Why is it viewed as more important

[trundler]

Legit questions, would you give extra points to pacers who had outright poor cordons, the same case as flat pitches?

No, because that again narrows any perceived gulf between Imran and the holy trinity. It makes Sobers better than Bradman though.

 

[Coronis]

Just because you disagree it's not a lie. There's been a lot of false narratives going around on this forum and it's ridiculous.

Cricket has three components, batting bowling and fielding. Yes, fielding cannot be a primary skills or criteria, but it's a vital part of the game. It bothers me not in the slightest if you agree or not.

Was reading through a match report up to last night from a match, India vs the WI, where it was list due to apparently no less than 8 drops. Pakistan just lost a test series because of one man in the cordon, I posted an article showing how, not only has it lost teams series, but was a major feature of two dynasties.
Apparently Bob Simpson made his test debut die to no small part because of his catching, I know Carl Hooper kept his pace for as long as consistently as he did because if his catching, for Waugh it was also a safety net.
A team cannot achieve consistent success home and away without a viable cordon.

The skills of Waugh, Sobers, Ponting, Kallis, Simpson, Botham, Hooper etc has changed matches and series. The constant disregard is hilarious.

I believe there’s an entire position on a cricket team that implies the exact opposite.

 

[shortpitched713]

16 or 17 runs per match doesn't sound much. But it is the equivalent of picking a batsman averaging 42 instead of one averaging 50.

To be fair, this did compare the absolute peak fielder, to a mediocre one, so the level of impact also wouldn't always be as great.

Or it could be much greater, if you're comparing that peak slipper to a typical one from Pakistan, lol.

 

[smash84]

It isn't also clear to me how slip fielding is a position that a good fielder cannot be trained for? Pakistan's slip fielding was dire because the general fielding was dire. It wasn't that Pakistan fielded like South Africa in every position except in the slips. Similarly, Australia have generally had an excellent standard of fielding all round, not just the slips. Mark Waugh was exceptional in the slips but he was also exceptional at catching close to the wicket in general. And when Mark Waugh wasn't there, Mark Taylor and Shane Warne were pretty good in the slips as well and so was Ricky Ponting when he needed to be there. But these catchers were also good catchers in other places. Once there is a generally good standard of fielding, fielders can be trained for specialist roles like those in the slips. Slip fielding is just a subset of the general fielding of a team. Nobody was going to pick Wajahatullah Wasti in the Pakistan team because he was a great slip fielder, or even a decent fielder overall.

 

[Socerer 01]

, I posted an article showing how, not only has it lost teams series,

and i posted the reality of what transpired in that series, something that the majority of Indian fans agreed with at that time and you as usual choose to ignore it because reasons????

 

[Socerer 01]

It isn't also clear to me how slip fielding is a position that a good fielder cannot be trained for? Pakistan's slip fielding was dire because the general fielding was dire. It wasn't that Pakistan fielded like South Africa in every position except in the slips. Similarly, Australia have generally had an excellent standard of fielding all round, not just the slips. Mark Waugh was exceptional in the slips but he was also exceptional at catching close to the wicket in general. And when Mark Waugh wasn't there, Mark Taylor and Shane Warne were pretty good in the slips as well and so was Ricky Ponting when he needed to be there. But these catchers were also good catchers in other places. Once there is a generally good standard of fielding, fielders can be trained for specialist roles like those in the slips. Slip fielding is just a subset of the general fielding of a team. Nobody was going to pick Wajahatullah Wasti in the Pakistan team because he was a great slip fielder, or even a decent fielder overall.

to add onto this Pakistan did have a world class slip fielder recently in Imran Butt who despite his small sample size has a catches to matches ratio thats bonkers. all he played was 6 tests despite his competition being Imam ul Haq because surprise surprise he was **** at batting, the skill he was picked for and the skill every batsman generally is picked for

 

[kyear2]

The problem I have is that you keep saying this, but have repeatedly ignored the posts I've made proving how so many of the series Imran played overseas (particularly in places like India) were ridiculously batter friendly and were high scoring run fests (for both teams, in case you're trying to say they were high scoring because Imran sucked) which more than explain the marginally higher away average compared to other ATGs. For instance, the repeated insistence in calling his average of 28 in India bad, while ignoring that the 1987 series he played there was one of the most batter friendly series ever played and 4 of the 5 tests were drawn. Kapil struggled massively too. While at the same time, you sing praises of Marshall's 1983 series in India when that series had basically every pace bowler dominating, including an inferior bowler like Kapil who took 29 wickets @18.

