor in the section above this.

We could find RS to show it's one of the longest-standing organised sports, or a sport played at international level since xxxx, or estimates suggest it's played by xxxxxxx, or popular in xxxxxxx countries around the world, or with ICC teams representing xxx countries etc.

Thoughts? --Dweller (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources for most of those things will be pretty easy to find. To show that it's one of the longest-standing organised sports, references to the umpteen books on the early history of cricket would do the job. An easy reference is the scorecard for the first international match (in any sport!) between the USA and Canada in 1844 is the scorecard for that match. Number of ICC members is an obvious reference from the ICC site. Playing numbers are a little more tricky, and I'd leave out anything to do with popularity for reasons discussed previously. Andrew nixon (talk) 10:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on playing numbers... perhaps the number of current first-class/List A players around the world might be derivable from one of the stats sites? --Dweller (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I've made a clumsy start. Help welcomed. A lot of the detail below this in the Lead needs to be hived off to the main body. --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPORTS and the article lead

I've added the WP:SPORTS banner to this page and have to say I'm amazed it wasn't already done, but then I read the item somewhere above about cricket being "unknown" in America (which is nonsense because it was first played there in colonial days). America, the place which has had George W Bush in charge for eight years, where some people think cricket is croquet and where some people think English isn't spoken on the sub-continent!!

What does George Bush have to do with cricket? Your anti-american, neo imperialsim doesn't belong here!

No matter. Turning to the article lead topic immediately above, I think it is clumsy to say that cricket "originated in England, possibly as early as 1300, and is now played in more than 100 countries" followed by a citation request. I've read the whole article and your citation is given in the current footnote #33, labelled "CricketArchive: full list of ICC members". I've followed the link to the CricketArchive site and there they all are, over 100 of them including the United States of America.

According to History of cricket to 1725, the first definite mention of cricket was in 1597 (i.e., a Julian date which is 1598 in the Gregorian system) and this article also states that the 1300 reference to creag is:

an early spelling of the Gaelic word craic (that means) simply "fun, enjoyment, abandonment, or lighthearted mischief; often in the context of drinking or music"

I think you should amend the opening sentence to emphasise the 1597 reference, which is definite, and take out the highly speculative 1300 reference, especially given the 297-year difference. Apart from anything else, I once read somewhere a very plausible theory that cricket was invented in the time of Henry VIII by the Guildford schoolboys! Who can say otherwise?

Following on (!) from that, there is an error in the "History" section of this article where it states that the Guildford court case was in 1598. According to the more detailed History of cricket to 1725, the year of the case was 1597 and I believe that article is the more authoritative and reliable one, though you may wish to check its sources to make sure. --Orrelly Man (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite confident enough to change it myself, but I suspect that 1598 is the correct year. Books that I've read say 1598. I think the problem is that, under the Julian calendar, New Year's Day was March 25th. A contemporary reference to "January 17th, 1597", according to the convention adopted by historians, would be treated as if the year began on January 1st, and so would be referred to as ocurring in 1598. JH (talk page) 19:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I have only one cricket book, which is Derek Birley's Social History of Cricket and he quotes 1598 in an endnote. The precise date is quoted in this source including the qualification that is a Julian date: i.e., as you say, the year began on 25 March. Just to muddy the waters a little more, Wikipedia's guideline on Julian dates recommends:

Dates before the adoption of the Gregorian calendar ... are normally given in the Julian calendar. The Julian day and month should not be converted to the Gregorian calendar, but the start of the Julian year should be assumed to be 1 January.

I think, therefore, that we should quote the Julian year of 1598 but make clear in a footnote that the contemporary date was 1597. I'll make an appropriate change to my previous edit. --Orrelly Man (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Having done that, I noticed the 1300 date in the preceding paragraph, checked the online source again and found that this is also a Julian year! I've amended it to 1301 and provided a similar caveat in a footnote. I know that this "creag" reference is in one of our WP:SPORTS articles so I will amend that too. --Orrelly Man (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made what I hope are appropropriate edits to History of cricket to 1725 and to History of cricket in order to bring them into line. JH (talk page) 18:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Orrley man, i dont think this forum is a proper setting for anti-american rants and ravings, just because americans by and large dont like cricket. This is a place to discuss the article lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eper1709 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The word is Orrelly, as in Fawlty Towers. I work with Orrelly, you see. Americans who do not like world sports such as cricket, football (i.e., football) and rugby should not disrupt these talk pages with silly and (evidently) repetitive demands for disambiguation. It is also extremely tiresome to constantly read examples of pseudo-Bush ignorance such as "Indians do not speak

English". Please sign your posts. --Orrelly Man (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Orrelly, its also extremely tireing to read anti-american rants and raves on here (see george bush reference at the top of this topic). What does George Bush have to do with cricket? and im american, and i know they speak english on the subcontinent, so why make such a generalization? There's nothing in the Baseball discussion deriding Britan for massacring thousands of Kikuyu in Kenya or supporting the aparthid government of Ian Smith in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) or electing Margaret Thatcher, so why is there so much condesending anti-americanism here? We saved your ass in World war 2, so go have a pint and settle down, you limey twits.

Probably because nobody outside America cares enough about baseball to visit the discussion page there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.225.156 (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

grammatical error & please clarify

• 'The batsman uses the popping crease at his end to stand when facing the bowler but it is more important to him that because it marks the limit of his safe territory and he can be stumped or run out (see Dismissals below) if the wicket is broken while he is "out of his ground".'
• see "that because" grammatical error
• Please clarify "The batsman uses the popping crease at his end to stand." Does s/he stand on it, near it, in front of it, behind it?
• I'm assuming "out of his ground" is explained elsewhere.
• "while no part of the batsman or his bat is grounded behind the popping crease" [my emphasis]. Huh? The bat.. meaning while in the batter's hands? I assume the batter is not required to carry it.
• Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ling.Nut that these two sentences were very badly written and I've made minor edits to improve the readability at least. Whether the topics need further explanation is for the cricket project to decide. Someone needs to take this article in hand and complete the rewrite that was begun last year. --Orrelly Man (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Bowling

Under the 'bowling' subheading the article states that the arm can be bent, but is in fact not allowed to be straight when bowling; otherwise it is liable to be called a no-ball.

