This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
Is it really necessary to show a picture of Marcus Trescothick, a very fine cricketer, misfielding just for once?
I wholeheartedly agree with the unsigned comment above. I came to the Fielding page to look up a fielding position and was shocked when I saw the picture of Marcus Trescothick and the 'misfielding' caption. I suspect it is subtle vandalism as there is no reference to 'misfielding' on the page. It shows a player and a ball in flight - how is this evidence of misfielding? For all we know Marcus might have caught this ball. It does not even represent the fielding position of slip as there is no view of the wicket, stumps or any other players. In fact as there are no other players anywhere in sight it actually looks more like a warm-up session than actual matchplay. If Wiki was to show photos of how not to do the subject being described (ie misfielding when the article is about fielding) then there is an awful lot of editing to be done. I have changed the caption to 'fielding' from 'misfielding' but suggest the picture is removed and replaced with one that actually looks like someone playing slip. His own wiki page states he was an accomplished slip fielder so I suspect it is vandalism. I think for one of England's finest living batsmen, who has a well documented history of anxiety and depression, to be represented thus is utterly inappropriate. Andrew ranfurly ( talk) 21:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Fielding strategy (cricket) overlaps a lot with this article. This article is more comprehensive and (IMHO) generally of higher quality, so I suggest that Fielding strategy (cricket) be merged into this one. Macboff 22:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a no brainer of course these articles should be merged. Anyone with the knowledge on how to merge two articles go for it. 220.239.4.132 07:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
And still nothing done ... oh, dear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.221.61 ( talk) 18:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Although a nice picture, it misses certain positions, and others are not quite right:
I write as an former player of the game and long-term enthusiast. Rcingham [ 16:23, 9 September 2002 (UTC)
Is there good some reason that this image could not simply be a JPEG? My copy of Firefox will display the thumbnail but refuses to open the high definition version. Even if there is some "simple" adjustment I could make or yet another plug-in I could download, why bother when virtually everyone trying to view this image could already view it as a JPEG. This seems like using a "trendy new format" just for the sake of it. Isn't universal accessibility more important that "fashion" in image file types?
Can we have it in slightly better colour?. Black on green isn't too clear.
The image would look better with a lighter shade of green. And also if the field position names are in a colour that contrasts with the background. Jay 07:32, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Should fielder be merged into this with a redirect? Also compare the diagrams - I think I prefer the one in fielder, although I am not entirely sure why it has spots with different colours. -- ALoan 10:49, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
Is everyone who is on this list deserving of their place as a fielder? To be honest, I don't remember exactly how Arjuna Ranatunga (eg) fielded but I can't imagine that he was a brilliant, athletic fielder. On the other hand he was certainly noteworthy for his qualities as a batsman and captain. Juwe 08:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've conducted a page move and a major edit as part of making sure all the Laws of cricket were linked to a page. I've also taken the opportunity to get rid of some redundancies. jguk 21:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have several points
1. I am afraid that both cover and mid-wicket are way out. They should be more or less half way between the stumps, opposite each other, either side of the wicket - (mid-wicket - get it?) . In the diagram they are placed in a 'nothing' position, removed from the natural line of orthordox shots. Extra cover is also displaced. The best solution would be to get rid of forward point labal, call it cover point, and move the off-side positions around by one, eliminating the extra cover spot which is really wide mid off.
2. The 'sweeper' position should be marginally in front of square on the off side boundary, what is called 'Deep' in the diagram.
3. Fly slip is sometimes used in all forms of the game but is not mentioned - it is very close to 'short third man'
4. Finally, in the course of 40 years invovlement with the game I have never heard of the position 'straight hit'. Such a position would interfere with the batsman's line of sight and would not be allowed. John Price 09:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I can make edits (infact anyone can edit the image using inkscape). However I'm not sure of the exact positioning of midwicket and the suggested changes of sweeper. Could you download the image, mark it using MS Paint/GIMP and upload here? I can then use this a reference to correct the current map. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
My understanding was that "cover" and "cover pojnt" are not distinct positions, the older name of "cover point" having generally become shortened to "cover".
