Talk:Cricket/Archive 4

Inning vs Innings

Can we reach some kind of consensus on this issue. Recently, there has been a lot of changes and reversions relating to the particular terminology. Whilst the (presumably American-preferred) "inning" seems to be fairly popular, it is also true that the vast majority of cricket players/supporters/administrators are not American and use the term "innings", even if there is no seeming reason for this, bar long-standing convention. Perhaps some decision is necessary, so we can prevent needless changes and reverts. Smoddy 22:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC) 22:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There's nothing to reach consensus on. The cricket term is 'innings' (both singular and plural). Full stop. Nothing to argue on. It is always 'innings' in cricket: never, ever 'inning', regardless of whether Americans keep getting it wrong by way of false analogy with baseball. Law 12 of the Laws of cricket makes that clear: See [1]. There's meant to be a way of writing in the text something that doesn't appear on the screen. Maybe we should add text to the effect that 'cricket uses the term innings and NEVER inning - please do not change'. If you know how to do it, please add it to the article. jguk 23:36, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I quite agree with you. Thanks. 19:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) Smoddy 19:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done earlier today, by the way. Comments are done by enclosing them with <!-- and -->. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:03, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

National Game

I have lived in Australia and did not know that Cricket is the national sport of Australia. Are you sure about this?

I agree with you, anonymous. Also, what actually is a national sport - how is it defined? Seems to me to be a very arbitrary distinction. I have deleted it. Jongarrettuk 20:15, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I guess it's a reaction to the (sometimes acrimonious) divides in the football codes, so cricket, which enjoys reasonably uniform support everywhere, gets the mantle.

I have deleted the reference to Canada, so the article again reads that cricket is popular in Commonwealth countries. This is because there are many Commonwealth countries where cricket would not be said to be popular. Identifying just Canada suggests cricket is popular throughout the Commonwealth. The countries where it is not popular include Belize, Botswana, Mozambique, Malawi, Uganda, Tanzania, Ghana, the Gambia, Cameroon, Malta, Cyprus and many Pacific Island nations. Jongarrettuk 07:14, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd submit that cricket *is* popular in Uganda, and add Scotland to your list (I've seen cricket played in Scotland but the participants were all English, Australian or of Indian or Pakistani extraction).

Some of the Pacific Island (Samoa and Tonga and perhaps Fiji)nations play a variant of Cricket that resembles an eighteenth century version of the game. There are only two stumps, the bat is larger - resembling a hockey-stick like club, and the number of players often exceed eleven. I'll have a hunt around to see if we have an article on it. Lisiate 23:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

=Lampoon

WTF is that bit about lampooning other countries and diplomatic outrage about? It's not explained in the article, and it's certainly not clear to me what it means. Pakistani ball-tampering? Murali chucker-or-not? Kiwis are all sheep-shaggers? Perhaps someone could make more sense of it. Harry R 12:45, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It need not be mentioned in the article itself, but if you insist, another article on cricket culture can be created and linked there. Specifically it is refers to Aus vs NZ/Eng; Ind vs Pak / Eng vs Zim. The recent incident where Aus PM John Howard slipped up and called indirectly Murali a "chucker" also comes to mind. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]]

OK. I think 'rival nations have lampooned each other over cricket matches' is an odd phrasing in that case. It sounds too specific; calling someone a 'chucker' is hardly a lampoon, it's an accusation. How about something like "cricket generates fierce national rivalries, occasionally spilling over into diplomatic incidents." Or whatever. Harry R 19:22, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

definately an improvement, but "diplomatic incidents" sounds vague. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]]

An example might be the famous "underarm" incident in a New Zealand/Australia game in 1981 -- with New Zealand trailing by six runs and only one ball left to play, Trevor Chappell bowled the final ball underarm, making it impossible to hit the six needed to tie the match. 218.101.90.157 12:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that the "Bodyline" incidents that took place in 1930 when England toured Australia DID lead to international incidents, with the enraged Australian public almost taking up a boycott against buying English goods. There's already an article on this topic but I think it's a strong example of diplomatic incidents that have occurred over cricket.

