[Cricket] Is it the end of Third Man ?
- Thread starter Leekbrookgull
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Personally, I think you are talking total crap. Having played the game since the mid 1980s I have never used, or heard those around me use, the term 'fieldsman'. It may have existed, and officially been changed since, but it was never used, it was always 'fielder' in that period.
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,491
You're just a shit Lenny Rider..
It was a term hardly used in 2000 because the language had evolved before the laws. This time the laws are changing before some people feel ready for it. I simply can’t compute people moaning about a change. Some of the Aussie comms deffo used the term during the 90s. Richie benaud being the most obvious example. The Aussie old boys still used the term “great fieldsman” when he died in 2015 but benaud certainly used in comms in the 90s as he was a stickler for correct language. https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/s...l/news-story/fc9fdfc38b5079cdc1604ed135a18d0a
It disappeared from use in England much earlier than Australia but the beauty of a global game is that the laws apply to everyone. Maybe you might not have heard it but it is strange to say I am talking total crap when it is literally what happened and was a term used widely in some countries. Sorry if you are offended by words being changed to make females feel more welcome.
It,s a fielding position your gender from my POV has nothing to do with it,what next Long Leg. Cricket is a great game who ever plays it can't we just leave that way ?https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/58651071
Duh! The series finished in 1969! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Man_(TV_series)
Names change, in football no one talks about centre forwards, inside lefts or right halfs any more - nice gender-neutral names though they are. Even for the most conservative surely the renaming of cricket terms isn't really worth dying in a ditch for?
I will take issue with Berty23 though. I'll take his word, but in all the time I played cricket I never once heard the term 'fieldsman', it was always fielder. And barring the odd pub match I stopped playing back in the late 1990s.
KeegansHairPiece
New member
- Jan 28, 2016
- 1,829
These days if you say you’re English they throw you in jail.
About as offended as you are by this I guess https://www.skynews.com.au/australi...t/news-story/cb68cf9b9b834430b98a8773b7d1c5bf
GT49er
Well-known member
Like you, I can't remember using 'fieldsman' instead of 'fielder', although it was in use at one time - Denis Compton used it in his autobiography, but that was in 1948 - slightly before even my time!
I remember cricketers being interviewed a few years ago started talking about batters rather than batsmen - I think Nasser Hussein might have been one of the first to use it; him or maybe the Aussies. I didn't like it - nothing to do with gender, it just didn't sound right to me. Hey ho, it is what it is.
Lenny Rider
Well-known member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 5,485
Greg maybe on occasions, like many on here, I do overreact, the key is to then take a step back and evaluate everything, perhaps all the overreacters should do that before they overreact ?
I assure you old love it’s a bad old world out there and there’s far more important things to worry about than topics on here
el punal
Well-known member
So where is Harry Lime?
Slightly odd post. But you crack on.
I have coached cricket for several years and we have one girl who is really good and plays in the boy’s team. For a while we have not said batsman. It is very simple.
“You are next to bat”
“Who is batting at the other end”
I don’t particularly like the term batter as it is so American but it is what it is. In about 20 years people will be amazed it was “batsman” for so long and then laugh when they find out that people were genuinely upset about the change happening. In fact loads of the culture stuff (from both sides) will be laughed at. Bizarre time to be alive.
The proper discussion that must be had about equality in sports is about trans athletes IMO. My view is that it is unfair on women and I genuinely worry that someone will get hurt in a sport like rugby. I am not sure what it will take for people to realise that it is damaging women’s rights. If a women is strong and able enough to compete with men (such as cricket, football or hockey) then I am fine with mixed sports but I worry about what some countries might do with trans athletes. Anyone who does not think a country would go that far should read about east Germany in the 70s/80s
Re the link you posted. What a bizarre thing to do. Entering a boys team. To what purpose? Very odd. I bet the coach of that side is the sort who would two foot an eight year old kid in a family kickabout in the park and bounce an 11 year old cricket to feel hard.
There's potentially an interesting debate to be had here.
On one hand, you've got the fact that the word "man" has multiple meanings. It denotes gender, however it also does double duty as a gender-neutral noun simply denoting that a person belongs to the human race. It also has other, further, gender-neutral usages.
On the other hand, you've got the problem that because the primary meaning denotes gender, it's usage even in gender-neutral scenarios (which, IMO, it was originally intended when used for words like "fireman" etc) has become gender-charged.
