Talk:Cricket

Response to FAR

It is clear that Cricket is going to fail its FAR miserably so action is being taken to restructure and rewrite the article which will be nursed back to FA status. See WT:CRIC for the current discussion, which may well be moved to this page before long.

Our initial task is to establish a firm structure for the new article and the current version is a "starter for ten" in that direction. Please do not worry too much about the content at this stage although anything useful, relevant and non-trivial is always welcome. We will deal with citations and supporting materials as we go along, or later when we have got the article up to B-class or above. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please add note on composition of ball

I was surprised to see in Bodyline that it's possible for a cricketer to have his skull fractured by being hit by the ball. Cricket explains that the bat is made of wood and that "the hardness of the ball, which can be delivered at speeds of more than 90mph, is a matter for concern", but does not specify the composition of the ball (solid wood? hard rubber? stuffed leather? depeleted uranium?). Please add a note on this to the article. Thanks much. -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Try cricket ball, which is linked in the opening of the Bodyline article. David Underdown (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. We should (quite obviously IMHO) link to cricket ball from the mention of the ball in this article Cricket (why wasn't this done already?).

It could also hardly hurt to include some brief mention of its composition here. -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There is already a description of the ball in the section entitled "Bat and ball". BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Cricket: state of play

I've gone through the former version and extracted anything I believe to be relevant into the new one. For now, I can't think of anything else that could usefully be included in terms of structure and we must bear in mind the criticism about too many sections and sub-sections previously.

I've tried to tidy up the placing of images and ensure that the ones used are relevant to the content. Again, we need to bear in mind the criticism that far too many images were used previously.

I would say the article is now at the high end of start-class and very close to being B-class again. What it needs are inline citations in all sections and I haven't time to do that for the moment. I have provided many more than were there previously but we need a consistent spread of references throughout the article. If we can accomplish that, I would rate it as B-class again and then we can think about how to fine-tune it for a higher rating.

Thanks to Andrew for his feedback and to Dweller for his initiative. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

One way to improve the article is with respect to the term "overs." It seems to be important, but is not defined. Frank Lynch (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the over is already defined. "The bowler bowls the ball in sets of six deliveries (or "balls") and each set of six balls is called an over." Elostirion (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right, but the first mention of overs is in paragraph four, before they are defined. Frank Lynch (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Cricket: batting gloves

If you put "batting gloves" in the search box wikipedia only links to an article on baseball gloves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnybriggs (talk • contribs) 20:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I could determine from a quick search, through some oversight there seems to be no article on cricket batting gloves. JH (talk page) 20:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"Old Flemish"

Let's use exact terminology. It is a popular misconception to think that Old Flemish is any different from Old Dutch. Flemish is colloquial for Belgian Dutch and is thus linguistically meaningless. Academic literature overwhelmingly agrees. The fact that some sources (no matter how numerous these are) use incorrect or inexact terminology is no reason for wikipedia to copy this blindly, even if in this case it is a common mistake. We can keep the source concerning the etymology but we should use scientific vocabulary. When I corrected it, I did not even go far enough: Old Dutch (wrongly "Old Flemish") ceased to exist in the 12th century. Correct would therefore be "Middle Dutch". Even more reassuring is that the dialect of the County of Flanders was by far the most important contributor to Middle Dutch. So let's keep the source, but correct its terminology. ---Roofbird (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I corrected it again, citing different sources. All use "Middle Dutch". The source of the Bonn professor does not literally say it comes from Old Flemish but that the Flemings played a similar game. When saying their language (refering to "the Flemish"), he actually means the Dutch language. Hereby I think all is clear. Regards, --Roofbird (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Utterly agree with Roofbird. "Old Flemish" is nonsense. --Hooiwind (talk) 07:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we discuss this at WT:CRIC. Leave it with me and I'll set something up but I'm afraid I must log off for now. Regards. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually there's no need to discuss it further. Having read Middle Dutch and spoken to a friend who is into medieval languages, I now accept that this was the language of Flanders when it belonged to the Duchy of Burgundy. I've reverted all three articles back to a clean copy and then edited out "Old Flemish" with an additional footnote to explain that Middle Dutch was the language spoken in Flanders. Some of your edits left the reference structure of History of cricket to 1725 in a bit of a mess and you also introduced a dating error, which is why I went back to much earlier versions in all three cases.

