Talk:Cricket in England: Difference between revisions
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Please do not have this deleted as 'category redundancy', it is not. See [[Rugby league in England]], [[Rugby union in England]] and [[Football in England]] for what a developed article might look like.[[User:GordyB|GordyB]] 20:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC) |
Please do not have this deleted as 'category redundancy', it is not. See [[Rugby league in England]], [[Rugby union in England]] and [[Football in England]] for what a developed article might look like.[[User:GordyB|GordyB]] 20:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
== From archaic, barbaric ha[haphazardness to Civilized |
== From archaic, barbaric ha[haphazardness to Civilized Sport == |
||
Already from the first chapter of Globalizing Cricket it is evident that it began as a "sport" which revolved around people functioning in an disorderly, almost barbaric fashion which led to numerous injuries. Cricket at that time defied the modernest rationalization of team sports, it had not regulated the provision of equal playing conditions and the multiple co-exsitng forms of the game created further confusion as there was no regulatory guidelines of significance. As the implementation of regulations such as not being allowed to hit the ball twice, rules regarding how to get a batter out, equipment standards and the overall increased coherence of the game made it more civilized as a sport.[[User:NRadi1|NRadi1]] ([[User talk:NRadi1|talk]]) 20:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC) |
Already from the first chapter of Globalizing Cricket it is evident that it began as a "sport" which revolved around people functioning in an disorderly, almost barbaric fashion which led to numerous injuries. Cricket at that time defied the modernest rationalization of team sports, it had not regulated the provision of equal playing conditions and the multiple co-exsitng forms of the game created further confusion as there was no regulatory guidelines of significance. As the implementation of regulations such as not being allowed to hit the ball twice, rules regarding how to get a batter out, equipment standards and the overall increased coherence of the game made it more civilized as a sport.[[User:NRadi1|NRadi1]] ([[User talk:NRadi1|talk]]) 20:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:18, 11 March 2013
![]() | England Start‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
|
![]() | Cricket Start‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||||||
|
I've added a new subject about Cricket in Society, since the sport has been so intertwined with England's culture, and wrote on the emergence of Cricket in relation to the development of parliament. This subtitle can definitely be expanded upon more. Julesaj11 (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I contributed to that subtitle, as you have stated, it can definitely be expanded upon more. Thank you! I talked a bit more about the violence and gambling and their effects upon the sport and the relationship between players and fans. Taylormcallister17 (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Not Redundancy
Please do not have this deleted as 'category redundancy', it is not. See Rugby league in England, Rugby union in England and Football in England for what a developed article might look like.GordyB 20:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
From archaic, barbaric ha[haphazardness to Civilized Sport
Already from the first chapter of Globalizing Cricket it is evident that it began as a "sport" which revolved around people functioning in an disorderly, almost barbaric fashion which led to numerous injuries. Cricket at that time defied the modernest rationalization of team sports, it had not regulated the provision of equal playing conditions and the multiple co-exsitng forms of the game created further confusion as there was no regulatory guidelines of significance. As the implementation of regulations such as not being allowed to hit the ball twice, rules regarding how to get a batter out, equipment standards and the overall increased coherence of the game made it more civilized as a sport.NRadi1 (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)