Talk:Fielding (cricket)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Cricket (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project and talk pages for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Bclass-checklist.svg
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Unnecessarily nasty to Tresco[edit]

Is it really necessary to show a picture of Marcus Trescothick, a very fine cricketer, misfielding just for once?

Proposed merger with Fielding strategy (cricket)[edit]

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)

Diagram[edit]

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)]

SVG ???[edit]

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.129.91 (talk)

Colour of diagram[edit]

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)

Done. Jay 07:53, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fielder[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)

List of test fielders[edit]

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)

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)
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)
Months have gone by and no progress. I'll raise this with the Wikipedia cricket project. --Dweller 11:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

Major edit and page move[edit]

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)

Diagram[edit]

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)

Thanks for the comments.
  1. I have to agree that midwicket and cover (and extra cover) are all too far forward.
  2. In my experience, a sweeper can be deepish on either side of the wicket, in a covering position. The position labeled as "sweeper" (a deep, forward extra cover) is not it!
  3. Fly slip is there, behind the slips, but could be deeper.
  4. Straight hit, like long stop, certainly exists, although it is rarely used.
Someone needs to edit Image:Cricket fielding positions2.svg. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:35, 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)

Friends, these comments are all very fair and a new diagram needs to be created. What about incorporating this one, which is very accurate other than backward point being a bit too deep and leg gully being missing: static.espncricinfo.com/db/ABOUT_CRICKET/fielding-positions.pdf bigpad (talk)


That too, has issues. As you observe, backward point is way out of position, but extra cover is as well, being far too deep. Silly mid off should be opposite silly mid on. All in all there are probably as many things wrong with this diagram. I will knock one up in powerpoint and you can see what you think.Py0alb (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


What do you think of this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ACricketfieldingpositions.jpg Py0alb (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
This is much better - well done! Let me suggest a few tweaks insertions to make it as close to 'spot on' as we'll get. 1. Fly slip (make this fly slip/short third man) a little squarer and deeper. 2. 1st slip a little deeper. 3. slip cordon a little squarer, so that there is a little more of a gap between 5th slip and gully. 4. Insert cover point. 5. Long off and long on a little squarer. 6. Either change short fine leg to fine leg and move it out of the square 1/2way from there to boundary or insert fine leg at the position I'm speaking of and change existing fine leg to deep fine leg. 7. Insert long leg and deep backward square leg. 8. Insert backward square leg. 8. Insert deep backward point. 9. Insert deep mid on and deep mid off. 10. Mid on and mid off not quite so deep. 11. Cow corner - remove it if not putting in 'sweeper' between deep cover and deep point. I think you're riught not to insert the various 'short' positions, other than short leg. The bright green sphere shape is a little 'fat' at the bottom and could be squeezed in a little. I hope this helps and that I'm not splitting hairs in any way! All the best, bigpad (talk)


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 on fielding possitions diagram[edit]

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)

Fielding Positions Diagram[edit]

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)
  • Same applies to Straight hit - it would have to be referred to as either very very straight long off or long on, and can't say I've ever seen a fielder positioned directly behind the bowler.
  • Long Leg should be squarer than Deep Fine Leg and you would use fine rather than straight as the "qualification" as to where the fielder is positioned (as has been used for Third man). I'd make fine leg (and it's corresponding short) finer, and swap the deep fine leg and long leg around. Short fine leg is also usually inside or on the 30 yard circle rather than outside.
  • Backward Short leg looks too deep - I'd swap leg gully and backward short leg around, and it'd be about right
  • Short Leg usually refers to forward short leg which is slightly in front of square - silly point should also be slightly in front of square (approx in line with the bottom of the S in the diagram for both)
  • Deep Cover and Deep Cover Point tend to be amalgamated into one position - it's referred to in terms of how straight square or how far round they are rather than using Point in the name - changing this would probably prove a little tricky, so if it's not possible it is a really minor point and what's there will suffice. Deep Extra Cover is sometimes abbreviated to "Deep Extra" so you could put the Cover in brackets.
  • You could also add Short Long On and Short Long Off which would be when the fielder stands several yards in from the boundary - between a deep mid off/on and a conventional long off/on
  • 1st slip is always deeper than all the rest - in the diagram, 2nd slip seems to be deeper than 1st. 2nd slip tends to be approx level with the keeper.
  • I'd also say that you'd be hard pushed to fit 9 slips into that space without them turning into a gully or the keeper standing 40 yards from the bat.

Stonysleep 17:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Cow corner[edit]

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)

"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)

Catches win matches[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Beginning of article[edit]

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".[1][2]
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)

Third man redirect[edit]

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)

45 on the 1[edit]

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)

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)


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)

Fielding diagram[edit]

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)

Fielding restrictions[edit]

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've now removed it, since there appears to be no justification for it. Andrew Spinner (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Catching positions... not defense?[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)