Talk:Glossary of cricket terms

Handled the ball

I don't see it in the list... could also be "handling the ball". There is a wikipedia article for it.76.110.165.21 (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong foot

I always thought that bowling off the wrong foot was releasing the ball when the front foot was the same side as the release arm.76.110.165.21 (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Draw shot

I always thought that the draw shot directed the ball between the batsman's back leg and the wicket, not between his left leg and his right leg!! The action to execute such a shot is a "glance" with a slight pulling action (draw) from the off side to the leg side.76.110.165.21 (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Links

Please see discussion at User talk:ALoan/Archive#Cricket terminology.

Is it useful to have each item listed in Cricket terminology linked to another page? Quite a few don't exist but probably should - for example, carry the bat, county cricket, wide (cricket). Others are less likely to need a main page - such as bowled, caught (cricket).

I also deliberately broke Wiki-style, linking many terms more than once (such as batsman, bowler). Is this useful? -- ALoan 10:39, 17 May 2004 (UTC) [forgot to sign first time]

I agree with User:Bob Palin actually. I think several of these terms don't require more than a single line of explanation, and linking to a page that nobody will bother writing (or if they do, will consist of one sentence) is not useful. I don't think carry the bat needs a page, for example, but I agree county cricket and wide (cricket) could use one - so those links can remain.

Oh, and referring to your comment on your user page about four (cricket) - I created that page just a few days ago. :-) dmmaus 02:39, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Fine - have stripped out extra links. -- ALoan 16:02, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

New page

Given the proliferation of cricket articles being worked on, I'm thinking it might be an idea to create a new List of cricket topics page, with links to all of them, organised by general subject matter. Then when anyone creates a new cricket page they can link to it there and the rest of us can see it immediately just by watching that page. For example:

General: Cricket (sport), History of cricket, Cricket statistics, etc

Batting: Batting (cricket), Batsman, etc

Bowling: Bowling (cricket), Bowler (cricket), Googly, etc

Lists: List of cricketers, List of Test cricket grounds, etc

(But formatted more nicely.) What do you think? dmmaus 22:39, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes - do it! In an attempt to fill some of the red links, I have recently added Duckworth-Lewis method, County cricket, List A cricket and Club cricket -- ALoan 23:41, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Done. Please add any other articles you know about! dmmaus 01:16, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Cheers!

splendid workPedant

Strange formatting

Does anyone have any idea why (at least in my browsers -- Netscape 7.1/IE6 on Win2K) the first 2 entries under 'F' are in bold? It must be something obvious, like an extraneous single quote, but if it is I can't find it. --Lancevortex 16:02, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Italicised text in entries

What is the general opinion on italicising words in the definitions that are themselves defined in the article? I have to confess it was me that introduced this to the article, for what I think are sound reasons, but I always feel when I'm reading the definitions that it makes them sound a bit odd in my head -- I'm always emphasising the italicised words. I'd be interested to hear what others think. --Lancevortex 16:08, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not keen on the italics. I'd vote to remove them. --dmmaus 08:52, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not keen on the italics, but I think it's marginally better that putting (qv) after everything. Any alternatives? Bold or underlined seems altogether too much...

Questions/suggestions

1. "Mankad" says - Now banned, it is named after Vinoo Mankad ....

But as told in Run out the bowler can still run the non striker out before he reaches the final delivery stride.

1. Rain rule - a controversial rule that was used in the 1990s before the Duckworth-Lewis method to determine the runs that a team chasing needed to score if rain interrupted play.

Isn't it a generic term for all the pre-DL rules ? It is just that the Australian version was the most cricticised one.

1. Zooter (Aus. informal) a leg-break delivery.

According to Flipper (cricket), it is a variation of the flipper which, IMHO, is more correct.

1. Carry the bat -an opener who bats without getting dismissed after the team innings is declared closed.

Ambiguous. 'innings is closed' (no need for 'declared') should apply only for one day matches

Are the terms 'mixed bag' and 'orange' commonly used ? Is there a 'silly-mid-wicket' - usually it is only short midwicket. Tintin 08:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The definitions of Draw and Tie should be modified to reflect the fact that a Draw can take place with scores level. An example of this was the 1st test between England and Zimbabwe in Harare at Bulawayo in 1996.

Currently, the entries read:

1. Draw: a result in timed matches where the team batting last are not all out, but fail to reach their opponent's total. Not to be confused with a tie, in which two sides' scores are equal.
2. Tie: the (very rare) result in which the two teams' scores are equal. Not to be confused with a draw, in which the scores are not equal.

I would suggest the following:

Draw: a result in timed matches where the team batting last are not all out, but fail to exceed their opponent's total. Not to be confuses with a tie, in which the side batting last is all out with scores level.

