Talk:Batting (cricket)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Cricket (Rated Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-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.
 

Intro[edit]

"A batsman's batting average or strike rate are the accepted measures of his ability." I'm not happy about this statement at all. Firstly it implies that average and strike rate are the same thing or at least in some way linked or eqivalent. Secondly a batsman's strike rate is rarely of any importance outside of limited overs cricket and even there its hardly an accepted measure of a batsman's ability. Many of the game's most prolific batsmen would be classed as accumulators of runs rather than free scorers and none the worse is thought of them because of this. Strike rate is however somewhat more significant for a bowler but this is a different strike rate entirely. --LiamE 00:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree somewhat. I've edited to reflect this. -dmmaus 23:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Picture[edit]

Can we have a better picture of a batsman? The current one looks like a batting bunny.

I think the picture's OK. His head is nicely over the ball, he's hit the ball square and downwards, and the bat's going through in a nice arc. The setting is attractively rural as befits the spirit of the game. --RobertG 20:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. He has cearly missed/mishit the ball as you can see the ball at the bottom right corner of the pic past the wicket and going towards the wicketkeeper. His followthrough is awkward and indicates that he has botched up while trying to chop down at a low bouncing ball (possibly a spinner). I don't see any "nice arc" there, rather a snapshot of an awkward, off-balance followthrough of a chopping action with the behind of the bat facing the viewer at a weird angle. All I am saying is that there could be a better looking shot than that snap. Nothing major.
I disagree too. It just looks awkward. I can't imagine a David Gower or Carl Hooper ever getting snapped in a position like that. --LiamE 23:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


Notable Batsmen[edit]

Does Kapil Dev really warrant a mention as a notable batsman? While undoubtly a clean striker of the ball and one of the game's great all-rounders, where he is of course correctly honoured, I can't justify him being listed here. --LiamE 23:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

No one has come to Kapil's defence in 2 weeks so I will remove him. --LiamE 23:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

On a similar note does Chris Cairns, great all-rounder that he was, really deserve a mention? Vladhilavic

Chris Cairns has scored more 6's in Test's than anyone else. Thats notable in itself. Also the New Zealand line up is not up to the standard of others. I'm inclined to re-include him. Its not like there's 100 Kiwis listed. --LiamE 09:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I take your point, how about including Scott Styris if your looking to expand the section? Vladhilavic

Err, are we using the primacy of Test cricket here? I can't see how Dhoni comes close otherwise, unless we add Bevan and Dean Jones as well, he averaged 46 in the low scoring eras of ODIs. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

For historical players certainly of course but I dont think we can ignore the importance of limited overs cricket these days. I'm a purist but the article, like all others, should be aimed at a general audience. Funny you should mention Bevan, I was going to add him for that very reason. --LiamE (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the bold step of completely removing this list. Reasons as follows:

  1. It is woefully incomplete (every batsman is not included, also see 3)
  2. It can never list every batsman and still serve any useful purpose
  3. At the moment it does not have any objective criteria by which players are included/excluded. "Notable" by what criteria?
  4. Any criteria that can be drawn up is better covered by our existing article about cricket records and statistics (not sure of the exact article name). Most runs? Most centuries? Most sixes? Best strike rate? All already covered!
  5. It is simply a list article masquerading as a sub-section of related article; it is thus in the wrong place
  6. This info is FAR, FAR better covered in multiple "lists of batsmen by country" or the aforementioned "cricket records and statistics"

Thoughts? Zunaid 13:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree on all points. Removing it will also hopefully stop the constant addition of marginal names and reversion that's been going on for ages. Thank you for your boldness. -dmmaus (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Batting Skills[edit]

Batting is not just about scoring runs. It also needs some skills like watching the ball carefully and then manouver it around the field. Batsmen like Shahid Afridi are just useless players who just doesnt know anything but slogging at the ball. He wont stop slogging no matter what. Even if his team needs him to stay at the crease. But batsman like Virender Sehwag is what a team needs. A person who can stay at the crease for a lot of tme and also score runs at a blaze. His stats in both one-dayers and tests prove it.

Bowling Skills[edit]

Seriously speaking, bowling is much more difficult than batting, and much more exhausting. It requires stamina and patience. Its not a fun thing in international cricket. Brett Lee is a wonderful bowler who not only has the stamina, but the determination and attitude to get wickets in a eye blink.

