1. I don't think it is a captain's fault because batsmen these days will not think twice about exploiting whatever gap there is in the off-side created by moving one fielder to third man. This is also one of those areas where no stats analysis has been done because it is simply impossible to speculate how many runs might have been saved if a third man was there. This is because we will also have to take into account where that fielder is going to come from and how many runs might go there as a result.

2. The Internet's anonymity never brings out the best in people. It is as true for cricinfo as it is for youtube or cracked.com. A quick visit to message boards will confirm that cricinfo is no different or worse than the average BB on the Web.

3. 2005. The Aussies weren't expecting hostility and endless aggression then. They lost. Therefore, now they do. England don't seem to remember that this is 2009. England just don't seem to be able to shake off the ill effects of that great win.

My suspicions:

1. Third man is seen as a defensive position, and is therefore out of vogue in an attacking captaincy era.

2. Many possibilities! a) It makes them feel like they could have represented their country if only they'd had the time to apply themselves more (ie, it's delusional). b) It helps them to turn the topic to their favourite player, because the "rubbish" player is invariably compared with him (and how dare you talk about anyone else). c) It's a function of the internet in general, where anonymity gives people the "courage" to post the kind of rubbish they'd never dream of saying face to face, thus making them feel like world-beaters (ie, it's delusional).

3. Pitching short (or short of a length) becomes a habit that's hard to break. I suspect the English bowlers were fully aware of what they were doing; they just got "stuck" on a bad length and couldn't fix it, particularly with shoulders hunched and morale low after such a dismal batting effort.

I find the first question, which all sorts of commentators have been discussing, interesting and amusing.

When I began listening to Test Match Special in the late 50s the expert summarisers, Norman Yardley and Freddie Brown, Ex-England captains both, could not understand the new fashion for captains now put in a third man as routine from the start of a test; they argued that it was better to give away a few runs through there and the extra man in a catching position.

All the best
Graham

1. The captains beleive that abscence of a third man may tempt the batsman to flirt outside the off stump.Also with 3 slips and a gully and a keeper,the area is over populated.The choice is between a slip and a third man,and captains attack with the new ball and defend later on . A sweeper at widish point can probably cover squarish third man if represented by atheletic fiedsman like Symonds or Yuvraj.
2.This is probably the backlash due to excessive use of hyperbole in the media.The word glorious is used with every other boundary. Also,with former greats commentating and writing,an element of personal bias does creep up .Australian cricketers generally revel in emphasising the lack of greatness in their opponents,say the weakness of Saurav against shin music or Cullinan against Warne. Every one follows the leader and the virus has spread .
3.A fast bowling quatret is fresh and each one wants to go whole hog,so intimidation through short stuff.

Even I have been befuddled with this question. Its almost maddenning to see the number of boundaries that go through that region! The only reason I can think of is that when captains have a thickly populated slip cordon, having another man directly behind them seems a waste. So they don't keep a fine third man. And if the batsmen play the slash over the cordon that you're talking about, a square third man won't be able to make it anyway! So out goes the square third man too! In short, no third man at all!

I have another question! Why do captains, especially Ponting, keep gaps in their slip cordon? Isn't it much more sensible to have as long a slip cordon as you can (without gaps) and then have a third man whose squareness or fineness depends on the length of the slip cordon?

Firstly, third man may be seen as a defensive motion. Also, since fast bowlers are usually made to stand there, you might not want to have a third man because of fear of tiring your fast bowler.

1) Interesting observation from Graham. But i think Mike has a valid point in that increasingly batsman are steering it deliberately to the third man. I remember Chappelli(??) saying that it would be better to move the fielder from covers to thirdman. Let the batsman go for the drive and that might give more chances. A reason i guess is that bowlers seem to dismiss thirdman boundaries as lucky edges and hope for an unlucky edge.
2) Though your Caddick article was nice, many other articles in media now a days seem to overuse legend & great a bit too much. While i understand, you cannot expect players to provide very balanced public views on their peers, media needs to exercise more restraint. I would blame media to a certain extent for spoiling people with this all-blinding craze for only great players. With more such columns as the caddick one, it will perhaps see us appreciate them. And not forgetting the best books from cricketers are by those middle-ranking ones or even lower.

1. It is, to quote Michael Holding's least favorite phrase, "the modern way." It's been baffling me at times, especially when Strauss was trying to bowl out the tail-enders in Australia's first innings at Lord's. Well, I assume he was trying... the plan seemed to involve Broad bowling short and conceding tons of runs through the very place where edges were heading, i.e. third man.

