Talk:Cricket

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Cricket is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 19, 2004.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Cricket (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project and talk pages for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Bclass-checklist.svg
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sports (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
Note icon
This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 

Contents

Where's everybody gone?[edit]

-) ----Jack | talk page 18:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"Cricket was first played in southern England in the 16th century." In Poland, in the Middle Ages was a very similar ball game called "Palant" and was very popular! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.29.164 (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Test and ODI rankings[edit]

The rankings are totally wrong. Here's the current status :

ICC Test Championship

06 Dec 2009 Team Matches Points Rating India 32 3957 124 South Africa 30 3672 122 Australia 31 3600 116 Sri Lanka 31 3574 115 England 39 4102 105 Pakistan 17 1424 84 New Zealand 25 2001 80 West Indies 25 1910 76 Bangladesh 19 255 13 ICC ODI Championship

29 Nov 2009 Team Matches Points Rating Australia 39 5080 130 India 37 4522 122 South Africa 26 3085 119 New Zealand 25 2789 112 England 33 3606 109 Pakistan 28 3012 108 Sri Lanka 31 3298 106 West Indies 21 1589 76 Bangladesh 28 1548 55 Zimbabwe 32 823 26 Ireland 6 152 25 Kenya 14 28 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Himanil Raina (talkcontribs) 06:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I imagine that the rankings in the article are out of date. That's always likely to be a problem. The best solution might be simply to delete that columb of the table, as I'm not sure that current rankings are needed in an overview article like this one. JH (talk page) 10:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Jhall1. --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Um Units?[edit]

Even as an American, I'm confused as to why this article uses yards and feet as the primary units. Cricket isn't even popular here. You guys can go ahead and switch it to meters? 72.220.125.86 (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Because those are the measurements given in the laws of the game. Plus we're still not completely metric in the UK! Andrew nixon (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
This is not entirely true. The copy of the laws on the Lord's website shows both metric and imperial units.[1] The imperial units obviously preceded metric units as the units of measurement in cricket, and I suppose that's why cricketers still tend to use them to measure the dimensions of the pitch and such (not to mention 22 is easier to remember than 20.12). Elostirion (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding dismissals, I have moved "hit wicket" to the group of unusual methods of dismissal. Among sports books that offer wagering on live cricket matches,"hit wicket" is customarily offered at odds of over 200-1. Also (see www.cricinfo.com) "hit wicket" accounts for less than 1 out of every 500 outs in first class cricket.Mk5384 (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Name[edit]

In Devon dialect a cricket is a three-legged stool[2]. here is a description of a cricket-like game involving a milking stool. Could there be a connection, and can we put it in without breaching WP:SYNTH? Totnesmartin (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Are there any sources that explicitly make this connection? If so, all is well. If not, it's a problematic. Reyk YO! 11:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
there's this, but it's another encyclopedia, not a source in itself. There are similar things online that hover around the topic, but I can't find an explicit connection :( Totnesmartin (talk) 12:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Minimal Age[edit]

What's the minimal age for playing test matches? Does anybody knows that? 77.23.22.143 (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's ever been thought necessary to specify one. If you're good enough, then you're old enough. JH (talk page) 21:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
There is no minimum age, but the physical strength and stamina needed for a five day match is usually beyond anybody under the age of 18. When I was at school (in South Africa), we had matches for under 15's and matches for any schoolboy. Very few under 15's ever played in the school 1st XI, let alone in full adult cricket, though there was one occasion that a visitng 15-year old took 100 runs off our 1st XI - Barry Richards. Martinvl (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
There's no minimum age according to the rules, but the youngest player was Hasan Raza of Pakistan, who was 14 on debut, and many players (particularly from Pakistan and India) made very young debuts -- most notably Sachin Tendulkar (16 yo). [3] StuartH (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Misnomer[edit]

A common misnomer has crept into the article, appearing under the heading "Weather". Under this heading, the article implies that the terms "wicket" and "pitch" are interchangeable. They are not and indeed are defined under the Laws of Cricket as quite separate things.

Also under this heading is an implication that the weather only affects the condition of the ball as a result of the ball bouncing on the pitch (referred-to as the "wicket").

Firstly, the surface upon which the ball lands in the bowler's delivery of the ball is the "pitch", not the "wicket". This surface is known in the Laws of Cricket (Law 7 specifically) as the "pitch". See Law 7.1 where it states: "1. Area of pitch The pitch is a rectangular area of the ground 22 yards/20.12m in length and 10ft/3.05m in width. It is bounded at either end by the bowling creases and on either side by imaginary lines, one each side of the imaginary line joining the centres of the two middle stumps, each parallel to it and 5ft/1.52m from it.". Source: http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-7-the-pitch,33,AR.html.

There are two "wickets" on a cricket field (Law 8 refers). These wickets each comprise of three stumps and two bails. There is a wicket at each end of the pitch and during each "over" one of those wickets forms the prime target for the bowler to aim at, hoping to break the wicket with the ball and so to "bowl out" the batsman. See Law 8.1 where it states: "1. Width and pitching Two sets of wickets shall be pitched opposite and parallel to each other at a distance of 22 yards/20.12m between the centres of the two middle stumps. Each set shall be 9 in/22.86cm wide and shall consist of three wooden stumps with two wooden bails on top.". Source: http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-8-the-wickets,34,AR.html.