Also, techically I don't think it's correct to say that wicketkeeper is a "mandatory" position, though it would obviously be very eccentric not to have one. Before fielding restrictions were introduced for ODIs, I seem to recall an England captain once placing all his fielders, including the keeper, on the boundary when Australia needed four off the last ball to win.
JH 19:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree - midwicket is - as its name implies - midway between the wickets, rather than square of the non-striker's end. Likewise cover. The position square of the non-striker's end on the on side would be covered by a wide mid on: midwicket would tend to be deeper. I think many of the problems of this diagram stem from the fact that the distance from stump to stump is usually far longer in proportion to the whole field than is represented here. It would make sense to have a point (square of the bat), a cover (midway between the wickets on the off side) and an extra cover (square of the non-striker on the off side), though one (usually the cover) would be deeper as a "sweeper". It looks odd here because the wicket in the diagram is so truncated. ElectricRay ( talk) 16:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Some of those I agree with, some I don't. Obviously we could just keep adding more and more positions but eventually it would get so crowded as to be indecipherable. I tried to put the most common and uniquely named positions in but then stop before it got too crowded. I will also clarify that I have deliberately made the field of three concentric rings: boundary fielders, infielders saving the single and close catchers. The rings are shown by the three colours. I would rather not start putting fielders into in-between distances, because a) this is unorthodox and b) it will make a mess of the picture.
I would say fly slip is a different position to short third man. Fly slip is quite fine and sits behind 2nd or 3rd slip, short third is generally wider in the gap between slip and gulley. I could put both in I suppose.
Fair enough, and both could go in, yes
Slips I can make a little squarer so they're on the edge of the "close field" circle. I think 5th slip and fine gulley are the same position. I can leave a gap, as there are probably 2 too many slips to be realistic. I will do this now.
I thought "cover" was just a shortened version of "cover point" and hence it is the same position? Perhaps we can get a ruling on that. --No: extra cover, cover, cover point and point patrol the off-side ring. The four positions are distinct. Point and cover could be a little squarer, with cover point between them, with extra cover even more square (perhaps level with the wicket at non-striker's end) This is where I would put an orthodox mid on and mid off in a normal ring field. If you didn't have a midwicket and extra cover you might shift them round to "wide mid on" or "wide mid off" but as I say I can't mark every single position down. --Mid-off and mid-on are still too deep. I don't understand about short fine leg - this is a position saving the single that I see quite a lot for medium pacers and spinner. Also known as "on the 45" in the UK. In my experience "fine leg" is always on the rope against a pace bowler. That is what I was taught at school. --Ok, what about fine leg (saving a single) and deep fine leg on the boundary. DFL needs to be there. Long leg - I'm never really sure what the difference between this and deep backward square is. I think its just an alternate name for the same position. Its not a term I ever use when captaining. --Deep square could be a fraction squarer, then deep backward square, then long leg (before deep fine leg) Deep backward square and deep backward point - these positions do undoubtedly exist, but do we really need to mark them? Its just deep point or deep square moved backwards, and it is explained in the text what that means. --I think there is room for them Aren't deep mid on and off the same as long on and off? I would use the terms interchangeably. --No, they are distinct positions between mind-on/off and long-on/off. Long on and long off are still to fine, if you look at the relative positions of mid on and mid off The green circles are centred around the middle of the pitch. I don't think powerpoint lets to change their shape.
