See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326657737

Key match activities of different fielding positions and categories in one-day

international cricket

Article in International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport · July 2018

DOI: 10.1080/24748668.2018.1501994

CITATIONS READS

5 10,795

3 authors, including:

John Cronin Paul Macadam

Auckland University of Technology None
438 PUBLICATIONS 19,595 CITATIONS 41 PUBLICATIONS 665 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Paul Macadam on 27 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport

ISSN: 2474-8668 (Print) 1474-8185 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpan20

Key match activities of different fielding positions

and categories in one-day international cricket

Danielle C. MacDonald Wells, John B. Cronin & Paul Macadam

To cite this article: Danielle C. MacDonald Wells, John B. Cronin & Paul Macadam (2018): Key
match activities of different fielding positions and categories in one-day international cricket,
International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, DOI: 10.1080/24748668.2018.1501994

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2018.1501994

Published online: 27 Jul 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpan20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT
https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2018.1501994

Key match activities of different fielding positions and

categories in one-day international cricket
Danielle C. MacDonald Wellsa,b,c, John B. Croninb,c and Paul Macadamb
a
High Performance Sport New Zealand, Mairangi Bay, Auckland, New Zealand; bSports Performance
Research Institute New Zealand (SPRINZ) at AUT Millennium, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland,
New Zealand; cNew Zealand Cricket, High Performance Unit, Christchurch, New Zealand

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Fielding has gained considerable importance in the game of Received 28 May 2018
cricket; however, there is a paucity of research in this area com- Accepted 16 July 2018
pared to batting and bowling. The purpose of this study therefore KEYWORDS
was to quantify the movement demands of one-day international Throwing; catching;
(ODI) fielding. Television footage of eight games (16 innings) from efficiency; video analysis;
the 2011 ODI World Cup was analysed using the video analysis SportsCode
package SportsCode. The variables of interest included 16 fielding-
related activities and two efficiency calculations. These variables
were calculated for fielding positions (excluding wicketkeepers)
and categories of fielding. There were on average 177 ± 52 fielding
contacts and 12 ± 6 fielding mistakes per innings. The activity in
the field was split between the fielding categories: 20% close
fielding, 51% inner circle fielding and 29% outer circle fielding.
The positions with the most fielding activity per innings were
bowler (26), cover (24), backward point (14), mid-off (14) and
midwicket (14). Understanding the movement demands of cricket
fielding provides value to coaches when designing assessments,
and individualising training programmes to match positional and
categorical (close, inner and outer) fielding demands.

1. Introduction
There are three main components to the game of cricket: batting, bowling and fielding.
Fielding in cricket is for the most part the on-field action of players related to collecting the
ball after a batsman strikes it. Fielding has gained considerable importance in the game of
cricket as the saving of runs is an important factor in winning matches, particularly in the
shorter formats of the game (Saikia, Bhattacharjee, & Lemmer, 2012). Moreover, a high
level of fielding can keep the pressure on the opposition batsmen which can contribute to
batting mistakes. However, there is a lack of research into fielding and the differences
between fielding positions, compared to batting and bowling (MacDonald, Cronin, Mills,
McGuigan, & Stretch, 2013). The most prevalent type of fielding research has been time–
motion analyses (Petersen, Pyne, Dawson, Portus, & Kellett, 2010; Petersen, Pyne, Portus, &
Dawson, 2009, 2011; Vickery et al., 2018). These studies used Global Positional Systems

CONTACT Paul Macadam [email protected] AUT Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand,
Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1020, New Zealand
© 2018 Cardiff Metropolitan University
2 D. C. MACDONALD WELLS ET AL.