Innings

I've added a note that an innings cannot be declared in a one-day limited overs game. Like many other laws, this was brought in to deter gamesmanship: an English side (was is Gloucs?) declared their innings closed at 0 for 0 after 1 ball to preserve their net run rate in a league competition. Jongarrettuk 18:01, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Three Cheers

Three cheers to all who have made this article a FEATURED ARTICLE to appear on the front page today. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 18:30, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Methods of dismissal

Since this article is already 30k long, should we just list the methods of dismissal here without giving any explanation. There's already a link to a separate 'dismissals' page - so anyone wanting more explanation can go there. What do others think? Jongarrettuk 20:22, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It won't take off too many bytes. Some are worth mentioning though, just for encyclopedic purposes, I think we should look at the field overview and types of cricket for a mild pruning. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 20:29, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Bowling

In the bowling section, the following (partial) definition of a legal bowl is used:

When bowling, bowlers must release the ball with at least one foot inside the area bounded by the popping crease and the return creases to prevent it from being called a no-ball.

Shouldn't this be both feet, rather than at least one foot? I don't know the text of the rule, but it looks like this definition would allow a bowl with the back foot just behind the popping crease.

That's exactly what happens; a no-ball is called for overstepping the crease only if both feet are in front of the popping crease.

I thought a no-ball was called if both feet are in front of the bowling crease, or if the front foot is in front of the popping crease, or if both feet are outside the return crease. I may have technical misunderstandings here; but what's certain is that you cannot bowl with nothing but your back foot behind the popping crease. Aramael 13:15, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Out Caught Ball

Gareth, It may be the way everyone says it, but having never heard it, there seems to be a word missing. Perhaps we need some explaination about the jargon before using it. TomCerul 15:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What something like this :

Briefly, the eleven modes of dismissal are:

* Caught – if a fielder catches the ball after the batsman strikes it, before the ball bounces.

Whaddya know? It's in the paragraph before GWO

That description fails to inlcude "Out Caught Ball". TomCerul 15:28, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hardly surprising, because that's a term that you have just invented. It describes what it means to be out "caught", though.

Oh, even more words missing to my unaccustomed eye. For baseball, we might say someone was caught out, but "out caught" is Strange. Is it common to say that someone is out caught in cricket?

Usually, you'd omit the "out" too. "out, caught", is common, with a modifier.

(Can you out catch someone?)

No,

If not, maybe "A batsman cannot be dismissed because of a caught ball, . . ."

It's the word "ball" that's not used. You just never say, "caught ball". You can say "caught out" (common), "out, caught" is common with a modifier, but the "ball" bit is eternally omitted. The "out caught" is not too common on its own, but works (by analogy) in a list because you *do* say

Flintoff was out LBW.

Boycott was out stumped.

Owen was out, caught behind off the bowling of Tendulkar...

If "out caught" is the phrasing, let's mention that in the Caught description. TomCerul 15:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think it reads better to say "out LBW, bowled, caught, etc..."

I agree. :D TomCerul

This seems to be overly complicated, does it fit in this paragraph or not? "A batsman may be dismissed by any means from a "wide" ball, although any delivery that bowls a batsman, or traps him leg before wicket, would not be called wide. Similarly, any ball hit by the batsman is not considered a wide, and so he may be out caught."

It could probably be omitted. If its complicated now, thats better than how it was before, when it was simply wrong.

Let's pull it, the paragraph can simply explain no-ball. TomCerul 15:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good idea -- in this context (bowler error reprieving out batsmen) no balls are the only thing relevant.

Done. This has been a wierd experience. I thought this was going to turn into a flame war. It's a different internet than it used to be. BTW, do you know about the 4 tilde trick? If you include 4 ~'s with no spaces, it signs your post. TomCerul 15:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, (I've been here forever). I prefer the three tilde trick, myself. GWO

