Talk:Cricket/Archive 9

Why Protected?

why is this article protected?

ccotm discussion

I think we should start by adding the citions first before copyediting, which I don't think is that necessary.--Thugchildz 03:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we please start on this? The refs are most needed.--Thugchildz 21:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

To Do List

1. Tag all non-referred claims with {{Fact}}
2. Add refs to all the non-referred claims possible
3. Copyedit

Don Bradman

Alright, I know many think he is the greatest batsman ever... but I disagree :) and so do most Guyanese. Rohan Kanhai had a serious style, while he doesn't have the greatest average, I do think he was the greatest ever. George the Hippy 07:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, George, nobody thinks that Kanhai was a better batsman than Bradman. Statistically, he just wasn't. Possibly one of the greatest West Indian batsmen ever, but that's not the same thing. Slac speak up! 00:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Statistically no, but stylistically... perhaps! I haven't actually seen Bradman play, so I'll give the benefit of the doubt. For now. George the Hippy 15:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Quality

I'm sad at the deteriorated quality of the article. The lead is simply too confusing for a first time reader, a lop-sided table, far too many images and lack of references in a few sections. I'm looking to revert to an older version, something like this [1] for the explanation of cricket (lead section to other roles) =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you should rever it, and not that way back. The 1st paragraph has too much info in the lead; may be that should go to the summary section with bit of copyediting. Don't take out the images, it helps because there's so much to read and its visual aid. The refs are needed.--Thugchildz 21:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the content. Anyways there's far too many images on the current page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The lead is actually a better length now. If it too confusing, it needs to be rewritten, not shortened. It was actually expanded because a "first time user" felt there wasn't enough basic explanation there. I agree about the images More references would be helpful, but I don't think that's an area where the article has been deteriorating. JPD (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I know, I'll have a go at improving the page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This first-time reader finds the whole article hopelessly confusing. I decided today to finally learn about cricket. After a several minutes wading through the article, for the first time in a long time, I actually tried to find a regular encyclopedia article. If I might suggest, early in the article put a table that outlines the steps that goes on. Something like a simplified logic diagram flattened to list form. For example, if it were baseball the table might have: 1) The pitcher throws the ball 2) The batter tries to hit the ball 3) The batter (now runner) attempts to run around three bases and return to the place of batting (home plate) while 4)the fielders attempt to retrieve the ball.

After an initial simple table with numbered entries, each entry can be elaborated on later in the article. For example: "When the pitcher throws the ball in step one, he is attempting to prevent the batter from hitting it. He is constrained, however, in that the ball must cross over the plate..." and so forth. This way, an initial simplified order of play is presented to a new reader to give a limited basis of overall understanding that can be built on by later sections to complete the details. Kurt 20:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk page format

Why is everything right aligned and tiny? I thought we were going over to those new collapsable Banners now. Aaron Bowen 16:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The nested=yes attribute needs to be included for all templates so that is becomes collapsable. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

= timed out - only place where the listed batting order matters

The incoming batsman is the one listed to come in next in the listed batting order. This is the only occasion where the listed batting order has any significance. I added this in the "timed out" article but this page is semiprotected and I dont feel like registering and waiting a few weeks - I have other things to do - could so someone please include this in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.93.247.165 (talk) 03:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Again- the listed batting order deosn't matter, i have seen times when one player is about to step onto the feild (but hasn't stepped inside the boundary rope yet) and get called back by the captain and he send someone else in, u can't go back once u have stepped over the boundary rope, same vise virsa, u can't come back if u step out of the ground thinking that u are out and the third umpire gives u not out (i mean if u step out while the decision was pending), the next listed batsman is only there cause thats the person who usually comes out next, its only there cause the tv people think hes gonna be the one coming out.

Pro cricket?

Are there major professional cricket leagues, like there are in other sports, or do players mostly just compete for their countries? Funnyhat 06:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes. The players play in the domestic league. When they do well, they will be slected for national duty, which pays a lot more - this differs from other sports like football, baseball, basketball etc. International matches are also more prestigious; a guy playing in international cricket will play in packed stadia of between 20-100k spectators, whereas with domestic cricket they are mostly empty with usually 2k-3k spectators and maybe 10k if it is a finals match. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks! Funnyhat 21:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Timed out

The article says that no player is credited with a timed out dismissal, but four first-class batsmen have been. http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/275283.html I can't edit the article but perhaps someone else can.

