![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
{{edit semi-protected}}
The claim that it is the second most popular sport in the world is not adequately supported. The associated footnote links to an article in which a proponent of the sport makes the claim without providing adequate support. Until such support is provided, the final sentence in the intro section should read "according to some proponents of the sport".
94.202.239.13 (
talk) 18:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Not done:That reference appears to be reliable, and every list I look at online marks Cricket as the second most popular sport in the world. While those sites generally don't meet
WP:RS, they definitely aren't all by "cricket proponents." Keep in mind that there is really no doubt that it's the most popular sport in India, and their population alone is enough to push it very high. Unless you have reliable sources that dispute this view, I'm inclined to leave it in. Anyone else disagree?
Qwyrxian (
talk) 10:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if there's a high school Cricket page but thought you guys might be intersted in reading this...I'm trying to revamp the article for my high school (which is closed now unfortunately) but we fielded a high school cricket team. Check it out: Cardinal Gibbons School. Anyway to get a link on this page or the cricket high school page? Wberkey ( talk) 20:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Game (Entertainment):
1. It (Cricket) is only a game, not more than it. And game is playing for creating character.
2. One philosopher told “I can’t know a man even I live with him for so many days but if I play a game with him for an hour only, I can know him”. It means game is the way to make relationship closer. That’s why according to me countries are supporting games. As well if we see history of Olympic, it seems also a part of this theory.
3. Yes it is right when player plays, he should be aggressive. But spectators should not be aggressive, they should only enjoy cricket as a game.
4. We know that players are coming from different-different places, their nature & culture are also different-different, then we cannot give them responsibility of our National Proud.
5. As well as they cannot be an ideal for nation, however as a player he can be for any rising player.
Proud of Nation Concerned:
1. Being an Indian, I am always willing that our team must win.
2. Its question of our proud, we should think that among billions of people even elevens have not talent or ability to win a match or word cup.
3. If any player creates record then he/she become famous as an Indian, so its concerned with proud of nation. And when he/she brought up in India then obviously nation also support to draw out his/her talent.
4. Yes, game exposes character, so in this way also it is concerned with national proud.
5. Yes, players are coming from different-different states, and there is so much diversity (variety) in them, even though if they play & perform well then it’s proud.
Business:
1. Nothing is bad to earn money from Cricket & Indian Premier League is the example of it. Organizers, Franchises, Cricketers etc are earning but people can also get entertainment.
2. Yes, those elevens have talent & they are using their talent to earn money.
3. This business can provide employment to retired cricketers, electronic & print media, etc.
4. Cricket & cricketers are best medium for advertisement of any product. Then they have no worry to do any publicity stunt.
5. This game is career for cricketers & they’re maintaining their health for cricket, they’re not playing for health.
Conclusion:
Now in a days all are considered as a business then it is a game or art or anything, therefore it is not bad if cricketers or businessman or concerned persons earning money from it. But sometime due to this some nuisance also enters in it like match fixing, dirty politics, provincialism, underworld, etc. At that time if we considered as National Proud then it will surely hurt us. So it is better to consider it as only a game. However if any cricketer is playing good and do some extraordinary then it is a proud for whole nation. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mayursharma55 (
talk •
contribs) 11:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I removed the statement that cricket was "the second most popular sport in the world" from the lead - I think that its probably true, depending on how you define popular, but the given "source" was totally inadequate for the claim and a good source for a similar claim was surprisingly difficult to find. There are plenty of "fan estimates" on the internet that make this case but obviously they are not suitable for our purposes. It does seem like some variation on this fact would be an interesting "snippet" to include in the lead though, if anyone can do a better job of finding a proper study / estimate. Ajbpearce ( talk) 09:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
"The court in Guildford heard on Monday, 17 January 1597 (Julian date, equating to the year 1598 in the Gregorian calendar)" This is simply wrong. The Gregorian calendar reform moved the date 10 days forward, i.e. Thursday October, 4th 1582 was followed by Friday October, 15th 1582. Therefore January, 17th 1597 Julian date is January 27th, 1597 Gregorian date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.70.224 ( talk) 02:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The description of this picture says that the wicketkeeper _successfully_ stumped the batsman; The same picture can be found in the article Stump (cricket) [1], there it says that he only attempted but did not succeed because the wicketkeepers food was behind the line.
In that table near the end of the article, what should be dates are interpreted as telephone numbers! Can someone please fix. P0mbal ( talk) 22:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Can we please add a link for "overs"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over_%28cricket%29
Thanks Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmaddenwiki ( talk • contribs) 06:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
There have been 4 changes in the last two days due to baseball fans changing innings to inning (i.e. 2 erroneous edits and 2 corresponding corrections). I recall that there used to be a comment on the page to prevent this (Added in 2004, looking back through the comment archives). Was the comment removed for a reason? Should something similar be reinstated to prevent this problem occurring, or does this occur rarely enough for it not to be a problem? PRB ( talk) 15:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add New Zealand, between 'India' and 'Pakistan', in the last para about where cricket is played. Thank you. And yes, I am a Kiwi...
DoJo60 ( talk) 05:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Done
Ignorant
Armies
?
! 07:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Please "find and replace" all references from cricket as being a Sport to a Game. Justification cricket is a game of skill not a sport. If this there is a disagreement please provide vaid justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeGamer65 ( talk • contribs) 04:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
This argument is interesting when applied to darts, but honestly, in this instance, there's not even an argument to be had. -- Dweller ( talk) 22:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I know nothing about cricket, but am developing the London Wiki [www.london.wikia.com]. Anyone wishing to develop relevant pages is welcome to contribute. Jackiespeel ( talk) 18:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Sir (I don't know whom I am talking to ); the current rankings which are given are wrong. India is 5th in one days. Moreover there are some other mistakes as well. I dont know why, but I think this page is locked. Please update it quickly.-- Pritam Laskar ( talk) 12:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi all. In the past, this has been a Featured Article. User:The Rambling Man and I would like to push it back to that status. Communication and to-do lists will be focussed on this page. I'm going to invite members of WP:CRIC to join, but everyone is truly welcome to feel free to help, comment, criticise etc. I'm cognisant that the article needs to explain what is often perceived to outsiders (and not just Americans) as a difficult to comprehend sport. But it needs to do so without dumbing down. That will be a major challenge. Cheers, -- Dweller ( talk) 14:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
...I'll use baseball as an example because I know enough to explain it simply (whose article also needs help), you'd describe the field, its components; you'd describe the intentions of the defense first (defense is the agressor in baseball, like cricket.) You'd explain that the defense takes the field. Every play begins with a "pitched ball" thrown by a pitcher standing on the "pitcher's mound" in the center of the diamond. The pitcher's initial goal is to throw "strikes" by throwing the ball through the "strike zone." The strike zone is an imaginary rectangle that hovers above home plate. (true the pitcher's main goal is get outs however possible but this will become obvious if it's continued to be explained properly and not pedantically, which is what this article suffers from...) A player on defense called the "catcher" is behind home plate to catch the ball after it's pitched. During the pitch, a batsman or batter on offense stands next to home plate in one of two "batter's boxes." The goal of the batter is to hit the ball out of the air with his bat and prevent the pitcher from throwing strikes. (note that I didn't say the goal of the batter is to get a hit, and score runs, because that doesn't explain anything to the reader.) A pitched ball that misses the strike zone is called a "ball." A hitter with a good eye will typically avoid swinging at "balls" outside of the strike zone and only swing at strikes. ..This would be the type of writing needed for cricket...
I believe cricket is similar in that the bowler is trying to hit the wickets, just like the strike zone right? But it's not really explained clearly and without jargon for it to be a quality article... Basically start with the game in its simplest form.. Usually all ball sports come down to the goals of one person with a ball and someone trying to stop them in some way. And when it's a team ball sport it's just a bunch of people who are helping the person who started out with the ball. Start by explaining the goals of the player with the ball and what they'd be doing if there was no one to stop them, and then explain how the other side is trying to stop them, very simply.. Dancindazed ( talk) 06:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the first thing we need to do is get the structure right. I instinctively feel that people visiting here should first get an understanding of how the game is played, before going into history or international governance. Any views? -- Dweller ( talk) 14:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
For reference, here's the current structure, followed by the one in place when the article became an FA, back in 2004.
