Anyone who is kicking off about the change to batter but did not kick off about fielder from fieldsman needs to wonder why they suddenly care about something like this and why they are buying into this crap.
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.
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
Sorry if you are offended by words being changed to make females feel more welcome.
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!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.
Jeez! It's like Harty's "Ladies and gentlemen" toy-throwing performance all over again.
I'm constantly amazed how many people fail to grasp the concept of evolution.
Sent from my SM-A415F using Tapatalk
About as offended as you are by this I guess https://www.skynews.com.au/australi...t/news-story/cb68cf9b9b834430b98a8773b7d1c5bf
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.
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 ).
These days if you say you’re English they throw you in jail.
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.
Actually thrown in jail? If you just say you're English? When did this come in?
You're just a shit Lenny Rider..
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.