Thanks, SV 20:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It means that no member of the fielding side is credited with the dismissal, unlike a dismissal such as 'bowled' where the dismissal is credited to the bowler. Similarly, no fielder is credited for handled the ball, hit the ball twice or obstructing the field. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 20:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, my mistake. I should have looked at some of the other dismissals. SV 19:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I still don't get it

Nothing of this makes sense. How exactly does one play cricket? Is there like a videogame where the rules are clear so that I can learn watching? Because, honestly, I live in a country where no one know what cricket is and it is never broadcast on T.V.168.243.218.198 EDIT: I read this: http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2006/october/howtocricket.php and now I understand it. It is amazing that there is a sport you can play for days and relax. It is the most beautiful sport ever.168.243.218.198

I also recamend that you get and play Cricket Captain Ash's year 2005, it will help smooth over any diffecuities. :) Kanga-Kucha

External Links referenced for Rules

The rules themselves seem to have been stated correctly in this article but why should lords.org be taken to be an authoritative reference on the rules of the game? Would it not be better if someone could get the reference links from here Bioskope 20:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Because MCC, rather than ICC, are still the custodians of the Laws. If you look at the Preface to the Laws, you will see: "Since its formation in 1787, the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) has been recognised as the sole authority for drawing up the Code and for all subsequent amendments. The Club also holds the World copyright." JH (talk page) 21:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wides

I keep on changing the statement that a ball is wide is a batsman cannot play it. This rule only applies in limited over cricket, but it is subordinate to the law which indicates that the area defined by the wicket constitutes the area the bowler must deliver the ball to. If it were the batsman who defined what is a legal delivery then there would never be a "balled" wicket, since the batsman could stand next to the umpire and have a direct hit declared wide!!! The only point at which the batsman defines a wide delivery is height, in that they would be unable to play a stroke at a ball above their heads. In limited overs cricket bowlers can be penalised for bowling wides if, in the opinion of the umpire, the batsman are unable to play a stroke at an otherwise legal delivery. The usual calls are for deliveries down the legside or very close to the offside limit, plus the speed of the delivery which makes it more difficult for batsmen to get close to the pitch of the ball to play a shot. (/Rant/ Just another way that fast bowlers are discouraged!/end rant/) LessHeard vanU 11:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No the rules apply to both test and limited overs cricket, although the umpires aren't as strict in tests. It isn't decided by the batsmen if its within his reach or not, it's decided by the umpire and if the batsmen was standing out of the pitch then it would be a dead ball anyway. And fast bowlers aren't penalized in anyway for bowling fast legal deliveries not matter what. For it to not be wide, all it has to be is not going over the batsman's head, and being in the batsman's reach meaning staying within the limit which the umpire thinks that a general batsmen could reach it, doesn't matter on how fast the ball or skill level of the batsman. Those are not taken into account, just how far the ball was from the stumps and could a batsmen reach it.--THUGCHILDz 20:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

re fast bowlers, otherwise legal; the laws state that the area to be bowled at is defined by the marks around the wicket, but in limited overs cricket the ability for the batter to play a shot at the ball is a consideration. When a ball is bowled quickly the batter has less chance to make the ground to play a shot than when it is bowled more slowly, thus a quick bowler is often called for a wide for the same line a medium or spin bowler isn't. Also it isn't that umpires are less strict in tests, but that they are more strict on interpretation in limited overs cricket. As test cricket existed before one dayers it follows that the original interpretation is the benchmark, and any difference for the newer format is the change.

In first class cricket it is the law that any ball that passes between the lines marking the end of the creases is legal (other than for height), thus balls can be sent down the leg side without penalty. It is this use to restrict scoring that one day cricket disallows, same as bowling just within the offside mark. It used to be a ploy for bowlers to bowl as far outside off as possible to get a batter to walk across his stumps and then bowl straight to get an lbw, but this has become rare since one day cricket. The ability of a batsman to play a shot at a ball is not a consideration in the laws since it was understood that a talented bowler need not be restricted by the inability of a less talented batter to deal with the delivery; otherwise a jaffer would be penalised (and Shane Warne wouldn't have had a career).