(GPS) technology to track players’ movements during the different formats of the game to
quantify time spent and distances covered at different exercise intensities. However, these
studies have focussed either on the batsmen, bowler or cumulatively all fielding positions
together; none have investigated specific positions or categories, e.g. inner circle vs. outer
circle fielders. While time–motion analyses can provide physical information, which is
important for practitioners to develop position-specific training programmes and recovery
periods based on quantified game demands (Petersen, Pyne, Portus, Karppinen, & Dawson,
2009), it doesn’t provide all performance-related information or information about the
specific demands of each fielding position.
Single, closed skill components of fielding performance such as throwing and catch-
ing have been previously investigated. A speed–accuracy trade-off was found to exist
between overarm throwing velocity and accuracy in elite and sub-elite cricketers
(Freeston, Ferdinands, & Rooney, 2007). The relative number of throws was found to
be greatest during traditional cricket training (68 ± 18 vs. 4 ± 1 h −1) when compared to
one-day matches, suggesting a greater understanding of fielding requirements is needed
(Vickery et al., 2018). An earlier study by Shilbury (1990) quantified the skills associated
with fielding during a cricket game and focussed on two areas: frequency of skills
required in 25 defined fielding positions and analysis of fielding patterns of individual
players. Shilbury (1990) reported that the wicketkeeper took the most fielding contacts
(21%), followed by cover (~12%), mid-on and mid-off (~9.5% each). However, only six
multi-day games by one team from the 1986/87 cricket season were analysed and these
were first class not elite international level games. Additionally, only a very limited
number of activities were recorded: “fielded ball”, “fielded ball and overarm throw”,
“fielded ball and underarm throw” and “catches and attempted catches”. Therefore, a
need exists to gain a greater understanding of the skills and sub-skills required for each
fielding position. Given this paucity of information and the identified gaps in the
literature, the purpose of this study was to quantify the match activities of fielding,
including ambulatory and stationary activities in one-day international (ODI) cricket.
Fielding performance was investigated with respect to different fielding categories and
positions to establish if positional performance differences exist. Understanding the
playing demands of cricket fielding would be of value to coaches when designing
training programmes and activities, as it would allow players strengths and weaknesses
and suitability for certain fielding positions to be established.

2. Methods
2.1. Subjects
The participants were the male international players who took part in eight
matches (group stage and semi-finals) during the 2011 ODI World Cup. The
teams involved were Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Kenya, South Africa, New Zealand and
Australia. The institution’s ethics committee (AUTEC) confirmed that ethics
approval was not required, as footage that had previously been publically broadcast
was analysed and therefore no verbal or physical agreement was needed with
relevant parties.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT 3

2.2. Study design

An observational design was used from the television footage of eight games (16 innings)
from the 2011 ODI World Cup which was obtained from the International Cricket Council.

2.3. Variables of interest

The fielding activities were identified from previous research (MacDonald, Cronin,
McGuigan, & Stretch, 2013) and defined and validated through expert consultation
with coaches (Table 1). This list of activities was designed to be more comprehensive
than that of Shilbury (1990) in quantifying fielding performance. In addition to the
fielding activities, the “ball in play” frequency was coded. The ball was deemed to be in
play if it required intervention by a fielder or went through to the wicketkeeper. This
value was required for fielding efficiency calculations.

2.4. Data and statistical analyses

All footage was imported onto a MacBook Pro laptop and was analysed using the video
analysis package SportsCode Elite v.8.10 (Sheppard et al., 2008). All matches were
analysed by the principal investigator. For each player who fielded the ball, the fielding

Table 1. Operational definitions of match activities of cricket fielders.

Activity Type and Definition
Catch The ball has hit the bat or gloves of the batsmen, and is then caught by a fielder, dismissing the
batsman
Dropped catch The ball has made contact with the bat or gloves of the batsmen, the ball makes contact with
the fielders’ hands but is not caught cleanly and it touches the ground
Run-out A fielder receives and removes the bails before the batsman has made his ground, resulting in
the dismissal of the batsman, either with a direct hit of the stumps with a throw from the field
or by passing to another fielder
Missed run-out A fielder fails to remove the stumps (either with a throw or with ball in hand), when the batsman
is still short of his ground and would otherwise have been dismissed
Field The player retrieves the ball following a shot played by a batsman
Misfield The fielder makes contact with the ball with his hand but fails to retrieve or stop the ball cleanly
Sliding stop Descending onto one knee to slide next to the ball, allowing momentum to regain footing
(Woolmer et al., 2008)
Stop The player stops the balls progress across the field using a part of his body
Missed stop The player attempts to stop the balls trajectory with part of his body and either misses the ball
or makes contact with the ball but fails to stop it
Underarm throw Ball is drawn back with the hand pointing to the ground before releasing the ball
Sidearm throw Arm is approximately parallel to the ground when the ball is released
Overarm throw The ball is drawn back over the shoulder, so that it faces backwards, before the arm unwinds and
throws it straight over the shoulder at the target (Woolmer et al., 2008)
Field and throw The fielder fields the ball and in the same action immediately throws the ball without moving
from the spot where they fielded it
Sprint When a fielder moves at speed from his position in any given direction to cut off, field or catch
the ball.
Dive When the fielder dives to one direction (usually laterally, occasionally forward) to attempt to take
or catch the ball
Jump The fielder projects vertically in an attempt to take or catch the ball
Following chase When a second fielder moves at speed from his position in any given direction to support,
another player in chasing the ball
Roll Roll following a fielding action, usually laterally
4 D. C. MACDONALD WELLS ET AL.

