Sport Today

by **Nicholas Fon** » Mon, 06 Jan 2003 21:23:02

Hey folks,

Breifly, are cover point and point the same position?

I've looked at lots of fielding position diagrams on the net. Some indicate
that the answer is "yes", others "no". Does anyone know fore sure? If you
do, a reliable source would be appreciated.

Cheers,

Nick

by **Matt van de Werke** » Mon, 06 Jan 2003 21:31:38

Quote:

> Hey folks,

> Breifly, are cover point and point the same position?

> I've looked at lots of fielding position diagrams on the net. Some
> indicate that the answer is "yes", others "no". Does anyone know fore
> sure? If you do, a reliable source would be appreciated.

> Cheers,

> Nick

I always took cover point to be slightly in front of square, while point
as on square. The difference is quite subtle, and it's only my
impression, but that's the way I read it.

Cheers,
MvdW

by **Hasle** » Mon, 06 Jan 2003 21:29:30

Quote:

> > Hey folks,

> > Breifly, are cover point and point the same position?

> > I've looked at lots of fielding position diagrams on the net. Some
> > indicate that the answer is "yes", others "no". Does anyone know fore
> > sure? If you do, a reliable source would be appreciated.

> > Cheers,

> > Nick

> I always took cover point to be slightly in front of square, while point
> as on square. The difference is quite subtle, and it's only my
> impression, but that's the way I read it.

Same here. AFAIK, it's between Cover and Point, hence the name.

Mick

by **Mad Hami** » Mon, 06 Jan 2003 22:55:47

Quote:

>Hey folks,

>Breifly, are cover point and point the same position?

>I've looked at lots of fielding position diagrams on the net. Some indicate
>that the answer is "yes", others "no". Does anyone know fore sure? If you
>do, a reliable source would be appreciated.

Cover point is forward of square. Point is square.

Incidentally I understand that initially point was much closer in,
probably more of a catchng position. Cover point was a backup
fieldsman behind point.

That's why WG's book talks up the value of point fieldsmen so much.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001

Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws

by **Mark She** » Tue, 07 Jan 2003 01:01:56

Quote:

> Incidentally I understand that initially point was much closer in,
> probably more of a catchng position. Cover point was a backup
> fieldsman behind point.

I remember at one stage I caught the tail end of a description of why
each of the positions have the names they do on ABC...Third Man,
Gully, Cover, Slips etc. Anyone have a link to things like this?

Mark Shea

by **John P Darc** » Tue, 07 Jan 2003 06:35:20

Quote:

> Hey folks,

> Breifly, are cover point and point the same position?

> I've looked at lots of fielding position diagrams on the net. Some indicate
> that the answer is "yes", others "no". Does anyone know fore sure? If you
> do, a reliable source would be appreciated.

It's like pronunciation of words - it depends on where you grew up and
which school you went to.

"Point" is the position level with the popping crease, defending against
a single. However, some fielding diagrams show "old fashioned point" as
a *catching* position level with the popping crease. It may be that
those who refer to the defensive version as "cover point" are
differentiating between the two.

My opinion: If the striker is at the centre of a clock face, with the
bowler at 6 o'clock, I would say 7 o'clock is mid-off, 8 o'clock is
cover, and 9 o'clock is point. A fielder at 8:30 would be "cover point"
(ie, a combination of the two), a fielder at 7:30pm would be "extra
cover".

--

Cheers

John

#########################################
Is that an African or a European swallow?
#########################################

by **Scot** » Tue, 07 Jan 2003 17:03:57

agreed, good explanation!!

Quote:

> My opinion: If the striker is at the centre of a clock face, with the
> bowler at 6 o'clock, I would say 7 o'clock is mid-off, 8 o'clock is
> cover, and 9 o'clock is point. A fielder at 8:30 would be "cover point"
> (ie, a combination of the two), a fielder at 7:30pm would be "extra
> cover".

> --

> Cheers

> John

> #########################################
> Is that an African or a European swallow?
> #########################################

by **Larry de Silv** » Wed, 08 Jan 2003 17:14:36

Quote:

> Hey folks,

> Breifly, are cover point and point the same position?

> I've looked at lots of fielding position diagrams on the net. Some
indicate
> that the answer is "yes", others "no". Does anyone know fore sure? If you
> do, a reliable source would be appreciated.

In my humble opinion, point is in direct line with the batsman's crease on
his off side, and cover point is a bit deeper and more towards the the
bowling crease on the off side, just directly opposite the mid wicket on the
leg side.

Larrikin

Quote:

> Cheers,

> Nick

by **Bob Dube** » Wed, 08 Jan 2003 18:09:03

Quote:

>>Hey folks,

>>Breifly, are cover point and point the same position?

>>I've looked at lots of fielding position diagrams on the net. Some indicate
>>that the answer is "yes", others "no". Does anyone know fore sure? If you
>>do, a reliable source would be appreciated.

>Cover point is forward of square. Point is square.

That's how I construe them too. Point is square, cover point a little
forward of point (between cover and point)

Quote:

>Incidentally I understand that initially point was much closer in,
>probably more of a catchng position. Cover point was a backup
>fieldsman behind point.

Point was originally "point of bat". Same angle relative to the
batsman as it is now but a lot closer in.

There was an interesting little thread recently about the origin of
the term "3rd man". A lot of positions we take as normal now are
substantially changed from the original position. WG would certainly
be surprised by the placing of a modern 3rd man or point.

by **Mad Hami** » Wed, 08 Jan 2003 19:07:05

Quote:

>>Incidentally I understand that initially point was much closer in,
>>probably more of a catchng position. Cover point was a backup
>>fieldsman behind point.

>Point was originally "point of bat". Same angle relative to the
>batsman as it is now but a lot closer in.

>There was an interesting little thread recently about the origin of
>the term "3rd man". A lot of positions we take as normal now are
>substantially changed from the original position. WG would certainly
>be surprised by the placing of a modern 3rd man or point.

Yeah, and knowing this sort of thing makes it much easier to
understand the reputation of some old players.
I've got WG's book and he praises some point fieldsmen to the heavens
which didn't make sense to me when I first read it.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001

Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws

Sport Today

Cover point = point?

Cover point = point?

Cover point = point?

Cover point = point?

Cover point = point?

Cover point = point?

Cover point = point?

Cover point = point?

Cover point = point?

Cover point = point?

Cover point = point?