1 History 2 Rules and game-play 2.1 Summary 2.2 Objectives 2.3 Pitch, wickets and creases 2.4 Bat and ball 2.5 Umpires and scorers 2.6 Innings 2.7 Overs 2.8 Team structure 2.9 Bowling 2.10 Fielding 2.11 Batting 2.12 Runs 2.13 Extras 2.14 Dismissals (outs) 2.15 Innings closed 2.16 Results 3 Distinctive elements 3.1 Individual focus 3.2 Spirit of the Game 3.3 Influence of weather 3.4 Uniqueness of each field 4 Types of matches 4.1 Test cricket 4.2 Limited overs 4.3 National championships 4.4 Other types of matches 5 International structure 5.1 Members 5.1.1 Full Members 5.1.2 Top Associate and Affiliate Members 6 Statistics 7 In popular culture 8 See also 9 References 10 External links
1 Objective 2 Players and officials 3 The playing field 4 Match structure 5 Play of the game 6 Scoring runs 7 Dismissal of a batsman 8 Player roles 9 History of cricket 10 International structure of cricket 11 Forms of cricket 12 See also 13 External links 14 References
Ignoring the detail, the overarching structure from 2004 (what is cricket, how did it come about, different formats) works for me much better than the current (how did cricket come about, what is cricket, different formats, stats) I'll take a look and see if we have any recent FAs on other major sports and how they're structured. -- Dweller ( talk) 14:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how current these are, but I can find 3 other "top" sport FAs: Association football, baseball and Olympic Games. There structures are:
Football: 1 Etymology and names 2 Gameplay 3 History 4 Laws 4.1 Players, equipment, and officials 4.2 Pitch 4.3 Duration and tie-breaking methods 4.4 Ball in and out of play 4.5 Misconduct 5 Governing bodies 6 International competitions 7 Domestic competitions 8 Women's association football 9 See also 10 References 11 External links
Baseball: 1 History 1.1 Origins of baseball 1.2 History of baseball in the United States 1.2.1 The game turns professional 1.2.2 Rise of Ruth and racial integration 1.2.3 Attendance records and the age of steroids 1.3 Baseball around the world 2 Rules and gameplay 3 Personnel 3.1 Player rosters 3.2 Other personnel 4 Strategy and tactics 4.1 Pitching and fielding tactics 4.2 Batting and baserunning tactics 5 Distinctive elements 5.1 No clock to kill 5.2 Individual focus 5.3 Uniqueness of each baseball park 6 Statistics 6.1 Sabermetrics 7 Popularity and cultural impact 7.1 Baseball in popular culture 8 See also 9 References 10 Sources 11 Further reading 11.1 Online 12 External links
Olympics: 1 Ancient Olympics 2 Modern Games 2.1 Forerunners 2.2 Revival 2.3 1896 Games 2.4 Changes and adaptations 2.4.1 Winter Games 2.4.2 Paralympics 2.4.3 Youth Games 2.5 Recent games 3 International Olympic Committee 3.1 Criticism 4 Commercialization 4.1 Budget 4.2 Effect of television 4.3 Controversy 5 Symbols 6 Ceremonies 6.1 Opening 6.2 Closing 6.3 Medal presentation 7 Sports 7.1 Amateurism and professionalism 8 Controversies 8.1 Boycotts 8.2 Politics 8.3 Use of performance enhancing drugs 8.4 Gender discrimination 8.5 Violence 9 Citizenship 9.1 IOC Rules for Citizenship 9.2 Reasons for Changing Citizenship 9.3 Growing Trend 9.4 Citizenship Changes and Disputes 10 Champions and medalists 11 Host nations and cities 12 See also 13 Notes 14 References 15 Further reading 16 External links
I'm not sure there is a hard-and-fast rule here. Personally, I think the current cricket structure is a mess and the rules section in particular in horribly long and convoluted. My (slight) personal preference would be to keep history at the start, but I've no firm opinion either way. And I quite like the baseball structure. I note that neither the current nor former cricket article has a section on tactics or technique, and that the current version has (probably essential) sections on batting, bowling and fielding which the former version lacked (although they are just kind of stuffed in there as part of the rules instead of saying much about them). -- Sarastro1 ( talk) 21:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
And one other possible useful comparison. The Encyclopedia Britannica has this for cricket:
1 Introduction 2 History 2.1 Origin 2.2 The early years 2.3 Technical development 3 Organization of sport and types of competition 3.1 County and university cricket 3.2 The Cricket Council and the ECB 3.3 International cricket 3.3.1 Australia 3.3.2 Bangladesh 3.3.3 India 3.3.4 New Zealand 3.3.5 Pakistan 3.3.6 South Africa 3.3.7 Sri Lanka 3.3.8 West Indies 3.3.9 Zimbabwe 3.4 Test matches 3.5 21st-century developments 3.6 Women's cricket 4 Play of the game 4.1 Field of play, equipment, and dress 4.2 Rules of the game 4.3 Runs 4.4 Extras 4.5 Overs 4.6 Methods of dismissal 5 Strategy and technique 5.1 Bowling 5.2 Batting 5.3 Fielding 5.4 Wicketkeeping 6 Additional Reading -- Sarastro1 ( talk) 21:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The Britannica structure is horrible and the result of their limited capacity, needing to cover everything in trivial detail in one article, so, for example, needing a section on cricket in each of the Test playing countries. I think deciding on whether to start with history or gameplay is a crucial decision - let's get some consensus... -- Dweller ( talk) 15:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Views please. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Is it worth reconsidering this? It's been in place a very long time. The move protection, I think, is totally justifiable as indef... but edit? -- Dweller ( talk) 13:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A run is scored (a) so often as the batsmen, at any time while the ball is in play, have crossed and made good their ground from end to end. (b) when a boundary is scored. See Law 19 (Boundaries). (c) when penalty runs are awarded. See 6 below. (d) when Lost ball is called. See Law 20 (Lost ball).
Run out new rule:
A bowler can do runt out a batsman if a batsman is out of his/her ground before the bowler bowls a ball.
82.31.66.79 (
talk) 17:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add reference and quote from Douglas Adams' Life, the Universe, and Everything to the pop-culture subsection.
Quote[Searched Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy cricket; quick-searched Cricket]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Places_in_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy Earth is widely regarded with derision and scorn by most sentient beings in the galaxy. That most other races have shunned Earth is in part due to its primitive technological state and also for its invention of the game of cricket, an unfortunate product of racial memory that appears to make light of the horrendously genocidal Krikkit Wars, which right-thinking galactic citizens find immensely distasteful. Before the arrival of Ford Prefect and the Vogons, Earth's main form of extraterrestrial contact was with "teasers": bored rich kids who cruise the galaxy looking for planets yet to make interstellar contact, find some isolated spot, land in front of some credulous soul they know no one will ever believe, strut up and down in front of them with "silly antennas on their head" and make "beep-beep" noises at them. Ford regards this practice as "rather childish, really".
174.58.2.56 (
talk) 04:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
This short lbw explanation: "To be given out lbw, the ball must not bounce outside leg stump or, if the batsman made a genuine attempt to play the ball, outside off stump" is, in my understanding, possibly wrong. This would be right if "bounce" was defined as the hit on the batsman, but wrong, if "bounce" could be read as "pitch". (Only regarding the hit on the batsman it makes a difference if the batsman tried to strike. But the ball may pitch outside off stump and the batsman can be given out lbw, independent from him trying to bat or not, if the ball hit the batsman between the line of wickets. At least that's how I read the rules.) Now, this hinges of the definition of "bounce": If that can only be read as "hit", the wording was correct (but I doubt that, see Bouncer_(cricket). Maybe a modified wording could be "To be given out lbw, the ball must not pitch outside leg stump or, if the batsman made a genuine attempt to play the ball, hit the batsman outside the line of wickets". This is of course still incomplete, which is in the nature of a short description, but at least not faulty. I'm neither proficient enough in cricket nor in english to decide that, and someone else probably could find a better wording, so I open that to discussion. edited Skuckem ( talk) 05:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC) 21:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The issue has been resolved. The wording of the lbw rule has been corrected by Py0alb. Skuckem ( talk) 14:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The cricket differences with for e.g. baseball in especially rules and ball objections. If You see the most players have to use the ball in order to kick-out the wicket defender, or just "destroy" wicket". And in the baseball is - kind unusual for USA version of sport - even less "destroying" and the rules limits and fines deadly attacking the defender.
What is important and should be inserted? The energy of ball - the good player can throw the ball with energy of about 1 088.62169 kilograms (2400 lbs). For source check the USA, 2007 started by John Brenkus sport anatomy from Discovery Science. Or just do the counts. But if You see the play of course You can see the strength of it is big, because defenders have broken legs, etc.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a picture in 'run' of Brian Lara which shows that Brian Lara holds the record for highest score in both Tests and first-class cricket but the record of highest score in tests holds by Sachin Tendulkar. THE Rajiv ( talk) 09:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
New rankings have been declared by ICC officials.I've modified T20 ranking column.For latest ranking result see reference here.Thank You and Best Regards. -- 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 14:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I've finally got round to applying the above consensus about having the gameplay before the history. We now need to decide what ought to be in the rest of the article. This needs to play off WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and comprehensiveness.
I suggest:
In so doing I propose to get rid of the highly POV "distinctive elements" section, subsuming some of it into the game play and leaving other parts of it out altogether. The spirit of the game issue seems quite notable, especially given the impact the game has had on the English language. I've also ditched the Statistics section. The version as it currently appears is thoroughly unenlightening. Adding some records but not others will be POV. Open to comments and suggestions. -- Dweller ( talk) 23:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with getting rid of the "distinctive elements" section entirely. The nuanced effects of pitch and weather, and the individualistic nature of the game are absolutely crucial to understanding the nature of the sport and why it has such a large and passionate following around the world. If its POV then try and fix that instead of dumping it? Py0alb ( talk) 14:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Wait, what? Define distinctive, define element. Is the statement still accurate, relevant and backed up by statistical data? Do spinners do better in Asia and pace bowlers do better in South Africa? Yes. Is winning the toss in Test match more statistically significant than in, say, football? Yes. No longer POV. problem solved.
"Spirit of the Game" however is problematically POV. Does football not have a spirit of the game? Does baseball not have "unwritten rules". I don't think this is particularly distinctive Py0alb ( talk) 16:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Many games can be described in one simple sentence (Tennis - keep the ball in the air longer than the other side'; golf - get the ball into the holes in the right order and in fewer moves than your opponents; snooker get the balls in the right sequence into the holes and prevent your opponent from doing so when it is their turn; football - score more goals than the other team, do not annoy the referee too much and the offside rule is badly designed etc) which enables a newby viewer to get at least some enjoyment out of watching the game. What is the sentence for cricket - everybody has a turn in knocking down the opponent's sticky wicket unless there is a leg in front of it and what else? 80.254.147.68 ( talk) 12:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side thats been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out. When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay all out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game!
Summary: you cannot sum up cricket in this manner. Moreoever, there are different types of cricket, results in Test match cricket are different in description from results in ODI and T20(I). The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
In the sport of cricket, a dismissal occurs when the batsman is out... That explains nothing.. (scroll down..) Ahh "methods of dismissal".. surely that will explain it.
Oh what? So what are all those things.. Bowled? caught? LBW? I still am not knowing the basic actions a defense will take to stop the offense.. just more terminology.. "If a bowler's delivery hits the stumps and a bail is completely removed from the top of the stumps, the striker" etc etc.. This is too complicated just to learn the basic gameplay of a sport.. There's no point in even bothering to explain the basic elements of a sport if it's only explained with the maze of terminologies that are unique to the sport.. If the article is going to be useful to anyone, it's going to start with laying out the sport in very simple terminology. You set up three pegs in the grass... The goal of the pitcher is to do this... (when he's attempting to do this, it's called this).. the goal of the batsman is this (this is called...) The people who understand all the terminologies are only reading to see if they can fix a mistake and the people who don't know all the terminilogies aren't getting anything out of the article... Dancindazed ( talk) 04:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
This article has too many pictures, many of them placed awkwardly disrupting the layout with no relevance to the section theyre placed in. It seems everyone wants their favourite cricketer featured under the guise of holding a record. For a start, I would recommend getting rid of the 20/20 recordholders whose achievements arent really that significant given the relatively tiny total number of games played. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.96.196 ( talk) 18:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I think that this can be improved -- with a one-paragraph summary of the game (Test match). (I've been editing Comparison of cricket and baseball). I'll have a go over the next week or two. Would anyone prefer that I post a draft in talk, or shall I just edit boldly? Alanf777 ( talk) 22:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to review your changes one at a time, because I don't think they're accurate. You have made the lead more unintelligibile to the unfamiliar reader as well. Py0alb ( talk) 09:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I see you've reverted most of my changes. I admit that I'm concentrating on Test cricket and not those new-fangled limited-innings formats.
eg http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cricket&diff=551930631&oldid=551930574
WAS : During cricket matches, the quality of the ball changes to a point where it is no longer usable, and during this decline its properties alter and thus influence the match. (This implies that ONE ball is used for the entire match).
