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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What does it achieve? It achieves accuracy and reliability. As the less modified version of outdoor cricket, it is by default the original version, of this there is no doubt. This is an encyclopaedia, it is not a popularity contest between two forms of indoor cricket. The version as played in the UK is significantly closer to the concept of simply "cricket played indoors" than the more recently developed and more heavily modified version. So much should be obvious. Any reference to indoor cricket that is not expressly referring to the modified game is almost certainly going to be the UK version in all but name.

Perhaps the indoor cricket page should explain the origin of the game and the two current formats, one only lightly modified from the outdoor game, one heavily modified. If you look back I believe this is what I attempted to do before you split the articles in an attempt to give your (presumably) preferred version extra prominence.

I don't mind what we do, as long as the article or articles are unbiased, factually correct and give enough detail on both versions of the game for an interested party to get a good understanding of the history, the different features and the degree they are similar or dissimilar from outdoor cricket.

Py0alb (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

In answer to your questions that I missed, I believe the key modifications to be:

if you are dismissed do you stop batting or do you continue like in "pairs cricket"?

do the batsmen run the full length of the pitch to complete a run or only part of the way?

can the game be played in a multipurpose sports hall or does it require purpose built facilities?

is the ball hard enough that it is necessary for the batsmen to wear pads?

If yes to all the above, then the game is basically "cricket played indoors". If no to all the above, then it is the more modified code of the game. Ironically, and this is not intended as a slight, but with the exception of the netted arena, we do play this game in the UK, but only with Juniors who are not old enough to use a hard ball. We simply call it pairs cricket. Py0alb (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Bearing the most similarity to outdoor cricket does not make something the "original format". At the end of the day, all forms of modified cricket are derivatives of cricket, so if you want to get down to it, cricket is the original format and all of them are modified forms of it. I am all for accuracy and reliability, but labeling a variant of indoor cricket as the "original format" simply because it shares more in common with outdoor cricket is not only unnecessary, it doesn't even come close to being factual.

I'm not seeking to give any form of indoor cricket any more prominence than the other. I maintain that the original indoor cricket article referred to that particular format of indoor cricket (and not to all cricket played indoors), and that the version you introduced warranted its own article (which is why I created this one). The fact that I created this article and cross reference to it extensively in the other article should be an illustration of the fact that I don't seek to make anything more prominent than another. Pound for pound, I'm certain the variant played inside nets is played by more people around the world each day than the UK variant - the fact that it is arguably more popular is, in my mind, irrelevant - both forms achieve notability status as far as I'm concerned.

Additionally, in the Indoor cricket article, the UK variant is listed under "other forms of indoor cricket" and is clearly described as "bearing greater resemblance to conventional cricket." The UK variant article, on the other hand, refers only to the netted variant article with the disambiguation line - and nowhere else.

The reality is that, after you brought this to the attention of the cricket portal, the consensus is that using the term "original format" is inaccurate. You are the only one arguing for it. So I respectfully suggest we move on from that. It's clear, however, that you're not comfortable with the current structure, which is why I again propose that-

1 - We revise the "indoor cricket" article to refer to cricket played indoors. This article can discuss all forms of it briefly, including conventional cricket played under closed stadia. It can then, of course, refer to the two prominent variants.

2 - We retain the "UK variant" in its current form. Is that still an appropriate title for the variant? I would think so given that it is (as far as I can tell) only played in the United Kingdom.

3 - We move the content from the current "indoor cricket" article to a renamed article, perhaps "Indoor cricket (international variant)" or something to that effect.

Your thoughts?

in2itive (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Just an addition - it may be worth visiting the ECB page on indoor cricket which discusses the two formats as separate variants, and then refers to other forms of indoor cricket as well. The ECB doesn't see fit to establish any format as coming first, or being more popular, why should Wikipedia?

It's also worth noting that there is no evidence of the UK variant of indoor cricket being played in any organised competition anywhere else in the world.

in2itive (talk)

despite your impression, I'm really not that dissatisfied with the current structure. I think both formats are described quite well. If you want to make the changes you suggest I think that would be a positive move and would be happy to assist with the main page.