My apologies, but I've never even seen this game played. TomCerul 15:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC) --- Tom: The each time a bowler throws the ball to the batsman it is called a (bowled) 'ball'; to avoid disambiguations here, we use the term "delivery" instead (which is also popular). An illegal thrown ball -- a no-ball occurs when the bowler's foot is out of the specified area or the fielding team violates fielding restrictions (plus a few more cases are there too). A wide occurs when the bowled ball passes too far away from the batsman, such that it is out of his normal reach (hence the name wide). A wide-ball is called by the umpire only if the above condition occurs and the batsman fails to hit this delivery. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:30, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

dimensions

Can somebody check the imperial and metric dimensions against the laws of cricket? I added some by conversion, but I am not convinced the article is satisfactory. Thanks Bobblewik  (talk) 16:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure it isn't satisfactory - some of the imperial dimensions in 'the pitch' were clearly wrong and I have amended them by reference to the rules of cricket, but the article probably needs someone less busy and more methodical than me to go through and check all the dimensions Jongarrettuk 18:51, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I wrote that paragraph, could you be specific as to what is wrong? I had crosschecked the figures before adding. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:10, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

It said the pitch was 72 feet long by 12 - Law 7.1 provides that it's 22 yards by 10 feet (ie 66 feet by 10 feet); Law 9.3 provides that the popping crease is marked for at least 6 feet either side of the middle of the pitch. It's these that I was referring to. I kinda guessed someone vandalised it along the way and it hadn't been picked up rather than it having initially been written wrong Jongarrettuk 19:28, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah yes, well actually, that particular figure is the area of the clay strip. Beyond the stumps at both endsif you've noticed some extra part is also included, this adds up to the 72 feet. Similarly with the width. However the distance between the two wickets are the 22 yards. It wont be wrong to say that 72 feet are the dimentions of the playing area. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:38, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

I understand that the laws have both metric and imperial values. If you take the imperial values from the laws, please also take the metric values from there too. That would be better than applying our own conversions and getting different figures. Thanks Bobblewik  (talk) 10:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I didn't know official metric and imperial units differ. Are the metric figures rounded up or something? [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:37, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

They're rounded to two decimal points, that's all Jongarrettuk 19:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wides and no balls

I prefer Nichalp's wording for wides and no balls - before this is changed again, bear in mind that law 24.15 states:

Out from a No ball When No ball has been called, neither batsman shall be out under any of the Laws except 33 (Handled the ball), 34 (Hit the ball twice), 37 (Obstructing the field) or 38 (Run out)].

and law 25.8 states:

8. Out from a Wide When Wide ball has been called, neither batsman shall be out under any of the Laws except 33 (Handled the ball), 35 (Hit wicket), 37 (Obstructing the field), 38 (Run out) or 39 (Stumped).

We could change the text to mirror the laws, or just list (as we do now) what methods of dismissal don't apply. Jongarrettuk 19:11, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I feel that law numbers should be kept off this page. It would look too "official" and dictionary type. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]]

I absolutely agree with you about keeping them off the main page. But the main page should, I think, be consistent with them. As you've probably guessed by now:) I think they are useful in discussing improvements/accuracy of the main page on this talk page. Jongarrettuk 19:40, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Substitutes

I don't understand where the reference to a fitness test before a match comes from. Can you provide a reference? It's not in law 2 and I've never heard of it before. Jongarrettuk 19:11, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the exact law numbers, but an batsman who is unfit before the game starts, is not allowed access to a runner or substitute. I am certain of this rule. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:29, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

It is in Law Two (indirectly)

If the umpires are satisfied that a player has been injured or become ill after the nomination of the players, they shall allow that player to have'

(i) a substitute acting instead of him in the field.

Present interpretation is that players undergo fitness tests so umpires can rule when the injury occured GWO 07:36, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's true, but that doesn't mean everyone takes a fitness test - have a look at one of the two links to the laws at the bottom of the article (there are only 42 of them, all with straightforward names). I'd also be interested in why you've put that the creases are marked for at least 30 yards (27 m) on either side of the pitch - the only ref I'm aware of in the laws is to 6 feet, though I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. Jongarrettuk 19:35, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The popping creases is extended upto infinity. It is drawn upto 30 yards thereoff. Remember, the square leg umpire has to stand on the popping crease. This also aids the runners. I've never seen a popping crease just six yards off the pitch. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:43, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed that the popping (and also the return) crease is extended up to infinity. I also agree that the minimum marked extension of 6 feet either side of the middle of the pitch is usually exceeded (and by quite a bit too!). The thing is the laws only state a minimum, and I'm not aware of where the 30 yard figure comes from (if you have a good reference, I'll concede). The shortest markings I've ever seen are when I've played at a local park recreationally - the ones I see at the Oval are much much longer! Jongarrettuk 19:53, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the 30 yard visual extension is a hard and fast rule. Since it is extended to a fair distance, (isn't the square-leg ump placed on the intersection of this line and the 30 yard circle?) it would be safe to say that the popping crease is usually marked upto 30 yards (in formal cricket). [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 20:00, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Cricket