I'm fairly certain the bowler must have his/her arm straight "from the point at which the arm crosses the horizontal plane of the shoulder to the point at which the ball is released from the hand. So unless every bowler I've ever watched was breaking the rule nonstop and the umpires let it happen, it would be good if someone corrected the sentence.

The article is locked (apparently for recent vandalism), otherwise I would have fixed this myself.Nij90 (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The arm is not allowed to straighten. It can be bent, it just isn't allowed to straighten. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hit wicket - Crowning

Another short note: the article refers to 'hit wicket' as a dismissal; it is more commmonly known as 'crowning' to most of us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nij90 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? In all my life as a cricket fan and club cricket player I have never heard of hit wicket being referred to as "crowning". Elostirion (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I meant informally; perhaps a label like 'also known as crowning' would have been better. By most of us I refer to my own country. Sorry for any confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nij90 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't say its one I've heard. In any case it would do better here than in the main article. The fact its not already in that article suggests in not very common. --LiamE (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The article also states that a bowler is not allowed to have their arm straight (unless it's been fixed since I checked)... In any case, it will be better there than here. End of problem.219.88.157.76 (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't, it says it isn't allowed to straighten. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like the same thing to me. I know that you're supposed to have your arm straight; how can you straighten it further than that? And why would a no-ball be called for having the arm too straight? Regardless, I think the wording needs to be changed.Nij90 (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you can bowl with your arm as bent as you like, it just isn't allowed to straighten. Having your arm straight isn't a no-ball either. Read the laws of the game. Straightening your arm is clearly not the same as having it straight, I don't know how anyone can think that. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

2 Bn viewer: Simply impossible

"the tournament was televised in over 200 countries to a viewing audience estimated at more than two billion viewers"

With the world population estimated at 6.8 BN I think it is simply impossible that the viewing audience is than 2Bn people

thinking it over I even wonder if 2Bn people know about cricket and I have serious doubts about 2Bn people having ever watched a cricket game —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crunchh (talk • contribs) 18:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's verified in RS and note that there's c.1.5bn people in India, Bangladesh and Pakistan alone. However, perhaps this hinges on what "viewing audience" means - does it mean potential audience? I suspect it does. In other words, in those 200 countries, there's 2.2bn people. Certainly, the actual audiences for the dreadful dreadful dreadfulness that was the 2007 World Cup, were appropriately dismal and nothing like even a fraction of 2.2bn. --Dweller (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's probably cumulative audience. That is to say audience for match 1 + audience for match 2 + ... + audience for final. By the way, I find it a little bit strange to find such a piece of information in the first paragraph of the lead. 5 hundreds years of history summed up in just the audience for the last World Cup? OrangeKnight (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, it's the result of a fairly difficult discussion. Originally, there was some ORish and fairly dubious evidence of cricket's global importance. When completely removed, it was fine, except it gave the reader no sense that cricket may have more world impact than rounders, marbles or mud wrestling, fine sports as they are, but with somewhat less prestige, history and influence. The TV audience, it was thought, could pithily and in a verified manner, deliver what was needed. Pithy, for the Lead, is important. --Dweller (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Its a cumulative figure over teh 50 odd matches and includes people that just caught a bit of a match or highlights and of course the same person can be counted many times over. The figures for the football world cup are put together in the same way and come to 26bn or so as a comparison. --LiamE (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

hi there thanks for the answers, point taken, still think it is misrepresenting it (unless you specify cumulative audience in the footnote). As far as I am concerned, when I see a data that is unrealistic I will totally discarded, as such it more gave me the impression that cricket didn t have such a large audiance. With your clarification I think i could be more efficient maybe to say that 1/3 of the worl population is exposed

I am sorry but I have deleted the claim that 2 billion people watched the 2007 World Cup out of a population for our planet of 6 billion. It is clearly laughable - 1 in 3 of the entire world population, including China, North and South America. Oh yes? And every single person in the Indian sub continent watching as claimed? The entire population of the other test playing nations does not get near to the missing 500m. Marketing hype, nothing more. And unworthy of Wikipedia.

--Cardicam (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Although a verification was provided I hardly think the Taipei Times is a credible source for information about cricket. Verification is one thing, credibility quite another. Apart from anything else, the 2007 CWC was a fiasco: an embarrassment that the blundering ICC will never live down. --Orrelly Man (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you maybe read the discussion above before jumping in with unilateral edits to a concensus. The 2 bn figure is well supported [4] and is put into perspective by the 20 odd bn figure for the last football world cup, with close on 2bn for the final alone. 2bn viewers for a tournament clearly does not mean that 2 bn individuals watched the world cup but that the cummulative viewing figures for the 50 odd matches was 2 bn. It is entirely possible for the same person to be counted 50 odd times. Such figures also include people that caught just part of a match or just highlights. So not only is it cited it is also credible and in fact more than likely to be entirely correct. --LiamE (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There was a good article in The Independent in 2007 (available online) which makes it quite clear that the above-mentioned figure of 2bn for the 2006 football WC final is simply wrong. In fact, even FIFA only claimed 715m, and, to quote from the article: "According to Initiative Sports Futures, independent analysts with no ties to Fifa, the figure for the 2006 final was 260 million in the 54 key markets it surveyed, accounting for 90 per cent of the world's TV households." The article is worth a read in its own right, exposing nicely the absurdly overblown figures claimed by sports promoters. Loganberry (Talk) 20:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I might be out on the final figure as I was pulling that from a vague memory but the point still stands - they are just counting diferent things. The non-FIFA figure is for people that watched a large portion of the match live whereas the lager figure includes people that just caught a bit, watched highlights, reruns or even just saw a bit on the news as I understand it and is pretty much the way these big events are compared. --LiamE (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Had a read of that article and it does confirm what I was thinking - they are counting basically just people that watch most of it at home live to get the 260m figure. Even their figures give 400m when they include out of home viewing which is very common for footy. By their estimates peak viewing will be 1.5 times that and reach twice that so it is right in the ball park of FIFA's claim. From personal experience the number of TV's that appear in workplaces and so on during the world cup cant be ignored. I'd be interested to know what 54 countries they survey. --LiamE (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Another interesting Independent article, TV's great viewing mirage, says that the 54 countries include "all the main countries in Europe, Asia, the Americas and Australasia", and though it doesn't name them specifically that surely means that (concentrating on cricketing nations) England, Australia and India are included. This article, unlike the first one, does mention cricket specifically, and Initiative Sports Futures' figures for the last cricket WC final (Aus-SL) are just 7m with a reach of 25m, considerably less than the world handball final (23m/56m). Yes, those are in-home figures, but even multiplying by the figures you quote above gets us nowhere near the billion mark. Loganberry (Talk) 23:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