I'm glad we've been able to resolve the problem. One of the early cricket writers probably assumed that Flemish people spoke a Flemish language and, as is the way of these things, his successors repeated his mistake. All the best. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 16:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for causing problems with the syntax. Now this question is resolved, we can all live happily ever after. Cheers! --Roofbird (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm..

Not even a single picture from Asia in this article. And some blame India for misusing its clout in cricket... --128.211.201.161 (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of unbiased representation, I suggest one image each from England, Australia, South Africa, West Indies, India and Pakistan. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 04:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment. The trouble with images is always the copyright factor. If you have any suitably relevant images that can be inserted into an appropriate section, it will help aas the article still needs a lot of work doing. Thanks. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"The match is won by the team that scores more runs"

Incorrect. True for limited over competitions but untrue for 3 or 5 day competitions where it is perfectly possible to score more runs and only draw the match. David T Tokyo (talk) 06:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point. I've amended the paragraph as follows to try and remove the ambiguity although I wouldn't want to go into too much detail at that stage of the article:

"In simple terms, the objects of each team are to score more "runs" than the other team and to completely "dismiss" the other team. In one form of cricket, winning the game is achieved by scoring the most runs, even if the opposition has not been completely dismissed. In another form, it is necessary to score the most runs and dismiss the opposition in order to win the match, which would otherwise be drawn."

See what you think. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's difficult to explain... Even if I think it is too early in the article to speak about declaration (in that paragraph), it is possible to win the match without dismissing the opposition, if the later has previously declared! Why not "In another form, it is necessary to score the most runs and that the innings of the opposition are completed, generally meaning that they have been dismissed" or something like that? OrangeKnight (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Blackjack. I think it's difficult to get too much into this area without also alluding to the fact that there are different types of cricket. My suggestion would be to keep it at a very basic level (allowing fuller explanations to be placed elsewhere on the page) by including the following paragraph somewhere in the Lead:

"There are several variations as to how long a game of cricket can last. In professional cricket this can be anything from a match limited to 20 overs per side to a game played over 5 days. Depending on the length of the game being played, there are different rules that govern how a game is won, lost, drawn or tied."

Thoughts? David T Tokyo (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It's also possible for the team scoring the most runs to lose the match - i.e. when Duckworth Lewis comes into play for interrupted games. A very recent case in point is the 4th ODI match in the 7-match series between India and England, on 23 November 2008 at Bangalore. It was shortened to 22 overs per team, and India won by 19 runs, having first scored 166/4, with England replying with 178/8 against a par score of 198 to win / 197 to draw. --ikrip (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Dismissal

"Note that it is usually the striker who is out when a dismissal occurs but the non-striker can be dismissed, invariably by being run out." Not invariably as htb, otf and timed out can also affect the non-striker. Article is protected for some reason.

It is invariably in practice because those other three instances, though quite valid, are extremely rare. I'll reword and change "invariably" to "usually" which is a better choice of word. The article is protected because of recent vandalism by a handful of infants who like to show us all how mature they are. Thanks for your feedback which is useful. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I reworded it as follows:

In the vast majority of cases, it is the striker who is out when a dismissal occurs. If the non-striker is dismissed it is usually by being run out, but he could also be dismissed for hit wicket, obstructing the field, handling the ball or being timed out.

The non-striker can also be out for hit wicket, though again this is rare. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? I'd already removed the reference to hit wicket before reading your commont. I thought a batsman could only be out hit wicket in the instance of playing a stroke (to include taking evasive action), and by definition that can only be the striker. A hit wicket dismissal is credited to the bowler, which would make no sense for a dismissal of the non-striker. JH (talk page) 10:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Playing a stroke or setting off for the first run I believe, so the second option could presumably be applied to the non-striker. David Underdown (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

