Field positions and offense vs defense in cricket, with baseball compare and contrast

[Ike]

This quote is from another thread (I hope it works), because it was recommended that the topic be moved:

The term fielder is correct. I'm certain that your knowledge of cricket is far superior to my knowledge of baseball, but my perception of baseball (and this could be 100% wrong) is that the batting side is considered offensive whilst the fielding side is defensive. In cricket (well test cricket) that is not the case at all and we certainly wouldn't use the term "defensemen" to describe fielders.

In Test cricket wickets count just as much as runs do towards a win. A team can outscore their opposition by 500 runs in a test match but the game will end a draw unless they can also take 20 wickets (bowl the opposition out twice) This is something that new or casual watchers often struggle with the game, that it can go for 5 days have 1 team score a load more runs than the other but the game end in no result........but this is the fundamental essence and the beauty of the sport. It is called test cricket because it is just that, a test of both batting and bowling.......you don't win unless you perform in both departments.

So what you find during the course of a test match is that depending on the match state, the batting side can either be on the attack or defending and likewise with the fielding side. but never think that the fielders are defensive by nature. This situation is different in limited overs cricket, in ODI's and T20 games runs are king, so you will for the most part find the fielding side more defensive and the batting team more aggressive.

Definately think you should start a dedicated thread where we can answer your questions and discuss the nuances of the game........will be better than carrying on here.

Let me also add two other quotes from the Welcome to Cricket Web thread:

The term "fielder" would've been deemed far less correct and proper 50 years ago, but it's very commonly used now to the point where "fieldsman" is rare. I suspect "batter" may become similar eventually; it's already accepted even if most people do realise "batsman" is the proper term.

When we are looking for fillins for our club side if anyone introduces themselves to me as a batter, we put them at 11 in the order. And it is an accurate way of sorting the wheat from the chaff.

I learned a lot from these responses, and I thank you all. All this arose when I was asking about fieldsmen (I guess that's the best term?) positions and the various names for them. I used the term defensemen, which I had seen somewhere in my readings, mostly because I thought 'fielder' was probably an Americanism. Well, I was half right. I had seen batsman a lot, and so had figured that batter was an Americanism. My goal in this is to avoid Americanisms, and more generally to use widely accepted cricket terminology when speaking about cricket. It seems clear that defenseman is not an accepted cricket term. But I'm not clear yet that fieldsman is the most common term. What word do most folks use to refer to those have the varying positions whilst the other side is at bat? (Apologies if 'at bat' is an Americanism too.)

The more interesting subject, to me, however, in the above quotes is the perception of 'offense' and 'defense'. If Adders explanation is the standard understanding among cricketers (and I have no reason to believe it is not), I think it shows a fascinating difference in perspective between Brits (and the rest of the world) in viewing the contest of cricket and Yanks viewing the contest of baseball. The two games are obviously related (more so than either to football, rugby, basketball, etc.), but the more I compare them both, the more differences I find, especially subtle ones. I think it certain that most all baseball fans would automatically consider the batting side to be 'on offense', and the fielding side to be 'on defense', even though, very roughly comparable to cricket, you have to get 27 outs (or more in 'extra-innings' games) to win. In both games only the batting side can score runs (with the minor exception of penalty runs to the non-batting side in cricket), and only the fielding side can achieve wickets or outs. But in cricket it appears that taking wickets is viewed as an offensive action, whereas in baseball it is viewed as a defensive action.

As I've been watching cricket (via television) the last few months I've become more and more aware how critical taking wickets is, especially in trying to evaluate how well a team is doing during a match. I guess this is quickly obvious to someone new to the game when watching a test match: 100/0 is lots better than 200/9. It wasn't so obvious to me in limited overs cricket immediately. In ODIs for example, getting runs before you run out of overs seemed much more important than not 'using up' your wickets. But the more I've watched, the more I've learned that wickets in hand is critical, even in the last 5 overs, since with more in hand you can be much more aggressive at the crease. I've also learned that even though the 2nd power play is typically taken in overs 36-40, the RPO typically is much higher in overs 40-50.

So, what is the point of this post? Mostly I guess it's to ask if what I've said above sounds at all accurate to the rest of you, who know cricket so much better than I. My goal is to understand cricket better, so I may better enjoy watching and following it. When you come to the game in your old age, and especially when your first impressions are strongly influenced by unconscious associations with another game you know inside out (baseball), there are so many subtle (and not so subtle) nuances that you can totally misunderstand.

Thank you in advance for any further corrections to my misunderstandings any of you may provide.

 

[Riggins]

So, what is the point of this post? Mostly I guess it's to ask if what I've said above sounds at all accurate to the rest of you.

Sure does.

 

[Howe_zat]

As Adders explains, you'll have periods in a Test where defending or attacking comes form either side. Bowlers can play aggressively by trying to get batsmen out rather than stop them scoring runs quickly. Batsmen can play aggressively by putting less value on their wicket and aiming to score as many as they can in a short time.

Often, though, the bowlers are considered the attacking part of the team - a side's bowlers are collectively called 'the bowling attack' which is often just shortened to "the attack". If you see a thread about which side in the world has the best attack, it's about who has the best bowlers.

It's a bit of a misnomer really as it's perfectly possible to have a great bowling attack who aren't particularly aggressive. Vernon Philander for example is widely considered the best bowler in the world now and his style of play is relatively defensive. I think it comes from the nature of Tests in that high-scoring games where batting dominates are the Tests that usually end in draws, so investing in your bowlers, choosing to bowl when you have the choice or playing more bowlers in the team will be the more aggressive strategy.

 

[Adders]

From what I've seen in your posts to date Ike it seems like you have already got a very good grasp of many of the subtleties of the game and have an understanding of the contest between bat and ball. How long have you taken an active interest in cricket?

I think regards the cricket terminology the more you watch the more you are going to pick up. But from your post above a couple of comments

- I was asking about fieldsmen (I guess that's the best term?)

- whilst the other side is at bat? (Apologies if 'at bat' is an Americanism too.)

- 'offense' and 'defense'

- I don't think it is necessarily wrong to call them "fieldsmen" but it would be more common to refer to them as fielders ( for plural). Or for eg; The fielding side, that fielder on the boundary, Cook has his fielders crowding the bat (like that ever happens LOL)

- Definitely not "at bat"......we'd say "whilst the other side is batting".

- I think 'offense' and 'defense' is most definitely an Americanism. Cricket watchers would use the terms attacking or defending.

One image I immediately thought of when trying to explain how the fielding side can be very much on the attack was this one........



Now that is the sort of thing you won't see every day, but it is an example of an ultra attacking field setting.......not an ounce of defensive thought in it, it is 100% about getting the batsmen out. That's the great DK Lillee bowling btw, no idea who the poor English batsmen is, I day say it was a hatrick ball for Lillee to have the field set like that...........anyone here know the story ??

 

[Ike]

thanks, guys, for the insights! The more I read here, the more I feel I'm starting to understand cricket with fewer and fewer of the natural prejudices that come unconsciously from being a lifetime baseball fan.

I have a bunch more questions about the names given to fielding positions in cricket, but they have nothing to do with baseball, so I've starting another thread, in the cricket chat forum, for that. Also borrowed your picture to put there, Adders, although I screwed up in some fashion, and it's just a link, and it doesn't work, lol.