actions were identified and coded, including individual fielding positions, which fell
under the categories identified (in red) in Figure 1.
The matrix function of SportsCode was used to export the results of each innings
into Microsoft Excel for further analysis. For each innings analysed, the total number of
balls delivered was calculated and the frequency of all variables was determined. Prior
to this investigation, the intra-coder reliability for each variable was determined using a
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (Hopkins, 2000), and most variables of interest were found
to have acceptable reliability with an International Cricket Council(ICC) of 0.85 to
1.00. As the games analysed all varied in duration, the total number of activities from all
16 innings was summed; activity totals were divided by this total value to express the
results as a percentage of activity. This was to correct for the lack of equal numbers of
overs per innings, normalising the data to provide a better level of comparability. Basic
descriptive statistics such as mean and standard deviation were calculated for all
variables for each fielding category. The total number of fielding contacts was calculated
summing up the total numbers of fields, misfields, stops and missed stops. The intensity

Figure 1. Fielding categories and permutations.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT 5

of efforts was calculated by dividing the total number of activities per the number of
overs. Team efficiency was quantified as follows:

Team efficiency % = ((Ball in play – ground fielding mistakes) ÷ Ball in play) × 100

3. Results
The average innings duration for this sample of games was 41 ± 8 overs, with the ball in
play on average 84 ± 11% of the innings. There were on average 177 ± 52 fielding
contacts and 12 ± 6 fielding mistakes per innings. Overall team efficiency was
94.0 ± 2.3% ranging from 89.0% to 98.0%. The activity in the field was split between
the fielding categories: 20% close fielding, 51% inner circle fielding and 29% outer circle
fielding. The positions with the most fielding activity in an ODI innings were bowler,
cover, backward point, mid-off and midwicket, all of which were close or inner circle
fielding positions (see heat map – Figure 2).

Figure 2. Heat map of number of fielding activities per position. Key: high contacts (>15), moderate
contacts (9–14), low contacts (4–8), minimum contacts (<3).
6 D. C. MACDONALD WELLS ET AL.

The previous study that most closely matches this study in quantifying fielding skill
was that of Shilbury (1990), who analysed fielding activity of first-class cricket. While
there is considerable difference in the sample in terms of size, quality and type of
cricket, this study was used for comparison. The distribution of fielding activity per
innings by position, comparing the current results with that of Shilbury (1990), can be
observed in Table 2. In both sets of results, the wicketkeeper has clearly the most
fielding activity of all of the fielding positions. It was for this reason that the wicket-
keeper performance requirements have been investigated separately; henceforth the
wicketkeeper is excluded from further discussion in this study. The match activities
across the 16 innings of fielders are summarised in Table 3.

4. Discussion
From the findings in this study, an insight into the elite fielding performance demands
of cricket was found. Cover was the fielding position that had the second most total
activity in the earlier study by Shilbury (1990); however, in this study bowlers (12.1%)
had the most fielding activity, which was closely followed by the cover fielder (11.3%).
This suggests that despite the changes seen in the game of cricket between the two
studies, cover is a still vital position. In fact, aside from the bowler (a close fielding
position) the top seven positions with the most fielding contacts were inner circle
fielding positions, as had been found previously. The increase (~5%) in the bowler’s
involvement in fielding activity can perhaps be attributed to the fact that the 2011
sample consisted of matches played in India, where conditions suit spin bowling during
which the bowler has a lower run-up speed and is more likely to be able to field off his
own bowling. Additionally, it can be deduced that the fielding aspect of cricket may
have a higher priority now than in the multi-day 1990 sample, due to the smaller
number of overs in the game. In limited overs cricket batting and bowling “power
plays” are employed; during these periods (a set number of overs) the number of

Table 2. Percentage of fielding contacts per position.