Secondly, the weather will affect the condition of the playing surface of the whole ground (more than, and not just, the pitch). This whole-ground playing surface condition (specifically if it is wet) will affect the condition of the ball far more than will the pitch condition, especially as most turf pitches (the ones most likely, if at all, to be affected by weather conditions) these days are covered in inclement weather while the rest of the ground is not covered at all. The ball spends minimal time in contact with the surface of the pitch compared with its time in contact with the rest of the ground surface, particularly if runs are being scored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepthought2006 (talkcontribs) 14:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's better to use "pitch" in an article like this to avoid the risk of confusing readers who are unfamiliar with the game, but "wicket" has been used as a synonym for "pitch" for a very long time so cannot really be called a misnomer. JH (talk page) 16:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Completely agree with JH. For the purposes of this article use pitch where pitch is meant to avoid confusion but wicket is most certainly used to mean both the pitch and the wicket in common usage. Terms like sticky wicket would make no sense if pitch and wicket werent synoyms. Just to add to confusion wicket is also used as a synonym for dismissal but that is going to be harder to avoid. If we havnt got a note on the multiple uses of wicket we need one. --LiamE (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

First sentence[edit]

Not to make too big a deal out of it but the first sentence does not properly introduce the topic as required by WP:LEAD. I had tried to offer an improvement but one editor didn't like my suggestion. So I'll just tag the article for now and let those of you more involved debate it. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The last significant discussion on the lead here was in March/April 2009 at which time it looked like this. There seemed to be a consensus then that it was deficient and didn't properly explain what the game actually was, per WP:LEAD. On that basis I'm being bold and adding my own tweak. –Moondyne 04:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
That's incorrect Moondyne - the version you quote was the agreed version. Prior to that the Lede was wordy and very bloated. IMO it's fast heading that way again. David T Tokyo (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Shall we try and push this up to B Class?[edit]

Hey everyone! Shall we attempt a collective effort to push this article to the lofty heights of B level on the Wiki scale... I was thinking that referencing of some more legitimate Cricketing sources like Wisden could help... What do we think? Geoff (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you crazy? The lede is incomprehensible to someone who doesn't already know the game. I'd rather read an article on some arcane math subject. I thought I cold learn enough about the game to understand sports articles about it (which never give background), but I gave up trying to get through the lede: innings, overs huh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.179.19.14 (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
As per see my post under Simple one paragraph, agreed... Terrible.. Dancindazed (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Error in overview section[edit]

This is taken from the introductary section (second paragraph): "In one version of Indoor Cricket, matches include just 6 players and last for 12 overs.[2]"

According to the cited reference, this should read '6 players per side' which would mean that the matches include 12 players total. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.107.74 (talk) 04:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Good spot. Fixed. –Moondyne 03:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Objectives section[edit]

Hi, I was comparing the article with baseball article which is an FA and found we could learn something from it's structure.

  • I suggest that Objectives section be renamed Rules and game-play or something similar because things like pitches, umpires etc. aren't objectives.
  • Also, I believe it is better if History section is topmost.
  • I also suggest we add a Statistics section mentioning wisden and cricinfo.
  • A cricket in popular culture section will be good where we can mention the many movies stories ... about cricket.
  • Uniqueness of each cricket ground eg. hitting a six in MCG v/s say in Singapore and Swing in england v/s spin of subcontinent deserves mention.

Since, article was a former fa ,i will no go ahead and make changes without other editor's opinion. Vinay84 (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Having waited, and seeing no disapproval, I am going ahead and making the changes Vinay84 (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Total Neophytes Need More Description[edit]

I read half-way through this article without figuring out how a run is scored. Yes, I'm American so I can't update the article reliably, but in a way I'm the target audience (barely knowing how cricket is played, that is). There should be at least a description of scoring units in the lead paragraph. It makes no sense to scroll down the TOC, jump to Objectives and then come back to the top for an account of history. As it stands, the lead paragraph does not give a good summary of how the game is played. Trashbird1240 (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

As you might have noticed, the section entitled "Runs" describes how runs are scored. The problem is that it is difficult to describe the ways in which runs are scored concisely in just one or two sentences, and that doing so might prompt one to attempt to describe other things (like how a ball is bowled, or how batsmen can be dismissed). There was a discussion many months ago (years?) about how descriptive the lead should be with regards to such things, and the conclusion was that only a cursory description of the game should be included, as anything more detailed would inevitably create a bloated and unwieldy lead paragraph. Having said that, perhaps we can find some way to make that information more easily obtainable. At the moment there seems to be a link to the article Runs in the lead paragraph for the curious who would like to know more about runs (eg. how they are scored). Elostirion (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Have added a sentence to try at say how a run is scored. This lack of a "how a run is scored" description has appeared often in comments. Other editors are welcome to modify.Vinay84 (talk) 07:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd keep it even simpler - In simple terms, a run is scored when batsmen run the length of the pitch without being dismissed. HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps clearer description. The first paragraph in the article is good. The second paragraph, with all its parenthetical remarks, is practically unreadable. I had to re-read it a couple times before it became clear(er). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.240.38 (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