Py0alb ( talk) 09:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I've added my second, and hopefully final, comments below. Thanks for the good work. I would say fly slip is a different position to short third man. Fly slip is quite fine and sits behind 2nd or 3rd slip, short third is generally wider in the gap between slip and gulley. I could put both in I suppose. %Fair enough, and both could go in, yes% Slips I can make a little squarer so they're on the edge of the "close field" circle. I think 5th slip and fine gulley are the same position. I can leave a gap, as there are probably 2 too many slips to be realistic. I will do this now. %I think up to 5 slips is fine, with that little gap to gully% I thought "cover" was just a shortened version of "cover point" and hence it is the same position? Perhaps we can get a ruling on that. %No: extra cover, cover, cover point and point patrol the off-side ring. The four positions are distinct. Point and cover could be a little squarer, with cover point between them, with extra cover even more square (perhaps level with the wicket at non-striker's end)% This is where I would put an orthodox mid on and mid off in a normal ring field. If you didn't have a midwicket and extra cover you might shift them round to "wide mid on" or "wide mid off" but as I say I can't mark every single position down. %Mid-off and mid-on are still too deep% I don't understand about short fine leg - this is a position saving the single that I see quite a lot for medium pacers and spinner. Also known as "on the 45" in the UK. In my experience "fine leg" is always on the rope against a pace bowler. That is what I was taught at school. %Ok, what about fine leg (saving a single) and deep fine leg on the boundary. DFL needs to be there% Long leg - I'm never really sure what the difference between this and deep backward square is. I think its just an alternate name for the same position. Its not a term I ever use when captaining. %Deep square could be a fraction squarer, then deep backward square, then long leg (before deep fine leg)% Deep backward square and deep backward point - these positions do undoubtedly exist, but do we really need to mark them? Its just deep point or deep square moved backwards, and it is explained in the text what that means. %I think there is room for them% Aren't deep mid on and off the same as long on and off? I would use the terms interchangeably. %No, they are distinct positions between mid-on/off and long-on/off. Long on and long off are still to fine, if you look at the relative positions of mid on and mid off% bigpad ( talk)
Position of Runner is incorrect. For a right handed striker - convention is for the square leg umpire to move to point and the runner to be at square leg. Warpfactor 10:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
While the Diagram is largely correct there are a few things that could be improved I have no Idea how to edit a SVG file, so thought I'd put my comments here:
Long stop would generally be called very very fine leg and would only be used if the wicket keeper can't catch the ball!
The phrase probably comes from Back Stop in Baseball which is the fence/screen behind the catcher.
Stonysleep 17:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not even sure where it should be, but cow corner needs to be added. somewhere near wide long-on?
The slips need to be more staggered - 2nd slip is usually about 1m closer to the bowler than 1st slip, then 3rd slip another metre closer
close in fielders need to be shown for spin-bowlers - only one slip, much closer and one close-in gully
Inzy 10:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I move that "citation needed" be struck - it is an expression very widely used in cricketing lore. Captain Pedant 13:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the following from the top of the page. It's a mess and needs revision before being put back in, probably at not the top.
-- Quadalpha 00:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
References
So, if you search "third man" it redirects here. I suggest a better place for this redirect might be here... -- ProfessorKilroy ( talk) 05:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
There's an entry in the "Other positions" section for the position "45 on the 1". Is anyone familiar with this term? I've never heard the expression used in cricket, and Google isn't providing any references to the term outside of Wikipedia mirrors. -- Muchness ( talk) 19:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I've heard of the '45' but not 'on the 1', presume it means at 45 degrees from the bat.
Bevo74 (
talk)
21:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The term "45" signifies the fielder should position himself 45 degrees behind the wicket on either side of the wicket but typically the legside.
The phrase "on the one" is extremely common in all forms of cricket. It simply means "close enough to prevent a quick single". I'm amazed you haven't heard it before. Presumably you've heard of similar phrases such as "saving two", or "right on"?
Py0alb ( talk) 13:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
UK. Captains also typically use easily understood handsignals: one finger for on the one, two fingers for on the two, and four fingers for on the boundary.
