Talk:Wicket

Wicket v pitch

Why is 'wicket' been given as secondary to the word 'pitch', even if the term 'wicket' is officially incorrect it is universally used, I have never heard the 'wicket' referred to as a 'pitch'!

I think you may be confused. The section saying that 'wicket' is sometimes used to refer to the pitch means that the word 'wicket' is sometimes used to refer to the mown strip of grass, not that the set of stumps and bails is incorrectly referred to as a 'wicket' and is really a 'pitch'. -dmmaus 23:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I've moved this here from Wicket (cricket) in accordance with Wikipedia page naming guidelines, since nothing was at Wicket, and I can't see anything ever being put there except a redirect to this anyway. This will also save us all from having to type "wicket (cricket)|" inside our links all the time... dmmaus 23:38, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Request for Images

Some images of what a wicket looks like might be helpful. --Sgeo | Talk 20:41, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There's a mention in the Brian Close article about Melbourne vs English wickets, which apparently are (were) slightly different. Anybody know about this? 66.68.106.103 04:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

In that sense, wicket refers to the cricket pitch, not the stumps, so it's simply a reference to the differing conditions on Melbourne grounds. Precisely what differences existed at that particular time I don't know. Loganberry (Talk) 00:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Dismissing a batsman

"For a batsman to be dismissed by being bowled, run out, stumped or hit wicket, his wicket needs to be put down. What this means is defined by Law 28 of the Laws of cricket. The wicket is put down if a bail is completely removed from the top of the stumps, or a stump is struck out of the ground by the (etc)"

This is a bit confusing. Isn't it redundant? I mean the part "a bail is completely removed or a stump is struck out of ground". It looks to me that if any stump is struck out there's no way that both bails would still be "on"; at least one of them falls. The confusion grows further with the next sentence: "If one bail is off, removing the remaining bail or striking or pulling any of the three stumps (etc)". What's the point of removing the second bail if one, as per first statement, is needed to dismiss a batesman? Or the first sentence should be "The wicket is put down if both bails are completely removed from the top of the stumps or (etc)" Roofred (talk) 11:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who only knows cricket cursorily (and is literally learning how cricket works via Wikipedia), I don't find these statements to be redundant or confusing, as they appears to say that a) a stump falling over constitutes a dismissal in and of itself (even if the bails were somehow glued on), and b) in the event one bail is knocked down accidentally, knocking the other bail down legally is sufficient for a dismissal. Am I on the right track? NewkirkPlaza (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

If you literally learned how it works from Wikipedia why would you ask on Wikipedia if your knowledge is "on the right track"? And why did you need Wikipedia instead of the "Laws of Cricket" since the entire article references the "Laws of Cricket" even though it isn't cited? 18:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Laws of Cricket...

Are these "laws" published somewhere? They're referenced when describing a "wicket" and the dimensions and measurements of its individual components but the "standards" themselves seem incomplete and vague. There is a length and height given for the "stumps" and they're "wooden", but there is nothing about the type of wood allowed, the consistency and makeup of the ground they're driven into, etc. An "overall width" of 9 inches "across" the stumps is claimed, but there is nothing in the article about the diameter of the stumps. What are referred to as "balls" and are placed across the tops of the stumps aren't spherical at all and there could be confusion when actual balls are also involved.

Surely there are plenty of copies of the "Laws of Cricket" out there and Wikipedia material and articles are supposed to be thoroughly referenced and cited back to reliable sources. Why is this article so vague in so many ways? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.60 (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Rules: What is necessary to put a wicket "down"?

The article is rather unclear about declaring a wicket as "down". It reads "A wicket is put down if: A [i. e. at least one] bail is completely removed from the top of the stumps …". But in the following paragraph it reads "Special situations: If [only] one bail is off, removing the remaining bail or striking or pulling any stump out of the ground is sufficient to put the wicket down." What is the rule now? The first (at least one bail removed) or the second (one bail and a stump removed)? And if it is the second one: does it make any difference if both bails are off? Robbit (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)