Tie: the (very rare) result in which the two teams' scores are equal and the team batting last is all out. unsigned comment by Ordinary Person

I would like to refer to the comment below - Be bold. If you are wrong, then someone might revert your edit, and THAT's when you go to talk to argue your case. But it's a more precise definition, and I've added it in. Oh, and do sign your comment with four tildes like this: ~~~~~ so we know who you are Sam Vimes 09:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I've edited all your suggestions into the article, as I agree with them all. Please be bold in updating pages! Mixed bag and orange I haven't heard, but hey, if someone uses them commonly, that's fine. They may be common terms in India or something. And I've heard silly midwicket being used, so I think that's okay. -dmmaus 09:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is everyone's experience with using dip to describe the swing of the ball before pitching and swing to indicate that after pitching? I've never ever encountered a distinction between swing before pitching and after and am pretty sure Darren Gough used to bowl in-swinging yorkers, not in-dipping! I don't want to delete material without a discussion (ie the whole concept of dip), but I'm certainly thinking of changing swing to be first and foremost the lateral movement of a medium or fast ball in the air and having the presend definition as a uncommon variant. Is this a geographic difference in terminology (I'm UK)? Dh219 15:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Dip is not the word. Dip is the ball pitching shorter than where it would have landed if it had followed the normal path after leaving the bowler's hand. This usually happens when the bowler imparts overspin to the ball. Leg spinners who bowl good flippers and some offspinners are the ones who usually make the ball dip. It is not sideways movement. Tintin 16:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah - I actually took the plunge and changed this - as the user above says, everyone refers to in-swinging yorkers, so to say an inswinger is only an in-swinger if it 'curves' before pitching, would be mis-leading, wouldn't it? --Gavinio 11:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Good call, Gavinio. Be bold. -- GWO

Ah, thanks - never sure about etiquette really - anyway - I'm happy about that edit, I'll have a look at another. While we're here, has anyone, ever seen written evidence of an 'in-dipper' being used? I've played cricket for 15 years, and never heard of it, but I'm loathe to delete it. I'll happily take someone's word for it, but at the moment, if just feels wrong. --Gavinio 21:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This Google search [1] suggests that its not commmon, but not unknown. I've never heard but, I presumed it was an Aussie thing. -- GWO

Agreed - Uncommon, but not made-up! It looks to be more based around India and Pakistan, judging by your web-search (with 93 results, compared to c10k results for "in swinger"). If this is supposed to be comprehensive - then it is! -- Gavinio

• Some of this is incorrect

"the area of the field (roughly) between deep mid-wicket and wide long-on. So called because few 'legitimate' shots are aimed to this part of the field, so fielders are rarely placed there - leading to the concept that cows could happily graze in that area."

Feilders are often placed at Cow Corner at all levels of cricket including higher levels of the game. For instance in the slog overs in limited over cricket this feilding position would be quite common even more so to an off spinner.164.143.240.33 13:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to include the x-for terms, as these are used quite regularly both in casual conversation and by commentators. this would add significantly to the list, however. Inclusions would be:

• one for (pronounced "onefuh") -- batting side has lost one wicket
• two for (pronounced "twofuh") -- batting side has lost two wickets

...

• nine for (pronounced "ninefuh") -- batting side has lost nine wickets

What does everyone else think? -- Vermifuge 10:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC), Australia

My understanding of a Chinese Cut (which happens to be my signature shot) is that the ball is generally hit between the batsman's feet anywhere behind square on the leg side. The shot described here sounds more like a variation on that than an, ahem, classical Chinese Cut - or even just an inside edge. Am I wrong about this?Edjack 14:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The definition of 'chest-on' seems to be the same as the one for 'side-on'. Edjack 15:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Walk: "Generally considered to be sporting behaviour though increasingly rare in international cricket." Rare, yes - but increasingly so? This might imply it used to be common. In the absence of hard numbers on this, might it be wise to omit 'increasingly', or at least qualify it somehow? Edjack 16:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Style edit

I've just completed a big edit to make the article more consistent, especially in style. In particular, with a couple of exceptions, all the entries start with a lowercase letter and end with a full stop, and the first sentence of each definition is (approximately) the same part of speech (noun, etc.) as the term itself.

The exceptions are 'twelfth man', which I couldn't turn into a noun satisfactorily as it is rather complex (maybe a separate article is warranted?), and a few terms which needed rewriting by someone more familiar with the term than me. The latter includes at least "Placement" and "(Taking) Guard" but probably some others as well (sorry, I didn't note down which ones).