World's second most popular sport? Really?[edit]

BBC News gives that honor to basketball: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11348053. In the Wikipedia article, reference #4 states "Cricket, which its fans say is the world’s second most popular sport" obviously has a problem of bias. The claim in reference #5 is from a guy who wrote a book called "“Batting on the Bosphorus: A Liquor-Fueled Cricket Tour Through Eastern Europe" -- liquor-fueled enthusiasm generally doesn't inspire my confidence. And, lastly, reference #6 supports the second place claim by stating that its popular in India which has a population of 1.5 billion. I would think the popularity of the sport is based upon viewership, attendance, club revenue, rather than the assumption that an entire nation sits glues to the TV for every game. Extremely popular in China, I would gather that basketball gets far more of those markers than cricket, which under the same false premise balances out India :) ... At any rate, I'm not trying to prove something for basketball, just that this claim about cricket and its references in this Wikipedia article are suspect, at best. 99.22.228.93 (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This was actually removed from the article in the distant past due to the lack of good references, so it must have sneaked back in. I suspect that in terms of team sports we can safely say that soccer is way out in front, but the second most popular team sport is a little more hard to pin down. It probably is between basketball and cricket though! Andrew nixon (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I would agree with that last statement. And it would be incredibly difficult to prove either way, involving lots of assumptions. If there is a very reliable source which claims that one or the other is number 2, then that would be worth using, but I haven't seen that source yet. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
It's high up the list of popular sports by number of players/fans, because of its popularity in South Asia - but as for "number of countries played in" it falls down - most of Europe, the Americas and the Middle East hardly know of it. When cricket is an olympic sport things may change. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
PS - I've just been searching online to find out how many people in the world play cricket. The only answer I could find was 3 billion, from the highly dubious Yahoo! Answers. Is there a Reliable source out there? Totnesmartin (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
These are the countries that (for the most part) still play Cricket: British Empire - that doesn't include countries which once had a large British influence, such as Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, etc. India and Pakistan also play Cricket (and very successfully too), and I suggest a look at their respective populations to see the likely number of people playing the game.Unsigned, by some bloke
That wouldn't come up with anything we can put in the article. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH would stymie us. The best we could do would be to have a list of registered players from every country. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I just added this back as I found a lot of references indicating this - http://www.topendsports.com/world/lists/popular-sport/index.htm, http://www.buzzle.com/articles/most-popular-sports-in-the-world.html, http://www.sportingo.com/all-sports/a11587_worlds-top-most-popular-team-sports, http://www.mostpopularsports.net/. Please feel free to remove this if the references are not convincing (these are the first few links on Google). Abhask (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
No, those references are not convincing. Just because something is published (and it pains me to use the word in this context) on the Web, this does not give it worth or authority. I think this was removed again, as I could not find it. If it is not, please remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.228.93 (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Is the popularity of a sport defined by the number of people who follow/watch it, or who actually play it? This leads to some interesting situations - I think in the UK a lot of people play or have played basketball casually, but I don't think many people follow a team or watch it (I've never seen it televised outside of the olympics), whereas I think a lot of people follow cricket who have never played it. 82.69.94.215 (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Appeals:[edit]

The article states: 'Before the umpire will award a dismissal and declare the batsman to be out, a member of the fielding side (generally the bowler) must "appeal".' This is not technically true - all bowled dismissals and the vast majority of caught dismissals never involve an appeal at all - or, indeed a decision by the umpire. Reading the article, it would be easy to make the common misapprehension that every dismissal must be both appealed and awarded. Perhaps something like: 'If the legitimacy of a dismissal is in any doubt, it is the umpire's responsibility to decide upon the outcome. Before the umpire will award a dismissal and declare the batsman to be out, a member of the fielding side (generally the bowler) must "appeal".' would be better. 213.70.98.2 (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Not true - Law 27.1 1. Umpire not to give batsman out without an appeal Neither umpire shall give a batsman out, even though he may be out under the Laws, unless appealed to by a fielder. This shall not debar a batsman who is out under any of the Laws from leaving his wicket without an appeal having been made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.11.185 (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


Types of matches[edit]

This section requires serious editing.

Format: Cricket can be divided into timed games - in which the total length of the match is decided in advance, but no stipulation is put on the length of the innings of one side; and overs games, in which the maximum amount of overs faced by each team is stipulated. A combination of the two is rare but not unheard of.

Cricket can then be subdivided into one innings or two innings games - but there is no reason why it should be assumed that timed games always have 2 innings and limited overs games always have one innings. At an amateur level in the UK, both single innings timed games and double innings limited overs games are perfectly common.

"Major and minor" cricket are not standard terms, and should therefore be removed - we might as well talk about "big boys" and "little boys". If we are talking about international cricket, then we should talk about the ICC awarding games full test status or full ODI or T20 status.

If we are talking about domestic cricket - we should discuss the awarding of "first class status" for 2 innings timed games, and "list A status" for limited overs games by the national governing body.