7m to 25m is certainly credible given those two finalists but if it had been India v Pakistan you could probably multiply by five or more. To talk about billions of viewers, and counting the same person 50 times, simply defies common sense. As far as the article lead is concerned, it is much better as it now stands in quoting the number of countries in the ICC to illustrate the sport's scale. Even the most cynical reader will accept the verification that ICC has 100+ members but no one with any sense is going to believe a figure like 2 billion viewers. The inclusion of fantasy statistics like that destroys the credibility of the article and of the cricket project. --Orrelly Man (talk) 07:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

As it happens, the second article I mentioned also includes figures for the Twenty20 final, which was Ind v Pak, and gives 20m/40m. Of course that's not directly comparable with the ODI final, but it broadly backs up your point: with those teams, the figures are likely to be increased substantially... but not into the realms of billions. And entirely agreed about the revised lead; it's much better this way. Loganberry (Talk) 15:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that the edit was unilateral but I did read the comments, didnt think there was a consensus and I still believe that the stat is ludicrous, pointless and not worthy of Wikipedia. Loganberry and Orrelly Man are totally right in focussing on the industry there exists in coming up with bogus and inflated figures for sporting events. By allowing 2bn to appear you are playing the game of the marketing people who originate these figures. Just one question: if 2bn is the accumulation of the total number of viewers for each match, what on earth is the point of the figure? It doesnt indicate anything faintly worthwhile. The only context in which these numbers are valid are when they show the breadth of a sport's 'reach' and appeal to the 6bn people on this planet. And sorry but once again 2bn is just completely misleading. No newspaper ever reporting these sort of claims qualifies it with "but they are adding together the viewing figures for all the different matches to get to this total." And when people say it has been verified, by who exactly? (And, by the way, I don't believe 2bn watched the last football world cup final either.) --Cardicam (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the FIFA figure of 715m for the Italy-France final is plausible. In fact, there was almost certainly a minority of French people watching as football is nowhere near to being France's national sport. Quoting a silly statistic, even if the Taipei Times (!) does verify it, adds no value to the article and immediately drives the serious reader away. Even if it can somehow be proved beyond reasonable doubt that 2bn people watched the 2007 Cricket World Farce, I would not include it because it detracts from the objectivity of the article by introducing what is, on the face of it, a sensationalist claim. --Orrelly Man (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought - but mightn't the figure of 2.2. billion represent the total population of the countries that made it to the last cricket world cup? As an ex-Marketing Man (back Cardicam!) I'm sure I learned that stating potential, rather than reality, is lesson #1 in Marketing Statistics. In which case it's good to know that the Taipei Times is on our side, even if the rest of the world isn't. David T Tokyo (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This piqued my interest enough to do a quick calculation. It's only rough, as I estimated the population of the nations that don't coincide with political countries (eg West Indies) but close enough, I think, to give an idea: I came up with 1.73 billion. The only non-qualifying country likely to have significant numbers of inhabitants interested in cricket is the USA (this predated the Afghan cricketing boom, after all!) so if we add their population (just over 300m) on to the total we get... 2.03 billion. Eureka! *grins* Loganberry (Talk) 23:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I maintain that the 2bn is reasonable enough as an extreme cumulative reach figure for the tournament as a whole but I also think the very fact we are having this discussion means that the factoid isnt suitable for the article. If you have to qualify and explain a stat it really has lost its usefulness to a general audience. And on the subject of audience the more I think about it the more confusing TV stats are, even ignoring their inherent bias towards overstatement for marketing purposes. How many people really did watch any given match? Do you only count the people that watched every ball? Nearly every ball? Half the match? An hour of play? A few minutes? A few seconds? Just by changing the goalposts on the count you could easily affect the result of the count by a thousand fold or more. 99.94 is a useful stat, it is a standard measure that is easily understood and compared and not open to the vaguaries of counting methods, the 2bn figure is none of those. Just to prove the point just giving you that number itself was enough for everyone to know what stat I'm talking about! --LiamE (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The lead para of this article is written by an Australian