Batsman (cricket)[edit]

Um, what other sort of batsman is there that needs disambiguation? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to batting[edit]

Chasing after a curiousity I idly wondered if an article on batting existed. Lo and behold batting (cricket) already exists and covers everything that is here in much better context and detail, in other words this article was simply a less complete duplicate of that one. I've thus redirected it. Zunaid 17:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Image[edit]

Can you include an image about batting in cricket and off spin??: - Yes, that would be nice.

Article is rubbish[edit]

This article seems to have beem written by someone for whom English is a second language and Cricket is a distant memory. I'd suggest deleting or rewriting.

"A player who is currently batting is denoted as a batter." He may be in baseball for all I know but in cricket he is known as a batsman. As for the definitions of a Hook and a Pull they must have changed since I played cricket as a young man as they were basically the same shot (no difference in height) but when playing a hook the batsman moved into the line of the ball, with the risk of being hit on the head, to better time his shot, whereas the pull was played outside the line of the ball (no risk of being hit) but more difficult to time correctly.Williamgeorgefraser 07:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamgeorgefraser (talkcontribs)


I agree - this article could really do with some work. For starters, while it is nice to have a video component, that video is worse than useless. The article also simply lists a batsman's shots, without mention of how, why, or against what type of delivery he might play them. Any article on batting technique that doesn't start with describing the batsmen moving either forward or back as a starting point is doomed to failure. There should also be separate techniques on playing fast bowling and spin bowling, seeing as they are almost completely different skills. Batting is actually a relatively simple exercise in theory, but this article makes it sound fiendishly complicated 213.70.98.66 (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

left/right-handed[edit]

There ought to be something here about the difference between batting left- and right-handed. — sjorford++ 15:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Straight Bat[edit]

I have proposed to merge Straight Bat into this article. I don't know anything about cricket so I don't want to do it myself. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This whole article would be really difficult to understand if you dont know anything of cricket. Too much terminology that you wouldnt understand necessarily ClamsonJ (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this whole article is difficult to understsand because it's badly written and inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.83.124 (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I came to this page as a consequence of the redirection from the Straight Bat page. The issue I have with this is that the expression 'straight bat' has a metaphorical meaning which is originated from the tactical implications of undertaking a drive or straight bat shot. However, this conversational metaphor is no longer accessible, as it has been suborned into a tactical discussion of actual game play. I suggest that there could be a link to the sporting metaphor list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metaphors#Sport and possibly a discussion at the end of the section on Drive shots which covers the use of the term in general conversational English. Bendigo Bunyip (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Dilscoop[edit]

Is the scoop played by Tillakaratne Dilshan a new shot? The definition of the Mariller shot on this page sounds near identical however the shot described on Marillier shot sounds more like the scoop over the shoulder. The two main references [1][2] I can find for the evolution of the scoop are equally unclear whether the shot was over fine leg or the keeper which appears the major difference between the scoop and the 'Dilscoop'. Any thoughts to clear up the confusion welcome. --Jpeeling (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

DILSCOOP is played over the batsman himself and the wicket keeper's head and the MARILLER goes towards Fine leg. DILSCOOP has now been accepted by the international media. See the links:

THE TIMES [UK] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/cricket/article6489070.ece

HINDUSTAN TIMES [India] http://www.hindustantimes.com/Cricket/T20WorldCup/StoryPage.aspx?id=3a0e79a9-d14a-43f3-8b5a-6e7461a3a2fd&category=Chunk-HT-UI-ICCWorldTwenty20SectionPage-LatestNews

THE NATION [Sri Lanka] http://www.nation.lk/2009/06/14/sports2.htm

THE NATION [Sri Lanka] http://www.nation.lk/2009/06/14/sports4.htm

THE INDEPENDENT [UK] http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/murali-and-mendis-keep-a-tight-rein--on-battling-ireland-1705334.html

How do explain the definition of the Marillier shot on this page then? It is identical to the 'unique' Dilshan. The definition of the Marillier scoop shot has been in existence since November 2005[3] and hasn't been changed, if that definition is incorrect as you claim then why hasn't anybody changed it? --Jpeeling (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all 3 questions 1/how do I reply to talk without going to edit? Is there a short cut? 2/ Also how do I do new articles 3/ and add links?