The article also appears to suggest that all two innings games are automatically "first-class cricket", which is very misleading. Perhaps we could have a little box listing all the various first class and list A leagues and tournaments around the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.70.98.2 (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


Strong support to the Last suggestion Vinay84 (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Attempt started at User:Vinay84/Template:Professional CricketVinay84 (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Very Poorly Written[edit]

I have been reading this article for over 30 minutes and I still have no idea how one scores and what the object (details not just "dismiss the batter") of each side is. 95% of people reading this article are going to want to know what this sport is all about and what the objectives are, this should be included in the begging of the article, instead of obsessing over the dimensions of the wickets. This article gets a D in my book. Fix it!


24.24.82.172 (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC) American Dood


will try to score as many runs as possible :it is there at the top para of the Intro.Vinay84 (talk) 04:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Photograph required: Uniqueness of each field section[edit]

Can anyone get a picture of any of the Field s with quirks of their own. If we can have one showing the slope at Lords, or size of MCC vs a small ground , it would be greatVinay84 (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Does Canterbury still have the tree in outfield? That's one hell of a quirk!!! 78.146.12.164 (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but - I feel a simple introduction is still missing[edit]

Could it seem that this carefully crafted and formerly featured article might be an intricate task to read one's way into for the utterly uninitiated? While many will be perfectly familiar with the concept of bat-and-ball team sports, some may lack this familiarity. For those, and to save them having to read up on it in other articles, I feel a very brief explanation at the beginning might come in helpful, stating the general workings of a game of Cricket in simple (if much simplified) words, such as the game being about (if you forgive me) destroying the batting party's wicket with the ball while they in turn attempt to protect it from being destroyed by batting the ball away and, intermittently, running across the (sorry) field as (sorry) often as possible without failing their task.

This might be considered a delicate change by some participants so I dont't dare be WP:bold enough to try an implementation right away. Comments and execution welcome.

Thanks everybody involved for your consideration.

--217.226.56.244 (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

OK How about this as a suggestion?
Cricket is a bat-and-ball team sport.
One team bats and the other fields. All of the players on the fielding team are present on the field - one of whom (the bowler) bowls a ball towards a wooden wicket. The batting team have two players (the batsmen) on the field, one of whom stands in front of the wicket and tries with his bat to prevent the ball from hitting the wicket.
If the batsman succeeds in hitting the ball some distance, he then may decide to run, that is to run the 22 yards from the wicket he is defending towards a second identical wicket. If he does run, then the other batsman, who will have been waiting by the second wicket, needs to run in the opposite direction at the same time
While the batsmen are running, the fielding team will try to retrieve the ball and throw it at the wicket.
If the wicket is hit by the ball, either as a result of the batsman failing to hit the ball away - or as a result of the ball hitting the wicket before a running batsman has reached it, the batsman is dismissed from the field, and the next member of the batting team takes his place. A batsman is also dismissed if the ball he hits is caught by a fielder before it touches the ground, or if his body (rather than the bat) prevents the ball from hitting the wicket.
The object of the game for the batting team is to score as many runs as they can. The object of the game for the fielding team is to dismiss all the batsmen from the batting team as quickly as they can.


94.172.24.194 (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Any summarised explanation in the lead will exclude something that someone thinks is important. Yours places an emphasis on running between the wickets, but doesn't tell us what a wicket is. Batsmen rarely run 22 yards. It doesn't explain what bowling is. (Everywhere else that word is used it means something very different.) It doesn't explain a field. Just simple examples. I suggest that, rather than producing a set of words, those who want a change contribute to a list of what they think are the key points about the game that should be in the lead. I guess mine are italicised above. HiLo48 (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Good luck ;) My newest attempt is as follows:
Cricket is a bat-and-ball team sport. Variations exist, but the most popular form is played on an oval-shaped outdoor arena known as a cricket field at the centre of which is a rectangular 22-yard (20.12 m) long pitch that is the focus of the game. A game (or match) is contested between two teams of eleven players each. One team of batsmen will try to score as many runs as possible while the other team bowls and fields, trying to dismiss the batsmen and limit the runs scored by the batting team. All eleven of the fielding team and only two of the batsmen are on the field at any one time as well as two umpires who adjudicate dismissal decisions and control other aspects of the game. A run is scored for the batting team after a bowler from the fielding team bowls a ball towards one of the two batsmen who hits the ball with his bat and runs to the opposite end of the pitch. The batsman's partner will run from the bowler's end of the pitch while the striking batsman is running. The bowler's action is distinct from a conventional throwing action in that the bowler's arm is required to be held straight at the elbow.
A batsman may be dismissed (given 'out') in a number of ways. These include: the batsman hits the ball which is retrieved by one of the fielders and it is thrown back and hits the wicket while the batsman is still running; the ball is hit by the batsman and caught by a fielder before it hits the ground; the batsman misses hitting the ball while it is in flight from the bowler, and it then strikes the wicket; or the ball hits the batsman's body when the ball would have otherwise carried through and hit the wickets. When the batsman is dismissed he leaves the field and another member of his team comes on to take his place. The teams switch between batting and fielding at the end of an innings, which occurs when ten of the eleven batsmen are dismissed.
Moondyne 02:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I read almost half of the article, but still wouldn't have much idea of how the game is played without the above two descriptions. (I found the first more useful.) I don't think this belongs in the introduction; that would be too long. But how about a section near the beginning that gives an explanation of play that is common to all or most versions of the game, without going into differences and distinctions and much specific terminology. A diagram could be inserted with it to give enough information about the field. Then use hyperlinks to later sections to describe what things like wickets and bats are like in detail instead of loading it all in the text. I'll check back in a few weeks to find out the "many" or "several" other ways to score points. I've run out of time for today.Another-sailor (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Another-sailor - This is too detailed for the intro, but it a very valuable overview of the rules of the game. --Boy.pockets (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Not "many" but "several" ways to score a run[edit]