I WROTE : During the innings the quality and roughness of the ball changes, and thus influence the match. New balls are used at the start of each innings (LAW 5.3 -- admittedly at the request of either captain), and may then be replaced after 80 overs (LAW 5.4 -- not less than 75 overs). If a ball is lost or no longer usable before that, then it is replaced with a similarly worn old ball. (LAW 5.5)
SUGGESTED Change : During play the quality and roughness of the ball changes, and thus influence the match. New balls are usually used at the start of each innings (LAW 5.3), and may then be replaced after 75 overs (LAW 5.4). If a ball is lost or no longer usable then it is replaced with a similarly worn old ball. (LAW 5.5) Alanf777 ( talk) 18:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Change 2 : http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cricket&diff=551969269&oldid=551930667 (Comment deleted : I only saw later that you'd reverted to my version) Alanf777 ( talk) 18:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Change 3 : http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cricket&diff=551930574&oldid=551864568
I ADDED : The entire field can be mowed before the start of each day's play. (LAW 10.1.a) The pitch can cleared of debris and rolled before each day's play, and in the interval between innings [Rolling: Law 10.1.(a) Debris: Law 10.2.(a)(i,ii and iii)] But the pitch cannot be watered after the game starts. (Law 10.4).
Everything I wrote is a reasonable summary, supported by the laws. Is there any particular reason you deleted it all? If these don't apply to limited-overs then add a comment. Alanf777 ( talk) 18:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
The lede itself -- you said "You have made the lead more unintelligibile to the unfamiliar reader as well. Py0alb".
The lede is a mess and needs to be completely rewritten. It is unintelligible even to a reader familiar with cricket. I added two rather important elements, which you have deleted:
a) "attempting to dismiss all the batsmen" -- which (in multi-day matches) is often more important than "prevent the batting team scoring runs" : if you DON'T dismiss them all then you have a DRAW -- See the recent England v New Zealand test). I agree that since this is one of the main differences between multi-day and limited-over cricket it should be in a separate sentence.
b) That BOTH batsmen have to run, exchanging positions. The current lede says "enable him (SINGULAR) to run to the other end of the pitch and thus accumulate runs". No mention of what the other batsman does. Alanf777 ( talk) 19:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Alan
First I'd like to say thank you for your efforts in trying to improve this page. I'm sorry that we don't agree on some issues. Lets try and work together and beat out our differences here.
Firstly, its not just test cricket vs limited overs cricket, this page is about cricket in general - both the professional, the formal amateur, and the informal game, hence any lines that only really relevant or accurate for one particular format should really be reserves for the article about that format. That is the reason I removed your otherwise perfectly acceptable comments about the changing of the ball after 80 overs. I'm happy with your suggested compromise, perhaps New balls are OFTEN used at the start of each innings - seeing as I have played in several leagues - both 20 and 40 over - that use the same ball for the entire game. This is probably the case in >50% of cricket matches around the world.
LEAD: (surely not lede?)
The lead is written as such to try and give a completely unfamiliar reader a very basic and holistic understanding of roughly how cricket works. It describes the setting (2 teams of 11 players, a rectangular pitch on a round field) the basic macroscopic progress of play (one team bats, the other team fields, then they swap, maybe twice) and the basic microscopic means of play (one fellow delivers the ball, the other chap hits it and tries to score runs, he keeps going until he is dismissed). To do this, it tries to keep things as simple as possible and use as little terminology as possible. There is plenty of information further down the page for people who want more detail - as well as plenty of links. Hence the deliberate avoidance of attempting to explain at this point what the other batsman does, or indeed the subtle and rare circumstances in which the taking of wickets takes absolute precedence over preventing the other team from scoring runs.
Py0alb ( talk) 20:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Runners have been outlawed in International cricket since 2011 - can this be updated?
It is under the Batting section:
currently says: In the event of an injured batsman being fit to bat but not to run, the umpires and the fielding captain may allow another member of the batting side to be a runner. The runner's only task is to run between the wickets instead of the injured batsman. The runner is required to wear and carry exactly the same equipment as the incapacitated batsman. It is possible for both batsmen to have runners.
should say: In the event of an injured batsman being fit to bat but not to run, the umpires and the fielding captain were previously able to allow another member of the batting side to be a runner. The runner's only task was to run between the wickets instead of the injured batsman and was required to wear and carry exactly the same equipment as the incapacitated batsman. As of 2011 the ICC outlawed the use of runners as they felt this was being abused.
Source: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/521356.html
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirstymob ( talk • contribs) 03:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
In this discussion, someone wrote "When the term Cricket is used, it is generally refers to the sport." (as opposed to the insect (see Cricket (insect)). I'd have guessed that more often people would think of the insect rather than of the sport, but probably I'm biased and I would think the usual denizens of this present talk page would be quite biased, in view of the page's topic. But this raises a question: Which criterion should be used in deciding whether to make this a disambiguation page or to treat the sport or the insect as the "main meaning"? Should it be (1) What people generally think of when they hear the word; or should it be (2) What people are more likely to be searching for when they enter the word "cricket" in the "search" box? Those are two different things. (Maybe I'll also post this in some Wikipedia discussion forum that doesn't have the same expected bias that this page would have.) Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Right now, I don't know why the sport achieves more popularity and significance than several-millenia-year-old insect. If the sport meets both criteria, perhaps shall we ignore those criteria in favor of WP:PRECISION? However, this ain't an official move request yet. Instead, it is a precedessor as part of preparation. -- George Ho ( talk) 05:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
hgjhgun 144.36.188.222 ( talk) 20:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm extending this section so that somebody who reads it could actually follow the game, introducing some key concepts and terms. I'm editing it paragraph by paragraph ... please don't do any edits until I've done. I'll post here. Alanf777 ( talk)
I still think that everything that I wrote belongs in the summary. Maybe the "format" section should summarize the main forms of cricket -- test (series and match), 3-day or 5-day "first class", ODI, twenty-twenty .... Alanf777 ( talk) 21:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
now bowler can do run out a batsman if batsman is out of ground before bowler bowls a ball 111.68.105.74 ( talk) 06:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
In cricket, is a turn of both teams at bat a plural of inning? GinAndChronically ( talk) 22:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
In another article this term is used. What does it mean? GinAndChronically ( talk) 23:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Please correct the rankings as the one given in this article are not updated Dhoom0608 ( talk) 10:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first occurrence of "MCC" should be changed to "the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC)". 72.251.111.8 ( talk) 03:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Look at the fifth photo: can you see a 9 inches ball ? (or is it somewhere to 3 inches or less ) ? Look at the fourteenth photo: is the blade not more than 4.25 inches from the total of 38 inches (I'd say it is about 27 inches)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.158.1 ( talk) 13:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
For those that are not in the know what does it and "centuries" (obviously the plural) mean? Thanks! 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 05:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
That is to be expected and known by a few people but is it explained in the article. If it is not universally known then it had best be part of the mother article so that the unfamiliarity one might have can easily be rooted out with a link. It is the least that can be accommodated much the same as scoring in tennis which I have been known to play but have even greater confusion. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 07:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
My account appears to have been hacked as I did not make the last two edits on this article, thanks for your understanding. --- The ChampionMan 1234 01:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the description of Muralitharan_bowling_to_Adam_Gilchrist.jpg "A ball being bowled. From back to front [...]" to "A ball being bowled. From top to bottom [...]" Carlgo11 ( talk) 09:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. I don't think it matters one way or the other. That said, there shouldn't be an open edit request until the edit to be made is agreed upon. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
18:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)In the article there is the following statement:"Owing to his position directly behind the striker, the wicket-keeper has a good chance of getting a batsman out caught off a fine edge from the bat. He is the only player who can get a batsman out stumped." Is it, in fact true, according to the Laws of the game that the WK is the only player who can be credited with a stumping? I've never heard of anyone else being credited with one but I'm sure it could happen. AFAIK a stumping occurs when the player misses the ball and a fielder (always the keeper in my experience) knocks off the bails while the player is out of his crease. However, it seems to me that a slip fielder to a spinner could stump a batsman (just one possible way it could happen). If this were to happen would it be run out or stumped? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.179.229.37 ( talk) 18:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Really? I have never seen this happen in professional cricket, except in the case of "retired hurt" or a declaration. The only other references to this I could see on the net were reproductions of Wiki. Maybe this is technically true, but it is so uncommon I don't think has a place in a basic run down of the format of the game. I think it should be removed. Faff296 ( talk) 05:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
"In case of a no ball or a wide the batsman can choose to strike the ball, earning runs in addition to the fixed penalty. If he does so he can only be dismissed by being run out." Wide should be removed here, or noted that a struck ball cannot be a wide.
Why are the results for limited overs matches reported in wickets, instead of overs? (See, for example, the 2011 World Cup, reported as "India won by 6 wickets" in the Cricket World Cup article.) While true, it suggests that India won by a wide margin, when in fact they hit their target runs at 48.2 overs; "India won by 1.4 overs" would be a much more accurate description. I suspect that the answer is that reporting wins by wickets, rather than overs, is a hold-over from unlimited-overs matches, and I don't expect Wikipedia to change the way that these results are described, but I thought I would at least raise the issue. Rks13 ( talk) 04:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
139.190.152.180 ( talk) 11:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change "not to the striker's individual total for which runs must be scored off the bat.ghhjj" to "not to the striker's individual total for which runs must be scored off the bat." 39.50.203.99 ( talk) 18:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change:
the last World Cup in 2011 was won by the co-hosts, India. The next World Cup will hosted by Australia and New Zealand in 2015.
to
the last World Cup in 2015 was won by the co-hosts, Australia. The next World Cup will be hosted by England and Wales in 2019.