Study
Position Current results (%) Shilbury (1990) (%)
Wicketkeeper 32.4 20.9
Bowler 12.1 6.89
Cover 11.3 11.7
Backward point 6.81 2.65
Mid-off 6.66 9.51
Mid-wicket 6.59 5.31
Mid-on 6.34 9.45
Point 3.92 3.17
Extra cover 2.71 1.34
Deep mid-wicket 2.49 0.79
Square leg 2.07 3.65
Third man 1.92 1.65
Deep backward square leg 1.78 0.90
Slips 0.89 2.62
Backward square leg 0.82 1.76
Deep mid-on 0.46 0.69
Deep mid-off 0.32 0.45
Gully 0.25 3.00
Deep extra cover 0.25 0.24
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT 7

Table 3. Total counts of match activity across the 16 innings of play.

Activity Close fielders Inner fielders Outer fielders
Catch 13 18 11
Dropped catch 4 4 3
Run-out 1 3 0
Missed run-out 3 9 0
Field 437 747 170
Misfield 24 44 9
Stop 30 102 16
Missed stop 42 63 5
Sliding stop 0 1 1
Underarm throw 54 69 5
Sidearm throw 6 36 2
Overarm throw 13 123 136
Field and throw 50 546 635
Overthrow 32 1 3
Sprint 4 33 30
Dive 2 13 7
Jump 0 1 1
Following chase 0 2 1
Roll 1 3 2
Total 716 1820 1039
% from total activities 20% 51% 29%

fielders permitted outside the 30 yard inner circle is restricted. This is also likely a
contributing factor to the greater number of inner circle fielding contacts in the 2011
sample. Hereafter fielding performance will be discussed with respect to fielding
category to investigate positional differences in performance.

4.1. Close fielding requirements

There were seven close fielding positions included in this analysis: the bowler, leg slip,
short cover, short leg, short mid-wicket, silly mid-off and the slips (which is in fact
more than one position ranging from first to fifth slips, but for the sake of this
investigation were grouped into one). The bowler took the majority of all close fielding
activities (58.4%), followed by short cover (16.4%) and short midwicket (15.8%). Players
in close fielding positions fielded the ball on average 30 times per innings, approxi-
mately 20% of all deliveries for which the ball was in play. Of the close fielding
positions, the bowler most often fielded the ball from his own bowling, on average 27
times per innings. The tournament from which the 2011 sample was taken was held in
India with conditions suited to spin bowling. This is reflected in the fact that 57% of all
fielding of own bowling was by spin bowlers. For a spin bowler, fielding from his own
bowling is less reactive due to his lower run-up velocity and delivery speed. For a fast
bowler, fielding or stopping the ball is particularly difficult as they are in the middle of
the follow through after a delivery; fielding activity is often a result of reflexes and quick
reactions. Four catches were taken and two dropped catches were missed by the bowlers
over all 16 innings.
Close fielding resulted in 13 successful catches, with another 4 dropped. Slip
fielders in the eight games analysed took seven catches and missed two catches.
Their proximity to the batsmen is the obvious cause of these mistakes – there is very
little time to react and therefore anticipation and reflexes often play a part in
8 D. C. MACDONALD WELLS ET AL.