In the section, Rules and Game-play, it says:

"A run is scored when the batsman has run the length of the pitch after hitting the ball with his bat, although as explained below there are many ways of scoring runs"

The section referred to describes (at a quick count) seven ways to score runs. Seven does not count as "many", by any stretch of the imagination. A better phrase would be:

"... although as explained below there are several ways of scoring runs" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.13.218 (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

No mention of World Champions![edit]

To much emphasis on Cricket ranking and something called Cricketing Index (which are quite useless to say the least since cricket is not judged like chess). But no mention about world champions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.8.76 (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at the section labelled Limited overs. HiLo48 (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 94.202.239.13, 7 January 2011[edit]

{{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)

Link[edit]

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)

Not really. Cricket is played in countless schools around the world. Can you imagine the mess if we tried to include a link to every team on this page? --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Cricket just only a Game (Entertainment) or concerned with proud of Nation or a Business?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 11:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"Second most popular sport"[edit]

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 removal was probably a good idea. It's very difficult getting agreement on how to measure popularity, especially between fans of competing sports. HiLo48 (talk) 09:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


Gregorian date reference is plainly wrong[edit]

"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)

1. The switch to the Gregorian system did not take place in England until 1752, not in 1582. 2. In England. under the Julian Calendar the new year did not begin on 1st January but on 25th March. Thus a date in January that was recognised as being in 1597 on the Julian calendar current at the time, equates to 1598 under our modern Gregorian calendar. JH (talk page) 09:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Picture of wicketkeeper stumping batsman.[edit]

The description of this picture says that the wicketkeeper _successfully_ stumped the batsman; The same picture can be found in the article Stump (cricket) [4], there it says that he only attempted but did not succeed because the wicketkeepers food was behind the line.

Dates not Phone Numbers![edit]

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)

Which table? I can't see any table with what looks like phone numbers in it. Andrew nixon (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean "interpret"? My guess is you are looking at the site on a mobile device? My mobile devices (iPhone and Blackberry) often show numbers on web pages as dialable numbers. (dialable?) --Bridgecross (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

overs[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 06:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Innings vs Inning[edit]

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)

It's because I added new text prior to the singular vs. plural explanation. I've added another explanation with the offending text. --RSLxii 16:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from DoJo60, 20 September 2011[edit]

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)

Yes check.svg Done IgnorantArmies?! 07:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

"Sport" versus "game"[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 04:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be your personal perspective. We have a rule about that. We go by reliable sources, rather than opinion - there are hundreds of millions of sources calling cricket a "sport". --Dweller (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Technically, the only true sports are hunting, shooting, and fishing. Everything else is a game. That's why the Olympic Games were so-called. A true sport brings in something you can eat afterwards - the others do not. At least, that was the original definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
"Technically"? You may need to define that word first. HiLo48 (talk) 10:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Cricket is a game. One authority on that is Sir John Major, who did a short series on the history of cricket on BBC radio. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sy4n4/episodes/guide : the series will I trust be repeated. The opinions of those from countries which do not play Test Cricket are of no value. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia makes no distinction in value of statements from one national to another. I will not stop editing articles on Czech or Japanese subjects simply because I am American. Reliable source or go home. --Bridgecross (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
"the only true sports are hunting, shooting, and fishing." Wow, if anything ever needed a reference, it is that statement. Sport vs Game --Bridgecross (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2013 (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)

London Wiki and cricket[edit]

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)

Rankings are Completely wrong[edit]

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)

Good point, I've updated the article. Nev1 (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Featured article push[edit]

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)

As per my comments below under simple one sentence section, this article is in desperate need of just a simple explanation of the sport and what it looks like when it's played. When explaining a team sport it basically should start with the goal of the offense or defense (depending on who is taking the active/aggression roll, the defense I believe in the case of cricket) and then state the goals of the offense to stop them from taking these actions.