Marillier technique is different - played with a bat parallel to the ground Dilscoop is different - played with a vertical bat See http://www.island.lk/2009/06/15/sports4.html

I quote cricket pundit Trevor Chesterfield from the above link: Marillier held the bat parallel to the pitch with the toe of the bat pointing towards the bowler, allowing him to either flick or scoop the ball over the wicketkeeper’s head, which is a different action to that used by Dilshan. It could be argued how Dilshan’s smart revolutionary tactic is an extension of the original Marillier flick, but he has refined it and it has become a more sophisticated stroke.

Besides the effects of the 2 shots are different: 1/ MARILLER - ball goes towards fine leg 2/ DILSCOOP - ball goes to no man's land [directly behind the wicket keeper]

Therefore the 2 terms - Mariller and Dilscoop denote 2 different strokes and effects.

I'm sorry but I still don't quite understand the differences, how is Dilshan's played with a vertical bat, a vertical bat in my mind would see the toe end of the bat facing the sky and the shot being an uppercut. Without a video of the Marillier shot I don't think my creativeless mind can imagine the differences. There do seem to be quite a few sources stating this is a new stroke and with no response from other editors here I'm resigned to allow you to add the information on this shot back into this article. However when you do please make it clear the differences compared to the Marillier shot so layman readers like myself can understand. Thanks. --Jpeeling (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
To answer your other questions: This will help you start a new page and this for links/references. I'm not sure what you mean in Q1, to respond to comments you have to edit the page or section. --Jpeeling (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Unorthodox shots[edit]

The section on unorthodox shots (in fact the whole article to be honest) needs some proper references. Since anyone can play any type of shot at the ball, there are obviously thousands of variations of cricket shot that may be played. Not all of them enter popular usage though. Things like the reverse sweep and slog obviously belong in this section, they have been adopted by many cricketers and can be considered as a genuine, bona fide unorthodox shots. They have also been popular enough to enter common usage in cricket commentary as a descriptive terms i.e. they are part of the cricket lexicon.

Things like the switch hit are a marginal case, having only been used by one player and not in common usage amongst players or commentators thus far. Same with the paddle sweep/scoop, which is simply a variation on the sweep shot and thus does not stand on its own as a separate named and described shot in the cricket lexicon.

The reverse drive and marillier shot I don't consider bona fide unorthodox shots, they have been used very rarely in cricket, to the extent that these descriptive terms are NOT in common usage and are not standard terms used amongst cricket commentators.

Including each and every variation of unorthodox shot that has been played by a batsman at one point or another simply dilutes the effect of trying to explain batting to the encyclopedia reader. Thoughts? Zunaid 09:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Metaphorical use[edit]

On 18 January, Jacob Rees-Mogg was discussing amendments he'd put down to the Fixed-Term Parliament Bill. He said he was told by the clerks that he was "open to batting", and Rees-Mogg made it clear this was a cricket reference. As an American, I find cricket a bit bewildering, so can someone help me out in explaining what the gist of the metaphor was? The best I can come up with on my own is that the amendments are not well written so the minister in charge of the bill will be able to score a lot of debating points. Unfortunately, the context doesn't help much. -Rrius (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I imagine it means he is willing to have first crack - ie to say his bit first and then let the other "team" respond. I suppose that may indicate that he thinks he has a lot to say, and perhaps feels he can anticipate all the opposition's arguments. Does that make sense? Py0alb (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sort of. I think it makes more sense if the officials were telling him everyone would be batting away his arguments, but yeah. Thank you. -Rrius (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Notable Batsmen[edit]

What exactly is this list meant to add to the article? It just seems to be a list of names chosen almost entirely at random. I'm inclined to suggest that it should be removed, as there is a perfectly adequate list of famous cricketers elsewhere. Py0alb (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, there are no criteria for inclusion. Removed. wjematherbigissue 16:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


This article desperately needs expanding[edit]

Compared to the depth of information available about different bowling styles and techniques on wikipedia, this article is extremely thin. I think it needs to be expanded dramatically - particularly the information about the orthodox shots (Curiously, there is more than enough info on the gimmick shots).

A lot of the content is far too oversimplified as to be useful, and several of the pictures are unhelpful (that picture depicting a village cricketer playing something only distantly related to a cut shot for example). The wheel diagram showing the direction of the various shots is completely rubbish. We need firstly to divide the article into seperate sections for front foot and back foot shots and start from there. Py0alb (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


I have had a crack at reorganising and expanding. Let me know what you think? Py0alb (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there grounds for a section on shots you're not trying to play.. french cuts, outside, leading and top edges etc.?