from WP:FARC Now I may just be the dumb american, but the claim that it is the second most popular sport in the world needs to be backed up. Can it's attendence be matched up to how much attendance is done in Baseball in America, Japan, The Carribean, Korea, Taiwan, Canada and Central America? I'd like to see Attendance figures, if they can't match what Baseball has had in the Americas and the Far East, then I want it changed to "Second most popular game outside of North America", or something. Sorry if I sound like the ugly american, but I do have a point, it does need to be backed up. --Gamingboy 17:15, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

I removed that sentence. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 17:32, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks.--Gamingboy 17:42, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

I'd suggest removing that claim from any article making it. The second most popular sport in the world isn't clear. Cricket might be able to beat baseball, though, simply by its popularity in India. Average Earthman 17:44, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree, remove "second best" remarks from all sports. --Gamingboy 20:44, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

The phrase mentioned that "Cricket is the second largest viewed sport. It is watched in all Test nations, numbers which would beat many other sports including baseball. The Cricket World Cup is the third largest sporting event watched on television. Come to India and you'll see why :) -- Nichalp

Why is this here and not on that article's talk page? →Raul654 21:03, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new here. I figured it was a error on a Featured Article, so it would go here.--Gamingboy 21:15, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

• (For the record) Keep. (Should this discussion be moved to Talk:cricket?) -- ALoan (Talk) 11:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This shouldn't be here. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:52, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. No reason to remove it for that kind of problem, and its been rectified anyway. Kiand 18:09, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Something that is not mentioned in the run scoring section of the page is: If the batter hits the ball and runs to the other end, thus the 'non-striker' running to the batting end, for a score add of one, does the 'non-striker' then become the striker because he is at that end of the pitch? I know NOTHING of cricket and was reading the article to learn about it.

Yes, the non-striker becomes the striker if one run is scored (or any odd number of runs).

However, at the end of an over, the bowling end changes - that is, if the bowler was bowling from one end of the pitch, the next over will be bowled from the other end. So if the batsmen take one run on the last ball of an over, the guy who was the striker is still going to be the striker. --ashwatha 01:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Should this be mentioned in the main page, as part of scoring maybe?

Seam Bowling

Is the seam bowling article authentic? Seems to me like a it is some kind of top-spin bowling. I'm sure there's more to it. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 20:36, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

It seems correct. But it's not a very good article, is it? Jongarrettuk 20:43, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is authentic, but not brilliant prose.

• Generally, seam bowlers bowl quicker, with the seam nearly parallel to the direction of flight of the ball - the idea is to bounce the ball sideways off the seam (i.e. the ball actually bounces on the seam non-symetrically, creating sideways deviation). The ball is usually imparted some top spin so that it remains stable through the air, but the spin does not create the sideways deviation.

Underspin rather than top spin, induced by pulling the fingers down on release.

• Spin bowlers generally bowl slower, with the seam transverse to the direction of flight of the ball (i.e. the ball bounces on the seam symetrically, so the seam can bite into the pitch and spin the ball sideways).
• Some pace bowlers bowl spun deliveries with the seam transverse to the flight of the ball called "cutters", but cutters are usually bowled a bit slower that full speed otherwise the seam does not have enough time to "grip" the pitch when it bounces.