2. I suspect you are referring to Andrew Flintoff. If so, you may have been on the receiving end of a backlash from people whose memories extend beyond 2005, and who are sick and tired of the hype that surrounds Flintoff and that series, even if they're English. Also, as others have pointed out, un-nuanced relativism is endemic in today's media. Flintoff is "great" relative to Lewis, DeFreitas, Cork, Pringle and Capel... but some of us question whether he comes anywhere CLOSE to Botham, Kapil, Hadlee, Imran, Kallis, Pollock, Sobers and Miller.

3. Puddings for brains.

Third-man has been moved into the commentary box.

I don't particularly have anything further to add, apart from the fact that it's nice to see such clever and well thought out comments around here without the flamin' flamewars to scroll through. Well done to the lot of you!

1.Against a world class batsman,what good can a short leg or silly point brings along with fast bowling,yet captains decide to risk a position to put some extra pressure.Why not do the same by placing a fielder at third man when there is a new shiny ball in the hand of a good operator who knows how to deliver a good outswinger at a speed of 90 miles per hour.
2.Media loves criticism,so do a lots of people.I guess it's not bad because there is only one thing worse than being talked about that is not being talked about.
3.you can't give a glare to a batsman after giving him a pefect delivery outside 1 inch of his offstamp,but with short-pitched ball whether it is hooked for four or makes the batsman dancing awkwardly,you can indulge that.I think English bowlers love this gratification.

1)Only the test captains can answer that - well there has to be some reason!

2)Websites should stop publishing utter rubbishes whether it be from journalists or as parts of the 'comments' section. But then every website loves a good fight, especially an Ind - Aus, Aus vs ROW or BCCI vs ICC [or anybody else for that matter]. I have doubts that some websites does it purposefully.

3)England did get Brad Haddin out with short pitched stuff, but agreed that they should pitch it up on a good length much more. And Steve Harmison and Flintoff can maybe do it, but the others including Broad should certainly pitch it up. And it seems that I am going to lose my bet - Australia are going to win 2-1 it seems. The England batting is not good enough and that's it.

1. Risk V Reward. No third man = more chance of a boundary from an edge = more shots away from the body = more chance of a catch.Not saying this is sound logic, but a possible explanation.

Also, third man has a wide arc to cover with the ball travelling very quickly. The runs saved might not justify removing another fielder.

2. Modern conditions which favour batsmen to a ridiculous degree (flat pitches, short boundaries etc) have resulted in a 50 average being almost par for the course. Players with a low to mid 40s average suddenly look like passengers (especially players who began their careers in the early 90s).

3. It's not just England, it's pretty much everyone. Again, unresponsive pitches are a major factor. Players get used to banging the ball in to try to get any sort of assistance, and continue to do so even when it's not necessary.

And I hate to say it, but sponsors (and hence IPL franchises) are more interested in seeing spectacular agression than quality bowling

not having a 3rd man might actually encourage the slashing shot and lead to more catches in the slips. with 3rd man there, the batsman wouldn't consider it the candle. Thats the only thinking i'd have for dispensing with 3rd man, because even without the slashes, so many runs go there through unintentional thick edges.

2) specific examples would be helpful. largely human nature to criticize though. some people also just communicate that way - when they say, "X was rubbish, crap", what they basically mean is "he was overrated/not as good as he was thought to be". A question of communication style would be my guess more than out and out hostility.

3) Pace bowlers have always gotten carried away with this. Steve Waugh was the best example - he never looked like he'd get out to the short ball, but they'd just keep pounding them in there. Even great bowlers like Ambrose, Donald etc.
fast bowlers tend to get carried away with seeing batsman uncomfortable at the expense of getting him out.

I have been continually frustrated at my team leaking runs down at the third man boundary. I pity Brett Lee who has been asked to bowl at top speed with no protection against the flying nicks and slashes. I think his bowling average, which currently is about 30 runs per wicket, would be reduced somewhat if he been bowling with third man on the boundary. For the first few overs of a test match when it is all-out atttack then it's fine not to have a man there. But once the batsmen are settled it appears prudent to me to have some protection in that region

I only find the absence of a third man baffling against tail-enders. That is where hundreds of runs are leaked. Top order batsmen are usually considerate enough to edge straight into the slip cordon.

Now, if the batsman is Sehwag, third man is a must.

It doesn't have to be a choice between an additional slip fielder and third man. You can just take mid on out and put him at third man, especially for bowlers whose stock delivery goes away from the batsman.