Which leaves us with the situation where those who are see gender imbalance as an issue (which, to be fair, it has been and still is in too many cases) focus on the implied gender bias of males being referred to simply as "man" and "men", while females have a modified version that doesn't get used in the gender-neutral ways that "man" is.
Ultimately, for me that suggests that maybe the oddity of the English language that left us with "man" (male) and "man" (any member of the human race) needs to be changed. All of this tinkering around the edges changing things like "batsman" to "batter" (really? like a piece of cod?) or "fireman" to "fireperson" doesn't really resolve the tension created by the word "man" doing double duty. Maybe the simpler solution is to change the gender-specific "man" to be something else ... add a short prefix (similar to "wo"man / "wo"men) and leave the word "man" to solely denote "member of the human race" (at which point we can then debate the problem that "member" can have male connotations
).
On one hand, you've got the fact that the word "man" has multiple meanings. It denotes gender, however it also does double duty as a gender-neutral noun simply denoting that a person belongs to the human race. It also has other, further, gender-neutral usages.
On the other hand, you've got the problem that because the primary meaning denotes gender, it's usage even in gender-neutral scenarios (which, IMO, it was originally intended when used for words like "fireman" etc) has become gender-charged.
Which leaves us with the situation where those who are see gender imbalance as an issue (which, to be fair, it has been and still is in too many cases) focus on the implied gender bias of males being referred to simply as "man" and "men", while females have a modified version that doesn't get used in the gender-neutral ways that "man" is.
Ultimately, for me that suggests that maybe the oddity of the English language that left us with "man" (male) and "man" (any member of the human race) needs to be changed. All of this tinkering around the edges changing things like "batsman" to "batter" (really? like a piece of cod?) or "fireman" to "fireperson" doesn't really resolve the tension created by the word "man" doing double duty. Maybe the simpler solution is to change the gender-specific "man" to be something else ... add a short prefix (similar to "wo"man / "wo"men) and leave the word "man" to solely denote "member of the human race" (at which point we can then debate the problem that "member" can have male connotations
).
Nobby Cybergoat
Well-known member
- Jul 19, 2021
- 7,287
Is it possible to genuinely supportive of women and women's sport but still think they should be called batsmen? Certainly the men anyway.
Yes tradition is bloody stupid, but it's a massive part of the game.
Yes tradition is bloody stupid, but it's a massive part of the game.
KeegansHairPiece
New member
- Jan 28, 2016
- 1,829
I cannot for the life of me think there will be 1 iota of difference for me enjoying a fantastic game of cricket whether the commentator says "there is a new batter at the crease" or "there is a new batsmen at the crease". Completely irrelevant, inconsequential to the enjoyment of the game, other than it probably does give out a more inclusive message.
I mean, cricket can introduce the Hundred, 10 ball overs with a bowler changing half way through at the same end etc. etc. and we talk about tradition of the game but are more worried about changing the word batsmen to batter. Laughable really.
GT49er
Well-known member
Ultimately, for me that suggests that maybe the oddity of the English language that left us with "man" (male) and "man" (any member of the human race) needs to be changed. All of this tinkering around the edges changing things like "batsman" to "batter" (really? like a piece of cod?) or "fireman" to "fireperson" doesn't really resolve the tension created by the word "man" doing double duty. Maybe the simpler solution is to change the gender-specific "man" to be something else ... add a short prefix (similar to "wo"man / "wo"men) and leave the word "man" to solely denote "member of the human race" (at which point we can then debate the problem that "member" can have male connotations
"He"man / "he"men perhaps?
Actually thrown in jail? If you just say you're English? When did this come in?
Exactly. People accept a set of five which fundamentally changed the game from an over but kick off about a word used to describe a player. Incredible.
I think it is what happened to Tommy Robinson. It is just a coincidence that he also tried to travel on false passports, committed fraud and ignored warnings about talking publicly about court cases (among other things). The police ignored all those small crimes and focussed on him saying he was English. Or something like that. I. Any keep up.
Lenny Rider
Well-known member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 5,485
KeegansHairPiece
New member
- Jan 28, 2016
- 1,829
Uncovered pitches, loss of rest days, coloured kit, Pro40s, One Days, T20s, The Hundred, fielding restrictions, DRS, bat technology.....traditions of cricket?....but the word batsmen to batter....