Talk:Single wicket cricket

Very obscure

It's very unclear whether the same fielders assist each bowler in turn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.153.6 (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Good point. I for one don't know the answer. It may be that it varied from from one competition to another. JH (talk page) 08:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Revival

There was a brief revival of the single wicket format round about the late 1960s or early 1970s, when there was a competition in which 16 (I think) leading all-rounders took part. It was a knock-out affair played over two successive days at Lord's. In each tie, the player batting first batted for five overs (I think, but it may have been ten) or until dismissed. The player batting second would then attempt to overhaul his score. The players had a normal complement of fielders to assist them. The competition lasted for about 3 seasons. A quick look in my reference books and online has failed to turn up a reference, but I know that it happened because I attended a couple of days' play myself. JH (talk page) 18:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I found one reference (now added to the article). This is only a single paragraph, however, so if anyone has more, by all means.... Kingdon (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Need description

This article is not very informative as to how single wicket cricket differs from more common versions of the game. I think a description of rules and play etc. is needed. 202.89.188.248 (talk) 08:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

1831 laws - is that something different

If single wicket cricket is as defined in the article (a one-on-one game), then the section "1831 laws" appears to not be single wicket cricket. Rather, it appears to still be a team game, with only a single set of wickets. For me, this is confirmed by the fact that the reference [1] also has rules for normal cricket, which it refers to as "double wicket" in a couple of places. Adpete (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

On further inspection, I am almost certain this is not SWC as defined in the article, and I will delete the section in a couple of days if no one objects. Adpete (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. I deleted the copied text, but instead of deleting the section, I renamed it to an alternative definition, since that is what it appears to be. The old text can always be retrieved from an earlier version of the article, or from the reference above. Adpete (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)