Talk:Cricket ball

Question

how many stitches are there in the ball?

Or why does our cricket ball have a split in each half?

I've answered both by adding to the article. -dmmaus 01:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

---

There are two piece and four piece balls - I understoood that the international games used a two piece ball

Types

Some bits and pieces I know.

Now a days, three manufacturing companies balls are used

Duke: manufactured by Dukes in England, first used in the 1999 world cup. White balls tend to get dirty and over time, visibility is reduced. The white Duke used in the 1999 WC, has a transparent protective covering that saves the ball from wear and tear. According to some players this leads to side effect of a harder ball that swings more later in the day and that can be hit harder, manufacturers tend to disagree [1]. In the 1999 world cup batting teams used to ask for a new ball in the last 10-6 overs to avoid the heavy swinging (complaining that the ball had become dirty.) It is also said that in the 1999 world cup there was some heavy hitting in the slog overs (especially by Klusner) due to the fact that Duke was still a hard-ball, therefore easy to hit. Still used in England, for example in the 2005 Ashes.

Kookaburra (Kookaburra Sport): made news before the 2003 world cup, because it is softer than the Duke. As the name suggests, manufactured in Australia. It is favoured because it retains its shine for longer than Duke. This ball is used internationally. It is a favourite of spinners as it tends to get softer later in the day. Batsmen can not hit it as hard as the duke in the slog overs. It does not reverse swing, which caused some problem for the England bowlers in the Pakistan tour.

SG-Test: manufactured and used in India, like Duke it is a harder ball. Murlitharan complained that he was used to the Kookaburra and could not spin SG-Test as much.

And the tapped ball used in Tape Ball cricket is a rage in Pakistan [2].

Yeah, I was just about to post a query on this page wondering why there isn't any information on the three main types of cricket balls manufactured currently in cricket (Kookaburra, Duke and SG) before I saw this section. Is it because it is difficult to find reliable sources on the topic? Also there must have been other brands of cricket balls made beforehand which are not described in Wiki's article on the cricket ball.Gizza^{Discuss ©} 00:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There are other main brands of cricket ball. Readers balls are by far the most common ones used in English cricket outside of Tests, and of course there are Surridge balls - when Garry Sobers hit his 36 in an over, it was against a Surridge. Duke and Kookaburra balls are basically only used for international cricket nowadays, indeed after getting bought out by them Duke used to be the 'cheap own brand' of the Morrant mail order company. There are also cheap composition balls such as the Victor, which are harder and damage bats more than a proper corky.

Heavy Tennis Balls

We non-cricket-playing Yanks would like to know more about these commercially available items. Lou Sander 12:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure myself but it appears these are harder tennis balls designed to be used for Tennis Ball Cricket and as alternatives to Tape balls Nil Einne 10:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Image

An image of a "used" ball (60+ overs old) would be a valuable addition to this article. --Dweller 13:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone also add a picture of an actual test worthy ball instead of an unknown Indian brand? --User:Hfkm:Hfkm 18:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfkm (talk • contribs)

Has anyone a test ball that could be cut up and photographed to show its construction? Perhaps one that has gone out of shape, so of little further use.SovalValtos (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

More information requested on manufacture

"Cricket ball is made from a core of cork, which is layered with tightly wound string, and covered by a leather case with a slightly raised sewn seam."

Does anyone know the diameter of the core compared with the amount which is string? Aspirex (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Corky.

I find it incredibly odd that the common name for a cricket ball, a corky, is not mentioned anywhere on the page.

I'll be adding it in a the next few days if no one objects.

Very bizarre it's not mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.27.210 (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Risk of injury

User:SovalValtos has reverted my recent edit with the comment No improvement. A tolerance is given and better to follow that than say 'about 160 grams. The previous text was:

Cricket balls, having a mass between 155.9 and 163.1 grams, are known for their hardness and for the risk of injury involved when using them. [...]

My version was:

Cricket balls are known for their risk of injury, due to their hardness and weight (about 160 grams). [...]

My check-in comment was Simplify, don't need exact weight here. Weight / mass distinction is relevant in scientific articles, not in sports articles.

I think my version is better because:

1. This paragraph is about risk of injury. The precise weight of a the ball is makes no significant difference to the risk of injury.
2. It reduces repition. We give the minimum and maximum mass elsewhere.
3. While I understand the distinction between mass and weight in a scientific context, the normal English term is weight.
4. It is usually clearer and better style to give the topic of a paragraph near its start.

On reflection, my sentence is clumsy and could be read as referring to injury to the ball, not injury caused by the ball. Also, I now think that we don't need to give the weight here. I now propose:

Injuries can be caused by cricket balls due to their hardness and weight. [...]

Any thoughts? Verbcatcher (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Essentially I agree with User:Verbcatcher and that I was wrong. I was hasty and assumed the mention of the weight detail was the only one in the article rather than one of three. Weight is OK rather than mass. The critical thing is that the paragraph is in the lead and thus does not need the detail. I would be content with your wording but might go further and omit 'due to their hardness and weight' leaving 'Injuries can be caused by cricket balls'. It might seem obvious that injuries are 'due to their hardness and weight' but it is not sourced in the body of the article, and usually they have to be moving as well as having hardness and weight to cause injury. WP:OR ?

The table in the Manufacture section could benefit from having the word size in the headings changed to circumference. SovalValtos (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I have made more changes to the paragraph, and cited sources. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Good editing. Thank you. I have made a few copy edits which I will be happy to see reverted if thought right. The 'Dangers of cricket balls' section seems to have accumulated undue case weight and could be taughtened. I have plans for getting hold of a first-class ball and dissecting it to photograph (see Image above), but have not got there yet....SovalValtos (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be good to have some pictures like these. That page also indicates that the inside of a cricket ball can be more complex that we descibe, with a cork/rubber composite core and string layers. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cricket ball. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060214222419/http://www.lords.org:80/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-5-the-ball,31,AR.html to http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-5-the-ball,31,AR.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Reason for pink ball

"...the white ball is unsuited to first-class cricket because its rapid deterioration makes it unable to be used for eighty overs as specified in the rules". I was under the impression that the real issue is that the white ball doesn't show up well against the compulsory white clothing worn in first class and tests, as opposed to coloured clothing in one-day... hence the need for a ball with some colour against white clothing at night. Rcbutcher (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Corky

An unregistered editor recently added a reference to corky in the first sentence, leaving "A cricket ball, or 'corky' is a hard, solid ball used to play cricket." I deleted the edit with the comment: Nickname not helpful in lead paragraph. Unlikely that anyone who knows the term corky does not also know the term cricket ball. The original editor (or one with the same IP address) re-reverted the edit with the comment That's not how encyclopedias work.

It is not clear that corky is a name for a cricket ball. The Oxford English Dictionary ^{(subscription required)} does not give this meaning, neither does Wictionary. ( The dictionary definition of corky at Wiktionary.)

Even if corky is an established name for a cricket ball, this does not merit mention in the lead section. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." We should not put all known facts about a subject in the lead.

Please justify why corky should be mentioned here, or I will delete it. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• A Cricket Ball.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Invented the cricket boll

invented the cricket boll 2409:4071:4D93:4674:0:0:B6C9:4D11 (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)