Talk:Fielding (cricket)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unnecessarily nasty to Tresco 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed merger with Fielding strategy (cricket) 

message: Although a nice picture, it misses certain positions, and others are not quite right:
*4 slips are quite common in Test cricket, as are 2 gullies;
*"Forward short leg" and "backward short leg" are missing;
*"Deep backward of square" needs explaining;
*"Deep extra (cover)" is so common in limited-overs cricket to deserve including.
*"Third man" (cue "Harry Lime" music) is seldom as fine as that;
*Mid-off and mid-on are usually deeper - often level with the stumps at the bowler's end.
I write as an former player of the game and long-term enthusiast. Rcingham [16:23, 9 September 2002 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagram

message: 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.
:Agreed. I understand the benefits and usefulness of SVG and vector images in general, but this diagram is all but useless to me: far too small to be read at the thumbnail size it's displayed at in various articles, and way too large to look at when zoomed in at "full" display size. 03:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: SVG ???

message: 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)
replies: text: Done. Jay 07:53, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Colour of diagram

message: 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)
replies: text: If you want to tackle merging those, please do! I'd like to see it done, but it's not a job I relish. That long and silly quotation in fielder should definitely be removed, though. As for images, I think I prefer the one here, though neither is brilliant. dmmaus 02:43, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

text: On another topic, this would also be a good article in which to discuss the strategy of field placements - when do you use 4 slips, when do you post men all over the boundary, etc. I may add something along these lines when I get time. dmmaus 02:46, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have merged in fielder as was.  Lots still to do, particularly explaining where the fielding positions are (although this may not be required with a decent diagram.  I have left both of the existing ones in for now) and strategy and tactics.  -- ALoan 17:40, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Fielder]]

message: 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)
replies: text: The list is getting ridiculous.  We can't have everybody who once took a decent catch.  It should be reserved for players who were renowned or selected at least as much for their fielding as for anything else, eg Rhodes, Collingwood, Solkar. Lfh 11:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the list has gotten out of hand. I've commented it out until we can agree on some criteria to reduce it to a manageable length. --Muchness 14:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Months have gone by and no progress. I'll raise this with the Wikipedia cricket project. --Dweller 11:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It still seems out of hand, and is heavily biased towards recent times. Unless I've missed someone, there's nobody at all earlier than Bobby Simpson, who dates from the 1960s. Also it's not at all clear what "prolific" means in the context of fielding. JH (talk page) 19:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah yes, funny that Ranatunga got on the list, that Nasser Hussain is a good fielder, and that Tendulkar is a good fielder - he is considered average...to bold him ahead of Yuvraj is some joke. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 23:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone seems determined to add pov nonsense about 'specialist fielders' in broken English. I've taken the liberty of removing the unnecessary and poorly worded reference to Rhodes and Collingwood (see history). Perhaps it's time for a page dedicated to those cricketers who took fielding to a new level? Tclode 22:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of test fielders

message: 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)
thread_title: Major edit and page move

message: 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)
thread_title:  Position of Runner on fielding possitions diagram 

message: 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:
* As has been said in several places, the runner should be on the same side as the square leg umpire - IMO it could be dispensed of entirely since it's not particularly common
* Long Stop and Straight hit are not real fielding positions:
     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.
** Long Stop is a hold-over from the days when 'keepers played without pads or gloves. It's still sometimes seen in schoolboy cricket where the standard of 'keeping is very low. The term very likely predates baseball and "back stop", at least in playground cricket, is a regionalism for "wicket keeper"Captain Pedant 13:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fielding Positions Diagram 

message: 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)
replies: text: "Cow corner" is not a fielding position, but refers to an area of the field between long on and deep mid wicket Si1965 (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cow corner 

message: 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)
replies: text: It is but it was originally said by someone, an Australian captain I think, who coined the phrase. I will try to find a citation for you. SGGH speak! 11:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have found citations that refer to is as the "old maxim" and "they always say" and so on, but can't find the person who first said it. SGGH speak! 11:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catches win matches 

message: 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.
: Once they pass it to these players, and the batsman has not made it home (crossed the crease), the batsman is Run-out. Fielders who stand near batsmen are expected to take reflex catches. In Cricket there is a maxim: "Catches win matches".BBC Sport One slip dents England's day retrieved June 28 2007Caribbean Cricket The Courtney Browne Dilemma retrieved June 28 2007 
: Diving to prevent the ball get past you is one fielding technique. Another fielding skill is to throw the ball to the stumps as soon as you've got the ball in your hands, to increase the chances of run-outs. An excellent fielder is one who can knock the bails off the stumps with an accurate throw, to run-out a batsman. If the fielder fumbles the ball, or doesn't collect the ball cleanly (known as a 'misfield'), the batters will often weigh up the risk of taking an additional run.
--Quadalpha 00:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning of article 

message: 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)
thread_title: Third man redirect

message: 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)
replies: text: I've never heard the phrase and I'm a avid follower of cricket. I'm South African, I suspect the term may be popular in only one or two countries. Roger (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: 45 on the 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fielding diagram 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've now removed it, since there appears to be no justification for it. Andrew Spinner (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fielding restrictions 

message: 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)
replies: text: The batsmen are trying to score runs, so that fielding positions adopted by the opposite side primarily to cut off their run-scoring opportunities rather than to dismiss them are by convention termed "defensive". In contrast, fielding positions whose primary aim is to dismiss the batsmen rather than to reduce their run-scoring options are said to be "offensive". (Incidentally, hopefully the article itself says "offence" and defence" rather than "offense" and "defense" as, given the subject, the use of "British English" is appropriate.) JH (talk page) 08:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Cricket doesn't really use the terms "defence" and "offence" as they are used in baseball. Depending on the state of the game, the fielding side may be attacking (trying to take wickets) whilst the batting team defend (try to prevent wickets), or the batting team may be attacking (trying to score runs) whilst the bowling team defend (trying to prevent runs), or, as is most often the case, both teams are doing an element of each simultaneously. Therefore it would be erroneous to call one side "the defence" and the other side "the offence". Py0alb (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, thanks to both of you. Together these make a well-rounded answer. Yes, I am a huge baseball fan. Longing for baseball during the offseason and having a number of Commonwealth-born coworkers is what got me into cricket. Going back and forth between games can be confusing as the vocabularies are distinct enough to easily identify one sport from the other, but at the same time close enough to cause this sort of misunderstanding. Jyg (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catching positions... not defense? 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723201923/http://www.ovalbooks.com/bluff/Cricket.html to http://www.ovalbooks.com/bluff/Cricket.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: When I was a batsman, a straight line in front of me went to cover-point. A straight line in front of Shiv Chanderpaul went to extra cover. Probably better to start with a line down the centre of the wicket (middle stump to middle stump), and the definitions of off-side and leg/on-side. Then move onto square of the wicket, and infront/behind square. From there it should be easy to go round the field. wjematherplease leave a message... 20:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

text: Also, this needs to be reliably sourced, otherwise it falls foul of WP:OR. Indeed, sources may give a good idea of how best to approach this. wjematherplease leave a message... 21:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summarizing field positions