Talk:Fielding (cricket)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This category or article is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please visit the project page for more details. Articles under this specific category will be listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Articles by WatchlistBot.

Contents 1 Proposed merger with Fielding strategy (cricket) 2 Diagram 3 SVG ??? 4 Colour of diagram 5 Fielder 6 List of test fielders 7 Major edit and page move 8 Diagram

[edit] Proposed merger with Fielding strategy (cricket)

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)

[edit] Diagram

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)]

[edit] SVG ???

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.

[edit] Colour of diagram

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)

[edit] Fielder

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)

[edit] List of test fielders

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)

[edit] Major edit and page move

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)

[edit] Diagram

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)