Talk about nationalism on Wikipedia. The lead para specifically mentions that Australia is the leading Test cricket team but fails to mention the leading One Day International (South Africa) and Twenty20 (India) teams. The winner of the previous ODI World Cup is mentioned but somehow, the Twenty20 World Cup is snubbed. Pathetic. The only thing at stake here is this article's credibility. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Teh article was originally written by an Indian from Mumbai, the powerhouse of Indian cricket....then rewritten by an Englishman.... T20 has been around 3 years, hardly the weight of Test cricket.... is anyone (Indians or otherwise) going to say Yuvraj > Dravid? No.... because T20 isn't real cricket. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 23:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Your point is taken. I have edited the first paragraph to include the fact that SA is currently ranked first in ODIs. However the ICC does not yet publish official T20 rankings so I have excluded including India as the leading T20 nation. We should however consider including the fact that India did win the inaugural T20 World Cup. The only question is whether or not the T20 World Cup has gained sufficient standing to warrant being mentioned in the first paragraph of an article on cricket. Elostirion (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that an overview article should be mentioning who is currently "top nation" in its lead paragraph. That is something that is going to change frequently, and knowing who it is currently is not important to gaining an understanding of the game. JH (talk page) 10:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jhall. Uncanny. --Dweller (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it isn't directly relevant to the game itself, in the sense that one could theoretically play, watch and appreciate cricket without having any idea who the top teams are. Should we move the references to the top ODI and Test teams down to the sections on ODI and Test cricket respectively? Elostirion (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be my inclination. Whilst it's worth mentioning in the body of the article, I don't think that it merits being in the lead, which should concentrate on giving an idea of what cricket is, how it is played, and that it is a major sport that is primarily played in the current and ex Commonwealth countries. JH (talk page) 10:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the article missing a section on statistics (averages and rankings)? This would be a good place to mention the current top teams. David T Tokyo (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoever got the idea of including top teams in the first paragraph is clearly bent upon illustrating the superiority of the Australian team and hence should be disqualified from editing this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakesh Dhanireddy (talk • contribs) 15:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:AGF. What you said is patently untrue in any case: read the comments above before you start flinging daft accusations and dafter suggestions of penalties. --Dweller (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me first confess that I am a casual reader of wikipedia and the previous comment was my first comment regarding anything. I pointed out what I thought was clearly a blatant bias. By the suggestion of disqualification, what I really meant to convey was that people with such a bias deserve to be discouraged from editing, as this article is meant for a global audience. However, I am happy to note that the concerned reference in the first paragraph has been removed. --Rakesh Dhanireddy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC).

Despite this conversation, not much has changed. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Dweller (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

England Cricket Team

In the article in the section on Test Matches it states that "Welsh players are eligible to play for England, which is in effect an England and Wales team." There is a much wider qualification for England status than this - as examples Mike Denness captained England and originates in Scotland. Kevin Pietersen plays for England but was born in South Africa. In times past that other famous South African Basil D'Oliviera also played for England. I'm sure there are many other examples (sorry Graeme) Soarhead77 (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Eligibility has changed over time. The point is that Welsh players qualify automatically, as tehre isn't a Wales team in the same way there is (now) a Scotland team recognised by the ICC and which plays ODIs. The other examples you mention have qualified by residence (Hick, there was a long a long period that he was resident here and playing County Cricket before he became eligible for England), or due to (grand)parents' nationality (Pietersen I think). David Underdown (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

To confirm, the current rules for the England team state that a player must have a British or Irish passport and either be born in England or Wales or have lived in England or Wales for 183 days in each of the preceding four years. So anybody not born in England or Wales - including Scottish players (eg. Gavin Hamilton) and those with English parentage (eg. Pietersen) have to fulfil a residential qualification. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Cricket, originated in Belgium

BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7919429.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.80.145 (talk) 07:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

See the discussion under "Old Flemish" above. David T Tokyo (talk) 07:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Images

Not even a single image from Asia. All images are from England, Australia and South Africa. I understand that certain Wikipedia editors would prefer images from their countries but this is ridiculous. And why has this article been protected for such a long time? --128.211.201.161 (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Another observation: apart from Australia, no other national cricket team is linked to their respective articles in the lead paras. I smell pathetic nationalism and bias here. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but saying "I smell pathetic nationalism and bias here" is going a bit over the top don't you think? Comments like that isn't the right way to go about it. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And what do you think of this edit? Within a few minutes of me adding an image of an Indian cricketer in action with a caption relevant to the concerned section, it is removed without any justification and so is a reference to the fact that India won the inaugural Twenty20 Championship. Most editors on Wikipedia come with a nationalistic bias in their mindset and unfortunately, that is their primary motivation to make edits here. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Dweller (talk) 11:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for un-protecting the article. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Unprotected

I unprotected the article yesterday. Please could all editors be vigilant in checking for vandalism. And please refrain from edit-warring - if you disagree over something, it's best to discuss it here, rather than in irate edit summaries. --Dweller (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Seasonality

Should the following phrase be in the lead?

"For example, it is played during the summer in Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and South Africa, while in India, the West Indies, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh it is played mostly during the winter after the monsoon season."

1) "For example" implies this sentence has some connection to the one preceding it - this doesn't.

2) As far as I know, the West Indies doesn't have a monsoon season

It seems to me as if we're just cramming the names of the top International sides into one sentence. David T Tokyo (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It is also filled with things like "mostly" and "for example" which I personally think is poor style. WI doesn't have a monsoon season, you are correct... though it also omits Zimbabwe, and all the countries that play non-top league cricket or only domestic crickets, like, well... too many to list. SGGH ^ping! 10:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks SGGH - please see below...David T Tokyo (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

New Article Lead

I posted this earlier, maybe it got lost in the middle of the page....

I think the current lead is very, very bloated. There are so many details which are far better placed in the article itself (e.g. size of the ball, length of the pitch, women allowed into men's cricket, monsoons etc.).

I tried to distill it all down to the most essential points. It's by no means perfect but I've tried to get rid of facts quoted elsewhere on the page and at the same time try to ensure readers can have an instant, very basic understanding of the game. I don't expect it to go through on the nod but I would encourage people to view it as a starting point for a better lead. Any comments or changes are most welcome... David T Tokyo (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

===================================

Cricket is a bat-and-ball team sport that originated in southern England in the 16th century. The sport is now played in more than 100 countries. It is estimated that more than two billion people watched the last Cricket World Cup.