...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)

Dancindazed - your comments highlight very well the problems we have. The terms defence and offence (note UK English spelling - and pronunciation is different too) aren't going to help much in drawing parallels with baseball. The bowlers in a cricket team are collectively known as the bowling attack, not the defence. Batsmen play both attacking and defensive shots. I've played both games extensively, and would love to make some improvements to both articles, but it's difficult to know where to start. I appreciate your suggestions. They may help. But we cannot use the terms defense and offense. (My spell checker hates those two words!) HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
See that's what this article suffers from, though. All the writers of the article are afraid to use any terminologies outside of the jargon of the sport. Defense and offense are standard words that can be used from the English language. It still applies to any sport, whether it's used or not, and they're universal terms. Now if you simply describe each side of the ball better and let the reader know what they're called, that would be fine, but the attitude that a word can't be used unless it's already identified as lingo for the sport, again is the basic problem. If someone wants to learn what Cricket is and how it's played, one should be able to do that from the cricket article, not get lost in a see of terminology, branching off from one another. It's not that much different than a word using itself in its own definition.. Dancindazed (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
You have either ignored or misunderstood most of my post. I'm not sure where we can go from here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


The thing is Dancindazed, its not a matter of terminology, the point is that the concepts of defence and offence do not readily apply to cricket. Its not like baseball where the hitting team is the offence and the fielding team is the defence. In cricket both the batting side and the fielding side simultaneously attack and defend, or rather, switch between them as the state of the game progresses. To call the batsman "the offence" and the fielders "the defence" is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the game Py0alb (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Article structure[edit]

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)

Current and former structures[edit]

For reference, here's the current structure, followed by the one in place when the article became an FA, back in 2004.

Current[edit]

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

Former (2004)[edit]

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)

Other sports FAs[edit]

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)

Article structure: Shall we start with history or with an explanation of what cricket is?[edit]

Views please. --Dweller (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I think it's more sensible to define what it is we're talking about before discussing the history. But happy to be persuaded otherwise. --Dweller (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean by "definition", the rules or how the game is played? If it can be done without jargon, I'd be tempted to put history first as it will be more readable than many other sections and perhaps more of interest. However, can things such as the evolution of the bat of the change from under-arm to over-arm bowling be explained without putting the definition first? Nev1 (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I think I mean how the game is played in broad terms. --Dweller (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
If it's kept brief and simple I think I could get behind it, and a later section could go into more detail. Nev1 (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that a brief explanation of the game should come first, followed by the history (which should be fairly short, with a "see also" link to the main history article for those who want more details). JH (talk page) 18:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with brief explanation then history. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Indef page semi protection[edit]

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)

The last time the page was without semi-protection was 26 July 2010 to 9 August 2010 when pending changes was in place instead. The history shows there was a fair amount of vandalism by several differnt new users and IPs. At the time the article was getting about 8,100 views a day and the figures are now 7,200 so I would expect vandalism would be similar levels. I don't think it's worth lifting the protection. Nev1 (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 February 2012[edit]

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)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. It seems like this info is already in the article, or the linked one about the topic in hand. --andy4789 · (talk? contribs?) 19:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 April 2012[edit]

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)

I'm not in favour of adding this. It is trivia, and it would substantially add to the length of an already long article. JH (talk page) 09:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. per JH. extra999 (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the IP would like us to add Adams' comments on cricket to the article on it. I find Adams hilarious, but, much as there are similarities between Wikipedia and the the Guide, there are also notable differences. One of which is that we wouldn't deliberately include this kind of non-encyclopedic material. --Dweller (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

lbw rule wrong[edit]

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)

it lack ball energy and rules[edit]

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.

That should be ignored, as the writer clearly does not know what, by international definition, energy actually is; also she does not know about significant figures in conversions beterrm different systems of units. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. It's best if you propose the exact text you want inserted, removed or changed. Btw, are you using Google translation to write your request? Some of it is a bit hard to parse. Rivertorch (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 September 2012[edit]

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)

Brian Lara's highest score in Tests is 400 and is the record. Sachin Tendulkar's highest score in Tests is 248, so the picture caption is correct. Sachin Tendulkar has scored the most runs in a career, but the caption refers to a single innings. Andrew nixon (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

T20 Ranking[edit]

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)

Proposed new structure[edit]

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:

  1. Rules and game-play
  2. History
  3. Types of matches
  4. International structure
  5. Spirit of the Game
  6. In popular culture
  7. See also
  8. References
  9. External links

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)

Effects of weather and pitch can and should be handled very briefly in the section that deals with the pitch. Saying they're distinctive elements is POV. --Dweller (talk) 13:22, 17 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)

One sentence summary[edit]

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)

Yes! If you click here, you can read the opening sentences! Sorry that it's a sentence or two longer than you're looking for, but I'm sure you'll still be able to get the gist. --Dweller (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Score more runs that the other team. Or if you want the detailed explanation:

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!

And I don't think you understand tennis very well. The-Pope (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


Score more runs in the time it takes the opposition to dismiss 10 of your players than the opposition is able to score in the time it takes for you to dismiss 10 of theirs. Py0alb (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
No. Time usually has little to do with it. What's the one sentence description of baseball? It should be similar. HiLo48 (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Baseball: Score more runs in the time it takes the opposition to dismiss 3 of your players than the opposition is able to score in the time it takes for you to dismiss 3 of theirs. Repeat 9 times.
This is as simplified an outline of the fundamental means by which cricket and baseball progress as you're likely to find. They're complex games, you would need at least two extra sentences to explain what "runs" are and how you "dismiss" someome. Py0alb (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

This article, as many on WP do, suffers from what I'm going to start calling Wikipediaitus. This is not specific to cricket but I'm going to pick on this article tonight because it's something I wanted to learn and basically found it too time-consuming with the way the article is written.
I'm an American who knows baseball (the baseball article suffers the equivilant problem for people who know nothing about baseball, I'm sure) and the Cricket article simply doesn't really teach someone who's trying to learn the basics of the sport and how it's played very much. The article is more aimed at pleasing the pedant and getting an exacting account of every detail of the sport, and seeing how it stands up to the scrutiny of a reader who already knows the reader. For instance the opening...
Cricket is a bat-and-ball game played between two teams of 11 players on a field, at the centre of which is a rectangular 22-yard long pitch. One team bats, trying to score as many runs as possible while the other team bowls and fields, trying to dismiss..." etc etc
Ok what's a dismissal how do they get dismissed? (click into dismissal article)

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.