What do you say when you tell a fielder you want him to stop the one in South Africa? "Excuse me my good chap could you position yourself in such as way that if the batsman should strike the ball in your direction you would be able to intercept it in a timely fashion thus he may think twice about running for a single lest you should propel the ball to the keeper of the wicket and in doing so dismiss him run out"? Py0alb ( talk) 14:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Heres an example of it being used by an international player:
http://www.alloutcricket.com/player/coaching/aoc-coaching-fielding-with-lydia-greenway-and-jenny-gunn
Py0alb (
talk)
14:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Why has the picture of the fielding positions been hanged to a picture of inferior quality? The original picture ( http://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cricket_fielding_positions.svg) was great and actually a Featured Picture in June 2006. Nothing has changed since then so I propose reverting to the original -- 90.213.23.100 ( talk) 07:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC) -- Cprobert88 ( talk) 07:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Please see point 8, above, where this issue has been discussed and the consensus was to change the picture to one that wasn't riven with inaccuracies. Py0alb ( talk) 12:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I've marked the "no fielder may stand behind directly behind the wicketkeeper" requirement as dubious, since I can't find any trace of this requirement in the official MCC Laws of Cricket or ICC Playing Regulations. Has anyone any source for this claim? Andrew Spinner ( talk) 10:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm new to cricket, so just trying to get clarification. The "Catching Positions" section starts with "Some fielding positions are used offensively.", implying that catching positions are not defensive. How is catching out a batsman an offensive, and therefore not a defensive, action? Doesn't offense by definition seek to score runs? Catching may not be, as the section explains, a direct action to stop the scoring of runs but doesn't any dismissal of a batsman curtail the overall scoring opportunity of the batting team? Sounds like defense to me. Jyg ( talk) 05:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fielding (cricket). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Here is the paragraph at dispute:
* For a right-handed batter, if there is a straight line pointing in front of them, then the following words appear in the fielding position names like so: "cover" describes positions about 45 to 80 degrees to the right of the line, "point" 80 to 100 degrees to the right, and "midwicket" 45 to 60 degrees left of the line. "Leg" is used in all positions in the quadrant to the left and behind the batter, and the "on" and "off" positions (such as mid-on and long-off) cover a V-like area in front of the batter.
I'm not sure how it's unclear. I don't want to waste your time, but if you think there's a way to minimally edit it and add it into the article, let me know. GreekApple123 ( talk) 19:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake was that I used "straight in front of the batter" in the baseball sense, meaning from batter to bowler. GreekApple123 ( talk) 20:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
Is it really necessary to show a picture of Marcus Trescothick, a very fine cricketer, misfielding just for once?
I wholeheartedly agree with the unsigned comment above. I came to the Fielding page to look up a fielding position and was shocked when I saw the picture of Marcus Trescothick and the 'misfielding' caption. I suspect it is subtle vandalism as there is no reference to 'misfielding' on the page. It shows a player and a ball in flight - how is this evidence of misfielding? For all we know Marcus might have caught this ball. It does not even represent the fielding position of slip as there is no view of the wicket, stumps or any other players. In fact as there are no other players anywhere in sight it actually looks more like a warm-up session than actual matchplay. If Wiki was to show photos of how not to do the subject being described (ie misfielding when the article is about fielding) then there is an awful lot of editing to be done. I have changed the caption to 'fielding' from 'misfielding' but suggest the picture is removed and replaced with one that actually looks like someone playing slip. His own wiki page states he was an accomplished slip fielder so I suspect it is vandalism. I think for one of England's finest living batsmen, who has a well documented history of anxiety and depression, to be represented thus is utterly inappropriate. Andrew ranfurly ( talk) 21:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Fielding strategy (cricket) overlaps a lot with this article. This article is more comprehensive and (IMHO) generally of higher quality, so I suggest that Fielding strategy (cricket) be merged into this one. Macboff 22:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a no brainer of course these articles should be merged. Anyone with the knowledge on how to merge two articles go for it. 220.239.4.132 07:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
And still nothing done ... oh, dear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.221.61 ( talk) 18:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Although a nice picture, it misses certain positions, and others are not quite right:
I write as an former player of the game and long-term enthusiast. Rcingham [ 16:23, 9 September 2002 (UTC)
Is there good some reason that this image could not simply be a JPEG? My copy of Firefox will display the thumbnail but refuses to open the high definition version. Even if there is some "simple" adjustment I could make or yet another plug-in I could download, why bother when virtually everyone trying to view this image could already view it as a JPEG. This seems like using a "trendy new format" just for the sake of it. Isn't universal accessibility more important that "fashion" in image file types?