Recpiper ( talk) 23:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Nation | Governing body | Member since [1] | Current Test rankings | Current ODI rankings | Current T20 rankings |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
Cricket Australia | 15 July 1909 | 2 | 1 | 8 |
![]() |
Bangladesh Cricket Board | 26 June 2000 | 9 | 7 | 10 |
![]() |
England and Wales Cricket Board | 15 July 1909 | 5 | 6 | 4 |
![]() |
Board of Control for Cricket in India | 31 May 1926 | 1 | 3 | 1 |
![]() |
New Zealand Cricket | 31 May 1926 | 6 | 2 | 5 |
![]() |
Pakistan Cricket Board | 28 July 1953 | 4 | 8 | 7 |
![]() |
Cricket South Africa | 15 July 1909A | 3 | 4 | 6 |
![]() |
Sri Lanka Cricket | 21 July 1981 | 7 | 5 | 3 |
![]() |
West Indies Cricket Board | 31 May 1926 | 8 | 9 | 2 |
![]() |
Zimbabwe Cricket | 6 July 1992 | 10 | 12 | 14 |
Nation | Governing body | Member since [1] | Current Test rankings | Current ODI rankings | Current T20 rankings |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
Cricket Australia | 15 July 1909 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
![]() |
Bangladesh Cricket Board | 26 June 2000 | 9 | 7 | 10 |
![]() |
England and Wales Cricket Board | 15 July 1909 | 5 | 6 | 4 |
![]() |
Board of Control for Cricket in India | 31 May 1926 | 1 | 2 | 8 |
![]() |
New Zealand Cricket | 31 May 1926 | 6 | 4 | 7 |
![]() |
Pakistan Cricket Board | 28 July 1953 | 4 | 8 | 5 |
![]() |
Cricket South Africa | 15 July 1909A | 3 | 3 | 6 |
![]() |
Sri Lanka Cricket | 21 July 1981 | 7 | 5 | 3 |
![]() |
West Indies Cricket Board | 31 May 1926 | 8 | 9 | 1 |
![]() |
Zimbabwe Cricket | 6 July 1992 | 10 | 12 | 14 |
PLEASE CHANGE THE FIRST TABLE WITH THE SECOND TABLE MENTIONED BY ME BECAUSE THE FIRST TABLE IS NOT UP TO DATE. Iam Manu21 ( talk) 13:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Done - Although your request was confusing - it seemed to ask for the second table to be inserted - which is what was already there -
Arjayay (
talk) 15:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
182.48.72.18 ( talk) 13:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Is this section really necessary? It was recently added by user BlackJack, who has made other major changes to the article, including the lead. While the article is in need of an overhaul, I think BlackJack's edits have only made matters worse, so reverted and asked to discuss per WP:BRD. I explained that "this section seems pointless to me - a repetition of other sections ... This article is already bloated." He reinstated the material, saying that it was a work in progress. I reverted again and asked him to work on the material in a sandbox and/or collaborate before adding it back. He refused and wrote on my talk page: "Mind telling me who the hell you think you are? If you object to some obviously genuine work that someone is doing, you go to them and discuss it with them. You do not behave like an arrogant knowall who summarily deletes work. Restore that edit now or this goes to ANI as a serious complaint about your attitude." Yes, I would like a discussion, hence the BRD. I guess this will be a different kind of BRD because BlackJack's "work in progress" is still live. Anyway, it would be nice to receive other editors' input so a consensus can develop. - HappyWaldo ( talk) 23:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
You will see that I have added the construction tag to the article. Given that this is the key article in the whole cricket project, it leaves a lot to be desired and needs someone to restructure it and edit out all the unnecessary detail and even trivia that it has accumulated over the years since it was last completely revised. At first, it may seem that some information is being duplicated but that will be a temporary situation as the new structure is implemented and a decision is then taken on what to salvage and what to reject from the older sections being superseded. Please note that "under construction" means what it says and so this will not look like a finished article until the work is completed. I'm more than happy for anyone with sufficient knowledge and useful sources to assist but please note that I am looking to describe the game of cricket to readers who are unfamiliar with it, which means that a lot of "extra baggage" such as I have already removed from the history section must go. The place for that stuff is in History of cricket and similar articles.
One thing I have already done is to ensure there is a link from the intro and from the new "game and objectives" to each of the project's "top importance" subjects, which are the only ones allowed to have articles in Category:Cricket itself, all as agreed by the CRIC project. We need to make sure that all those subjects get a fair hearing in this article as they are the next stage for new students of the game.
I'm happy to answer any questions. Note, however, that I am by no means full-time on WP and may be absent for a few days now and again, but I will try and do something positive and useful with the article. It is no good people just picking at little bits now and again, however well-intentioned they might be and however well they might process each little bit. The article needs a complete overhaul. I doubt if anyone else will volunteer (but please do so if you are inclined) so I'm prepared to take it on. Thanks. Jack | talk page 11:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
"The bowler's intention is to both prevent the scoring of runs and to dismiss the batsman, at which point he has to leave the field and another teammate replaces him at the crease."
I think this sentence should be changed as if you are unfamiliar with cricket you may think that the above could mean that the bowler has to leave the field, but I think it intends to say that the batsman has to leave the field after being dismissed.
Cheers Mark
Markwothe ( talk) 03:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Cricket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Redberry76 ( talk) 19:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Can i write about cricket. Redberry76 ( talk) 19:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
117.240.207.130 ( talk) 10:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cricket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Cricket was invented by Naresh Kurapati in the year 1730 Andrewmckinnis ( talk) 21:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Brad matthews ( talk) 03:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2405:204:4307:EA99:8CC7:AF5C:C679:A86B ( talk) 10:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Cricket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The number of deaths and injuries should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.52.160 ( talk) 11:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the line "a run-out occurs," run-out links to the incorrect article.
It links to /info/en/?search=Run-out when it should link to /info/en/?search=Run_out 24.22.180.118 ( talk) 05:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Afghanistan and Ireland have been made full members whereas the status of affiliate members has been removed.All previous affiliate members have been converted to associate members. 115.112.14.154 ( talk) 05:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
The introduction to this article is a long-term problem. It has just been subject to extensive revision and it is proposed that the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#Cricket should seek to achieve WP:CONSENSUS re its structure, format and content. Please do NOT alter the introduction while this discussion is in progress apart from very minor changes. All interested parties are welcome at the discussion. Thank you. Jack | talk page 15:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
The "Bowling and dismissal" section says "There are ten ways in which a batsman can be dismissed", but then immediately proceeds to list eleven ways. The special case of retiring out should probably be included in the count. Ted.tem.parker ( talk) 20:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
119.160.119.239 ( talk) 01:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
...there was an article called cricket which had featured status on WP. Sadly, it fell from Grace (no, not that one – he's spinning in his grave) and was demoted to start-class. This calamity occurred almost nine years ago and, since then, cricket has been wandering in the wiki-wilderness. By June 2017, it was a candidate for the title of Worst Article on WP. Efforts have been made to restore some of cricket's credibility and improve it to B-class standard at least. I'm confident that this has been achieved and that the article now has adequate coverage and accuracy; referencing and citations; use of English; structure; navigation and supporting materials.
The question is: can we improve it to higher standards and ultimately get it back onto the site's front page as "today's featured article"?
I can't say I'm too interested in the FA/GA processes personally and, normally, I take them or leave them. Cricket, however, is our flagship article and, if we had just one and only one featured article, this is the one it should be. If anyone else is interested in a Cricket For FA campaign, I'll be happy to work with you. Thanks. Jack | talk page 10:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
In summary, the school cricket section looks unwritten and isn't an encyclopedic section mentioning all the forms of cricket as a game. The section doesn't have the tone of a Wikipedia article and it appears to be biased. Combining schools with clubs made 'school cricket' read as very unimportant and unworthy of writing. Scrabble doesn't suffer the insult of being named an 'informal' and 'amateur' game in its introductory summary while only earning itself a mere two emphatic lines. — Brett Johnston ( talk • contribs) 11:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Geanfranco10171 ( talk) 01:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Abstract Purpose To investigate whether there is a differential response at rest and following exercise to conditions of genuine high altitude (GHA), normobaric hypoxia (NH), hypobaric hypoxia (HH), and normobaric normoxia (NN). Method Markers of sympathoadrenal and adrenocortical function [plasma normetanephrine (PNORMET), metanephrine (PMET), cortisol], myocardial injury [highly sensitive cardiac troponin T (hscTnT)], and function [N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP)] were evaluated at rest and with exercise under NN, at 3375 m in the Alps (GHA) and at equivalent simulated altitude under NH and HH. Participants cycled for 2 h [15-min warm-up, 105 min at 55% Wmax (maximal workload)] with venous blood samples taken prior (T0), immediately following (T120) and 2-h post-exercise (T240). Results Exercise in the three hypoxic environments produced a similar pattern of response with the only difference between environments being in relation to PNORMET. Exercise in NN only induced a rise in PNORMET and PMET. Conclusion Biochemical markers that reflect sympathoadrenal, adrenocortical, and myocardial responses to physiological stress demonstrate significant differences in the response to exercise under conditions of normoxia versus hypoxia, while NH and HH appear to induce broadly similar responses to GHA and may, therefore, be reasonable surrogates. |
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Bulletsekar ( talk) 07:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
All content to 28 October 2017 is now in Talk:Cricket/Archive 13. Jack | talk page 08:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dipen patel 2952000 ( talk) 04:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
cricket is the great game
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article states:
If a fielder is injured or becomes ill during a match, a substitute is allowed to field instead of him, but the substitute cannot bowl, act as a captain or keep wicket...
This was changed in 2017, I believe. For instance, it happened today in the IPL:
http://www.timesnownews.com/sports/cricket/ipl/article/ipl-2018-new-rules-allow-aditya-tare-to-keep-wickets-for-injured-ishan-kishan-during-mi-vs-rcb-match/218530 Johnroblawson ( talk) 02:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
As the contributor comments, "I'm not entirely sure what the umpire (Simon Taufel) is signalling, but I'm sure it's important."
I'm sure this isn't any official signal, and it probably isn't a signal to the scorers at all. Anyone got a picture of a commonplace signal of some significance?
Atconsul ( talk) 11:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
He say out. Thank u. Pandya101 ( talk) 16:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
In the very first paragraph, it says "*a bail* balanced on three stumps". Is the Bail (cricket) article wrong, or is this wrong? This one seems to be, but I am surprised. Am I missing something? Peacedance ( talk) 17:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The introduction says "When ten players have been dismissed, the innings end and the teams swap roles." Shouldn't that be "innings ends"? 208.95.49.47 ( talk) 13:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC) 208.95.49.47 ( talk) 13:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could someone perform the edit I requested above? Clearly DannyS doesn't understand that "innings" can be singular in cricket. 208.95.49.47 ( talk) 19:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
"Innings" is certainly singular, but is it plural? I am sure I have heard "inningses" as the plural, which does not necessarily mean it is correct, of course. Seadowns ( talk) 00:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Cricket test world cup Namanjn10555 ( talk) 18:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article states:
New European cricket league is now <a href=" https://eurot20-slam.com ">EURO T20 SLAM </a> league which is officially organized under the cap of ICC. Which is held at Netherland, Scotlands, and Ireland from 30th August to 22 September 2019
https://eurot20-slam.com
Johnroblawson (
talk) 02:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
In the entire cricketing world, except Australia, a score is given as e.g. 156 (runs) for 7 (wickets). In Australia it's the reverse: 7 for 156. Can anyone tell me how and why and when this change happened Down Under? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC) not compared Australia with others
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cricket (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 13:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
{{edit semi-protected}}
The claim that it is the second most popular sport in the world is not adequately supported. The associated footnote links to an article in which a proponent of the sport makes the claim without providing adequate support. Until such support is provided, the final sentence in the intro section should read "according to some proponents of the sport".