I don't think geography is a particularly appropriate means of disambiguation. We have evidence that the "UK version" or something extremely close to it was also played in Europe and in Australia in the 1920s, so the name is misleading. Furthermore, I briefly lived in the US, where it was played on a university campus because of a shortage of outside facilities. The "international" version is only more prominent on the internet because it has had more ambitious and publicity oriented administration for the past 10 years. That is not a particularly reliable or encyclopaedic means of disambiguation.

The salient difference is in the rules and the extent to which they are modified from outdoor cricket. Logically that should therefore be the means of disambiguation.

Finally, I really must point that that the way evolution works is that if you have two versions with varying levels of modification from some source game, the less modified version must have come first. The UK version is simply outdoor cricket modified to be played indoors, then the international version is the UK version, modified to make it more accessible to non-cricketers. The ECB is not an encyclopaedia, it would have no reason to detail the history of the two formats, the author of the page may well not even know or be particularly interested. Py0alb (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I too am happy with the current structure, and only suggested the "main" page as a way to solve the disputed language. If you're content with coming up with something other than "UK variant" and "international version", then so am I. It's just a question of what language we use.

Re: evolution, I stand by my supported view that they are two distinct evolutions of cricket played indoors. The articles speak to codified sports, and which one came first is immaterial. Also, "original format" of indoor cricket might also suggest that any subsequent format is derived from that, which obviously isn't the case. in2itive (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest "traditional format" and "pairs format" as the most accurate point of differentiation, but you're not going to go for that, are you. How about "Indoor Cricket (traditional format)" and "Indoor Cricket (modified format)" Py0alb (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Traditional format suggests that the UK variant is the traditional form of indoor cricket, rather than the form of indoor cricket that more closely follows conventional rules. Modified format suggests that the international variant is a modification of this traditional format, so I would argue that to use such terms are misleading.

Having had a look at the article on disambiguation, I'm not sure that an third page (functioning as a disambiguation page) is warranted under the criteria set out. I genuinely believe, therefore, that the most reasonable arrangement is-

• Retain the current structure. Indoor cricket functions as the primary topic, and remains in the Indoor cricket name space. Whilst Wikipedia clearly spells out there are no rules for determining a primary topic, it does suggest that an article could be classified as such "if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". I would argue that Indoor cricket meets that criteria. Reasons?

1. Indoor cricket is the more prevalent version of indoor cricket around the world, with established competitions (played according to the same rules) throughout the world and established competition at the international level (together with an entire subset of articles about national and international tournaments).
2. The Indoor cricket article receives 5 times the traffic that the UK article receives, sometimes as much as 8 times the traffic.
3. The Indoor cricket article has existed since 2004 and has had over 150 contributors - I would think that every contribution between March 2004 and September 2012 (your first contribution to the article, in which you described the UK version as "the most common form of indoor cricket" and the international version as "the less common Australian Indoor Cricket") would serve as further justification of the likelihood that indoor cricket is the form of the game people are most likely looking for when they come to Wikipedia.

I am more than happy to concede, however, that within the UK (and only within the UK) the reverse could very well be argued - in terms of which is more likely to be the topic sought. Given the international structure of Wikipedia, however, we should be going with what is more likely to be searched for internationally.

• The Indoor cricket page retain its hatnote, directly referencing the UK format.
• The Indoor cricket (UK variant) article either retains its name, or comes up with a new one. What about Indoor cricket (conventional rules) or something to that effect? It too can have a hatnote referring back to the primary topic - however, we can revise it. Something like "This article is about the variant of indoor cricket played according to rules relating closely to conventional cricket. For the distinct variant of indoor cricket played inside a netted playing arena, see Indoor cricket.
• There is perhaps also room in the UK article to refer back to the primary topic throughout it, as well as to restructure it a little to speak to the levels of competitions, governing bodies, etc a la Cricket, Indoor cricket and a whole bunch of other sports.

Is this an arrangement you think is workable? Based on your comment about not being dissatisfied with the current structure (under which Indoor cricket is the primary topic). The decision from this point is whether or not "UK variant" remains the right choice (again, I suggest "conventional rules"), and how to refer to each article in the hatnote (and throughout). in2itive (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)