You always look at these averages only on the surface level, ignore the context of the numbers, but then bring up relevant context precisely when it suits you. This is exactly why you get ganged up on.

That's the thing, I've never said Imran sucked or was bad, think he's among the very ****ing best.

I took a look at the scores and match reports from the '83 series. In all the matches but one the conditions were slow, I think one or two were specially mentioned to be turners. Our batting line up was not quite what it was in the 70's but I think we scored one score of 400 most games, and the '87 series did (as you mentioned) have at least one low scoring game as well.

And I don't know how much much the pitches would have changed by '88 when Hadlee went. But I do accept your points as well.

I'm not trying to disrespect Imran, and I could very well be wrong about all of it. But India is also supposed to be the test because it is flat, so that part of it is built in.
His Australia number can also be rationalized if we're sticking directly to his prime, but everyone has numbers outside of, and the '76 series was five years into his career.

I'm definitely not trying to suggest he wasn't an ATG and that definitely means more for me than it does for most. Contrary to what Smalisha thinks it's not a targeted hit job.

Everyone sees things differently, PEWS and Coronis don't rate Viv, subz Ambrose and Kallis, I'm definitely not a huge fan of Sutcliffe and think that Hammond just has too many questions marks, while Hutton has gone from under to slightly over rated. It's all just opinions gleaned from stats and stores.

 

[kyear2]

Legit questions, would you give extra points to pacers who had outright poor cordons, the same case as flat pitches?

This is the third time recently you've asked the question about points or average adjustments, I disagreed with both. Also do we give Lara or Headley an adjustment for batting with poor or in Headley's case no support?

I do believe it was an advantage to the bowlers and especially the teams, and as I've said in the past, I've just never believed in the adjustments argument. You can rate them accordingly with the information you have. Plus of the great bowlers, the only one to suffer with horrible support was Wasim, and I do factor that in, along with the extended end to his career as I do for Viv and Ponting.

 

[Xix2565]

Just because you disagree it's not a lie. There's been a lot of false narratives going around on this forum and it's ridiculous.

Cricket has three components, batting bowling and fielding. Yes, fielding cannot be a primary skills or criteria, but it's a vital part of the game. It bothers me not in the slightest if you agree or not.

Was reading through a match report up to last night from a match, India vs the WI, where it was list due to apparently no less than 8 drops. Pakistan just lost a test series because of one man in the cordon, I posted an article showing how, not only has it lost teams series, but was a major feature of two dynasties.
Apparently Bob Simpson made his test debut die to no small part because of his catching, I know Carl Hooper kept his pace for as long as consistently as he did because if his catching, for Waugh it was also a safety net.
A team cannot achieve consistent success home and away without a viable cordon.

The skills of Waugh, Sobers, Ponting, Kallis, Simpson, Botham, Hooper etc has changed matches and series. The constant disregard is hilarious.

Fielding really isn't that important compared to the other two though. One creates all the chances to catch/field or not as well as restrict runs, while the other makes runs and tries to deny said chances. It's just not a relevant skill unless the discussion is very specific because most sane people will obviously focus on who bats and bowls well. Nice thing to have, but I won't cry if some ATGs struggled with it.

Hence the point about lying, because for some reason you seem to value it so highly when it shouldn't be. If you want to be in denial that's fine as well. Can add that to the list.

 

[subshakerz]

This is the third time recently you've asked the question about points or average adjustments, I disagreed with both. Also do we give Lara or Headley an adjustment for batting with poor or in Headley's case no support?

I do believe it was an advantage to the bowlers and especially the teams, and as I've said in the past, I've just never believed in the adjustments argument. You can rate them accordingly with the information you have. Plus of the great bowlers, the only one to suffer with horrible support was Wasim, and I do factor that in, along with the extended end to his career as I do for Viv and Ponting.

I mean, that is fine, but don't you do adjustments for high averages in Steyns record based on flat pitches in Aus, Eng and UAE? Because if we took them at face value, it's unlikely we would rank him so high.