Can we have it in slightly better colour?. Black on green isn't too clear.
The image would look better with a lighter shade of green. And also if the field position names are in a colour that contrasts with the background. Jay 07:32, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Should fielder be merged into this with a redirect? Also compare the diagrams - I think I prefer the one in fielder, although I am not entirely sure why it has spots with different colours. -- ALoan 10:49, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
Is everyone who is on this list deserving of their place as a fielder? To be honest, I don't remember exactly how Arjuna Ranatunga (eg) fielded but I can't imagine that he was a brilliant, athletic fielder. On the other hand he was certainly noteworthy for his qualities as a batsman and captain. Juwe 08:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've conducted a page move and a major edit as part of making sure all the Laws of cricket were linked to a page. I've also taken the opportunity to get rid of some redundancies. jguk 21:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have several points
1. I am afraid that both cover and mid-wicket are way out. They should be more or less half way between the stumps, opposite each other, either side of the wicket - (mid-wicket - get it?) . In the diagram they are placed in a 'nothing' position, removed from the natural line of orthordox shots. Extra cover is also displaced. The best solution would be to get rid of forward point labal, call it cover point, and move the off-side positions around by one, eliminating the extra cover spot which is really wide mid off.
2. The 'sweeper' position should be marginally in front of square on the off side boundary, what is called 'Deep' in the diagram.
3. Fly slip is sometimes used in all forms of the game but is not mentioned - it is very close to 'short third man'
4. Finally, in the course of 40 years invovlement with the game I have never heard of the position 'straight hit'. Such a position would interfere with the batsman's line of sight and would not be allowed. John Price 09:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I can make edits (infact anyone can edit the image using inkscape). However I'm not sure of the exact positioning of midwicket and the suggested changes of sweeper. Could you download the image, mark it using MS Paint/GIMP and upload here? I can then use this a reference to correct the current map. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
My understanding was that "cover" and "cover pojnt" are not distinct positions, the older name of "cover point" having generally become shortened to "cover".
Also, techically I don't think it's correct to say that wicketkeeper is a "mandatory" position, though it would obviously be very eccentric not to have one. Before fielding restrictions were introduced for ODIs, I seem to recall an England captain once placing all his fielders, including the keeper, on the boundary when Australia needed four off the last ball to win.
JH 19:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree - midwicket is - as its name implies - midway between the wickets, rather than square of the non-striker's end. Likewise cover. The position square of the non-striker's end on the on side would be covered by a wide mid on: midwicket would tend to be deeper. I think many of the problems of this diagram stem from the fact that the distance from stump to stump is usually far longer in proportion to the whole field than is represented here. It would make sense to have a point (square of the bat), a cover (midway between the wickets on the off side) and an extra cover (square of the non-striker on the off side), though one (usually the cover) would be deeper as a "sweeper". It looks odd here because the wicket in the diagram is so truncated. ElectricRay ( talk) 16:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Some of those I agree with, some I don't. Obviously we could just keep adding more and more positions but eventually it would get so crowded as to be indecipherable. I tried to put the most common and uniquely named positions in but then stop before it got too crowded. I will also clarify that I have deliberately made the field of three concentric rings: boundary fielders, infielders saving the single and close catchers. The rings are shown by the three colours. I would rather not start putting fielders into in-between distances, because a) this is unorthodox and b) it will make a mess of the picture.
I would say fly slip is a different position to short third man. Fly slip is quite fine and sits behind 2nd or 3rd slip, short third is generally wider in the gap between slip and gulley. I could put both in I suppose.
Fair enough, and both could go in, yes
Slips I can make a little squarer so they're on the edge of the "close field" circle. I think 5th slip and fine gulley are the same position. I can leave a gap, as there are probably 2 too many slips to be realistic. I will do this now.