However, checking the laws (!), they state "The striker is out Hit wicket[...]", and there is no reference to this law being applicable to the non-striker. David Underdown (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure now. What decision is given if the non-striker somehow hits the wicket with his bat, falls onto it, runs into it, etc.? Surely he would be out? But he has not actually been run out if he has broken the wicket. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 17:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Not out (unless he deliberately threw his bat at the wicket). A book I've got at home somewhere describes an incident when Barrie Leadbeater was umpiring a county match. The striker played the ball, and set off for a run before realising a sharp peice of fielding would leave him in trouble. The batsman turned to get back into his crease, as he did so the bat slipped out of his hand and broke the wicket. The fielder returned the ball which hit the stumps. The fielding side appealed and Leadbetter ruled not out. The batsman was not out Hit Wicket since he was neither playing a shot, nor setting off for the first run (but rather attemtping to return to the crease), he could not be out Run Out, since the wicket was already broken. Nor was he out Obstructed the Field, since the act of the bat slipping from his hand was not deliberate. David Underdown (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, well. You learn something every day. I suppose the law as written does actually imply a not out in that circumstance because it talks about the striker making a stroke and it is when the ball is in play. It must be an extremely rare occurrence for the non-striker to break his wicket. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we don't go into too much detail about the methods of dismissal for an article that it presumably aimed primarily at those unfamiliar with the game. I think we could be in danger of putting them off. It might be better only to cover the main forms of dismissal: bowled, caught, lbw, stumped, run out and perhaps hit wicket, and then say that there are some other - very rare - forms of dismissal, providing the appropriate links to where descriptions of them can be found. Even for the ones we do cover, I think the descriptions could perhaps be simplified, again with links to fuller descriptions. Alternatively the detail could be relegated to footnotes. JH (talk page) 10:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Tom Smith / Laws / Umpiring / Scoring

Is it worth mentioning the indispensable Tom Smith's New Cricket Umpiring and Scoring [1]? --ikrip (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)--Ikrip 23:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC).

There is no mention of Penalty runs in Extras section.

possibilities to win a cricket match

Dear all
 Any one of you kindly answer my following questions.
 1.3 balls yet to be bowled
 2.7 runs to win the match 
 3.2 batsmen who have scored 94 notout

What are all the possibilities to win the match, and the both batsmen get century and the batting team win the match

send me the answers immediately

thanks Muralidaran.M —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.134.248.246 (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, but as you're new, I'll give you the answer. Batsmen 1 hits a six, bringing the scores level. He then goes for a single from the next ball but is either run out or caught with the batsmen crossing, bringing batsman 2 on strike who then hits a six to win the game. I've also removed your e-mail address - never a good idea to put it on a site as popular as this one if you want to avoid spam. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sections as separate articles

Just a small query: There may be a good reason for this, but why are some of the sections cut-down versions of separate articles? Namely: Dismissals, Innings closed and Results. Can't the separate articles be included in the main article, making it one piece? Perhaps it has been done this way because the separate articles were written by different people? --ikrip | talk page

It's more to do with article size limitations than anything else. For example, dismissals is already a sizeable article and potentially has scope for further expansion. The purpose of cricket is to provide a necessary introduction to the sport which must include at least a definition of each type of dismissal (and result, extras, etc.) but without going into too much detail. The detail can be found via a link to the specific article (in theory!). Hope this helps. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. (Apologies for not signing my original query - have done so now.) --ikrip | talk page 07:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

More generally, it's called WP:Summary style. David Underdown (talk) 10:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Gonads

"... and a "box" inside the trousers (for the more delicate part of the anatomy)."

I so want to remove this and replace it with something that just isn't so goddamn British, but I'm so taken aback by its PC nature that I don't know if I'd be violating someone's attempt at encyclopedicality. But I mean, come on. Seriously? Dextrose (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It did need rewording but surely even a goddamn American can see it was a joke (admittedly a very tired one). Why not just be WP:BOLD and make the change without making a scene? ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll take a look at that. --Dweller (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be wrong to replace it with something that isn't so goddamn British, see: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Strong_national_ties_to_a_topicPRB (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Good one.  ;-) ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

... but cricket ceased to be British long time ago :-) Rest day (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but Cricket is British. Well, it's in British English :-) --Dweller (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Defualt cricket article

I think that maybe the insect's article should be "cricket", and this one should be "cricket (sport)". I'm a 33 year old American who's known what crickets were as long as he can remember, but I only just stumbled on this article now and learned that cricket is not in fact the same game as croquet, and I don't recognize anything I see in the pictures. -- AvatarMN (talk) 08:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You might want to have a look through the archives, where this has been discussed several times before. The conclusion in every case has been that the primary usage of cricket in the English language (not just American English) is for the sport, hence Cricket goes directly to the sport and at the top it has a link to the article for the insect along with a link to the disambiguation page for other uses. Andrew nixon (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Page views for the sport and the Orthopteran. Hope this helps. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the proposed move for the reasons I've previously typed here on too many occasions.