Why can't we rank Wasim higher because I recall watching him grow up at least 1-2 drops a test he had to suffer.

 

[subshakerz]

I'm not trying to disrespect Imran, and I could very well be wrong about all of it. But India is also supposed to be the test because it is flat, so that part of it is built in.
His Australia number can also be rationalized if we're sticking directly to his prime, but everyone has numbers outside of, and the '76 series was five years into his career.

I have no problem with you penalising Imran in India so long as Steyn is penalised in Eng and UAE. We should just have a consistent standard.

 

[Coronis]

That's the thing, I've never said Imran sucked or was bad, think he's among the very ****ing best.

I took a look at the scores and match reports from the '83 series. In all the matches but one the conditions were slow, I think one or two were specially mentioned to be turners. Our batting line up was not quite what it was in the 70's but I think we scored one score of 400 most games, and the '87 series did (as you mentioned) have at least one low scoring game as well.

And I don't know how much much the pitches would have changed by '88 when Hadlee went. But I do accept your points as well.

I'm not trying to disrespect Imran, and I could very well be wrong about all of it. But India is also supposed to be the test because it is flat, so that part of it is built in.
His Australia number can also be rationalized if we're sticking directly to his prime, but everyone has numbers outside of, and the '76 series was five years into his career.

I'm definitely not trying to suggest he wasn't an ATG and that definitely means more for me than it does for most. Contrary to what Smalisha thinks it's not a targeted hit job.

Everyone sees things differently, PEWS and Coronis don't rate Viv, subz Ambrose and Kallis, I'm definitely not a huge fan of Sutcliffe and think that Hammond just has too many questions marks, while Hutton has gone from under to slightly over rated. It's all just opinions gleaned from stats and stores.

Well that’s not true, I rate him, and rate him higher than his overall record looks on face value. I just don’t rate him as highly as some of the rest of you.

 

[subshakerz]

Well that’s not true, I rate him, and rate him higher than his overall record looks on face value. I just don’t rate him as highly as some of the rest of you.

That's what he meant. You're rating is well off the scale of ours.

However, in my defense with Ambrose, I literally only have him one place below most others.

 

[ataraxia]

16 or 17 runs per match doesn't sound much. But it is the equivalent of picking a batsman averaging 42 instead of one averaging 50.

Yeah to be clear I'm not dissing that. I was simply combatting the attitude that it's as valuable as an ATG batting or bowling all-rounder.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I have no problem with you penalising Imran in India so long as Steyn is penalised in Eng and UAE. We should just have a consistent standard.

You really are ****ing stupid. You're literally asking him to wrongly penalize another bowler as well with out of context stats just to maintain some imaginary consistency. Being dumb twice doesn't make it not dumb ffs.

 

[subshakerz]

You really are ****ing stupid. You're literally asking him to wrongly penalize another bowler as well with out of context stats just to maintain some imaginary consistency. Being dumb twice doesn't make it not dumb ffs.

Maybe you misconstrued me. I am telling him to maintain one standard and stick with it. Either we contextualise for flatter pitches for all or we dont and take figures at face value. I can respect either position.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Maybe you misconstrued me. I am telling him to maintain one standard and stick with it. Either we contextualise for flatter pitches for all or we dont and take figures at face value. I can respect either position.

You should refuse to accept wrong positions. Grow a spine, weakling. Mere consistency is not enough.

 

[subshakerz]

You should refuse to accept wrong positions. Grow a spine, weakling. Mere consistency is not enough.

No, specific to Kyear2, our issue with him at the moment is inconsistency. But he claims to accept flat pitch context, so my point on Imran and Steyn would be to penalise Steyn which I know he won't do hence I said that.

 

[shortpitched713]

I think kyear's argument honestly falls off the rails, when he starts to criticize Imran's record in the West Indies, a place and opponent against whom Imran has played the most monumental and single handed series drawing performances against quality opposition in the history of the game.

And honestly, the fact that he did better at home than away there, can simply be explained by the fact that all of his series in the West Indies were played outside of his peak time ( he was still monumental in the West Indies in 88 though ). Whereas he had two series during his peak at home against the West Indies.

 

[smash84]

All of kyear2's arguments fall off the rails