94.202.239.13 (
talk) 18:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Not done:That reference appears to be reliable, and every list I look at online marks Cricket as the second most popular sport in the world. While those sites generally don't meet
WP:RS, they definitely aren't all by "cricket proponents." Keep in mind that there is really no doubt that it's the most popular sport in India, and their population alone is enough to push it very high. Unless you have reliable sources that dispute this view, I'm inclined to leave it in. Anyone else disagree?
Qwyrxian (
talk) 10:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if there's a high school Cricket page but thought you guys might be intersted in reading this...I'm trying to revamp the article for my high school (which is closed now unfortunately) but we fielded a high school cricket team. Check it out: Cardinal Gibbons School. Anyway to get a link on this page or the cricket high school page? Wberkey ( talk) 20:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Game (Entertainment):
1. It (Cricket) is only a game, not more than it. And game is playing for creating character.
2. One philosopher told “I can’t know a man even I live with him for so many days but if I play a game with him for an hour only, I can know him”. It means game is the way to make relationship closer. That’s why according to me countries are supporting games. As well if we see history of Olympic, it seems also a part of this theory.
3. Yes it is right when player plays, he should be aggressive. But spectators should not be aggressive, they should only enjoy cricket as a game.
4. We know that players are coming from different-different places, their nature & culture are also different-different, then we cannot give them responsibility of our National Proud.
5. As well as they cannot be an ideal for nation, however as a player he can be for any rising player.
Proud of Nation Concerned:
1. Being an Indian, I am always willing that our team must win.
2. Its question of our proud, we should think that among billions of people even elevens have not talent or ability to win a match or word cup.
3. If any player creates record then he/she become famous as an Indian, so its concerned with proud of nation. And when he/she brought up in India then obviously nation also support to draw out his/her talent.
4. Yes, game exposes character, so in this way also it is concerned with national proud.
5. Yes, players are coming from different-different states, and there is so much diversity (variety) in them, even though if they play & perform well then it’s proud.
Business:
1. Nothing is bad to earn money from Cricket & Indian Premier League is the example of it. Organizers, Franchises, Cricketers etc are earning but people can also get entertainment.
2. Yes, those elevens have talent & they are using their talent to earn money.
3. This business can provide employment to retired cricketers, electronic & print media, etc.
4. Cricket & cricketers are best medium for advertisement of any product. Then they have no worry to do any publicity stunt.
5. This game is career for cricketers & they’re maintaining their health for cricket, they’re not playing for health.
Conclusion:
Now in a days all are considered as a business then it is a game or art or anything, therefore it is not bad if cricketers or businessman or concerned persons earning money from it. But sometime due to this some nuisance also enters in it like match fixing, dirty politics, provincialism, underworld, etc. At that time if we considered as National Proud then it will surely hurt us. So it is better to consider it as only a game. However if any cricketer is playing good and do some extraordinary then it is a proud for whole nation. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mayursharma55 (
talk •
contribs) 11:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I removed the statement that cricket was "the second most popular sport in the world" from the lead - I think that its probably true, depending on how you define popular, but the given "source" was totally inadequate for the claim and a good source for a similar claim was surprisingly difficult to find. There are plenty of "fan estimates" on the internet that make this case but obviously they are not suitable for our purposes. It does seem like some variation on this fact would be an interesting "snippet" to include in the lead though, if anyone can do a better job of finding a proper study / estimate. Ajbpearce ( talk) 09:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
"The court in Guildford heard on Monday, 17 January 1597 (Julian date, equating to the year 1598 in the Gregorian calendar)" This is simply wrong. The Gregorian calendar reform moved the date 10 days forward, i.e. Thursday October, 4th 1582 was followed by Friday October, 15th 1582. Therefore January, 17th 1597 Julian date is January 27th, 1597 Gregorian date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.70.224 ( talk) 02:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The description of this picture says that the wicketkeeper _successfully_ stumped the batsman; The same picture can be found in the article Stump (cricket) [1], there it says that he only attempted but did not succeed because the wicketkeepers food was behind the line.
In that table near the end of the article, what should be dates are interpreted as telephone numbers! Can someone please fix. P0mbal ( talk) 22:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Can we please add a link for "overs"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over_%28cricket%29
Thanks Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmaddenwiki ( talk • contribs) 06:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
There have been 4 changes in the last two days due to baseball fans changing innings to inning (i.e. 2 erroneous edits and 2 corresponding corrections). I recall that there used to be a comment on the page to prevent this (Added in 2004, looking back through the comment archives). Was the comment removed for a reason? Should something similar be reinstated to prevent this problem occurring, or does this occur rarely enough for it not to be a problem? PRB ( talk) 15:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add New Zealand, between 'India' and 'Pakistan', in the last para about where cricket is played. Thank you. And yes, I am a Kiwi...
DoJo60 ( talk) 05:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Done
Ignorant
Armies
?
! 07:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Please "find and replace" all references from cricket as being a Sport to a Game. Justification cricket is a game of skill not a sport. If this there is a disagreement please provide vaid justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeGamer65 ( talk • contribs) 04:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
This argument is interesting when applied to darts, but honestly, in this instance, there's not even an argument to be had. -- Dweller ( talk) 22:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I know nothing about cricket, but am developing the London Wiki [www.london.wikia.com]. Anyone wishing to develop relevant pages is welcome to contribute. Jackiespeel ( talk) 18:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Sir (I don't know whom I am talking to ); the current rankings which are given are wrong. India is 5th in one days. Moreover there are some other mistakes as well. I dont know why, but I think this page is locked. Please update it quickly.-- Pritam Laskar ( talk) 12:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi all. In the past, this has been a Featured Article. User:The Rambling Man and I would like to push it back to that status. Communication and to-do lists will be focussed on this page. I'm going to invite members of WP:CRIC to join, but everyone is truly welcome to feel free to help, comment, criticise etc. I'm cognisant that the article needs to explain what is often perceived to outsiders (and not just Americans) as a difficult to comprehend sport. But it needs to do so without dumbing down. That will be a major challenge. Cheers, -- Dweller ( talk) 14:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
...I'll use baseball as an example because I know enough to explain it simply (whose article also needs help), you'd describe the field, its components; you'd describe the intentions of the defense first (defense is the agressor in baseball, like cricket.) You'd explain that the defense takes the field. Every play begins with a "pitched ball" thrown by a pitcher standing on the "pitcher's mound" in the center of the diamond. The pitcher's initial goal is to throw "strikes" by throwing the ball through the "strike zone." The strike zone is an imaginary rectangle that hovers above home plate. (true the pitcher's main goal is get outs however possible but this will become obvious if it's continued to be explained properly and not pedantically, which is what this article suffers from...) A player on defense called the "catcher" is behind home plate to catch the ball after it's pitched. During the pitch, a batsman or batter on offense stands next to home plate in one of two "batter's boxes." The goal of the batter is to hit the ball out of the air with his bat and prevent the pitcher from throwing strikes. (note that I didn't say the goal of the batter is to get a hit, and score runs, because that doesn't explain anything to the reader.) A pitched ball that misses the strike zone is called a "ball." A hitter with a good eye will typically avoid swinging at "balls" outside of the strike zone and only swing at strikes. ..This would be the type of writing needed for cricket...
I believe cricket is similar in that the bowler is trying to hit the wickets, just like the strike zone right? But it's not really explained clearly and without jargon for it to be a quality article... Basically start with the game in its simplest form.. Usually all ball sports come down to the goals of one person with a ball and someone trying to stop them in some way. And when it's a team ball sport it's just a bunch of people who are helping the person who started out with the ball. Start by explaining the goals of the player with the ball and what they'd be doing if there was no one to stop them, and then explain how the other side is trying to stop them, very simply.. Dancindazed ( talk) 06:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the first thing we need to do is get the structure right. I instinctively feel that people visiting here should first get an understanding of how the game is played, before going into history or international governance. Any views? -- Dweller ( talk) 14:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
For reference, here's the current structure, followed by the one in place when the article became an FA, back in 2004.