"A batsman can be dismissed in a number of ways, the most common being bowled, caught, leg before wicket (LBW), stumped and run out. Much rarer are hit wicket, hit the ball twice, handled the ball, obstructing the field and timed out."

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)

I agree with everything you just wrote. This article somehow ended up on my watchlist some while ago, but I can't make head or tail of it. The article on the Simple English Wikipedia does a much better job of conveying the basics of the game. I wonder if we couldn't do that here and maintain the current level of detail and terminology. Rivertorch (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
And I disagree with almost everything he said. This isn't Cricket compared to baseball and how would references to baseball help those millions who understand neither cricket nor baseball. We are simply not going to use terms like pegs, pitcher etc. If you want to learn the game, them you have to learn the terminology, and every time a cricket specific term is used, it is linked to its detailed explanation. There is even a nice clear photo of a batsman being bowled and the bail being removed next to the description of what being bowled is. And yes, we have to mention the bail because unlike a baseball strike, the ball doesn't just have to pass through a certain zone, but actually must dislodge the bail. It isn't a simple sport, the simplest description is what we have there already..."a bat-and-ball game played between two teams of 11 players on a field...trying to score as many runs as possible..." The-Pope (talk) 06:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
No one is asking that it be compared to baseball. The point is that the only people to whom the explanation of the sport makes sense is the people who already understand the sport. Don't you see this as a problem??? Who exactly is the explanation of the sport meant for? I described a clear example of the problem, even using the method you describe. Look at what I wrote. You said you can click on each term. But I clicked into dismissal, and it took me to a page that did not give any kind of good idea of what generally occurs during a dismissal. It said a dismissal is an out (not helpful) and in the methods of dismissal section, it used more jargon that you have to click into. It is possible for something to be explained without jargon. The jargon was invented after the sport. When explaining the sport, pretend like the jargon hasn't been invented yet. Explain the jargon as you go. It has to be thought of like you're explaining it to someone, person to person, who has never seen the sport before.. If it's not going to be done that way, then the article is nothing more than a bunch of people writing to each other about what they already know. And that is not useful.. Dancindazed (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Dancindazed - I think you're being stubbornly obdurate here. The Baseball article really has similar problems. It uses the terms runs and bases in the lead without definition. It mentions a thrown ball, with no explanation of the restrictions on such "throwing". (Where is it thrown from? Who throws it? A team mate?) In truth, explaining complex games such as baseball and cricket simply cannot be done in a single sentence. The hyperlinks available in modern tools such as Wikipedia probably give us the best tools ever available for doing so (apart from visual ones, which we can only use in a limited way). Let's just do our best in both cases. (And you MUST accept what others say about the linguistic differences re words such as offence and defence.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Too many pictures[edit]

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)

Summary in the Lede[edit]

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/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?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)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you -- I took a day off. I accept your offer to beat out our differences -- figuratively of course, because cricket bats are lethal weapons, and stumps (stakes) are particularly lethal in Transylvania. (And I don't care if it's US lede or or UK lead.) Alanf777 (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Runners[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 03:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Maproom (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Criterion for naming pages[edit]

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)