HTH (and someone please correct me if I am wrong). -- ALoan (Talk) 21:13, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's a poor article. The reason its in that state is that it was previously just plain wrong, conflating seam bowling with swing bowling. I modified it so it was no longer egregiously inaccurate, but couldn't be bothered to give it the full rewrite required -- GWO 10:46, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough - and I wasn't having a 'go' (I've written/contributed to many crap articles myself, so have no stone to case), just leaving a note in case there's anyone more motivated that you and me who wants to improve it. Jongarrettuk 15:02, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's OK, I wasn't apologising.  :) -- GWO

Leg side rule

Any idea why batsmen are not given out LBW if the ball pitches on the leg side of the pitch? I feel that this rule is particularly hard on left-arm bowlers and leg-spinners. Should this rule be revoked? [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:55, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Because otherwise the game would be massively biased towards bowlers who then always seek to pitch the ball outside leg and move towards the stumps. Games would always be over in one or two days. Without the rule, lots and lots of deliveries effectively become unplayable. Or at least that's what they say whenever it's discussed on TV or Test Match Special. I must say, the explanation makes sense to me. jguk 20:15, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) PS Glad to see your guys get one over on the Aussies for once!

In ODI cricket, if the pitched ball misses the batsman and goes down leg, it is wided. If the ball is aligned on leg-stump, then is is easier for the ball to be hit on the off-side, with less of a chance for the batsman being out bowled or snicking the ball. Also, with the six fielder restriction in ODI cricket, teams can't set bodyline field placements if the ball is pitched on leg. I'm not sure how deliveries become unplayable as many deliveries are pitched outside leg-stump and still hit for sixes and fours. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 17:58, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Imagine if all the balls players now pad up to have to be played. Remember, the bad balls that can be gotten away are put away now, but a lot of balls get padded up to too. All these would suddenly become potential wicket taking deliveries. Bodyline fields (more than 2 mean behind square on the leg side) can't be set under any form of cricket. But there is no bar on having 2 leg slips and a couple of men in close on the leg side in front of square ready for the catch. And let me assure you, they often mention this on TV here, and all the former test players say the same thing: it would make too many deliveries unplayable. jguk 19:07, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No no, what you're saying above is perfectly legal to employ. Many deliveries are still pitched outside leg-stump. I've seen many left-arm bowlers pitch the ball outside legstump and then angle it into RHB. Its legal to do this. But sadly if the batsman misses the ball, he can't get out LBW even thought it would have shattered the stumps. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:18, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

And the reason for that is, if you could get LBW's, there'd be no reason for left armers to bowl anywhere else (especially slow left armers). And that would lead to lots of negative tactics -- slinging it down leg and hoping for some movement, knowing that its much harder for the batsman to punish the bad ball down the leg side. It's about discouraging negative tactics, and making the game more interesting. --- GWO

I think the key aspect here is that this only applies if the batsman is playing a shot. If the batsman fails to offer a shot, then he can be given out to any ball, no matter where it pitches, if in the opinion of the umpire it was going to hit the stumps. This is an excellent rule, as it prevents negative play on the part of the batsman - and a batsman padding up over after over is as negative as it gets. Unfortunately, umpires (especially English umpires?) have traditionally been, for some unexplained reason, reluctant to enforce this rule. Batsmen would make the weakest and most unconvincing bit of a vague wave of the bat after the ball had passed through to the keeper, and were deemed to have played a shot. But this seems to be changing of late, umpires seem to have got the message at last - and none to soon!. Tannin 13:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If the batsman fails to offer a shot, then he can be given out to any ball, no matter where it pitches.

That's just incorrect. A batsman is never out LBW to a ball that pitches outside leg. The "not playing a shot" clause applies if the batsman is hit outside the line of off stump by a ball that would go on an hit them. Pitches in the leg-side = not out. Always. See LBW (and Laws 36.1b and 36.1d(i,ii) [2] --- GWO

There are ample laws to wide any delivery that goes past leg in the ODI format. If I was a left-arm bowler, I'll still pitch the ball outside leg and sometimes hope to bowl the batsman around his legs (like Warne sometimes does). However he can't get out LBW, which I feel is sad. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:08, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I prefer five day tests over one or two day tests. And the rule didn't stop Harbajan Singh from getting "7 for" either. jguk 20:30, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Harbhajan Singh bowls right arm off-breaks. Pitching it down the leg side's no good to him. It's a tactic for the leggie and the orthodox slow left armer. -- GWO