successful catches. A previous study by Scott, Kingsbury, Bennett, Davids, and

Langley (2000) measured movement initiation times (defined as the time between
ball projection and first movement of the hands) for slip catching; the average was
152 ± 53 ms. Although they may not have much fielding contact (~5% of close
fielding contact), slip fielding contact was usually a dismissal opportunity. Despite
their proximity to the batsmen, the majority (10 of 13) were taken with two hands.
This suggests that success in catching in close positions is attributable to preparation
and anticipation rather than reactions after the ball has been played. Close fielders
were usually only required to move a segment of their body (i.e. torso or arm) to
field or catch the ball. Of all the fielding contacts performed by close fielders, 58%
were one-handed actions and 42% two-handed. Due to their close proximity to the
batsmen, movement needed to be initiated in as short a time as possible and fielders
need to be prepared for this movement to be in any direction. In the 16 innings
analysed, close fielders were required to dive on two occasions only. This movement
may be infrequent but has the possibility of dismissing a batsman by catching or
stopping the ball by forming a barrier with the body. The underarm throw accounted
for nearly 14% of close fielding activity; however, this was almost solely used to pass
the ball to another player between deliveries (only 2 of the 54 underarm throws by
close fielders were throws at the stumps). In pressure situations, such as throwing for
a run-out, a sidearm or overarm throw was used.
From the results, it seems that close fielders were rarely required to sprint or cover
any distance at speed (only four sprints by close fielders were recorded in the analysis),
these fielders rather requiring the ability to execute skills such as catching and stopping
the ball from their original position very close to the batsman. It was observed that close
fielders tended to keep their stance low to the ground and move upwards to field the
ball if possible. Some positions exhibited a small preparatory movement or loading
phase prior to movement.

4.2. Inner circle fielding requirements

Fifteen inner circle fielding positions were analysed: backward point, cover, extra cover,
cover point, point, gully, leg gully, mid-off (and short and deep mid-off), mid-on (and
short and deep mid-on), midwicket, short fine leg, square leg, backward square, forward
square and short third man. Over half (51%) of all fielding activity involved the inner
circle fielders. This high percentage of involvement was likely to be in part due to the
fielding restrictions in use in ODI cricket, when a limited number of fielders were
permitted outside of the 30 yard inner circle during “power play” phases of the game.
The three positions with the most fielding activity were cover (21%), mid-off (12%) and
backward point (12%), all offside positions. These positions fielded and stopped the ball
more often than any other inner circle fielding position. Over 46% of all inner circle
fielding activity recorded involved fielding or stopping the ball. From the innings
analysed, inner circle fielders on average fielded the ball 80 times per innings. This
was achieved by either using one (30%) or two hands (60.0%), a foot (2.0%), or forming
a long barrier with the body by diving in front of the ball (8.0%). There were on average
seven ground fielding mistakes per innings by inner circle fielders (44 misfields and 63
missed stops).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT 9

In total, 18 catches were taken by inner circle fielders, which corresponded to over a
third of all the catches taken. In addition to fielding the ball frequently, backward point
took six catches, twice as many as the next position (mid-off). The majority of catches
taken by inner circle fielders required a moderate to large amount of quick movement
in order to be in a position to take the catch. Despite this, all catches taken by the inner
circle fielders were taken with two hands rather than one. While this may be the case for
this sample, it can be inferred that the ability to be able to quickly get into position to
catch the ball with two hands should be prerequisite for good inner circle fielding
performance but they should be able to catch one-handed if need be. Analysis of
throwing proved that inner circle fielders employed different throwing techniques
depending on the situation. If they had fielded the ball from their original position,
an underarm throw (30%) was used to pass the ball, or if they were throwing with more
urgency for a shy at the stumps a sidearm throw was used (16%). The sidearm throw
had an action that can be described as a “flick”; analysis of the coded throws revealed
that the shoulder angle at release varied considerably. Over half of all throws by inner
circle fielders were overarm (54%); often inner circle fielders had run from their original
position to field the ball, and therefore had a greater distance to cover with the return
throw. It was possible to identify from the video a variety of different footwork patterns
used in preparation for the return throw. The purpose of these preparatory movements
was to position to form a strong base from which to throw. These footwork patterns
were identified as “crow hop”, “replace feet” and “split step” (Woolmer, Noakes, &
Moffett, 2008). Following fielding the ball, the “crow hop” is a movement that consists
of a hopping action with the leading foot to form a stable base from which to throw.
When using the “replace feet” pattern, one foot was moved in towards the sagittal
plane, and placed in the place of the other foot, similar to a skipping action. The split
step did not cover much ground, but consisted of the movement of one foot away from
the centre in order to form a wide base from which to throw. The “split step” was the
most recorded pattern (63% of throws), followed by “replace feet” (25%) and “crow
hop” (12%). The choice of footwork used was dependant on how much time the fielders
had to prepare and how far they had to throw. There also appeared to be a degree of
personal preference when it came to throwing technique. Fielders’ anthropometry and
individual strengths and weaknesses appeared to contribute to individual technique
selection. However, the fielders did not always have the time to set a position to throw
after fielding the ball; 10% of the recorded throws by inner circle fielders were from an
unbalanced position; 4% of balls were thrown with the player still on their knees having
fielded the ball. Players in inner circle fielding positions are often in a position with the
potential to affect a run-out; in this sample, three run-outs involving inner circle fielders
took place. The throws at the stumps were predominately overarm (50.0%) and sidearm
(39.0%), indicating that the underarm throw was not generally used when throwing for
speed and accuracy.
From the above findings of the movement analysis, it can be concluded that inner
circle fielding position requirements necessitate explosive movements such as diving
and sprinting. While they have greater amount of time for decision-making and
movement initiation than close fielders, inner circle fielders have greater ground to
cover. A greater number of sprints were found in this position compared to the other
positions. The length of the sprint depended on how strongly the batsman had hit the
10 D. C. MACDONALD WELLS ET AL.

