Talk:Cricket/Archive 8

Spoken Article

Because it has been requested and I have an interest in Cricket I will do a spoken version of this article. I should have it ready within a week or so (hopefully) Whitehornmatt 02:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC) I managed to break my microphone last week, so I won't be able to do this until I get a new one --Whitehornmatt 05:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

20-20 cricket

Not enough info on this new form of cricket.--Johnhardcastle 11:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Arguably the paragraph that is there already is too much for such a new and emphemeral form of cricket. It also has a main article at Twenty20. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

External Links

We need the links for club teams in the major countries like www.play-cricket.com is the official ECB one in England and Wales, what you think? Also more images of the game. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.241.4 (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Reordering

I thought the "playing field" section made much more sense the way it was. JPD (talk) 11:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Particularly, since most of the action takes place on the pitch, that bit should come first. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

yea but then the pictures didn't go with it it had be like picture of the playing field next to was next to its topic but then the pitch has 3 pictures so those couldnt fit next to its topics so one was next to it and the other two was at the bottom which made it complicated so i had to make things in chronological order even if the picture doesnt fit next to the topic its in order. we could change it back but then do you guys the the pictures under the topic or on top of the topic because the 3 off them cant fit next to it.Thugchildz

Chronological order??? At any rate, having the text in a sensible ordre is more important that fitting the pictures in. JPD (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed (again). In any case, we could perhaps do without the pictures, since they are on the articles linked through the {{see details}} template. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

no the visual aids helps ill see what i can do --Thugchildz

shouldn't the forms of cricket be before the laws of cricket? i mean theres references being made about the one innings game when its not even been metioned and is more down the page. --Thugchildz

List A

List A games are already covered in the forms of cricket section by "limited overs cricket". The section is meant to be about the different forms of the game, not the different levels it is played at, and their status. List A is not a different form of the game, but a status awarded to normal limited over matches between certain teams. Admittedly, first-class is also a status, rather than a form of the game, but these matches deserve a section because they are not already covered, and because they are generally longer than non-first-class matches. For two-innnings cricket, different status does tend to correspond to a difference in the details of the game, unlike the limited overs version. JPD (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

End of an innings

The section on End of an Innings says that The team has only one batsman left who can bat (the others being incapacitated either through injury, illness or absence) — again, the team are all out. But this is not the case, if some player in injured and retires hurt the scorecard does not say that player is out, merely mentions retired hurt and the number of wickets fallen is shown as 9 if the rest of the team is out.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.196.157.34 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The section is trying to say that the team is considered "all out" in these situations, regardless of how many wickets have fallen. There is always at least one not out batsman, there may be others who are not out, but absent, retired hurt, etc. JPD (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Changes

Firstly, I have removed the "100 national teams" comment again, because having a nnational team is not a particularly good indicator of whether cricket is played or not, anyway, especially since the national teams are not in any sense treated in the same way. There is no need to perpetuate the emphasis on international cricket. On top of that, it makes the sentence clunky.

"The batsmen are not required to run if the ball is struck" is more ambiguous than "There is no requirement to run if the ball is struck". Maybe it doesn't make any difference to people who already know what is meant, but it doesn't hurt to consider the possibility that some don't.

Is there any reason for removing the fact that boundaries are not added to the runs run by the batsman? I don't think it's obvious to anyone who doesn't know the game.

Yes, a team is "all out" in those circumstances. But that is simply the definition of "all out". Above is a question showing that it is not clear to everyone that the phrase "all out" has this special meaning, rather than meaning that all the batsmen are out. Perhaps using "said to be" to make it clear that the term is being explained belongs to a particular style of writing that is inappropriate here, but if so, please find a different phrase with the same meaning.