1 History 2 Rules and game-play 2.1 Summary 2.2 Objectives 2.3 Pitch, wickets and creases 2.4 Bat and ball 2.5 Umpires and scorers 2.6 Innings 2.7 Overs 2.8 Team structure 2.9 Bowling 2.10 Fielding 2.11 Batting 2.12 Runs 2.13 Extras 2.14 Dismissals (outs) 2.15 Innings closed 2.16 Results 3 Distinctive elements 3.1 Individual focus 3.2 Spirit of the Game 3.3 Influence of weather 3.4 Uniqueness of each field 4 Types of matches 4.1 Test cricket 4.2 Limited overs 4.3 National championships 4.4 Other types of matches 5 International structure 5.1 Members 5.1.1 Full Members 5.1.2 Top Associate and Affiliate Members 6 Statistics 7 In popular culture 8 See also 9 References 10 External links
1 Objective 2 Players and officials 3 The playing field 4 Match structure 5 Play of the game 6 Scoring runs 7 Dismissal of a batsman 8 Player roles 9 History of cricket 10 International structure of cricket 11 Forms of cricket 12 See also 13 External links 14 References
Ignoring the detail, the overarching structure from 2004 (what is cricket, how did it come about, different formats) works for me much better than the current (how did cricket come about, what is cricket, different formats, stats) I'll take a look and see if we have any recent FAs on other major sports and how they're structured. -- Dweller ( talk) 14:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how current these are, but I can find 3 other "top" sport FAs: Association football, baseball and Olympic Games. There structures are:
Football: 1 Etymology and names 2 Gameplay 3 History 4 Laws 4.1 Players, equipment, and officials 4.2 Pitch 4.3 Duration and tie-breaking methods 4.4 Ball in and out of play 4.5 Misconduct 5 Governing bodies 6 International competitions 7 Domestic competitions 8 Women's association football 9 See also 10 References 11 External links
Baseball: 1 History 1.1 Origins of baseball 1.2 History of baseball in the United States 1.2.1 The game turns professional 1.2.2 Rise of Ruth and racial integration 1.2.3 Attendance records and the age of steroids 1.3 Baseball around the world 2 Rules and gameplay 3 Personnel 3.1 Player rosters 3.2 Other personnel 4 Strategy and tactics 4.1 Pitching and fielding tactics 4.2 Batting and baserunning tactics 5 Distinctive elements 5.1 No clock to kill 5.2 Individual focus 5.3 Uniqueness of each baseball park 6 Statistics 6.1 Sabermetrics 7 Popularity and cultural impact 7.1 Baseball in popular culture 8 See also 9 References 10 Sources 11 Further reading 11.1 Online 12 External links
Olympics: 1 Ancient Olympics 2 Modern Games 2.1 Forerunners 2.2 Revival 2.3 1896 Games 2.4 Changes and adaptations 2.4.1 Winter Games 2.4.2 Paralympics 2.4.3 Youth Games 2.5 Recent games 3 International Olympic Committee 3.1 Criticism 4 Commercialization 4.1 Budget 4.2 Effect of television 4.3 Controversy 5 Symbols 6 Ceremonies 6.1 Opening 6.2 Closing 6.3 Medal presentation 7 Sports 7.1 Amateurism and professionalism 8 Controversies 8.1 Boycotts 8.2 Politics 8.3 Use of performance enhancing drugs 8.4 Gender discrimination 8.5 Violence 9 Citizenship 9.1 IOC Rules for Citizenship 9.2 Reasons for Changing Citizenship 9.3 Growing Trend 9.4 Citizenship Changes and Disputes 10 Champions and medalists 11 Host nations and cities 12 See also 13 Notes 14 References 15 Further reading 16 External links
I'm not sure there is a hard-and-fast rule here. Personally, I think the current cricket structure is a mess and the rules section in particular in horribly long and convoluted. My (slight) personal preference would be to keep history at the start, but I've no firm opinion either way. And I quite like the baseball structure. I note that neither the current nor former cricket article has a section on tactics or technique, and that the current version has (probably essential) sections on batting, bowling and fielding which the former version lacked (although they are just kind of stuffed in there as part of the rules instead of saying much about them). -- Sarastro1 ( talk) 21:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
And one other possible useful comparison. The Encyclopedia Britannica has this for cricket:
1 Introduction 2 History 2.1 Origin 2.2 The early years 2.3 Technical development 3 Organization of sport and types of competition 3.1 County and university cricket 3.2 The Cricket Council and the ECB 3.3 International cricket 3.3.1 Australia 3.3.2 Bangladesh 3.3.3 India 3.3.4 New Zealand 3.3.5 Pakistan 3.3.6 South Africa 3.3.7 Sri Lanka 3.3.8 West Indies 3.3.9 Zimbabwe 3.4 Test matches 3.5 21st-century developments 3.6 Women's cricket 4 Play of the game 4.1 Field of play, equipment, and dress 4.2 Rules of the game 4.3 Runs 4.4 Extras 4.5 Overs 4.6 Methods of dismissal 5 Strategy and technique 5.1 Bowling 5.2 Batting 5.3 Fielding 5.4 Wicketkeeping 6 Additional Reading -- Sarastro1 ( talk) 21:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The Britannica structure is horrible and the result of their limited capacity, needing to cover everything in trivial detail in one article, so, for example, needing a section on cricket in each of the Test playing countries. I think deciding on whether to start with history or gameplay is a crucial decision - let's get some consensus... -- Dweller ( talk) 15:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Views please. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Is it worth reconsidering this? It's been in place a very long time. The move protection, I think, is totally justifiable as indef... but edit? -- Dweller ( talk) 13:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A run is scored (a) so often as the batsmen, at any time while the ball is in play, have crossed and made good their ground from end to end. (b) when a boundary is scored. See Law 19 (Boundaries). (c) when penalty runs are awarded. See 6 below. (d) when Lost ball is called. See Law 20 (Lost ball).
Run out new rule:
A bowler can do runt out a batsman if a batsman is out of his/her ground before the bowler bowls a ball.
82.31.66.79 (
talk) 17:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add reference and quote from Douglas Adams' Life, the Universe, and Everything to the pop-culture subsection.
Quote[Searched Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy cricket; quick-searched Cricket]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Places_in_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy Earth is widely regarded with derision and scorn by most sentient beings in the galaxy. That most other races have shunned Earth is in part due to its primitive technological state and also for its invention of the game of cricket, an unfortunate product of racial memory that appears to make light of the horrendously genocidal Krikkit Wars, which right-thinking galactic citizens find immensely distasteful. Before the arrival of Ford Prefect and the Vogons, Earth's main form of extraterrestrial contact was with "teasers": bored rich kids who cruise the galaxy looking for planets yet to make interstellar contact, find some isolated spot, land in front of some credulous soul they know no one will ever believe, strut up and down in front of them with "silly antennas on their head" and make "beep-beep" noises at them. Ford regards this practice as "rather childish, really".
174.58.2.56 (
talk) 04:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
This short lbw explanation: "To be given out lbw, the ball must not bounce outside leg stump or, if the batsman made a genuine attempt to play the ball, outside off stump" is, in my understanding, possibly wrong. This would be right if "bounce" was defined as the hit on the batsman, but wrong, if "bounce" could be read as "pitch". (Only regarding the hit on the batsman it makes a difference if the batsman tried to strike. But the ball may pitch outside off stump and the batsman can be given out lbw, independent from him trying to bat or not, if the ball hit the batsman between the line of wickets. At least that's how I read the rules.) Now, this hinges of the definition of "bounce": If that can only be read as "hit", the wording was correct (but I doubt that, see Bouncer_(cricket). Maybe a modified wording could be "To be given out lbw, the ball must not pitch outside leg stump or, if the batsman made a genuine attempt to play the ball, hit the batsman outside the line of wickets". This is of course still incomplete, which is in the nature of a short description, but at least not faulty. I'm neither proficient enough in cricket nor in english to decide that, and someone else probably could find a better wording, so I open that to discussion. edited Skuckem ( talk) 05:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC) 21:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The issue has been resolved. The wording of the lbw rule has been corrected by Py0alb. Skuckem ( talk) 14:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The cricket differences with for e.g. baseball in especially rules and ball objections. If You see the most players have to use the ball in order to kick-out the wicket defender, or just "destroy" wicket". And in the baseball is - kind unusual for USA version of sport - even less "destroying" and the rules limits and fines deadly attacking the defender.
What is important and should be inserted? The energy of ball - the good player can throw the ball with energy of about 1 088.62169 kilograms (2400 lbs). For source check the USA, 2007 started by John Brenkus sport anatomy from Discovery Science. Or just do the counts. But if You see the play of course You can see the strength of it is big, because defenders have broken legs, etc.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a picture in 'run' of Brian Lara which shows that Brian Lara holds the record for highest score in both Tests and first-class cricket but the record of highest score in tests holds by Sachin Tendulkar. THE Rajiv ( talk) 09:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
New rankings have been declared by ICC officials.I've modified T20 ranking column.For latest ranking result see reference here.Thank You and Best Regards. -- 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 14:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I've finally got round to applying the above consensus about having the gameplay before the history. We now need to decide what ought to be in the rest of the article. This needs to play off WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and comprehensiveness.
I suggest:
In so doing I propose to get rid of the highly POV "distinctive elements" section, subsuming some of it into the game play and leaving other parts of it out altogether. The spirit of the game issue seems quite notable, especially given the impact the game has had on the English language. I've also ditched the Statistics section. The version as it currently appears is thoroughly unenlightening. Adding some records but not others will be POV. Open to comments and suggestions. -- Dweller ( talk) 23:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with getting rid of the "distinctive elements" section entirely. The nuanced effects of pitch and weather, and the individualistic nature of the game are absolutely crucial to understanding the nature of the sport and why it has such a large and passionate following around the world. If its POV then try and fix that instead of dumping it? Py0alb ( talk) 14:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Wait, what? Define distinctive, define element. Is the statement still accurate, relevant and backed up by statistical data? Do spinners do better in Asia and pace bowlers do better in South Africa? Yes. Is winning the toss in Test match more statistically significant than in, say, football? Yes. No longer POV. problem solved.
"Spirit of the Game" however is problematically POV. Does football not have a spirit of the game? Does baseball not have "unwritten rules". I don't think this is particularly distinctive Py0alb ( talk) 16:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Many games can be described in one simple sentence (Tennis - keep the ball in the air longer than the other side'; golf - get the ball into the holes in the right order and in fewer moves than your opponents; snooker get the balls in the right sequence into the holes and prevent your opponent from doing so when it is their turn; football - score more goals than the other team, do not annoy the referee too much and the offside rule is badly designed etc) which enables a newby viewer to get at least some enjoyment out of watching the game. What is the sentence for cricket - everybody has a turn in knocking down the opponent's sticky wicket unless there is a leg in front of it and what else? 80.254.147.68 ( talk) 12:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side thats been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out. When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay all out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game!
Summary: you cannot sum up cricket in this manner. Moreoever, there are different types of cricket, results in Test match cricket are different in description from results in ODI and T20(I). The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
In the sport of cricket, a dismissal occurs when the batsman is out... That explains nothing.. (scroll down..) Ahh "methods of dismissal".. surely that will explain it.
Oh what? So what are all those things.. Bowled? caught? LBW? I still am not knowing the basic actions a defense will take to stop the offense.. just more terminology.. "If a bowler's delivery hits the stumps and a bail is completely removed from the top of the stumps, the striker" etc etc.. This is too complicated just to learn the basic gameplay of a sport.. There's no point in even bothering to explain the basic elements of a sport if it's only explained with the maze of terminologies that are unique to the sport.. If the article is going to be useful to anyone, it's going to start with laying out the sport in very simple terminology. You set up three pegs in the grass... The goal of the pitcher is to do this... (when he's attempting to do this, it's called this).. the goal of the batsman is this (this is called...) The people who understand all the terminologies are only reading to see if they can fix a mistake and the people who don't know all the terminilogies aren't getting anything out of the article... Dancindazed ( talk) 04:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
This article has too many pictures, many of them placed awkwardly disrupting the layout with no relevance to the section theyre placed in. It seems everyone wants their favourite cricketer featured under the guise of holding a record. For a start, I would recommend getting rid of the 20/20 recordholders whose achievements arent really that significant given the relatively tiny total number of games played. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.96.196 ( talk) 18:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I think that this can be improved -- with a one-paragraph summary of the game (Test match). (I've been editing Comparison of cricket and baseball). I'll have a go over the next week or two. Would anyone prefer that I post a draft in talk, or shall I just edit boldly? Alanf777 ( talk) 22:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to review your changes one at a time, because I don't think they're accurate. You have made the lead more unintelligibile to the unfamiliar reader as well. Py0alb ( talk) 09:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I see you've reverted most of my changes. I admit that I'm concentrating on Test cricket and not those new-fangled limited-innings formats.
eg http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cricket&diff=551930631&oldid=551930574
WAS : During cricket matches, the quality of the ball changes to a point where it is no longer usable, and during this decline its properties alter and thus influence the match. (This implies that ONE ball is used for the entire match).