A cricket match is played on a cricket field at the centre of which is a pitch. The match is contested between two teams of eleven players each.

In cricket, one team bats, trying to score as many runs as possible without being dismissed (”out”) while the other team bowls and fields, trying to dismiss the other team’s batsmen and limit any runs being scored. When the team that are batting have used all their available overs or have no remaining batsmen, the roles become reversed and it is now the fielding team’s turn to bat and to outscore the opposition.

There are several variations as to how long a game of cricket can last. In professional cricket this can be anything from a match limited to 20 overs per side (Limited Overs Cricket) to a game played over 5 days (Test cricket). Depending on the length of the game being played, there are different rules that govern how a game is won, lost, drawn or tied.

The rules of the game are known as the Laws of Cricket and these are maintained by the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), based in London, in consultation with the International Cricket Council (ICC).

===================================

The first sentence is misleading because no one knows when it originated. It is first documented in the 16th century but it may well have originated much earlier. Also, although I don't suppose any of us actually support the Flanders theory, it does have credibility because of the probable Flemish origin of the sport's name, so we cannot say the game definitely originated in England. I would change the first sentence to:

Cricket is a bat-and-ball team sport that is widely believed to have originated in southern England by the 16th century.

Given that we do not know, it is better to say "widely believed" and "by the 16th century" adequately covers both the "before" and "during".

But I do agree with you that the current lead is exaggerated and needs to be made concise. I would certainly support the rest of your proposed wording. --Orrelly Man (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Orrelly Man. I agree, it's too definitive as it stands. I'm fine with "widely believed". David T Tokyo (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"Widely believed" are classic weasel words that a lot of Wikipedia editors will immediately challenge. Better to say "First documented", since that's a fact that can be backed up. -dmmaus (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

But according to the cricket history articles on the site, there are many sources which support the "widely believed" view. It seems that most if not all writers on early cricket agree it was first documented at the end of the 16th century but they all believe it began much earlier, as is the case with the old folk football. We can quote Derek Birley, for example (as I have got his book), as saying that cricket is believed to have originated in the early medieval period. --Orrelly Man (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Orrelly, I think the issue is the words themselves ("widely believed") - not the level of support for what they mean. I take Dmmaus's point - the more factual this is, the better. The truth is that no-one can prove that cricket originated in England, but what can be proved is that the earliest date we have shows it being played in England. Anything outside of that that talks about where it originated is pure theory - let's stick to the facts. How about:

Cricket is a bat-and-ball team sport. It is first documented as being played in southern England in the 16th century. David T Tokyo (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Simply using "widely believed" invites the question "who believes it, and where are your citations?" If we wanted to put in a statement about speculation of earlier origins, the wording should be something like: "Historians generally believe cricket originated in southern England some time before the 16th century[cite][cite][cite], although some claim it originated elsewhere[cite]." -dmmaus (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I suggest we stick with the "first documented" line.

Any other comments regarding the new lead? David T Tokyo (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with "It is first documented as being played in southern England in the 16th century" per David above. --Orrelly Man (talk) 06:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Orrelly Man. David T Tokyo (talk) 07:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This is good stuff. Thanks for taking this on. I'd put the last paragraph before the details that derive from it (it's also a single sentence paragraph, which is not advisable). Finally, I'd like to see something in there about the rich history of the game and/or international competition, perhaps including the scope of the ICC. --Dweller (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"I'd put the last paragraph before the details that derive from it"

Could you explain this a bit further? I'm not quite getting it. In the meantime I'll work on the other aspects you've raised. David T Tokyo (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, not clear. What I meant is, that it's worth explaining that the Laws exist before detailing what they say! We even reference the Laws before we've explained what they are. --Dweller (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. Version 2. A bit wordy? David T Tokyo (talk) 11:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

===================================

Cricket is a bat-and-ball team sport that is first documented as being played in southern England in the 16th century. By the 18th century, cricket had developed to the point where it had become the national sport of England. The expansion of the British Empire led to cricket being played overseas and by the mid 19th century the first international matches were being held. Today, the sport is played in more than 100 countries. It is estimated that more than two billion people watched the last Cricket World Cup.

The rules of the game are known as the Laws of Cricket . These are maintained by the International Cricket Council (ICC), the governing body of cricket, and the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), the club that has been the guardian of the Laws since it was founded in 1787.

A cricket match is played on a cricket field at the centre of which is a pitch. The match is contested between two teams of eleven players each.

In cricket, one team bats, trying to score as many runs as possible without being dismissed (”out”) while the other team bowls and fields, trying to dismiss the other team’s batsmen and limit any runs being scored. When the team that are batting have used all their available overs or have no remaining batsmen, the roles become reversed and it is now the fielding team’s turn to bat and to outscore the opposition.

There are several variations in the length of a game of cricket. In professional cricket this ranges from a limit of 20 overs per side (Limited Overs Cricket) to a game played over 5 days (Test cricket). Depending on the length of the game being played, there are different rules that govern how a game is won, lost, drawn or tied.

===================================

I think we're on the right lines. I've made a few tweaks to the above which you can see in the diff. MCC per se did not create the first Laws, by the way, although it was arguably the same body of people (see History of cricket). --Orrelly Man (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again - appreciated. I think I'll leave this here for further comments or corrections over the weekend and then implement it as a new lead early next week. David T Tokyo (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Another new lead proposal

The lead is still not as good as baseball: in particular, the aims of the game and gameplay should come before history. I'm going to attempt another revision to put history later in the lead unless anyone has any objections. Slac speak up! 03:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll go with the consensus, but personally I don't agree at all about putting history later. Cricket is one of the oldest sports with a particularly rich history. There's no requirement that it has to follow a particular form for sports. David T Tokyo (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest we wait to tinker with the Lead until the article's up to scratch? Currently, it's in poor state. --Dweller (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Second that motion. In any case I'm not convinced of the need to place gameplay before history. Elostirion (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I take it there's nothing much people want done with the lead right now, so I'll leave it for a time. I will flag why I think gameplay needs to come first:

1. An earlier version of the lead didn't contain any information about gameplay, and the talk page was receiving queries: "okay, but how do you play cricket? The section that was added as a response has since been removed due to detail bloat, but that doesn't mean that a compact, tightly written explanation doesn't have value in the first couple of sentences.
2. Most importantly, a lead (especially a lead sentence) should explain what the thing is - its most salient characteristics. I agree that cricket has a long and interesting history, but it's simply not the first thing I want to explain about cricket to something who has never heard about the game before. The history section should be the lead sentence in the article History of cricket. Essentially there are two vast and complex topics we're dealing with here: Playing the game itself, and its history. The first is the primary focus of the article.
3. I don't think this article should slavishly mimic baseball; I mentioned it because I believe it's a better-written, more explanatory article than what exists here. A person can read (even skim) that article and come up with a good understanding of the details of the game quickly. A problem this article has currently is that it's a bit of a stew, not structured to present the points that are key to understanding. Slac speak up! 14:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Can or cannot bowl two successive overs?

This bit "A bowler cannot bowl two successive overs, although a bowler can bowl unchanged at the same end for several overs." doesn't make sense to me. The first half says a bowler cannot bowl two successive overs. The second half says a bowler can bowl unchanged for several overs. Can this be reworded somehow to make it more intelligible? Thanks for any help. Stumpy88 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC).

one over is bowled from one end, the next is bowled from teh opposite end. So "unchanged" means every second over, ie, all the overs from one end. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Eleven Ways of being dismissed

There are in fact eleven ways of being dismissed. The article correctly mentions 'Retired Out' and calls it a dismissal but does not list it in the ten ways of being dismissed. Dcwhitworth (talk) 10:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That's because it isn't technically a dismissal - it's the batsmen retiring. Andrew nixon (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it is arguable what constitues a 'dismissal' however the section refers to 'Retired Out' as a dismissal but doesn't put it on the list. It also refers to "Main article: Dismissal (cricket)" which does list Retired Out as a dismissal. You can probably argue endlessly what is and isn't a dismissal, but what is not arguable is that the article is inconsistent on this point.

Dcwhitworth (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we can argue, but ultimately it doesn't matter what we think - what do the Laws of cricket state? --Dweller (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Law 2, section 9 b - "If a batsman retires for any reason other than as in (a) above, he may only resume his innings with the consent of the opposing captain. If for any reason he does not resume his innings it is to be recorded as 'Retired – out'." Dcwhitworth (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Does the Law describe this as a "dismissal"? --Dweller (talk) 12:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Law 27.2 Batsman dismissed

A batsman is dismissed if either (a) he is given out by an umpire, on appeal or

(b) he is out under any of the Laws and leaves his wicket as in 1 above.

Law 27.1 Umpire not to give batsman out without an appeal

Neither umpire shall give a batsman out, even though he may be out under the Laws, unless appealed to by the fielding side. This shall not debar a batsman who is out under any of the Laws from leaving his wicket without an appeal having been made. Note, however, the provisions of 7 below.

Law 27.7 Batsman leaving his wicket under a misapprehension

An umpire shall intervene if satisfied that a batsman, not having been given out, has left his wicket under a misapprehension that he is out. The umpire intervening shall call and signal Dead ball to prevent any further action by the fielding side and shall recall the batsman.

Laws 27.2b and 2.9b combined appear to be saying that Retired - Out is a dismissal. David T Tokyo (talk) 12:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean the fielding team has to appeal when a batsman wants to retire out? If so, I agree with your reading that it is a "dismissal". --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Dweller, I don't think that aspect applies. The second half of 27.1 says that it doesn't require an appeal from the fielding side - the batsman is free (i.e. not debarred) to leave his wicket when he chooses. It's only when the umpires suspect that he's leaving because he thinks he's out, and in fact he's not, that they will send him back. Obviously that's not the case with a retirement. David T Tokyo (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Then he's not "dismissed", as the Law clearly states a batsman is not dismissed unless given out by an umpire or he's covered by 27.2(b), which does not cover retirement. --Dweller (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. Law 27.2(b) does cover Retirement.

Law 27.2(b) "clearly" (your word) says that he is dismissed if he is out under ANY of the laws. In this case the law that applies is Law 2 - 9(b) that says that if the batsman does not resume his innings he is "Retired - Out". David T Tokyo (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This is all rather fun. 27.2b implies that the batsman must be out at the point that he leaves his wicket in order to be dismissed. 9b states that retrospectively he should be recorded as "out". So not dismissed. I'll leave this now before it goes into LAME. It's not that important to me. --Dweller (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm pleased you find it fun. Next time, it's probably best if you don't ask the question when it's not that important to you. Personally, I'd prefer not to waste my time on a whim. David T Tokyo (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The answer is that it seems the Laws aren't very clear on the subject. I waste a heck of a lot of my time on a whim - we call it Wikipedia. The rest of the time I waste here is somewhat better wasted than the time that I'm wasting in this thread. I can't conceive of anyone wishing to describe a retired batsman as "dismissed". He's been dismissed by no-one. Not the bowler, not a fielder, not even the umpire. If being marked as "out" by the scorer counts as "dismissed", then you might as well start counting the cleaning, bar and grounds staff who've been dismissed by the club management because of the credit crisis. --Dweller (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair points - thanks for the reply. As an aside, for the purposes of calculating a batting average, retired out is considered a dismissal. David T Tokyo (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that the "Laws aren't very clear on the subject." Law 27.2b states a batsman is dismissed if "he is out under any of the Laws and leaves his wicket as in 1 above." Law 27.1 states that "Neither umpire shall give a batsman out, even though he may be out under the Laws, unless appealed to by the fielding side." However, it also states that This shall not debar a batsman who is out under any of the Laws from leaving his wicket without an appeal having been made. That is to say, 27.2b states a batsman is dismissed if he is out under some Law and leaves his wicket as in 27.1, where 27.1 allows for either the fielding side appealing, or the batsman leaving of his own volition. This is the case for a batsman who is retiring out. No appeal is made for retired out. However by affirming his intent to leave the field and no longer return (assuming the opposing captain does not allow him to), the batsman is out by Law 2.9b, and must leave the wicket and not return.