Well that depends on whether the batsman is left or right handed (not that I checked how many of the South Africans are left handed). jguk 23:49, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

True, true. Smith and Rudolf are left handers, Harbhajan's other five victims were right handers. -- GWO

To Nichalp; well, the other problem which pitching the ball down leg is that if you stray off your line, or the ball's not turning much, you tend to get smashed to cow corner. -- GWO

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket

May I invite you all to a new WikiProject to improve the quality and depth of cricket articles on Wikipedia. It's located on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket. I'm taking the approach of let's see who's interested and let's see which bits we want to improve/expand to begin with. Once we know that, hopefully we can work together to improve Wikipedia's cricket coverage. jguk 16:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Infobox

In addition to the Cricket WikiProhect, I would like to announce the infobox for cricket players. It has statistics, the flag etc. I would like to call upon all Cricket fans on the Wikipedia to come, test, suggest and if you want edit this box so it looks good enough to use on the other cricket players. So far I started one on Murali, so come and see this very alpha version of the infobox: Template:Muttiah Muralitharan infobox

Update: The box has been improved by User:Smoddy and the new version is at Template:Infobox Cricketer. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket talk page for more details. The one I started has been deleted due to it not being global and obselete. Squash 23:22, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Two test match articles

First Test Match and Second Test Match are bare scorecards for matches in the recent India v. Australia series. They were apparently copied from Cricinfo [3] [4]. They are both on Cleanup. I would like some opinions on...

• whether we should have such articles - is every individual Test Match sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article? Is any Test Match notable?
• whether a scorecard can be copyrighted - that is to say, is the presentation of the scorecard in this format a violation of cricinfo's copyright?
• how should articles about Test matches (if we are to have them) be named? Obviously "First Test Match" is not a unique name. Should it be India v. Australia, 1st Test, 2004-5, or some other format?

Thanks in advance for your comments. --rbrwr^± 19:05, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I personally think this page is totally useless. If the user wants scorecards from Tests, let them look at the Cricinfo page. These articles are not encyclopedic at all. I think they should be deleted. As for whether they are copyright - the data itself is clearly not copyright. However, with the formatting exactly preserved, and no question of any fair use being applicable, I think copyright could have been infringed. Even more - the only article that links to the pages is 2004 in India. These articles in no way contribute to Wikipedia. The pages also infringe several articles on what Wikipedia is not. I say, delete asap. Smoddy | Talk 19:42, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that all matches played should have scorecards put up on wikipedia. The formatting is fine and no copyright infringement can be taken as that is the most common way that scores are represented. Nichalp 19:04, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Helmets

Does anyone know the early history of the use of helmets in Test cricket? I'm sure that I read somewhere some time ago (I can't for the life of me remember where it was though) that Graeme Yallop was the first user. Can anyone confirm or correct this please - Ianbrown 03:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

or maybe it was David Hookes? Ianbrown 05:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There was some discusssion of Viv Richards' aversion to cricket helmets on Talk:Viv Richards - including this comment that I made "The Age makes some interesting comments on the introduction of cricket helmets here." -- ALoan (Talk) 10:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Commment

The article claims "cricket remained illegal until 1748", but the Guiness Book of Records says "the earliest major match of which a full score survives was one in which a team representing England (40 and 70) was beaten by Kent (53 and 58 for 9) by one wicket at the Artillery Ground in Finsbury, London, on 18 Jun 1744". I'm pretty sure 1744 is earlier than 1748.

Also, it's probably worth noting that the first international cricket match was played between the USA and Canada in 1844 (again, according to Guiness). 218.101.90.157 12:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've just started reading A Social History of English Cricket by Derek Birley ISBN 1-85410-941-3. It was named William Hill Sports Book of The Year in 1999, and, even though I'm only up to Chapter 3, I heartily recommend it. That book does not refer to cricket ever being illegal. It notes only that it needed to comply first with Sabbath-observance laws (mid-17th century), and then gaming laws that made bets of first £100 and later £10 illegal (mid-17th century to 18th century). The only reference in Birley's well-researched book to a 1748 court case that I've seen is a London magistrate conceding that cricket is a manly game, but condemning its ill use by betting above the limit of £10. I will change the reference both here and on History of cricket, though I'd be interested to know, if the original contributor can step forward, what the source for the reference to cricket being illegal is, jguk 19:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Dmmaus (he's been offline for quite sometime) and User:Lord Emsworth had quite a say in the history of cricket when it was written. Nichalp 19:34, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