I WROTE : During the innings the quality and roughness of the ball changes, and thus influence the match. New balls are used at the start of each innings (LAW 5.3 -- admittedly at the request of either captain), and may then be replaced after 80 overs (LAW 5.4 -- not less than 75 overs). If a ball is lost or no longer usable before that, then it is replaced with a similarly worn old ball. (LAW 5.5)
SUGGESTED Change : During play the quality and roughness of the ball changes, and thus influence the match. New balls are usually used at the start of each innings (LAW 5.3), and may then be replaced after 75 overs (LAW 5.4). If a ball is lost or no longer usable then it is replaced with a similarly worn old ball. (LAW 5.5) Alanf777 ( talk) 18:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Change 2 : http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cricket&diff=551969269&oldid=551930667 (Comment deleted : I only saw later that you'd reverted to my version) Alanf777 ( talk) 18:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Change 3 : http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cricket&diff=551930574&oldid=551864568
I ADDED : The entire field can be mowed before the start of each day's play. (LAW 10.1.a) The pitch can cleared of debris and rolled before each day's play, and in the interval between innings [Rolling: Law 10.1.(a) Debris: Law 10.2.(a)(i,ii and iii)] But the pitch cannot be watered after the game starts. (Law 10.4).
Everything I wrote is a reasonable summary, supported by the laws. Is there any particular reason you deleted it all? If these don't apply to limited-overs then add a comment. Alanf777 ( talk) 18:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
The lede itself -- you said "You have made the lead more unintelligibile to the unfamiliar reader as well. Py0alb".
The lede is a mess and needs to be completely rewritten. It is unintelligible even to a reader familiar with cricket. I added two rather important elements, which you have deleted:
a) "attempting to dismiss all the batsmen" -- which (in multi-day matches) is often more important than "prevent the batting team scoring runs" : if you DON'T dismiss them all then you have a DRAW -- See the recent England v New Zealand test). I agree that since this is one of the main differences between multi-day and limited-over cricket it should be in a separate sentence.
b) That BOTH batsmen have to run, exchanging positions. The current lede says "enable him (SINGULAR) to run to the other end of the pitch and thus accumulate runs". No mention of what the other batsman does. Alanf777 ( talk) 19:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Alan
First I'd like to say thank you for your efforts in trying to improve this page. I'm sorry that we don't agree on some issues. Lets try and work together and beat out our differences here.
Firstly, its not just test cricket vs limited overs cricket, this page is about cricket in general - both the professional, the formal amateur, and the informal game, hence any lines that only really relevant or accurate for one particular format should really be reserves for the article about that format. That is the reason I removed your otherwise perfectly acceptable comments about the changing of the ball after 80 overs. I'm happy with your suggested compromise, perhaps New balls are OFTEN used at the start of each innings - seeing as I have played in several leagues - both 20 and 40 over - that use the same ball for the entire game. This is probably the case in >50% of cricket matches around the world.
LEAD: (surely not lede?)
The lead is written as such to try and give a completely unfamiliar reader a very basic and holistic understanding of roughly how cricket works. It describes the setting (2 teams of 11 players, a rectangular pitch on a round field) the basic macroscopic progress of play (one team bats, the other team fields, then they swap, maybe twice) and the basic microscopic means of play (one fellow delivers the ball, the other chap hits it and tries to score runs, he keeps going until he is dismissed). To do this, it tries to keep things as simple as possible and use as little terminology as possible. There is plenty of information further down the page for people who want more detail - as well as plenty of links. Hence the deliberate avoidance of attempting to explain at this point what the other batsman does, or indeed the subtle and rare circumstances in which the taking of wickets takes absolute precedence over preventing the other team from scoring runs.
Py0alb ( talk) 20:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Runners have been outlawed in International cricket since 2011 - can this be updated?
It is under the Batting section:
currently says: In the event of an injured batsman being fit to bat but not to run, the umpires and the fielding captain may allow another member of the batting side to be a runner. The runner's only task is to run between the wickets instead of the injured batsman. The runner is required to wear and carry exactly the same equipment as the incapacitated batsman. It is possible for both batsmen to have runners.
should say: In the event of an injured batsman being fit to bat but not to run, the umpires and the fielding captain were previously able to allow another member of the batting side to be a runner. The runner's only task was to run between the wickets instead of the injured batsman and was required to wear and carry exactly the same equipment as the incapacitated batsman. As of 2011 the ICC outlawed the use of runners as they felt this was being abused.
Source: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/521356.html
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirstymob ( talk • contribs) 03:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
In this discussion, someone wrote "When the term Cricket is used, it is generally refers to the sport." (as opposed to the insect (see Cricket (insect)). I'd have guessed that more often people would think of the insect rather than of the sport, but probably I'm biased and I would think the usual denizens of this present talk page would be quite biased, in view of the page's topic. But this raises a question: Which criterion should be used in deciding whether to make this a disambiguation page or to treat the sport or the insect as the "main meaning"? Should it be (1) What people generally think of when they hear the word; or should it be (2) What people are more likely to be searching for when they enter the word "cricket" in the "search" box? Those are two different things. (Maybe I'll also post this in some Wikipedia discussion forum that doesn't have the same expected bias that this page would have.) Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Right now, I don't know why the sport achieves more popularity and significance than several-millenia-year-old insect. If the sport meets both criteria, perhaps shall we ignore those criteria in favor of WP:PRECISION? However, this ain't an official move request yet. Instead, it is a precedessor as part of preparation. -- George Ho ( talk) 05:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
hgjhgun 144.36.188.222 ( talk) 20:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm extending this section so that somebody who reads it could actually follow the game, introducing some key concepts and terms. I'm editing it paragraph by paragraph ... please don't do any edits until I've done. I'll post here. Alanf777 ( talk)
I still think that everything that I wrote belongs in the summary. Maybe the "format" section should summarize the main forms of cricket -- test (series and match), 3-day or 5-day "first class", ODI, twenty-twenty .... Alanf777 ( talk) 21:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
now bowler can do run out a batsman if batsman is out of ground before bowler bowls a ball 111.68.105.74 ( talk) 06:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
In cricket, is a turn of both teams at bat a plural of inning? GinAndChronically ( talk) 22:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
In another article this term is used. What does it mean? GinAndChronically ( talk) 23:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Please correct the rankings as the one given in this article are not updated Dhoom0608 ( talk) 10:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first occurrence of "MCC" should be changed to "the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC)". 72.251.111.8 ( talk) 03:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Look at the fifth photo: can you see a 9 inches ball ? (or is it somewhere to 3 inches or less ) ? Look at the fourteenth photo: is the blade not more than 4.25 inches from the total of 38 inches (I'd say it is about 27 inches)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.158.1 ( talk) 13:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
For those that are not in the know what does it and "centuries" (obviously the plural) mean? Thanks! 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 05:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
That is to be expected and known by a few people but is it explained in the article. If it is not universally known then it had best be part of the mother article so that the unfamiliarity one might have can easily be rooted out with a link. It is the least that can be accommodated much the same as scoring in tennis which I have been known to play but have even greater confusion. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 07:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
My account appears to have been hacked as I did not make the last two edits on this article, thanks for your understanding. --- The ChampionMan 1234 01:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the description of Muralitharan_bowling_to_Adam_Gilchrist.jpg "A ball being bowled. From back to front [...]" to "A ball being bowled. From top to bottom [...]" Carlgo11 ( talk) 09:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. I don't think it matters one way or the other. That said, there shouldn't be an open edit request until the edit to be made is agreed upon. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
18:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)In the article there is the following statement:"Owing to his position directly behind the striker, the wicket-keeper has a good chance of getting a batsman out caught off a fine edge from the bat. He is the only player who can get a batsman out stumped." Is it, in fact true, according to the Laws of the game that the WK is the only player who can be credited with a stumping? I've never heard of anyone else being credited with one but I'm sure it could happen. AFAIK a stumping occurs when the player misses the ball and a fielder (always the keeper in my experience) knocks off the bails while the player is out of his crease. However, it seems to me that a slip fielder to a spinner could stump a batsman (just one possible way it could happen). If this were to happen would it be run out or stumped? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.179.229.37 ( talk) 18:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Really? I have never seen this happen in professional cricket, except in the case of "retired hurt" or a declaration. The only other references to this I could see on the net were reproductions of Wiki. Maybe this is technically true, but it is so uncommon I don't think has a place in a basic run down of the format of the game. I think it should be removed. Faff296 ( talk) 05:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
"In case of a no ball or a wide the batsman can choose to strike the ball, earning runs in addition to the fixed penalty. If he does so he can only be dismissed by being run out." Wide should be removed here, or noted that a struck ball cannot be a wide.
Why are the results for limited overs matches reported in wickets, instead of overs? (See, for example, the 2011 World Cup, reported as "India won by 6 wickets" in the Cricket World Cup article.) While true, it suggests that India won by a wide margin, when in fact they hit their target runs at 48.2 overs; "India won by 1.4 overs" would be a much more accurate description. I suspect that the answer is that reporting wins by wickets, rather than overs, is a hold-over from unlimited-overs matches, and I don't expect Wikipedia to change the way that these results are described, but I thought I would at least raise the issue. Rks13 ( talk) 04:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
139.190.152.180 ( talk) 11:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change "not to the striker's individual total for which runs must be scored off the bat.ghhjj" to "not to the striker's individual total for which runs must be scored off the bat." 39.50.203.99 ( talk) 18:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change:
the last World Cup in 2011 was won by the co-hosts, India. The next World Cup will hosted by Australia and New Zealand in 2015.
to
the last World Cup in 2015 was won by the co-hosts, Australia. The next World Cup will be hosted by England and Wales in 2019.