Although 27.7 states that "An umpire shall intervene if satisfied that a batsman, not having been given out, has left his wicket under a misapprehension that he is out", in the case of a retired out there is clearly no misapprehension, and the umpire need not intervene.

I hope you find this satisfactory.

I urge people to read the Laws very carefully as the MCC has worked on these for over 150 years, and there have been many cases of retired out since then. In addition to finding my above explanation satisfactory, I also feel it unlikely that the MCC would have disregarded any discrepancies regarding whether retired out is a dismissal or not for this long. Elostirion (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the double post but there is something else I wish to comment on. Dweller said: "I can't conceive of anyone wishing to describe a retired batsman as "dismissed". He's been dismissed by no-one. Not the bowler, not a fielder, not even the umpire." Besides the umpire part, this is the same as timed out, handling the ball, or obstructing the field, which are commonly accepted as dismissals and yet do now involve a fielder directly dismissing the batsman. As for the umpire part, a batsman walking without the umpire giving him out is nevertheless a dismissal if he leaves the field after, say, edging to the keeper. Thus a dismissal does not necessarily require the involvement of a fielder, bowler, or umpire. In fact a batsman who has handled the ball and not been given out by the umpire after an appeal could still be dismissed if he walks, conscious of the fact that he has handled the ball. In this case none of the fielders have dismissed him, nor has the umpire given him out, yet he has certainly been dismissed handling the ball. Elostirion (talk) 01:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I've always understood "retired out" to be a matter of record keeping rather than a dismissal. A retired batsman is not out... they only become retired out at the end of the innings if they dont want to bat again and/or the opposing captain does not agree to them continuing their innings. Unlike the examples above there is no appeal and furthermore there cant be an appeal. Notice the law says they are recorded as retired out not given retired out or dismissed retired out. In the case of a batsman walking the appeal and subsequent dismissal is assumed and thus dispensed with as a matter of honour only, a bowler is still credited with say a LBW the batsman walked on, a feilder for the catch and so on. For all intents and purposes the appeal was made and the batsman was given out. Even in todays game with few walkers still playing I cant think of many batsmen that wait for an appeal after being bowled for instance. --LiamE (talk) 03:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how to respond, but you don't seem to have directly addressed the argument I made for retired out being a dismissal. I can understand that people may feel or understand that retired out is not a dismissal, I argue simply that the Laws define it as such. You are correct in stating that a retired batsman is not out, and only becomes retired out at the end of the innings if they don't want to bat again or are not allowed back on. I agree that law 2.9b only states that the batsman is recorded retired out and does not specify if it is a dismissal or not. However it is not true that the walking is dispensed of as a matter of honour only. The idea of walking is entirely contained in Law 27.1 and and is not simply a matter of honour. I point you to the fact that Law 27.2 is dedicated to defining what is and what is not a dismissal. Again, under 27.2b the batsman is dismissed if he is out under any of the Laws and leaves his wicket as in 1 above, where 1 does not debar a batsman who is out under any of the Laws from leaving his wicket without an appeal having been made. I point out that at the end of an innings, a batsman who has retired and has not returned to bat is, on the one hand out, by Law 2.9b, and on the other hand has left his wicket according to Law 27.1, and so satisfies the requirements of Law 27.2 for a dismissal. Elostirion (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, never mind. As Dweller pointed out, the problem lies in the fact that Law 27.1 only states that a batsman may leave the field if he is out under any of the Laws. It does not cover the case where he is not out under some law at the time. 2.9b suggests however that the batsman is not officially retired out until the end of the innings. I suppose this implies that a batsman leaving the wicket retired out cannot leave the wicket as in 1 above and so cannot satisfy 27.2, thus not qualifying for a dismissal. It seems Dweller was right in stating that the Laws aren't very clear. They don't seem to adequately cover the situation of retired hurt, though it doesn't seem to fall under the explicit definition of a dismissal. Elostirion (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Cricket field shape?

The article states 'The field may be round, square or oval' but I can't find any references to a square field which I would have considered pretty unique. Is this correct as there is no mention of a square field on the Cricket field article? 193.113.57.161 (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It should possibly be "rectangular" rather than square. There are some quite irregular shapes, for example Eden Park which is an almost rectangular rugby stadium. The cricket block is on a diagonal to help the boundaries not be too short on the square and covers, but right handers do have a very short boundary at backward square leg. Generally a rectangular field would have rounded corners, otherwise its a bit unfair to the batsman to have a particular angle with a much longer boundary. dramatic (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression the field of play can be any shape or size agreed upon before the match. --LiamE (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right in the sense that I don't think the laws of cricket themselves place any severe restrictions on the shape or size of the field. However the ICC issues standards for fields used for Test, ODI, and T20 cricket. Law 19 in this link details what the dimensions of a field should be in Test cricket. Notice that though the ICC's regulations don't technically demand the shape to be approximately circular or rectangular or ovular, it would simply not be practical to create a strangely shaped field that fits those proportions. Elostirion (talk) 06:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Great stuff, thanks for the explanation its a great help. 193.113.57.161 (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been bold. --Dominic Sayers (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"Caught on the full"

The article mentions that the batsman is dismissed if the ball is "caught on the full" after he hits it. Am I correct in thinking that "on the full" means "before it touches the ground?" If so, some clarification would be in order for people who don't know this term. Pirate Dan (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct in assuming this. I have changed the wording so as to make it more comprehensible to the uninitiated. Elostirion (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

World Twenty20

The 2009 is tournament is over. This article says it is still ongoing. Also, the next tournament is going to be in the West Indies, not in India.