This is a FAQ, so it might be helpful if we could add a box to the top of this page, with links to all the various discussions of this page move proposal, in the way we do with old AfD noms? Does anyone have the technical skills to do it? --Dweller (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I'm fairly certain that everyone knows what the insects are, and probably mostly only the British know what the game is, so believe it would be reasonable to think that the insect is known among a much larger number of worldwide English speakers. Obviously the game would generate more passion and interest than the insect, leading to page views. As would the fact that the game is the default so anyone looking for the insect would be forced here first. But if this issue has been brought up many times, I'll concede it. -- AvatarMN (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Click the image for the key

The article's currently in poor condition, as it's being massively reworked, so there's no way you'd know it but cricket is a game of massive world interest, not just British. See the map I've posted for more information... it's buried at the foot of the article. You've inspired a proposed improvement to the article - see the next subsection - so thanks! --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Dweller, cricket is one of the most global sports in existence, without meaning any disrespect I think it is less "mostly only the British know what the game it" and more "America is one of the countries of the minority who don't know much about cricket" :) SGGH ^speak! 12:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added a FAQ for it, so hopefully it will be clearer in the future, feel free to tinker with it :) SGGH ^speak! 12:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If that map indicates a relative awareness of cricket, it would indicate that the USA is one of the countries who have a second-level awareness of it, rather than the virtually nil awareness it actually has. It gives the appearance that America is as aware of cricket as Ireland and Scotland, which can't be true. Virtually everyone must know the insect, so it does feel kind of odd to me that the consensus seems to be that '"only" the most most populous English-speaking nation and third most populous nation overall isn't aware of it, so it's more known than the insect. People care about the sport more, it gives them an inflated idea of it's importance, and apparently that's kept the insect from winning requests for move. Everyone who knoes what the game is knows what the insect is, and on top of that so does the third most populous nation and most populous English-speaking nation. But I, like everyone else, don't really care that much about crickets so this'll be it from me...  ;) -- AvatarMN (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The map shows affiliation to the International cricket council. --Dweller (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You might also be interested in the more to the point (and close to Featured quality) List article, List of International Cricket Council members --Dweller (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be pedantic, but what's your sample size to say that awareness of cricket in America is virtually nil? There are plenty of leagues, and while the game may not enjoy as high a profile as baseball etc, there is still enough interest in American cricket for a competent, though troubled, national team. As for an inflated importance, the sport was arguably a factor in ending apartheid in South Africa. Nev1 (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Affiliation to the international cricket council doesn't say anything about the general awareness of the sport in those countries. The number of page visits of the insect vs. the sport especially means nothing when the default has been set to the sport. My guess that awareness of cricket in America is exceptionally low is based only on the fact that I'm a very ordinary, average American of 33 years of age, and thought it was the same game as croquet until yesterday. However famous cricket may be, the issue is whether or not crickets are even more famous, especially among English speakers. Does anyone argue that it's not likely that every English speaker who knows the sport also knows the insect? Does anyone argue that America has an exceptionally low awareness of the sport? Does anyone argue that most Americans are aware of the insect? Does anyone argue that America is not the most populous English speaking country? -- AvatarMN (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The number of page visits of the insect vs. the sport means something even if the default has been set to the sport. In November, 150000+ people have visited this one, and "only" 25000+ have visited the page on the insect. That is to say, even if everyone who wanted to visit the insect page first went on the sport one, 125000+ people wanted to see the sport page. OrangeKnight (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Your arguement still appears to revolve around the fact that Americans aren't particularly aware of the sport of cricket. Remember, Americans constitute a minority of the world, and I would hazard to guess that those who are aware of cricket actually form a larger population. It is the number one sport in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Carribean and possibly Zimbabwe, ranking joint first with Rugby in Australia and New Zealand and arguably England. It is one of the oldest national sports of many of those nations, and its cultural impact around the world is significant given its affiliation with the Empire. Furthermore, I suspect that the input into the international community of cricket as a sport far outweighs that of the insect. Also, I would not argue that America has an exceptionally low awareness of the sport. My partner lives in New England, and there is a strong awareness of it there, and particularly in New York City, and America began playing cricket many many years ago. Also, your statement that "America is not the most populous English speaking country" is something I would take issue with, as the populations of all the non-English speaking countries who play full Test cricket would most certainly out-number that of the USA (which, as I have said, does not have the exceptionally low awareness of cricket that you suggest).