ball and whether a fielder had been able to get a hand to it to take some momentum off
the ball. In addition to the sprints recorded, inner circle fielders on average performed
two support runs per innings. A support run is a sprint, defined by the fact that the
fielder is running in support of a primary fielder; they may be required to field the ball
in tandem or perform the return throw if the primary fielder is unable to do so.

4.3. Outer circle fielding requirements

The outer circle field consisted of 21 different positions outside of the 30 yard circle.
Outer circle fielders were involved in 29% of all the fielding activity recorded. The
positions with the most total activity were long on (14%), deep square leg (13%) and
deep forward square and deep midwicket (7%). Players in outer circle fielding positions
were involved in on average 50 fielding contacts per innings. There were only 14
ground fielding mistakes in all total ground fielding recorded for outer circle fielders.
Of these fielding contacts, 74% of them were two-handed fielding actions, 22% one-
handed. Four per cent of outer circle fielding involved forming a barrier in front of the
ball, by either diving or performing a sliding stop. Outer circle fielders were usually
required to move from their original position to field the ball. Therefore, these positions
prepared to field by walking in towards the circle from their initial position, from which
point they could move in any direction as deemed appropriate. Due to their distance
away from the batting crease, outer circle fielders had the greatest time in which to
move to field the ball, but also the greatest distances to cover. Outer circle fielding
positions were required to sprint less frequently than for inner circle fielders but they
had greater distances to cover. It was observed that outer circle fielders had to sprint
from a few metres to approximately 30 m in order to field, either towards the boundary
chasing the ball, or around the edge of the boundary to get in position to cut the ball
off. Following the sprint, the fielders often had to perform explosive movements such as
a dive or a jump to field the ball; they rarely had the opportunity to stop and position
themselves to perform their skill.
In total, 11 catches were taken by outer circle fielding positions; the most catches taken
by one position was four, by long on and deep square leg. Outer circle fielder catches
comprised 37% of all catches taken. Analysis of the catches from the video showed that
outer circle fielders are subject to a variety of catching conditions and pressures. The
majority of the catches taken (76%) required a moderate amount of movement prior to
taking the catch. This is most likely due to the fielding restriction in ODI cricket, limiting
the number of fielders permitted outside the inner circle. Often the batsman had miscued
the ball high into the air and the fielders had plenty of time to position themselves for the
catch. Three of the outer circle catches were more difficult and hence spectacular to watch;
for example, one catch was taken by deep midwicket who ran half way around the
boundary to catch it on the run, when it looked to be going for 6 runs. Three catches
were dropped by outer circle fielding. All of the catches taken by outer circle fielders were
taken with two hands; in the case of the dropped catches, on all three occasions the fielders
managed to get two hands to the ball but failed to secure the catch. Observations from the
video analysis showed that the dropped catches were the result of fielders misjudging the
distances when positioning to take the catch. Outer circle fielders most often performed a
return throw immediately having fielded the ball; this was coded as “field and throw” in the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT 11