Recpiper ( talk) 23:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Nation | Governing body | Member since [1] | Current Test rankings | Current ODI rankings | Current T20 rankings |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
Cricket Australia | 15 July 1909 | 2 | 1 | 8 |
![]() |
Bangladesh Cricket Board | 26 June 2000 | 9 | 7 | 10 |
![]() |
England and Wales Cricket Board | 15 July 1909 | 5 | 6 | 4 |
![]() |
Board of Control for Cricket in India | 31 May 1926 | 1 | 3 | 1 |
![]() |
New Zealand Cricket | 31 May 1926 | 6 | 2 | 5 |
![]() |
Pakistan Cricket Board | 28 July 1953 | 4 | 8 | 7 |
![]() |
Cricket South Africa | 15 July 1909A | 3 | 4 | 6 |
![]() |
Sri Lanka Cricket | 21 July 1981 | 7 | 5 | 3 |
![]() |
West Indies Cricket Board | 31 May 1926 | 8 | 9 | 2 |
![]() |
Zimbabwe Cricket | 6 July 1992 | 10 | 12 | 14 |
Nation | Governing body | Member since [1] | Current Test rankings | Current ODI rankings | Current T20 rankings |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
Cricket Australia | 15 July 1909 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
![]() |
Bangladesh Cricket Board | 26 June 2000 | 9 | 7 | 10 |
![]() |
England and Wales Cricket Board | 15 July 1909 | 5 | 6 | 4 |
![]() |
Board of Control for Cricket in India | 31 May 1926 | 1 | 2 | 8 |
![]() |
New Zealand Cricket | 31 May 1926 | 6 | 4 | 7 |
![]() |
Pakistan Cricket Board | 28 July 1953 | 4 | 8 | 5 |
![]() |
Cricket South Africa | 15 July 1909A | 3 | 3 | 6 |
![]() |
Sri Lanka Cricket | 21 July 1981 | 7 | 5 | 3 |
![]() |
West Indies Cricket Board | 31 May 1926 | 8 | 9 | 1 |
![]() |
Zimbabwe Cricket | 6 July 1992 | 10 | 12 | 14 |
PLEASE CHANGE THE FIRST TABLE WITH THE SECOND TABLE MENTIONED BY ME BECAUSE THE FIRST TABLE IS NOT UP TO DATE. Iam Manu21 ( talk) 13:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Done - Although your request was confusing - it seemed to ask for the second table to be inserted - which is what was already there -
Arjayay (
talk) 15:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
182.48.72.18 ( talk) 13:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Is this section really necessary? It was recently added by user BlackJack, who has made other major changes to the article, including the lead. While the article is in need of an overhaul, I think BlackJack's edits have only made matters worse, so reverted and asked to discuss per WP:BRD. I explained that "this section seems pointless to me - a repetition of other sections ... This article is already bloated." He reinstated the material, saying that it was a work in progress. I reverted again and asked him to work on the material in a sandbox and/or collaborate before adding it back. He refused and wrote on my talk page: "Mind telling me who the hell you think you are? If you object to some obviously genuine work that someone is doing, you go to them and discuss it with them. You do not behave like an arrogant knowall who summarily deletes work. Restore that edit now or this goes to ANI as a serious complaint about your attitude." Yes, I would like a discussion, hence the BRD. I guess this will be a different kind of BRD because BlackJack's "work in progress" is still live. Anyway, it would be nice to receive other editors' input so a consensus can develop. - HappyWaldo ( talk) 23:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
You will see that I have added the construction tag to the article. Given that this is the key article in the whole cricket project, it leaves a lot to be desired and needs someone to restructure it and edit out all the unnecessary detail and even trivia that it has accumulated over the years since it was last completely revised. At first, it may seem that some information is being duplicated but that will be a temporary situation as the new structure is implemented and a decision is then taken on what to salvage and what to reject from the older sections being superseded. Please note that "under construction" means what it says and so this will not look like a finished article until the work is completed. I'm more than happy for anyone with sufficient knowledge and useful sources to assist but please note that I am looking to describe the game of cricket to readers who are unfamiliar with it, which means that a lot of "extra baggage" such as I have already removed from the history section must go. The place for that stuff is in History of cricket and similar articles.
One thing I have already done is to ensure there is a link from the intro and from the new "game and objectives" to each of the project's "top importance" subjects, which are the only ones allowed to have articles in Category:Cricket itself, all as agreed by the CRIC project. We need to make sure that all those subjects get a fair hearing in this article as they are the next stage for new students of the game.
I'm happy to answer any questions. Note, however, that I am by no means full-time on WP and may be absent for a few days now and again, but I will try and do something positive and useful with the article. It is no good people just picking at little bits now and again, however well-intentioned they might be and however well they might process each little bit. The article needs a complete overhaul. I doubt if anyone else will volunteer (but please do so if you are inclined) so I'm prepared to take it on. Thanks. Jack | talk page 11:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
"The bowler's intention is to both prevent the scoring of runs and to dismiss the batsman, at which point he has to leave the field and another teammate replaces him at the crease."
I think this sentence should be changed as if you are unfamiliar with cricket you may think that the above could mean that the bowler has to leave the field, but I think it intends to say that the batsman has to leave the field after being dismissed.
Cheers Mark
Markwothe ( talk) 03:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Cricket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Redberry76 ( talk) 19:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Can i write about cricket. Redberry76 ( talk) 19:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
117.240.207.130 ( talk) 10:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cricket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Cricket was invented by Naresh Kurapati in the year 1730 Andrewmckinnis ( talk) 21:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Brad matthews ( talk) 03:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2405:204:4307:EA99:8CC7:AF5C:C679:A86B ( talk) 10:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Cricket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The number of deaths and injuries should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.52.160 ( talk) 11:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the line "a run-out occurs," run-out links to the incorrect article.
It links to /info/en/?search=Run-out when it should link to /info/en/?search=Run_out 24.22.180.118 ( talk) 05:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Afghanistan and Ireland have been made full members whereas the status of affiliate members has been removed.All previous affiliate members have been converted to associate members. 115.112.14.154 ( talk) 05:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
The introduction to this article is a long-term problem. It has just been subject to extensive revision and it is proposed that the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#Cricket should seek to achieve WP:CONSENSUS re its structure, format and content. Please do NOT alter the introduction while this discussion is in progress apart from very minor changes. All interested parties are welcome at the discussion. Thank you. Jack | talk page 15:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
The "Bowling and dismissal" section says "There are ten ways in which a batsman can be dismissed", but then immediately proceeds to list eleven ways. The special case of retiring out should probably be included in the count. Ted.tem.parker ( talk) 20:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
119.160.119.239 ( talk) 01:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
...there was an article called cricket which had featured status on WP. Sadly, it fell from Grace (no, not that one – he's spinning in his grave) and was demoted to start-class. This calamity occurred almost nine years ago and, since then, cricket has been wandering in the wiki-wilderness. By June 2017, it was a candidate for the title of Worst Article on WP. Efforts have been made to restore some of cricket's credibility and improve it to B-class standard at least. I'm confident that this has been achieved and that the article now has adequate coverage and accuracy; referencing and citations; use of English; structure; navigation and supporting materials.
The question is: can we improve it to higher standards and ultimately get it back onto the site's front page as "today's featured article"?
I can't say I'm too interested in the FA/GA processes personally and, normally, I take them or leave them. Cricket, however, is our flagship article and, if we had just one and only one featured article, this is the one it should be. If anyone else is interested in a Cricket For FA campaign, I'll be happy to work with you. Thanks. Jack | talk page 10:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
In summary, the school cricket section looks unwritten and isn't an encyclopedic section mentioning all the forms of cricket as a game. The section doesn't have the tone of a Wikipedia article and it appears to be biased. Combining schools with clubs made 'school cricket' read as very unimportant and unworthy of writing. Scrabble doesn't suffer the insult of being named an 'informal' and 'amateur' game in its introductory summary while only earning itself a mere two emphatic lines. — Brett Johnston ( talk • contribs) 11:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Geanfranco10171 ( talk) 01:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Abstract Purpose To investigate whether there is a differential response at rest and following exercise to conditions of genuine high altitude (GHA), normobaric hypoxia (NH), hypobaric hypoxia (HH), and normobaric normoxia (NN). Method Markers of sympathoadrenal and adrenocortical function [plasma normetanephrine (PNORMET), metanephrine (PMET), cortisol], myocardial injury [highly sensitive cardiac troponin T (hscTnT)], and function [N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP)] were evaluated at rest and with exercise under NN, at 3375 m in the Alps (GHA) and at equivalent simulated altitude under NH and HH. Participants cycled for 2 h [15-min warm-up, 105 min at 55% Wmax (maximal workload)] with venous blood samples taken prior (T0), immediately following (T120) and 2-h post-exercise (T240). Results Exercise in the three hypoxic environments produced a similar pattern of response with the only difference between environments being in relation to PNORMET. Exercise in NN only induced a rise in PNORMET and PMET. Conclusion Biochemical markers that reflect sympathoadrenal, adrenocortical, and myocardial responses to physiological stress demonstrate significant differences in the response to exercise under conditions of normoxia versus hypoxia, while NH and HH appear to induce broadly similar responses to GHA and may, therefore, be reasonable surrogates. |
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Bulletsekar ( talk) 07:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
All content to 28 October 2017 is now in Talk:Cricket/Archive 13. Jack | talk page 08:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dipen patel 2952000 ( talk) 04:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
cricket is the great game
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article states:
If a fielder is injured or becomes ill during a match, a substitute is allowed to field instead of him, but the substitute cannot bowl, act as a captain or keep wicket...
This was changed in 2017, I believe. For instance, it happened today in the IPL:
http://www.timesnownews.com/sports/cricket/ipl/article/ipl-2018-new-rules-allow-aditya-tare-to-keep-wickets-for-injured-ishan-kishan-during-mi-vs-rcb-match/218530 Johnroblawson ( talk) 02:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
As the contributor comments, "I'm not entirely sure what the umpire (Simon Taufel) is signalling, but I'm sure it's important."
I'm sure this isn't any official signal, and it probably isn't a signal to the scorers at all. Anyone got a picture of a commonplace signal of some significance?
Atconsul ( talk) 11:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
He say out. Thank u. Pandya101 ( talk) 16:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
In the very first paragraph, it says "*a bail* balanced on three stumps". Is the Bail (cricket) article wrong, or is this wrong? This one seems to be, but I am surprised. Am I missing something? Peacedance ( talk) 17:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The introduction says "When ten players have been dismissed, the innings end and the teams swap roles." Shouldn't that be "innings ends"? 208.95.49.47 ( talk) 13:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC) 208.95.49.47 ( talk) 13:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could someone perform the edit I requested above? Clearly DannyS doesn't understand that "innings" can be singular in cricket. 208.95.49.47 ( talk) 19:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
"Innings" is certainly singular, but is it plural? I am sure I have heard "inningses" as the plural, which does not necessarily mean it is correct, of course. Seadowns ( talk) 00:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Cricket test world cup Namanjn10555 ( talk) 18:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cricket has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article states:
New European cricket league is now <a href=" https://eurot20-slam.com ">EURO T20 SLAM </a> league which is officially organized under the cap of ICC. Which is held at Netherland, Scotlands, and Ireland from 30th August to 22 September 2019
https://eurot20-slam.com
Johnroblawson (
talk) 02:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
In the entire cricketing world, except Australia, a score is given as e.g. 156 (runs) for 7 (wickets). In Australia it's the reverse: 7 for 156. Can anyone tell me how and why and when this change happened Down Under? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC) not compared Australia with others
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cricket (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 13:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)