I thought "cover" was just a shortened version of "cover point" and hence it is the same position? Perhaps we can get a ruling on that. --No: extra cover, cover, cover point and point patrol the off-side ring. The four positions are distinct. Point and cover could be a little squarer, with cover point between them, with extra cover even more square (perhaps level with the wicket at non-striker's end) This is where I would put an orthodox mid on and mid off in a normal ring field. If you didn't have a midwicket and extra cover you might shift them round to "wide mid on" or "wide mid off" but as I say I can't mark every single position down. --Mid-off and mid-on are still too deep. I don't understand about short fine leg - this is a position saving the single that I see quite a lot for medium pacers and spinner. Also known as "on the 45" in the UK. In my experience "fine leg" is always on the rope against a pace bowler. That is what I was taught at school. --Ok, what about fine leg (saving a single) and deep fine leg on the boundary. DFL needs to be there. Long leg - I'm never really sure what the difference between this and deep backward square is. I think its just an alternate name for the same position. Its not a term I ever use when captaining. --Deep square could be a fraction squarer, then deep backward square, then long leg (before deep fine leg) Deep backward square and deep backward point - these positions do undoubtedly exist, but do we really need to mark them? Its just deep point or deep square moved backwards, and it is explained in the text what that means. --I think there is room for them Aren't deep mid on and off the same as long on and off? I would use the terms interchangeably. --No, they are distinct positions between mind-on/off and long-on/off. Long on and long off are still to fine, if you look at the relative positions of mid on and mid off The green circles are centred around the middle of the pitch. I don't think powerpoint lets to change their shape.
Py0alb ( talk) 09:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I've added my second, and hopefully final, comments below. Thanks for the good work. I would say fly slip is a different position to short third man. Fly slip is quite fine and sits behind 2nd or 3rd slip, short third is generally wider in the gap between slip and gulley. I could put both in I suppose. %Fair enough, and both could go in, yes% Slips I can make a little squarer so they're on the edge of the "close field" circle. I think 5th slip and fine gulley are the same position. I can leave a gap, as there are probably 2 too many slips to be realistic. I will do this now. %I think up to 5 slips is fine, with that little gap to gully% I thought "cover" was just a shortened version of "cover point" and hence it is the same position? Perhaps we can get a ruling on that. %No: extra cover, cover, cover point and point patrol the off-side ring. The four positions are distinct. Point and cover could be a little squarer, with cover point between them, with extra cover even more square (perhaps level with the wicket at non-striker's end)% This is where I would put an orthodox mid on and mid off in a normal ring field. If you didn't have a midwicket and extra cover you might shift them round to "wide mid on" or "wide mid off" but as I say I can't mark every single position down. %Mid-off and mid-on are still too deep% I don't understand about short fine leg - this is a position saving the single that I see quite a lot for medium pacers and spinner. Also known as "on the 45" in the UK. In my experience "fine leg" is always on the rope against a pace bowler. That is what I was taught at school. %Ok, what about fine leg (saving a single) and deep fine leg on the boundary. DFL needs to be there% Long leg - I'm never really sure what the difference between this and deep backward square is. I think its just an alternate name for the same position. Its not a term I ever use when captaining. %Deep square could be a fraction squarer, then deep backward square, then long leg (before deep fine leg)% Deep backward square and deep backward point - these positions do undoubtedly exist, but do we really need to mark them? Its just deep point or deep square moved backwards, and it is explained in the text what that means. %I think there is room for them% Aren't deep mid on and off the same as long on and off? I would use the terms interchangeably. %No, they are distinct positions between mid-on/off and long-on/off. Long on and long off are still to fine, if you look at the relative positions of mid on and mid off% bigpad ( talk)
Position of Runner is incorrect. For a right handed striker - convention is for the square leg umpire to move to point and the runner to be at square leg. Warpfactor 10:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
While the Diagram is largely correct there are a few things that could be improved I have no Idea how to edit a SVG file, so thought I'd put my comments here:
Long stop would generally be called very very fine leg and would only be used if the wicket keeper can't catch the ball!
The phrase probably comes from Back Stop in Baseball which is the fence/screen behind the catcher.