Done [5]. --Jpeeling (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Stats / Lists in the Lead

It has between 2 and 3 billion fans worldwide,[2] including 1.5 billion in the Indian subcontinent.[3]

The references claim these are "estimates" and they are quoted without any indication of where or how these estimates were created. Personally, I would say they're rubbish. For example: all the countries in the Indian Subcontinent (including Nepal) have a combined population of 1.531 billion. That means, as near as damn it, that everyone (male, female, young, old) in the Indian Subcontinent is a cricket fan. However, this figure has to be correct to get anywhere near the figure of "between 2 and 3 billion fans worldwide".

I would suggest we revert back to the original lead, removing the section "although it is most popular in the Test playing countries of Australia, Bangladesh, England, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka and the West Indies. It has between 2 and 3 billion fans worldwide,[2] including 1.5 billion in the Indian subcontinent.[3]". This list of countries occurs again in the "Test cricket" section. Part of the reason for cleaning up the lead a few months ago was to eliminate such lists.

Thoughts? David T Tokyo (talk) 06:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you about repetition of the Test countries and we do not need stupid telephone number figures dreamed up by someone in a Taipei newspaper. It is sufficient, not to mention credible and objective, to simply quote CricketArchive's lists of the ICC memberships. I've changed the lead accordingly. --Jack | ^{talk page} 14:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I take your point about estimates although the coment about the 'Tapei newspaper' seems a bit condescending/colonialist, would you say the same if a journalist made the same estimate in 'The Times'? I've reinserted the list of countries where it's most popular. Firstly, it isn't sufficient just to say it how many countries it's played in to describe its global following: in 90% of those it's very much a fringe sport only played by expats or at an amateur level. Secondly, the list is not that long, relevant and does not differ from other information in the lead in being repeated in the main body of the page. That's the nature of a lead: to provide a brief overview of the article.Haldraper (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that The Times is owned by Murdoch, well known for supporting Blair, yes. I'm not that bothered about the "list" but if other people support David it will have to be taken out again per consensus. --Jack | ^{talk page} 21:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I see it was taken out and put back again, albeit in a different format but nonetheless, still as an attempt to list the main countries that play cricket in the lead - however this time Zimbabwe has also been added.

Today, the International Cricket Council has 104 members. The game has its greatest following in the Test playing countries of Australia, Bangladesh, England, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and the West Indies and is generally regarded as the second most popular spectator sport in the world.

I accept that a list of prominent countries in the lead may be what people would like but the problems with the revised text are:

a) That the International Cricket Council is introduced twice in the lead. The first introduction makes no reference to the fact that it is a governing body and assumes that all users will understand that "members" in fact means "countries".

b) The reference lists "ICC Full members". This has been reinterpreted as "the game has its greatest following in...." That's not even close to being the same thing.

c) The reference in the Times to "the world's second most popular sport" is unsubstantiated and delivered as a passing comment in the middle of an opinion piece on the 2005 Ashes. Where are the facts supporting this claim, why is the fact not more widely quoted and why are there no more recent references? For a claim as huge as this, we should certainly be seeking to have supporting references.

d) The Wiki article takes the Times reference and chooses to restate it as "(cricket) is generally regarded as the second most popular sport in the world". It is, or it isn't. We can't take a quote (particularly a stat) and soften it up so it's more likely to be accepted as content.

David T Tokyo (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've amended the lead again to reflect David's comments above which are eminently sensible though if anyone can improve the wording without undue expansion, no problem. David is quite right that the ICC was being introduced twice so I've rectified that and clarified that its membership is made up of countries. I entirely agree with him that the pointless list has no place in the lead; neither has the ridiculous speculation about the sport's popularity and global support. It is enough to say that the ICC has 104 members which proves it is a global sport. --Jack | ^{talk page} 16:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As the person who added the list and the ref from 'The Times', I don't disagree with David's points. I think it is undeniable that cricket is the world's second most popular sport, the problem is finding a ref to support that fact. I put 'generally regarded' to qualify it but I accept that's not ideal. Part of where I'm coming from is lists on Wikianswers where (mostly American) contributors have basketball or ice hockey as the second most popular spectator sport and cricket not even in the top ten. I think it would be handy to have cricket's popularity in the lead to answer such nonsense.Haldraper (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the problems may stem from this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_in_the_United_States

Although none of the claims about popularity are referenced, I suspect they're tied up with the (dead) Harris Poll link at the bottom. David T Tokyo (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

remove 'teeming' from the main cricket page

The cricket wiki is no place for loaded phrases (with racist connotations) like "Teeming cities". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javadezigner12 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the adjective because it is unnecessary and unencyclopedic, but any racist connotations you may find in such a phrase are far-fetched to say the least, and in any case one should assume good faith. Elostirion (talk) 06:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A quick search through Google reveals no sites where the use of the phrase has any racist overtones. David T Tokyo (talk) 06:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

International Structure

The the international structure section is slim and was not giving enough obvious information on which countries plays cricket and where do they stand at international level. So i added the top 16 teams who are eligible to play One Day International's and gave their ranks. This information is very important and useful on this page since it will help people understand which countries take cricket seriously and their ranks. Please keep this section and do not take this off. This is very required to be on this page. Thanks

Thanks. I've corrected a couple of errors in what you added. Please remember to add new talk page entries to the bottom in future! Andrew nixon (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for editing. This section is useful since it would make sense to new readers about who plays cricket. Earlier the info was not so specific. Thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyeditor9 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

More pictures

I went through the rugby and baseball pages and i believe that we need more pictures to demonstrate the game. i will be adding more pictures that are already in wikipedia. plese help size them or resize the existing one to make them look good. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyeditor9 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)