I'm delighted to welcome a brand new contributor: Brisbane cricketer, Simon Eggins. Simon will be providing a regular view on the club game from Down Under. Inspired by a discussion he had with his captain, Simon tells us about the merit of using a third man in the early stages of a game.

Picture this situation in a typical unlimited overs game. Your team is bowling on the morning of the first day having lost the toss, and after 15 or so overs when you come off for the first drinks break you check the scorebook to find that the opposition is 1/40 (or 40/1 if you're not in Australia) – a disappointing result given your side's total dominance so far. Your opening bowlers have done brilliantly, getting the ball consistently in good areas and moving it away from the right handers, there's been play and miss after play and miss and balls falling just short of the slips, with only a lone edge going to hand. With the exception of one majestic off drive, very little has been hit successfully off the square.

So how did the batting side manage to score 40? You quickly remember – amongst all the false strokes played by the batsmen in the early stages, there were at least six or seven wild swings outside off that rocketed off the edge for four down to third man, too quick for the packed slips cordon. Ah well, nothing we could have done about that you think – the batsmen were just having a lucky day and perhaps top order players are entitled to a few nicks for four as compensation for having to face the new ball.

Certainly the fielding team in this scenario were unlucky – they had fielders in catching positions and the rub of the green just didn't go their way. But could they have done anything to stem the flow of runs?

A third man would have been the obvious solution – if one had been in position that 1/40 score would have been more in the order of 1/19. Still only one wicket down, but that looks and feels much better for the fielding side, and the runs saved could even make the difference in a closely fought match. It's only a matter of 20 odd runs, but it's likely the not out batsmen won't feel anywhere near as comfortable having seen that score and will feel pressure to start to push it along soon, if for no other reason than to at least get themselves into double figures.

The argument against the third man of course is that you have to take the fielder from somewhere, possibly away from an attacking position in the slips or the gully, which is certainly a good reason to say no. Fine in a limited overs encounter, but how could you even consider it in the longer version of the game?

Ultimately setting a field comes down to prioritising. Slips and gullies are certainly number one on the list when the new ball moving away from the bat in the early overs, but perhaps third man shouldn't be too far behind. After all, what's the point blocking off cover if the batsmen are struggling to hit the moving ball anyway, and the only real chance they have for a four is a nick down to third man? In fact, leaving a gap on the offside is a great way of encouraging the drive – just what you want the batsman to do. I would argue that if you can trust the bowler the third man would also be a priority over a mid-wicket or square leg fielder (unless the bowler is trying to attack the stumps rather than bowling in the corridor of uncertainty). Not too much is going to go out on the leg side (you hope), and again you probably want to be encouraging batsman to play across the line. It may even be that the third man is also a potential catcher – particularly if you're up against a batsman who specialises in flashy cut shots where, if they connect, the slips and gullies will have no chance but the third man may be handed a sitter.

So while we see the third man employed consistently in limited overs cricket, it may be that it could be used more in the longer version of the game as well, even in the early stages. To go back to the scenario above – I'd take 1/19 over 1/40 anytime.