video analysis. Due to their distance away from the batting crease, outer circle fielders were
required to return the ball quickly in order to concede as few runs as possible. To achieve
this, they overwhelmingly used the overarm throwing technique (95%). The remaining 5%
of throws were side arm throws; outer circle fielders rarely employed the underarm throw.
Unlike the other fielding categories that used the overarm throw technique when throwing
under pressure, outer circle fielders were always under pressure to return the ball as quickly
and efficiently as possible. Even when passing to another fielder, the distances between
them are so large that an overarm throw is required even to pass to another fielder.
The footwork used to position to throw appeared to vary due to a combination of
influences including individual technique preference and circumstances of the fielding action.
Twenty-five per cent of outer fielding throws used a “crow hop” to place a stable front foot
from which to propel a throw as fair as possible. Alternatively, some fielders used the “replace
feet” technique (35%). When circumstances did not permit a great deal of movement to
prepare to throw, a split step was used (34%) to form a strong base from which to throw. Four
per cent of the throws by outer circle fielders were coded as being from an unbalanced
position, the remaining 1.0% the fielders threw when still on their knees having fielded the
ball. Occasionally, the primary fielder was not in a position to return the ball (usually due to
having dived full length to stop it), and therefore the ball was passed to a supporting fielder
who then executed the return throw. Due to the distance, outer circle fielders rarely had direct
throws at the stumps; just three throws from outer circle fielders occurred in the sample.
While infrequent, direct hits of the stumps from the outfield are possible, and therefore outer
circle fielders must be prepared to throw for speed, distance and accuracy.
The movement analysis findings show it that outer circle fielding position requirements
necessitate a chain of movements and skills which lead to the ball being fielded, rather than
a discrete event. Outer circle fielders cover a larger distance of all the fielding positions;
therefore, ideally players in these positions should be fast up to distances of 40 m. Fielders in
this position often have to perform explosive movements such as a dive or a jump to field
the ball and they rarely have the opportunity to stop and position themselves to perform
their skill. Video analysis of the catches taken showed that outer circle fielders are subject to
a variety of catching conditions and pressures and missed or dropped catches result from
misjudging the distances when positioning to take the catch.

5. Conclusions
The results of the video analysis allow conclusions to be drawn regarding the match
performance requirements of fielders with respect to each fielding category. This
information can be used to make recommendations in terms of training and assessment
of players. This study demonstrated that there are positional differences in cricket
fielding and it can be concluded that players with certain attributes will be suited to
fielding in different areas of the field. This should be taken into consideration when
selecting assessments and prescribing training. It should be noted that off the ball
movement was not recorded (i.e. off-screen), and therefore some players most likely
would have performed additional movements. For example, there might be multiple
players covering the different ends when a player jogs, runs or sprints to back up a
throw that may be anticipated to come into either the wicketkeeper or bowlers end.
12 D. C. MACDONALD WELLS ET AL.

6. Practical applications
6.1. Close fielding
Good reaction times and catching ability are vital requirements for close circle fielding.
Therefore, it would be beneficial to have some measure of these fielders’ decision-
making and movement times. An acyclic measure of multidirectional leg power most
likely would give insight into strengths and weaknesses of their movement ability and
might be integrated with the movement time measure to determine movement cap-
ability. Calculating catching efficiency retrospectively from game footage can provide a
measure of catching ability. In depth analysis of the footage can be used to understand
the determinants of successful and unsuccessful catches, thus providing coaches with
valuable information to improve technical ability of this position. Close fielders often
employ an underarm throw when there is no pressure to return the ball; however, in
high pressure situations such as attempting a run-out, close fielders need to be able to
overarm throw at the stumps with speed and accuracy. Testing this skill from a static
position with little reaction time should simulate the pressure seen in match conditions
and will assist in improving throwing accuracy in close fielding positions.