References

I would like a few print references (ie. books with their ISBN) for this page. This would make the article a "complete FA". Nichalp 19:41, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Radius or diameter

WRT a recent edit. Is it the radius or diameter of a field that is 150 metres? Nichalp 19:12, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Neither. There is no set size. Smoddy (t) (e) (g) 19:16, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

True, but it should be clarified as to what most cricket grounds measure, just to give a reader a relative spatial idea. Going back to the question... Nichalp 19:35, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Silly

I have heard that "silly" means something not so silly in Cricket. Either it means "left" or it means "shallow", I can't remember (and may be totally wrong on that, too). Could someone please enlighten me on this? (and preferrably update the article) Thanks. --Vik Reykja 10:58, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See Fielding (cricket), particularly the section on "Modifiers". --rbrwr^± 11:45, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, rbrwr, I hadn't read the satellite articles. My fault. Vik Reykja 12:00, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Strange that there is no entry on cricket terminology. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is now :-) dramatic 09:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cricket to foreigners

I removed the section on cricket for foreigners. It only serves to confuse people who start here to learn the game. Besides, it also provides for a unnessary and often irritating scroll in order to move on to more instructional topics.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 18:51, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'd still like it to go somewhere. It's well-known and quite humorous. Which American actress said something along the lines of "Where is he going? Doesn't he want to play any more?" when a batsman was out on her first visit to a cricket game?

I also remember being a row behind an American who was watching his first game at a Test match at Edgbaston, when 22 or 23 wickets fell - a good day, but he probably got the wrong impression about the game, jguk 19:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about wikiquote?  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 20:40, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone read that thing? :) jguk 20:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your actress, I don't know, but Venus Williams, two hours into a game, once asked, "But when does it start?" Smoddy (_t^g_e^c_k) 19:53, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, actually you didn't remove the section -- you removed my edit to it! (I had changed jguk's text from saying that the piece illustrated the complexity of the game to saying it illustrated the potential ambiguity of the terminology. --Ngb 11:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, my oversight. I've removed it now. I'm not in support of it on this page. I've also pruned the page a bit.

Retired "Hurt"?

I have a .pdf file with me on the laws of cricket (2000). I've checked it, but contrary to popular usage, nowhere does it say that a batsman is "Retired Hurt". Its just '"Retired Out" or "Retired Not out". I guess we'll have to change the link.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 19:31, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

...but as you say, "retired hurt" is the popular usage. It would only confuse people to remove it. For anyone who wants to see the law for themselves, it's Law 2, parts 9(b) and (c). --rbrwr^± 20:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know it may confuse many, but most people retire only after an injury. I've never seen any case of people retiring otherwise. Let's vote here for 1) Popular Usage or 2) Unambiguous original statement to effect a change or not.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 20:54, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

He is retired hurt during the innings. At the close of the innings, he is retired not out. Trust me, I'm a qualified scorer & umpire. Smoddy (_t^g_e^c_k) 22:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Its quite common in lower-grade school games or social games for a batsman to retire upon reaching 50 (primarily to give everyone a chance to bat int he time available). dramatic 09:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Generally, unless the competition rules specify otherwise, the batsman is officially retired out – i.e. they cannot return. Smoddy (_t^g_e^c_k) 19:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A batsman is "retired - x" -- if he leaves the field. I believe that the word "hurt" is added, as in 99.99% of all cases, he retires because of injury. Official usage does not dictate if he retired because he was "hurt". :)  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 20:23, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

When a batsman is injured, he retires "hurt". At the end of the innings, he is noted as being "retired not out" and the score is given as all out (if the other 9 wickets have fallen). Nevertheless, the batsman isn't out. If he retires for pretty much any other reason, he is "retired out". Smoddy (_t^g_e^c_k) 20:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)