PS: Someone mentioned that under "cricket" the Oxford English Dictionary defines it as referring to the sport before giving the "insect" definition. But I seem to recall that the general practice of the OED is different from that of most dictionaries, in that it puts the definitions in chronological order. In other words, in some past century the word referred to the game but was not yet used to refer to the insect. If that is true, it would mean I was mistaken when, at about the age of 12, I learned that there is a sport called cricket and wondered why it was named after an insect. But at any rate, if it's true that OED has such a policy on chronology, that would mean that the OED is _not_ saying that's the principal meaning, but only that it's the chronologically earlier meaning. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
There are six links at the top of this page for previous move requests. All have opposed the move. Counting by "most people" is always going to be skewed by the large number of Americans who don't think of the sport, and the even bigger number of Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis who don't think of the insect, but are probably less represented on this website. The majority of contributors here would be English or Australian, who are vastly outnumbered by readers from other countries. I generally find that when most people think about what they believe "most people" think, they actually think mainly about what they themselves think. We are all biased, either for or against. I don't think cricket has dropped in popularity, nor the insect grown in popularity, so I'm not sure if another move proposal is warranted. The-Pope (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
It's strange that you're bringing up the topic of another page-move proposal. At any rate, you certainly didn't even hint at the topic of my question. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Michael, I'm not sure precisely what your question is. You made a lot of comments in your two initial posts, and I reckon The-Pope has responded to several. Thoughts on cricket are obviously coloured by someone's cultural background. You do seem to be basing your comments on what "people" think. Which people? HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
To repeat my question verbatim from my initial posting above, but this time set entirely in bold:
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.
Michael Hardy (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:DAB is clear that usage and long-term significance should be used as the guidelines for determining a primary topic. In terms of real world tests, cricket (insect) is viewed about 1200 times per day, cricket (sport) about 6000, so even if you assume half of cricket (insect) double clicked from going to cricket (sport) first, it's 4-5 times as many views for the sport. Long term significance is subject to everyone's cultural and personal biases. The-Pope (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
And Michael, you would have to be a lot more specific about which people you're referring to. This encyclopaedia is a global one. Readers of English Wikipedia come from almost every country in the world. We need to decide whether we're aiming to satisfy only the majority of readers for whom English is their first language, which would massively bias us towards the USA, or anyone who uses English occasionally. When discussing the sport cricket the second becomes very problematic. There are 1.2 billion people in India. An awful lot of them are cricket fans. An awful lot of them speak and read at least a bit of English. Because cricket (sport) evolved in the British Empire, English is the language of that game too, so cricket fans everywhere are going to look for English articles. It's pretty clear from the style of editing we see that a lot of contributors to cricket articles today are from the sub-continent. So try again. Who are your "people"? HiLo48 (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The insect is properly called a grasshopper, with 'cricket' being a type of grasshopper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Not according to Cricket (insect) ("Crickets... are insects somewhat related to grasshoppers, and more closely related to katydids or bush crickets... and Weta"). --BDD (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Does WP:primary topic apply any longer?[edit]

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)

I don't think you would get very far with a move request (see above and archives for past attempts). The sport achieves "more popularity and significance" than the insect because, well, sports are generally more popular and more significant (culturally, if not ecologically) than insects. I can't really provide figures, but I would imagine the amount of writing on the sport, both academic and non-academic, outweighs the writing on the insect by a gigantic amount. IgnorantArmies 08:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I was looking into this too, George. Last month, this page had 166,831 views compared to 73,266 combined for those entries on Cricket (disambiguation) that had articles. So by that measure, at least, the sport appears to be "more likely than all the other topics combined" to be the topic sought for this term. These numbers could be skewed by the sport being at the base title, although even if we assumed all 73,266 of those other views typed in "Cricket" first, that still leaves 93,565 who came here and apparently got what they were looking for.
On the other hand, this does seem like a case where no topic has "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value." Despite the views, I really don't think there's a primary topic here. And the {{oldmoves}} on this page is horribly biased, documenting every little discussion that has occurred and calling them opposed proposals instead of just sticking to the RMs. I'm afraid this is a lost cause. A new RM would likely end up being a popularity contest, and by appealing to page views, the opposition would have a policy-based argument anyway. --BDD (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I must prepare the next RM. The last RM was 2007 (or 2008 if you don't limit to green boxes). Shall I add specific sources or explain policies and guidelines and common sense? George Ho (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I would recommend considering a RM at the point where the insect is notable enough to have its own portal with a team of hundreds of dedicated editors. See you in roughly 2316. Py0alb (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2013[edit]

hgjhgun 144.36.188.222 (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Ummm. No? Harrias talk 20:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Summary / Format Section[edit]

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)

Done !! Note that I put a lot of terms in italics -- they could be made into wiki links. Alanf777 (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't actually know what the "Format" section is meant to hold. (eg Baseball doesn't have one). I'm going to take that sub-header out, so it's all "summary". Then there will be a bit of replication, so I'll clean up duplicates. As before, I'll put up/take down a "please do not edit" comment while it's under way. Alanf777 (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the point of a 1-sentence summary at this position of the article. There's already a short summary in the lead . I didn't see the warning-comment until I had already merged the two sections, so I undid it. I'm still working on the basis that we need a summary section which actually explains the game. (Also see my earlier talk on the lede/lead). Alanf777 (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2014[edit]

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)

There is already a sentence "The batsman who is not on strike may be run out by the bowler if he leaves his crease before the bowler bowls,..." under the section #Dismissals. What else are you suggesting? Please suggest the required changes in X to Y form···Vanischenu (mc/talk) 06:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

RE: "innings"[edit]

In cricket, is a turn of both teams at bat a plural of inning?GinAndChronically (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes.
(Now I await those purists who will point out the exceptions.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
phuwee for purists. But why? Just plain tradition? Or is there a story behind it?GinAndChronically (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
'Innings' is the singular and plural form of the noun, like the word sheep. 'Inning' isn't a valid word in modern British English or the world of cricket, though it looks like it may have been in the past. Mmitchell10 (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

RE: "Test batsman"[edit]

In another article this term is used. What does it mean?GinAndChronically (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It literally means someone who has played as a Batsman in Test cricket. Both those links should help. It probably needs to be emphasised that, although everybody bats, cricketers tend to specialise as either batsmen or bowlers, and often only those who specialise in batting are described as "Test batsmen". HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Please correct the rankings as the one given in this article are not updatedDhoom0608 (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)