Only 2 fielders behind square on the leg side

[boris_denominat]

Is this rule still neccessary? Was it ever? My thoughts on this subject say intuitively that increasing the limit to 3 would make in for some interesting cricket. Leg slips have generally gone out of the game and maybe an increase of one person would encourage a different and entertaining form of cricket? the ability to have a leg slip and also two men out for the hook could make things interesting. I am not too enlightened on this debate so what reasons are there to argue otherwise?

 

[Richard]

Leg-slip is a waste of a fielder IMO, as mostly is short-leg - to the seamers, that is, spinners can obviously use short-leg and silly-point, and even occasionally leg-slip. Virtually no front-line batsmen get caught there, it generally takes an awful shot to do so.

That said, a return to leg-theory tactics is not something I think anyone should actively encourage. 6 or 7 fielders might be a different case, though if some people are to be believed about how difficult it was to bowl, maybe not.

 

[Burgey]

Leg-slip is a waste of a fielder IMO, as mostly is short-leg. Virtually no front-line batsmen get caught there, it generally takes an awful shot to do so.

That said, a return to leg-theory tactics is not something I think anyone should actively encourage. 6 or 7 fielders might be a different case, though if some people are to be believed about how difficult it was to bowl, maybe not.

AWTA re. return to leg theory, particularly with regard to spinners.

May lead to more of the Warne in Adelaide last year stuff from around the wicket, or the Giles flat stuff from left arm over.

Short leg is a bit of a waste to the quicks on many of th ewickets they play on nowadays, still good fo rthe spinners with batpads of course.

I often think a shortish mid wicket or short, striaght mid -on might be a better spot early doors. When a batsman's still judging the pace of the wicket, I'd have thought he'd be more likely to clip a ball to those spots than to pop one up to a short leg.

 

[JBMAC]

Purely used as intimidation..clever if used properly and will create doubt in batsman's mind

 

[Richard]

Short leg is a bit of a waste to the quicks on many of th ewickets they play on nowadays, still good fo rthe spinners with batpads of course.

Have edited my 1st post, was meaning "to the seamers". It's still an essential position when spin is on the attack.

 

[James90]

Flicked one very fine off my pads to a seamer on Saturday and was dropped at leg slip. Didn't even know the **** was there.

 

[Richard]

That tends to be a good start.

 

[Migara]

For a big turner like Murali or Warne, 3 fielders behing square would have been a huge advantage, especially in ODIs

 

[bond21]

yea good idea, maybe for junior cricket.....

If a bowler needs more than 2 fielders behind square, he shouldnt be bowling.

 

[Somerset]

Personally I feel three leg side fielders behind square would promote negativity in ODIs, while a succession of short pitch balls down leg side would be more common in test cricket.

 

[Migara]

Possibly can put a limi that only two are allowed on the boundry and other one shoud be at 30 yards.

Some times it is heart breaking to see ripping leg spinner swept by a left hander, and gloving it and falling in nomads land.