Stonysleep 17:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not even sure where it should be, but cow corner needs to be added. somewhere near wide long-on?
The slips need to be more staggered - 2nd slip is usually about 1m closer to the bowler than 1st slip, then 3rd slip another metre closer
close in fielders need to be shown for spin-bowlers - only one slip, much closer and one close-in gully
Inzy 10:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I move that "citation needed" be struck - it is an expression very widely used in cricketing lore. Captain Pedant 13:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the following from the top of the page. It's a mess and needs revision before being put back in, probably at not the top.
-- Quadalpha 00:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
References
So, if you search "third man" it redirects here. I suggest a better place for this redirect might be here... -- ProfessorKilroy ( talk) 05:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
There's an entry in the "Other positions" section for the position "45 on the 1". Is anyone familiar with this term? I've never heard the expression used in cricket, and Google isn't providing any references to the term outside of Wikipedia mirrors. -- Muchness ( talk) 19:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I've heard of the '45' but not 'on the 1', presume it means at 45 degrees from the bat.
Bevo74 (
talk)
21:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The term "45" signifies the fielder should position himself 45 degrees behind the wicket on either side of the wicket but typically the legside.
The phrase "on the one" is extremely common in all forms of cricket. It simply means "close enough to prevent a quick single". I'm amazed you haven't heard it before. Presumably you've heard of similar phrases such as "saving two", or "right on"?
Py0alb ( talk) 13:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
UK. Captains also typically use easily understood handsignals: one finger for on the one, two fingers for on the two, and four fingers for on the boundary.
What do you say when you tell a fielder you want him to stop the one in South Africa? "Excuse me my good chap could you position yourself in such as way that if the batsman should strike the ball in your direction you would be able to intercept it in a timely fashion thus he may think twice about running for a single lest you should propel the ball to the keeper of the wicket and in doing so dismiss him run out"? Py0alb ( talk) 14:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Heres an example of it being used by an international player:
http://www.alloutcricket.com/player/coaching/aoc-coaching-fielding-with-lydia-greenway-and-jenny-gunn
Py0alb (
talk)
14:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Why has the picture of the fielding positions been hanged to a picture of inferior quality? The original picture ( http://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cricket_fielding_positions.svg) was great and actually a Featured Picture in June 2006. Nothing has changed since then so I propose reverting to the original -- 90.213.23.100 ( talk) 07:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC) -- Cprobert88 ( talk) 07:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Please see point 8, above, where this issue has been discussed and the consensus was to change the picture to one that wasn't riven with inaccuracies. Py0alb ( talk) 12:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I've marked the "no fielder may stand behind directly behind the wicketkeeper" requirement as dubious, since I can't find any trace of this requirement in the official MCC Laws of Cricket or ICC Playing Regulations. Has anyone any source for this claim? Andrew Spinner ( talk) 10:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm new to cricket, so just trying to get clarification. The "Catching Positions" section starts with "Some fielding positions are used offensively.", implying that catching positions are not defensive. How is catching out a batsman an offensive, and therefore not a defensive, action? Doesn't offense by definition seek to score runs? Catching may not be, as the section explains, a direct action to stop the scoring of runs but doesn't any dismissal of a batsman curtail the overall scoring opportunity of the batting team? Sounds like defense to me. Jyg ( talk) 05:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fielding (cricket). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Here is the paragraph at dispute:
* For a right-handed batter, if there is a straight line pointing in front of them, then the following words appear in the fielding position names like so: "cover" describes positions about 45 to 80 degrees to the right of the line, "point" 80 to 100 degrees to the right, and "midwicket" 45 to 60 degrees left of the line. "Leg" is used in all positions in the quadrant to the left and behind the batter, and the "on" and "off" positions (such as mid-on and long-off) cover a V-like area in front of the batter.
I'm not sure how it's unclear. I don't want to waste your time, but if you think there's a way to minimally edit it and add it into the article, let me know. GreekApple123 ( talk) 19:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake was that I used "straight in front of the batter" in the baseball sense, meaning from batter to bowler. GreekApple123 ( talk) 20:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)