Talk:Indoor cricket (UK variant)

Separation from main indoor cricket article

I have created this article using content from Py0alb's additions to the main indoor cricket article. It is a separate sport and thus deserving of a separate article. in2itive (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation revisions

I have revised the disambiguation line at the top to reflect the most prominent difference between the UK format and the international format, as I'm not sure "soft ball version" is an accurate way to refer to the other format. Also, rather than saying "THE indoor variant of cricket" I've modified it to reflect that it is one of two variants of indoor cricket.

Alternatives?

Further, I've revised the last paragraph in the introduction. The references to a shorter pitch are inaccurate - the international version of indoor cricket uses the same length pitch as all forms of cricket. As you'll see on the Indoor cricket page, in origin and development (sourced) both format show common roots and diverged in the 70's. Anyway, not sure that I've hit the nail on the head when it comes to the wording I've used... suggestions?

in2itive (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Py0alb's edit revised the disambig line to suggest that the UK variant of indoor cricket is somehow the 'original format' of the indoor form of the game. Every source, referenced by this article and its netted counterpart clearly establish that both variants developed concurrently from the same genesis and simply evolved into different games. Seems to me that this is both established consensus and established fact, so I am reverting - particularly in light of my efforts above to quantify consensus through discussion here on the talk page.

As noted above, I am eager to establish consensus wording that is consistent with that which is established in e sources we've used thus far....

in2itive (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Uk version began in 1970 as evidenced here:

"it was Husum CC, a club of minority Danes who, according to Roland Bowen, had the brainstorm of playing a tournament in a hall in Flensburg, South Schleswig, in the winter of 1968-69"

note that the use of the word "hall" here signifies the UK version without full netting.

and then in the more UK specifically: "The first league, in north-west Shropshire, was formed in September 1970" from: http://www.espncricinfo.com/twenty20wc/content/story/309625.html

The Australian version originated at some point after 1977, as evidenced here: "Indoor cricket in Australia has multiple parentage in one city. During the upheavals of World Series Cricket, Dennis Lillee and a club cricket colleague, Graham Monoghan, invested in a cricket school in Perth with indoor nets where they coached schoolboys, adjourning outside to play full-fledged games. "Then one day," recalls Lillee in Menace, "the rain absolutely belted down, so we decided to pull the nets back and play the game indoors. The kids loved it, we enjoyed it, and the penny dropped - maybe we should get some teams involved."

from: http://www.espncricinfo.com/twenty20wc/content/story/309625.html

"World Series Cricket (WSC) was a break away professional cricket competition staged between 1977 and 1979" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Series_Cricket

There is absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever. Just for clarity, 1970 comes some 7 years before 1977.

Please demonstrate good faith editing by undoing your revert now the evidence has been presented to you. I do not want to get into an edit war on this and suggest that if we cannot agree, we raise the matter on the cricket portal.

Thanks,

Py0alb (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming we're not distinguishing "indoor cricket" from "cricket played indoors", any source suggesting indoor cricket began in the 1970s is wrong. A quick search of old Australian newspapers brings up multiple articles on indoor cricket from the 1920s and 1930s – Adelaide seems to have had an "Indoor Cricket Premiership" from at least 1939. I would avoid referring to any particular form of indoor cricket as the "original form". What In2itive wrote above – "both variants developed concurrently from the same genesis and simply evolved into different games" – is spot on. IgnorantArmies 15:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with IA: given that there must be countless variations, I think to say that any one form is the "original form" would be unfair and most probably incorrect. Harrias ^talk 15:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially what I'm getting at. Neither article attempts to cover all forms of cricket simply played indoors, but instead refer to two specific codified games that are referred to as 'indoor cricket'. Further, Py0alb, please be assured that I am demonstrating good faith by seeking resolution (as evidenced by my initial comment under this section, made well before the revision we're now talking about). Comments like "Just for clarity, 1970 comes some 7 years before 1977" are both unhelpful and unnecessary. I am genuinely eager to reach consensus on this issue. in2itive (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the questions one at a time:

Yes, we are distinguishing between "cricket played indoors" and the codified game(s) of indoor cricket. The article makes that clear. As such, there are not "multiple variations", there are two. There is the format which is played inside a multipurpose hall, with a hard ball, and batsmen running the full length of the pitch and batsmen being dismissed when they lose their wicket. We know that this format was played in 1970, and now evidence has emerged that it was played even earlier, in 1930s. Excellent work!

There is then a completely distinct format which is played in a specially constructed netted arena, with a softer ball, batsmen running only half the length of the pitch, and batsmen continuing to bat on after losing their wicket but a run penalty. As the inventors explain in the source above, this format was invented from scratch at some point after 1977.

As you can see:

a) they are completely distinct sports who unfortunately share the same name. They are not just two of a multitude of similar formats. b) one predates the other by a considerable margin. There is no ambiguity.

An analogy would be between rugby football and American football. One is the original form of the game, the other is a separate, and later, invention.

I hope that clarifies things for everyone.

Py0alb (talk) 11:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear, this is what we're talking about. The original form of Indoor Cricket that this article discusses had been played in a multipurpose halls since the 1920s, see the link above from 1938 says: "a cricket match will be played under electric light in the drill hall".

But then in 1977-1979, a new, and completely distinct format was invented that was specifically played within a netted arena and with completely modified rules that moved it further away from outdoor cricket. Here is what Dennis Lillee has to say about it:

"During the upheavals of World Series Cricket, Dennis Lillee and a club cricket colleague, Graham Monoghan, invested in a cricket school in Perth with indoor nets where they coached schoolboys, adjourning outside to play full-fledged games. "Then one day," recalls Lillee in Menace, "the rain absolutely belted down, so we decided to pull the nets back and play the game indoors. The kids loved it, we enjoyed it, and the penny dropped - maybe we should get some teams involved.""

Py0alb (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the problem I have here is that you're making the assumption that the 1930's type indoor cricket were played under the same conditions as the modern day UK leagues. Were they six a side? Did they use collapsible stumps? Were the rules the same? When they first organised the UK leagues in the 70s, did they consider themselves as simply arranging a league for a form of cricket that has been played since the 30's? I don't think so.

The term indoor cricket can be used to cover any form of cricket played under a roof. Indeed, conventional cricket played under closed stadia have been referred to as indoor cricket. Perhaps we're going about this the wrong way. Perhaps the default "indoor cricket" article, needs to discuss this issue - that indoor cricket can be many things. It can then refer specifically to the different codified versions (two of which we are aware of). If I grab ten mates and play cricket inside a hall, am I playing the game the UK article refers to? What if I play under the UK rules but just so happen to play in a netted arena rather than one with solid walls? Which form of indoor cricket am I playing then?

The quote you cite above (re: pulling back the nets and playing inside) refers to an indoor training facility that had nets to separate bowling lanes - it was far from the netted arenas that exist today. In fact, by pulling back the nets, it would seem they turned the room into the kind of area in which the UK variant is played. So perhaps that belongs in the UK article, as I'm certain they would have been playing under conventional cricket rules - the only exception being that they were doing it indoors.

Either way, labeling the UK form of indoor cricket as the "original format" is both unnecessary (seriously, what does it achieve) and, in my view, misleading (not to mention unverified). I maintain that we are talking about two separate codified versions of cricket played indoors - both of which evolved from people playing it inside - and both of which ultimately evolved from the only true original format - cricket.

in2itive (talk) 04:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]