Finally, in case anyone cares about the one hand-one bounce issue, the rule is applied to bouncing off the ground as well as walls or anything else. It is already clear in the article that it is not an official rule, so there is no need to spell out particular version of it. It is just an example of a backyard cricket rule. JPD (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

but no matter how the teams are treated if there is a national team that DO indicate that ATLEAST 11 people play that sport in each of those countries and im sure there's alot more than 11, plus it isn't just the 97 icc members that play cricket...there are national teams that are not icc members yet but do play in minor tournaments like european championships etc so i think its fair and safe to put over 100. So i'm going to change that edit but im fine with the other edits you made. thing was if your clarification the boundary thing wasn't helping but is fine now and ill try to come up with a better phrase for the all out but is fine for now. best regards--Thugchildz

What you say about at least 11 people is true, but I still don't think that the spread of cricket is best described by reference to national teams at all sorts of levels. (On a side note, the non ICC members don't play in any official European championships.) Having been accepted by the ICC is probably the best thing to use if we have to count countries. (Their criterion is that the game is played in the country according to the laws of cricket - no need to even have a national team!) Do you really think national teams need to be mentioned, or do you simply want the "over 100" figure? If it is the 100 that you think is important, why not say what the source you give (you seem to include it twice - should there be another one) actually says - that the ICC lists over 100 countries where the game is played. Remember, the 97 members include the West Indies as one member, representing enough countries to take it over 100 even if some of the sub-national members aren't counted! As for focussing on international cricket because it is an international game, I quite firmly think that the article on any sport should describe the sport as a game played at many levels, not focussing solely on either international matches, top-level domestic matches, or local club competitions. JPD (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

some nations doesn't qualify to be a icc member because whatever reason like what you said jamiaca has a national team but is not counted as a country but is part of the west indies membership etc. thats the thing, im not talking about the icc and its membership or why it doesn't accept some countries for certain issuies (dont what to get into that) but im talking about a approximate of where it is played. so its not talking about what the icc officially see's as a member, its talking about countries that play cricket and have a national team because i could go to green land hand play cricket with someone and so greenland would be playing cricket(me being part of greenland) but it still wouldnt have a official or unofficial national team. if a country puts effort to put official/unofficial team together it has people playing cricket there.--Thugchildz

Well, if you played cricket in Greenland regularly in a structured competition, I would consider that more important than whether Greenland has a national team or not. I am saying that the ICC recognised 97 members/over 100 countries gives a better approximation of where cricket is played than any mention of national teams. Some of the national teams listed on Wikipedia haven't even played a match yet, and are listed simply because of their ICC membership. You still haven't given an outside source for the over 100 teams claim, probably by mistake, but any attempt to list countries that way would lead to questions of what actually counts as a national team. The most neutral way of doing it is mentioning what the ICC recognises, whether mentioning members or countries. This has the added benefit of incorporating the ICC into the text - "see alsos" in the text are extremely bad style. I'm not talking about the crazy relationships between the ICC and various national bodies and whether membership is suspended or not, simply the fact that the ICC has accepted a member representing a country means they say cricket is played there. JPD (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

pitch?

"of which is a flat strip of ground 22 yards (20.12 m) long, called a pitch" erm... isn't that the square? SGGH 22:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching and playing cricket for just over nine years, and I've never' heard that being referred to as anything other than the square with the entire playing field being called the pitch. SGGH 22:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The strip in the middle is called the pitch, the collection of all pitches is the square, and the entire playing field is called the, well, playing field. The pitch always refers to the strip on which the game is being played, I've been watching and playing cricket for almost 17 years and have never hear pitch be used to refer to anything else. Andrew nixon 22:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No its always called the pitch if used the right terminology--Thugchildz

Is it not a striking and fielding sport rather than a bat and ball sport.

pace/spin bowling links

these are worthy of links via the top menu as they are important categories in themselves as opposed to a passing reference.

--ToyotaPanasonic 07:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, nothing is worthy of links via the top menu. The menu is not for linking to other articles, but simply listing the sections of this one, and the Manual of Style says to avoid links in headings, even if there is a section with a name that could be linked. It definitely isn't a good idea to creat empty sections just to make links more prominent. There are many important topics that are linked to from this article, but most of them don't need more than a link in the text. JPD (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Number of players in a team

I seem to have unwittingly stirred up some controversy here. It's true that the Laws say: "A match is played between two sides each of eleven Players..." However in spite of that, matches do sometimes take place between sides with other numbers of players. For instance there is the "Hong Kong Sixes" tournament, which is a six-a-side competition. England on recent tours have played a number of practice matches against local sides where more than eleven players have batted. In the past, 12-a-side matches were quite common, and where sides were of widely differing strengths matches were sometimes XI against XXII. Of course, no match other than XI a side can nowadays be rated as first-class, but this article is more general than that and there is a separate article on f-c cricket. JH (talk page) 11:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)