Talk:Sticky wicket

Article name

I'm a little surprised to see "sticky dog" get "top billing". In England, at least, I think that "sticky wicket" is far more commonly used. JH (talk page) 20:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair comment. Happy for the article to be moved over the redirect (leaving a redirect here) if there's consensus. I'll post to WT:CRIC. --Dweller 09:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd never even heard Sticky dog used to refer to a pitch before, so Sticky wicket it is. Andrew nixon 09:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Further support for the move comes from the fact that the Frindall reference doesn't use the term "sticky dog". In fact, the article needs a citation for that term. --Dweller 09:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Sticky dog??!" Sticky wicket all the way! –MDCollins (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Just out of interest, the first documented use, and use as a figurative term are documented here. Be useful in the stub. –MDCollins (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice find! --Dweller 09:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

A perusal of Google finds sticky dog popular especially in Australia and on the subcontinent. However, this useful source ([1]) I think sets the seal on the proposed name change. I'm going to move it. --Dweller 09:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with both terms (I'm British) but "sticky wicket" seems to proper term to me, and "sticky dog" seems like slang. "Sticky wicket" has also entered the language as a metaphor for any situation which you are likely to get in trouble whatever you do, which would be worth pointing out in the article. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I've played a lot in England and it's always been 'sticky wicket'. As Stephen points out 'sticky wicket' has entered the general language while sticky dog has not. 'Sticky dog' is more australian and should be a redirect. Even The Melbourne Age uses 'sticky wicket' rather than 'sticky dog' in a headline about Japanese rice here[2] Nick mallory 02:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Very amusing that so many imagine their personal experience sets the rule. Ironic especially that the English imagine the world to resemble their neighborhood- Not so much so that they assume they could dictate the truth. Cite.Sources.Wankers.: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." Personally, though It Matters Not, I feel that A Wicket is A Wicket - why would you call the Pitch a wicket? Sadsaque (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Origin section

I've amended this. There's no need as I see it to explain what a bowler is with reference to a baseball pitcher. Plus I have changed the section so that it no longer refers to a sticky wicket being one where the ball hits the wicket but the bails don't come off, which isn't correct. Jules (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say sticky wickets are 'far less common'. Almost all organised cricket, well over 99%, is played on uncovered pitches which have the potential to become sticky, in fact as there has been a massive decline in the skills of groundsmanship in the last 10 years I'd go as far as saying sticky wickets are *more* common now. Only professional cricketers (around 0.001% of all league registered cricketers) are guaranteed covered pitches, while at club level covering is sproadic, generally top club leagues in England demand covers but they are unheard of outside the professional game in the subcontinent. 92.16.34.94 (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Useful source

([3]) --Dweller (talk) 09:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

American Lexicon

How did it get into American lexicon? Americans don't play cricket.