Of course it is, But it allows a fielder to stand much closer and intimidate the batsman more. An artificial advantage which I wouldn't allow.in close is the place where you most want a helmet, moreso than batting even
Would you also forbid a short leg fielder a box and leg guards?Of course it is, But it allows a fielder to stand much closer and intimidate the batsman more. An artificial advantage which I wouldn't allow.
For protection in an established normal fielding position yes. If it enables them to stand closer than they normally would, no.Would you also forbid a short leg fielder a box and leg guards?
They have to pay health insurance premiums too, you know.
The fielder has to go where his captain puts him doesn't he? He might not be happy about it, especially when the spinner bowls a long-hop or two.I don't have a problem with keepers wearing a helmet but I wouldn't allow a close fielder to wear one. If you don't feel safe don't stand so close.
Whoever is setting the field has nothing to do with it. The principal is the same.The fielder has to go where his captain puts him doesn't he? He might not be happy about it, especially when the spinner bowls a long-hop or two.
Surely that is the same logic for keepers? They dont have to stand up to the spinners. You see at low levels of keepers standing 3 yards back when the spinner is bowling as they are not good enough or confident enough to stand up to the stumps to pressure the batsman.I don't have a problem with keepers wearing a helmet but I wouldn't allow a close fielder to wear one. If you don't feel safe don't stand so close.
well surely you couldn't allow the batsman protective equipment either?Of course it is, But it allows a fielder to stand much closer and intimidate the batsman more. An artificial advantage which I wouldn't allow.
The batsman is just doing what he's always done. He's not gaining an advantage in the way the fielder is. You could argue the helmet has changed a batsman's approach to hooking or ducking but the advantages of that are debatable.well surely you couldn't allow the batsman protective equipment either?
Cough cough, talking of isolated incidents rather than the norm.Lara was hit quite a few times. Even by 'Lightening' John Morris see 2:55 Brian Lara 501* vs Durham 1994 - highest first class innings - YouTube
As for Viv being the only one to hook balls bateen their eyes *ahem*
http://www.google.com.my/url?sa=t&r...LCPVJmQYgX6o_nSDfWwrgrA&bvm=bv.45645796,d.bmk
Fielders admit that the helmet enables them to stand closer to the batsman - therefore they're not doing what they've always done. People like Close, Greig and Solkar would stand there anyway, which is fair enough.fielders are doing what they've always done too. i go in there short without calling for any protective stuff, just to keep things moving but if I was a test match short leg specialist it would be ridiculous not to use all the protection available.
and of course better protection and not just helmets make it easier for batsmen and gives them an advantage
No one. Trying to ban helmets for fielders would be like trying to ban sledger from this forum - it ain't gonna happen.Who cares?
bollocksFielders admit that the helmet enables them to stand closer to the batsman - therefore they're not doing what they've always done. People like Close, Greig and Solkar would stand there anyway, which is fair enough.
Anyway this isn't really a debate worth having as it's impossible now to say who would stand where unless you ban the helmet for the current crop of fielders - and that certainly has no chance of happening.
But that's not a satisfactory conclusion for anyone. Especially everyone other than me.No one. Trying to ban helmets for fielders would be like trying to ban sledger from this forum - it ain't gonna happen.
What exactly is that supposed to prove? There's always been short-leg fielders. The helmet gives them the confidence to stand closer. That's an indisputable fact. The only question is whether standing closer is giving them an unfair advantage. If anyone disagrees that it does then yippee.bollocks