All in all, I would find it very difficult to imagine that when people search for cricket on wikipedia they mean the insect more than the sport. That's my several cents anyway :) SGGH ^speak! 20:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A sample size of one is a poor model for a country of 300,000 people. 300,000 out of a world of 6.5 billion is only a minority, and just because en.wikipedia is English speaking doesn't mean it should have an American bias. I came across something which I think puts into words why the sport is more important than the insect: "Cricket often stands for something beyond itself. It has been the symbol of an empire and the symbol of the colonies striking back. Cricket matches are seldom bereft of symbolic content; the baggage of history ensures that. No India-Pakistan series, for example, can ever be about the cricket alone. The game takes the shape of the vessel it is poured into - the vessel made from the prevailing political and social thinking of the period. Today in India it stands for anti-terrorism. It is a heavy responsibility". [2] Nev1 (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose yet again. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Really, my arguement doesn't hinge on America's ignorance of the sport so much as our relative ignorance to the sport and our complete awareness of the insect. Seriously, everyone who knows what the sport is also knows what the insect is, plus a whole lot more. However important, widely known, and notable the sport is, which is surely a lot more than I realized, the insect has even wider awareness. -- AvatarMN (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I dunno - there may be a billion or so people on and around the Indian subcontinent who don't know the word "cricket" for the insect, but are highly aware of the sport, but even if you ignore that argument, the case is what people are most likely to be searching for. Page views and edit counts both show the sport easily dominates the insect. --Dweller (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

For god's sake, Indians don't speak English. This is the English Wikipedia. -- AvatarMN (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

A lot of this rests on what are people likely to be search for when they type Cricket into the search box. Previous discussions, if you'd care to read them, have all come to the consensus that it's more than likely to be the sport. In addition to the several English speaking countries where the sport is going to be the primary usage, there are several people for whom English is a second language (eg. India and Pakistan) who are more likely to be looking for the sport. I'd say that people looking for information on the insect are more likely to type "crickets", as the insect is almost always in the plural form, whilst the sport is always the singular. Indeed, Crickets DOES redirect to Cricket (insect). For those looking for information on the insect who do type "cricket", the first link they'll see in the article is for the insect article, which is what it would be if Cricket redirected to a disambiguation page. Andrew nixon (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It isn't that people know the insect more often than the sport, it is that the majority of the dicussion involving the term "cricket" in the world will be discussing the sport, as more people discuss and refer to the sport than discuss and refer to the insect, as it is a larger entity. SGGH ^speak! 22:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

For god's sake, Dweller, Indians don't speak English. This is the English Wikipedia. Whatevs. -- AvatarMN (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, English is one of the two official languages of India and around 90 million people there speak it as a first or second language. Try getting your facts straight. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

According to our articles, taking India, Bangladesh and Pakistan alone (because they're Test-playing countries) there's 109m-118m English speakers, depending on how you interpret the statistics.

But really, as I said above, less relevant than that is the number of people choosing either to view or edit the two articles. --Dweller (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Indians don't speak English? Have you actually ever met any Indians Avatr MN? Do you know anything of its culture or history? The idea that because you personally don't know much about cricket means the whole article must be renamed is rather illogical. Why don't you just read the article? Learning new things is what wikipedia is all about. This whole topic has been debated many times, usually by people who didn't bother to read the past debates before starting it all over again. Cricket is a major world sport, watched and played by numbers which dwarf that of, to pick a random example, baseball. There doesn't seem any likelihood that this article is going to be moved. Nick mallory (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Article lead

I suggest that the article should be opening with the tiniest of descriptions (team game/bat and ball game) followed by an assertion of notability.

Currently, you could read a long way down the article and think it's no more significant than tiddlywinks or, indeed, croquet as mentioned by the editor in the section above this.

We could find RS to show it's one of the longest-standing organised sports, or a sport played at international level since xxxx, or estimates suggest it's played by xxxxxxx, or popular in xxxxxxx countries around the world, or with ICC teams representing xxx countries etc.

Thoughts? --Dweller (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources for most of those things will be pretty easy to find. To show that it's one of the longest-standing organised sports, references to the umpteen books on the early history of cricket would do the job. An easy reference is the scorecard for the first international match (in any sport!) between the USA and Canada in 1844 is the scorecard for that match. Number of ICC members is an obvious reference from the ICC site. Playing numbers are a little more tricky, and I'd leave out anything to do with popularity for reasons discussed previously. Andrew nixon (talk) 10:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on playing numbers... perhaps the number of current first-class/List A players around the world might be derivable from one of the stats sites? --Dweller (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I've made a clumsy start. Help welcomed. A lot of the detail below this in the Lead needs to be hived off to the main body. --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPORTS and the article lead

I've added the WP:SPORTS banner to this page and have to say I'm amazed it wasn't already done, but then I read the item somewhere above about cricket being "unknown" in America (which is nonsense because it was first played there in colonial days). America, the place which has had George W Bush in charge for eight years, where some people think cricket is croquet and where some people think English isn't spoken on the sub-continent!!