I take your point about the batter standing away from the crease negating a valid delivery. I still see too many batters walking across their stumps hoping to get a wide for a ball that would have hit them had they stayed put, or stepping back from an offside line for the same. Ah well, in my glory I was never that accurate but I got annoyed when I beat the batter for pace and was then called for a wide... LessHeard vanU 21:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No you're wrong. There's no law/rule that says a fast ball can be called wide when the spin ball isn't. That is just clearly wrong. A spin ball would have to be called wide if it was in the line of a fast ball that was in the same line and was called wide by the same umpire. Fast or slow, it doesn't make a difference. Either way, LOI's the umpire are stricter because the batting team's only have a limited amount of deliveries. In first class cricket it can be going to the leg side and not be called wide but there's a lot of times that a ball isn't called wide on it's going to the leg side in LOI's too. And there's also been times when the umpires called wide when a ball went to the leg side in first class to; the only difference is that in LOI's it has a stricter interpretation because of the limited number of deliveries. Also the ploy was a cheap one anyway, just like the bodyline bowling and that would be wides in test too because in tests its only a little bit less stricter. Exactly what i said, the ability of the batsmen doesn't come into consideration and the same goes to the ability of the batsmen to hit a faster ball than a slower one doesn't come into consideration when calling wides. And batsmen trying to get wides is just the same as soccer players trying to get fouls. But if the umpire is smart enough they would give it to them because in the laws it says The umpire shall not adjudge a delivery as being a Wide (a) if the striker, by moving, either (i) causes the ball to pass wide of him, as defined in 1 And may be if you can beat the batsmen with pace but still bowl within the reach you would be called for wides.--THUGCHILDz 23:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

  its a wide when the umpire thinks that the batsman wouldn't be able to reach it without moving his feet from a middle and leg guard. in odi's down the leg is always wide, and on the off side its about one bat and its handle length. the ability of a batsman doesn't come into consideration, nor does his height. there are markers on either side of the wicket to help him out, but if the bats shuffles in his crease (especially to the off side) then the umpire has to judge if he could have reached it or not. 

I've just seen your edits on the article page. It could be better written, but I don't think one of the three major methods of dismissal (bowled, caught and lbw) can be left out of the overview. I suspect that lbw wickets outnumber bowled in most analysis. Even if not explained, it should be noted. As for "wides", I will have a look at the rules to see if a wording can be arrived at. LessHeard vanU 21:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

They are noted.--THUGCHILDz 23:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Judging a Wide

Here is the Law as regards Wides

Law 25 (Wide ball)

(a) If the bowler bowls a ball, not being a No ball, the umpire shall adjudge it a Wide if, according to the definition in (b) below, in his opinion the ball passes wide of the striker where he is standing and would also have passed wide of him standing in a normal guard position.

(b) The ball will be considered as passing wide of the striker unless it is sufficiently within his reach for him to be able to hit it with his bat by means of a normal cricket stroke.

2. Delivery not a Wide

The umpire shall not adjudge a delivery as being a Wide

(a) if the striker, by moving,

either (i) causes the ball to pass wide of him, as defined in 1(b) above

or (ii) brings the ball sufficiently within his reach to be able to hit it with his bat by means of a normal cricket stroke.

(b) if the ball touches the striker's bat or person.(my italics)

I concede that it is the position of the batter than defines wide, since I cannot find any reference in the laws at what point in relation to the wicket a normal guard position is supposed to be. This is patently foolish, in that a batter could argue that his normal guard position is on the return crease and therefore a ball hitting the off stump is a wide (I realise that custom and practice determines that the guard position is within the batsmens reach of the wicket, but it isn't in the Laws). BTW, it is Law 25.2.a.ii that penalises quicker bowlers, a slower bowler pitching 2 foot outside of the offstump can have a stroke offered at a ball by a quick footed batsman whereas the quicker ball beats the batter despite the batters best efforts.LessHeard vanU 22:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I just noticed you didn't remove lbw completely - just the description. I need to have a lie down... LessHeard vanU 22:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If you noticed, it didn't say it's the batsman's normal guard position, the normal guard position is the one that is the traditional position and been practiced for hundreds of years; it doesn't matter what the batsman's guard position is, it may the "normal"/traditional or it may not, it doesn't matter. So the batsman can't argue with your point saying it's his normal guard position because no where does it say it has anything to do with a certain batsman. Also I don't think Law 25.2.a.ii penalizes the fast bowler because that is about "Delivery not a Wide". Also it doesn't matter if the ball beats the batsmen despite their best efforts, it's still a legal ball if it's not too wide, and a slow ball could only be not called a wide after pitching so wide is if it spun so much to be in the batsman's reach when it goes by him and that's the same with fast balls too, but it's just that fast balls doesn't usually get that much turn. It's completely a misconception to say the laws penalizes any kind of bowler, because all the same laws apply to all kinds of bowlers. And one last thing, please don't use the term batter when talking about cricket because it's called a batsman not a batter.--THUGCHILDz 23:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