I also added 'extra' and 'sundry' and edited a few others to reflect this, and added a bit to other entries where I felt it would be useful.

--Hairy Dude 07:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like I timed out. The edit at 07:19, 25 July 2005 should be attributed to me. --Hairy Dude 07:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that happens at times. Thanks anyway, good job! Sam Vimes 07:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Doodlebug

At Doodlebug#Cricket there's a reference to this term and Max Walker. Has anyone heard this before? -- —Moondyne 13:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Never heard of it: I'd call a head-high full-toss a beamer. It could come from his book, Hooked on Cricket [2]. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Minor point

Just on the formatting for terms with more than one definition - are numerical lists the norm on here? To me i), ii), iii) etc seems more natural, or perhaps 1), 2), 3). I won't edit if you all think not. Alecto 02:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It just uses the Wiki built-in numbered list (with # at the beginning of each line in the markup), so I guess it's standard. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. I might email them about that though, it bothers me for no real reason...Alecto 04:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ducks

There seems to be a some variation in usage of the various ducks and I'd like some clarification as to what others think...

We can all agree a duck is a score of 0. A pair is any 2 ducks.

A golden duck is a first ball duck. Again - no problem there I guess.

This is where I think there is variation - The diamond duck - to me that is a duck without facing a ball. What does everyone else think? If you disagree please state your country as it may just be a country usage thing which we can define easily enough.

Again in the realms of variation a royal duck to me is a duck to the first ball of the teams innings. Again if you disagree please state the country you hail from.

A king pair used to be two royal ducks in the same match but as this is so very rare its common usage has moved to include two golden ducks. Again - your thoughts and country please.

--LiamE 17:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

To me in the UK, a diamond duck is a duck on the first ball of an innings; and a king pair is two golden ducks in one match. YMcleary doesV. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, never heard of a "royal duck". -- ALoan (Talk) 16:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. India. Tintin Talk 20:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm in the UK, and I think a diamond duck is being out without facing a ball. So I guess both are common. I've never heard of a royal duck. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm in NZ. I'm familiar with royal duck, diamond duck and king pair as you've described them. On a sidenote, I've never heard of the term rubee used to describe a royal duck. --Muchness 21:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

During a game this week Kerry O'Keeffe described facing one ball and not scoring any runs and then being run out as the non-striker as a Peking duck. ;-) -dmmaus 21:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Would 2 of those in a match be a Bombay duck do you think? Either that or Peking duck with sweet and sour sauce....

I found a Cricinfo page on cricket terminology

here When I get the time, I will make sure the Wiki page has all the terms and more than the Cricinfo page, which looks quite good at first glance. Gizza^{Chat ©} 05:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

2007-02-7 Automated pywikipediabot message

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 08:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr X

I can't believe there isn't a mention of Mr Xavier Tras on this page, or the page relevant to this gentleman. I'm no cricket expert, but I would have thought this important gentleman would be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia, especially where his sterling efforts on the cricket field are mentioned. Shame! I almost feel like adding him myself, but this page in particular seems quite intricate, as well as sourced, so I don't want to dilute it. Any takers in the cricket community want to add him? 172.143.44.20 15:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)(Stevebritgimp not signed in)

Having signed in, have done this, plus putting links to and from Extra (cricket). A quick google for Xavier Tras brought up 3 results that were relevant - all in Australia - so I don't know if this is a specifically Australian idea in origin. Stevebritgimp 16:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

All-round spin

"a player who can bowl both wrist spin and finger spin adeptly." In almost fifty years of following cricket, I don't recall ever before encountering this term. I was tempted to delete the entry, but is it perhaps in common usage in some country other than England (where I live)? JH (talk page) 18:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Not in the subcontinent. Tintin 11:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not heard the term used in Australia. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

String of Ducks

I seem to remember Dean Jones, of Australia, mentioning in cricket commentary once that a string of four ducks was referred to as an Audi. This article [3] in "The Sydney Morning Herald" implies that Audi was a nickname given to Mark Waugh and then to Jones after both had scored four ducks in a row.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

I also seem to recall that Jones carried on and said that the next number in the sequence of ducks was an Olympic (ie five circles or ducks). But this might well have been Jones just filling in time and joking.--Perry Middlemiss (talk) 06:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Bowling off the wrong foot

The current definition of wrong foot is rather opaque. Perhaps the following definition would be better?Abeer.ag (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A vast majority of bowlers release the ball off their front foot. Bowling off the wrong foot is bowling off your back foot, or releasing the ball before your front foot lands.

Can't we have newest comments at top?

76.110.165.21 (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, newest comments at bottom is standard practice across Wikipedia, and to adopt a different convention for this page would generate confusion. DuncanHill (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)