No matter. Turning to the article lead topic immediately above, I think it is clumsy to say that cricket "originated in England, possibly as early as 1300, and is now played in more than 100 countries" followed by a citation request. I've read the whole article and your citation is given in the current footnote #33, labelled "CricketArchive: full list of ICC members". I've followed the link to the CricketArchive site and there they all are, over 100 of them including the United States of America.

According to History of cricket to 1725, the first definite mention of cricket was in 1597 (i.e., a Julian date which is 1598 in the Gregorian system) and this article also states that the 1300 reference to creag is:

an early spelling of the Gaelic word craic (that means) simply "fun, enjoyment, abandonment, or lighthearted mischief; often in the context of drinking or music"

I think you should amend the opening sentence to emphasise the 1597 reference, which is definite, and take out the highly speculative 1300 reference, especially given the 297-year difference. Apart from anything else, I once read somewhere a very plausible theory that cricket was invented in the time of Henry VIII by the Guildford schoolboys! Who can say otherwise?

Following on (!) from that, there is an error in the "History" section of this article where it states that the Guildford court case was in 1598. According to the more detailed History of cricket to 1725, the year of the case was 1597 and I believe that article is the more authoritative and reliable one, though you may wish to check its sources to make sure. --Orrelly Man (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite confident enough to change it myself, but I suspect that 1598 is the correct year. Books that I've read say 1598. I think the problem is that, under the Julian calendar, New Year's Day was March 25th. A contemporary reference to "January 17th, 1597", according to the convention adopted by historians, would be treated as if the year began on January 1st, and so would be referred to as ocurring in 1598. JH (talk page) 19:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I have only one cricket book, which is Derek Birley's Social History of Cricket and he quotes 1598 in an endnote. The precise date is quoted in this source including the qualification that is a Julian date: i.e., as you say, the year began on 25 March. Just to muddy the waters a little more, Wikipedia's guideline on Julian dates recommends:

Dates before the adoption of the Gregorian calendar ... are normally given in the Julian calendar. The Julian day and month should not be converted to the Gregorian calendar, but the start of the Julian year should be assumed to be 1 January.

I think, therefore, that we should quote the Julian year of 1598 but make clear in a footnote that the contemporary date was 1597. I'll make an appropriate change to my previous edit. --Orrelly Man (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Having done that, I noticed the 1300 date in the preceding paragraph, checked the online source again and found that this is also a Julian year! I've amended it to 1301 and provided a similar caveat in a footnote. I know that this "creag" reference is in one of our WP:SPORTS articles so I will amend that too. --Orrelly Man (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made what I hope are appropropriate edits to History of cricket to 1725 and to History of cricket in order to bring them into line. JH (talk page) 18:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

grammatical error & please clarify

• 'The batsman uses the popping crease at his end to stand when facing the bowler but it is more important to him that because it marks the limit of his safe territory and he can be stumped or run out (see Dismissals below) if the wicket is broken while he is "out of his ground".'
• see "that because" grammatical error
• Please clarify "The batsman uses the popping crease at his end to stand." Does s/he stand on it, near it, in front of it, behind it?
• I'm assuming "out of his ground" is explained elsewhere.
• "while no part of the batsman or his bat is grounded behind the popping crease" [my emphasis]. Huh? The bat.. meaning while in the batter's hands? I assume the batter is not required to carry it.
• Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ling.Nut that these two sentences were very badly written and I've made minor edits to improve the readability at least. Whether the topics need further explanation is for the cricket project to decide. Someone needs to take this article in hand and complete the rewrite that was begun last year. --Orrelly Man (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Bowling

Under the 'bowling' subheading the article states that the arm can be bent, but is in fact not allowed to be straight when bowling; otherwise it is liable to be called a no-ball.

I'm fairly certain the bowler must have his/her arm straight "from the point at which the arm crosses the horizontal plane of the shoulder to the point at which the ball is released from the hand. So unless every bowler I've ever watched was breaking the rule nonstop and the umpires let it happen, it would be good if someone corrected the sentence.

The article is locked (apparently for recent vandalism), otherwise I would have fixed this myself.Nij90 (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)