6.2. Inner circle fielding

From the results of the inner circle analysis, it can be inferred that inner circle fielders
need to have a wide variety of fielding skills and attributes. The video analysis has
demonstrated that inner circle fielders’ performance requirements ranged from taking
sharp catches with little reaction time similar to close fielding, to sprinting relatively large
distances to field the ball. A certain degree of athleticism will be necessary to perform the
explosive movements required in the inner circle. While there is currently no valid cricket
agility test, some measure of a player’s agility would be useful in determining suitability
for fielding in the inner circle. All three throwing techniques are used by inner circle
fielders; therefore, aspects such as technical weaknesses and implications for injury must
be taken into consideration when designing throwing assessments. Throwing assessments
should assess movement time (the time taken to set to throw) as well as throwing speed
and accuracy. Throwing ability should be assessed from both stable and unbalanced
positions to simulate match conditions as much as possible.

6.3. Outer circle fielding

Fielding for an outer circle fielder can most accurately be described as a chain of
movements and skills which lead to the ball being fielded, rather than a discrete
event. Outer circle fielders cover the most distance of all the fielding positions; therefore
ideally players in these positions should be fast up to distances of 40 m. Using tall
fielders on the boundary rope when possible would prove to be beneficial, as their
height provides an advantage when jumping to prevent the ball going over the bound-
ary. A strong throwing arm is a prerequisite for fielders in the outer circle, as there is a
large distance to cover with the return throw. If a timely throw is returned while the
batsmen are running between the wickets, there is the potential to dismiss the batsman
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT 13

through a run-out. Usually this occurs by passing to another fielder, although the best
outer circle fielders can hit the stumps directly from distance.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: This research was supported by the New Zealand Cricket and High
Performance Sport New Zealand.

References
Freeston, J., Ferdinands, R., & Rooney, K. (2007). Throwing velocity and accuracy in elite and
sub-elite cricket players: A descriptive study. European Journal of Sport Science, 7(4), 231–237.
Hopkins, W. (2000). Measures of reliabilty in sports medicine and science. Sports Medicine, 30, 1–15.
MacDonald, D. C., Cronin, J. B., McGuigan, M., & Stretch, R. A. (2013). A survey of the
performance demands of cricket fielding and wicket-keeping. Journal of Athletic
Enhancement, 2(6), 1–6.
MacDonald, D. C., Cronin, J. B., Mills, J., McGuigan, M., & Stretch, R. A. (2013). A review of
cricket fielding demands. South African Journal of Sports Medicine, 25(3), 87–92.
Petersen, C., Pyne, D., Dawson, B., Portus, M., & Kellett, A. (2010). Movement patterns in cricket
vary by both position and game format. Journal of Sports Sciences, 28(1), 45–52.
Petersen, C., Pyne, D., Portus, M., & Dawson, B. (2009). Quantifying positional movement patterns
in Twenty20 cricket. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 9, 165–170.
Petersen, C., Pyne, D., Portus, M., & Dawson, B. (2011). Comparison of player movement
patterns between 1-day and test cricket. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,
25(5), 1368–1373.
Petersen, C., Pyne, D., Portus, M., Karppinen, S., & Dawson, B. (2009). Variability in movement
patterns during one day internationals by a cricket fast bowler. International Journal of Sports
Physiology and Performance, 4, 278–281.
Saikia, H., Bhattacharjee, D., & Lemmer, H. H. (2012). A double weighted tool to measure the fielding
performance in cricket. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 7(4), 699–713.
Scott, K., Kingsbury, D., Bennett, S., Davids, K., & Langley, M. (2000). Effects of cricket ball
colour and illuminance levels on catching behaviour in professional cricketers. Ergonomics, 43
(10), 1681–1688.
Sheppard, J., Hobson, S., Barker, M., Taylor, K., Chapman, D., McGuigan, M., & Newton, R.
(2008). The effect of training with accentuated eccentric load counter-movement jumps on
strength and power characteristics of high-performance volleyball players. International
Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 3(3), 355–363.
Shilbury, D. (1990). An analysis of fielding patterns of an “A” grade cricket team. Sports Coach,
13(4), 41–44.
Vickery, W., Duffield, R., Crowther, R., Beakley, D., Blanch, P., & Dascombe, B. J. (2018).
Comparison of the physical and technical demands of cricket players during training and
match-play. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 32(3), 821–829.
Woolmer, B., Noakes, T. D., & Moffett, H. (2008). Bob Woolmer’s art and science of cricket. New
South Wales, Australia: New Holland Publishers (UK) Ltd.

View publication stats