help

some one told me that Shahid Afridi hit 8 runs in one ball. how is that possible ?

He could have been completing his fourth run, when a fielder shied at the stumps and the ball went to the boundary. Then the four runs that had been run would be scored, plus four overthrows. Or eight runs could be scored off a ball if it was a no-ball (for which in certaion one-day competitions 2 runs are awarded rather than the traditional 1), which was hit for six. The batsman would only be credited for the six, of course, with the runs for the no-ball being scored as "extras". JH (talk page) 20:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The above is wrong, over throws are no different then hitting a boundry, u can run like a monkey and pick up four runs but if the balls goes to the boundry then its automatically 4 (not 8), so techinically if u knew that the guy was gonna give u 4 over throws then u might as well stay in ur crease and chat with ur partner and save energy, but then again the feilder wouldn't be throwing the ball in if you weren't running in the first place. - Ravinder

You are wrong. Law 19.6 (which you can get to via the link in the article) states:

6. Overthrow or wilful act of fielder

If the boundary results either from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder the runs scored shall be

(i) the penalty for a No ball or a Wide, if applicable, together with any penalties under either of Laws 18.5(b) (Deliberate short runs) or 42 (Fair and unfair play) that are applicable before the boundary is scored

and (ii) the allowance for the boundary

and (iii) the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they have crossed at the instant of the throw or act.

JH (talk page) 20:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

yaaa but its never more than 6 runs of a fair ball, if i ran for a single and the feilder threw it in and the back up feilder misses it and it goes to the boundry, its just those 4 runs, the single i took doesn't add to anything, i will have to go back to the strikers end and face the next ball again, so when the ball is over thrown and it goes to the boundry that boundry is the only thing that counts, the above law is only when the ball doesn't make it to the boundry and stops in the feild then i am allowed to run more, but even then i can not run more than 4 runs. The maximum runs one can get of a ball is 7 that is if the ball is a "no ball" and the batsman hits it for a six, but that ball won't count, so its like getting 7 runs of zero balls, but this ball will count towards the batsman's strike rate and his balls faced. the above mentioned incident with afridi hitting 8 runs of one ball was excately that, he hit a four of a "no ball" and then he hit another four of the next fair ball, so for the team he hit 9 runs of 1 ball (4 + 1nb + 4), but for himself he hit 8 of 2 balls. people please write underneath if u don't agree with anything i said and i will try to answer some of the questions. - Ravinder

You are wrong about the law on overthrows. If you look at the law that I have quoted above, you will see the words: "If the boundary results either from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder..." (My emphasis.) There have been many occasions when a batsman has scored 5, 6 or even 7 runs in total through being credited with 4 overthrows in addition to the runs already run. And the batsmen do not return to their original ends when the overthrow reaches the boundary. If that's happened in games that yopu've watched or played in, then the umpires have not been applying the law correctly. JH (talk page) 21:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also just to make sure, you can run more than 4 runs. But it doesn't that often though.--THUGCHILDz 01:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Popularity in cricket playing countries

I would dispute that cricket is the most popular sport in South Africa. The overwhelming number of the majority black population play soccer. Also, cricket would be the most popular sport in Australia. Unlike other countries, Australia has four major codes of football, the most popular of these is the indigenous Australian Rules Football. As a result, Australians have preferences for football, but no summer sports to compete with cricket. 10:47 AEST 25/4/07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.245.216.88 (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC).