• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Gender Neutral Cricket Terms

B

brandon

Striker
Aggers has taken a swipe…

Must say I agree with everthing he says.

If it’s men playing the game then it’ll always be ‘batsman’ and ‘third man’ as far as I’m concerned.

If it’s women’s cricket, I wouldn’t call someone in bat, the ‘batsman’. I think it’s fairly easy for people to find the best terminology in those circumstances. The MCC attempting to regulate language is all very draconian.

You must be logged on to see external links
 

Im a supporter of the womens game and follow it quite closely, but i have to agree, if its a mens game you can use batsman, yes if its women's game try and use batter, dont mind if you use batter in a mens game either, but dont force commentators to use it regardless in mens games,

As for third man, to me that's just its name, no different to cow corner or square leg, doesnt need to have a neutral term, its almost been abbreviated now anyway to just "third"
 
Being old, I misread the title of this thread as ‘Gender neutral teams’ 😂

Well that would have been a genuine talking point. I’m not sure that in 2024 with the significant growth in the women’s game, that talking about the terminology really is?

Just IMHO of course, people are entitled the their own views.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bri
Sillypoint said:
Im a supporter of the womens game and follow it quite closely, but i have to agree, if its a mens game you can use batsman, yes if its women's game try and use batter, dont mind if you use batter in a mens game either, but dont force commentators to use it regardless in mens games,

As for third man, to me that's just its name, no different to cow corner or square leg, doesnt need to have a neutral term, its almost been abbreviated now anyway to just "third"
Click to expand...

It’s being called ‘third’ so that it doesn’t offend people. That’s sort of the point though, if I’m watching men’s cricket - who is being offended if someone in that field position is being referred to as ‘third man’??

What’s more, ‘third’ is completely nonsensical. Are they on about third slip? Or are they on about the bloke down in the deep for the edge through the slips?! Atleast with a lot of the other field placings they’re descriptive, if you’re talking about short leg or long off - but ‘third’ means absolutely nothing 🤷‍♂️
 
brandon said:
It’s being called ‘third’ so that it doesn’t offend people.
Click to expand...
yeah could be. just seems to me thats the one thats been used the longest even before the batter/batsman debate, i wasnt sure if it was just down to laziness from the commentators

Mark Nicholas has done it for a while "dropped it down to third" or "At Short Third" etc, so theres always a caveat in a sentence to suggest where they are, but i totally agree in what your saying, Third man should be used in men and womens as thats the positions name
 
brandon said:
It’s being called ‘third’ so that it doesn’t offend people. That’s sort of the point though, if I’m watching men’s cricket - who is being offended if someone in that field position is being referred to as ‘third man’??

What’s more, ‘third’ is completely nonsensical. Are they on about third slip? Or are they on about the bloke down in the deep for the edge through the slips?! Atleast with a lot of the other field placings they’re descriptive, if you’re talking about short leg or long off - but ‘third’ means absolutely nothing 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...

Man of the match is now player of the match in the IPL. Probably elsewhere too.
 
mosi said:
Being old, I misread the title of this thread as ‘Gender neutral teams’ 😂

Well that would have been a enuine talking point. I’m not sure that in 2024 with the significant growth in the women’s game, that talking about the terminology really is?

Just IMHO of course, people are entitled the their own views.
Click to expand...

We’ve had gender neutral teams in local leagues for as long as I’ve been playing 🤷‍♂️
Paddy O'Dors said:
Man of the match is now player of the match in the IPL. Probably elsewhere too.
Click to expand...

Yeah, another example of bollocks.
 
Last edited:
brandon said:
We’ve had gender neutral teams in local leagues for as long as I’ve been playing 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
Id imagine even more so given the last few years,good few teams have lasses playing in the "Mens" Team

Young lass in Beamish 2nds always in the wickets
 
Here’s the thing though. The earliest eighteenth century versions of the laws use nouns that are gender neutral. Probably because they just assumed men would play and not women. But also because that’s how the language was then.

The early versions refer to “player”, “bowler”, “wicket keeper”, “striker”. Not bowlsman or strikesman. That would be absurd. The two principal gendered terms, “fieldsman” and “batsman”, appear for the first time in the 1860s and reflect a Victorian affectation for thinking that English should have gendered nouns because Latin and Greek do.

“Fieldsman” disappeared I think in the 1980 code, but even when I was growing up in the 1970s felt like a public school thing anyway. “Batsman” is the last one standing. This is not a fight you want to have. It is certainly not a fight where you want to align with some ridiculous sixtysomething public schoolboy.
 
Last edited:
brandon said:
Aggers has taken a swipe…

Must say I agree with everthing he says.

If it’s men playing the game then it’ll always be ‘batsman’ and ‘third man’ as far as I’m concerned.

If it’s women’s cricket, I wouldn’t call someone in bat, the ‘batsman’. I think it’s fairly easy for people to find the best terminology in those circumstances. The MCC attempting to regulate language is all very draconian.

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...
I take it you didn't catch the conversation on commentary about how many runs you need for it to be considered a daddy hundred. Bloke was asking that ozzy. He then said 'ah, but we shouldn't call them that should we, what about a mummy hundred' seemed to be in all seriousness.

Can't believe some people get paid to come out with this drivel tbh
 
I've followed Women's cricket for 15 years, my daughter has played Mens cricket for that long as well.

She calls it third man and batsmen.

Except if I'm at third man, when it's either Dad or you useless fat ****
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top