Why is it viewed as more important

[kyear2]

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.

So one step at a time.

1. As primary skills, yes batting and bowling are more important. For all rounders they are considerably worse in said secondary skills that devalues it to varying degrees.

2. They are not just in the team as a catcher , they have their primary role, think that's somehow lost in some of these arguments.

3. There's a brilliant video on YouTube of the WI in Australia in 1984. In what is a sad rarity, it shows all of the WI wickets from the series as well as all of the misses. Richie Richardson throughout and Lloyd to start the series wasn't only flawless, but took multiple half chances to take wickets, especially RR. Each of those was a wicket that the average slip isn't taking, thought out that series I think the cordon dropped a total of 2 catches. That makes the difference between wins and losses in close matches or the catalysts for blowouts. It lifts the team and encourages the bowlers to keep pitching it up and going for wickets. I don't know how that isn't important.

4. Which do you think contributed to more wins, Waugh's catching or Hadlee / Pollock's batting? This great cordons of Taylor, Waugh and Warne, or the one that followed of Hayden, Waugh and Ponting. Even Smith, Kallis and deVilliers, that vid that someone shared (and would be grateful if someone can tag me with a repost) of Steyn's wickets shows the value these guys have. Kallis was immense in the slips, way better than he was as a bowler.

5. The recent Pakistan / Australia series is an outlier for sure, but it's far from unique in the history of the game. You keep dropping catches, you will lose. It's that simple, seems like that's an impactful position to me.

 

[kyear2]

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.

I do rate Wasim higher as a result, I specifically referenced that earlier.

 

[kyear2]

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.

15th?

But again, your right to do so even if I, and history disagrees.

 

[kyear2]

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.

And my simple counter to that would be Australia mid 90's to 2007. Which was more important.

It varies for teams and scenarios. To deny that counters reality and history. I've seen drops this year change the nature of sessions and matches.

 

[kyear2]

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.

In multiple posts I've made mention of this. One in particular where I spelled out my tiers and why each person wasn't in each. I know you read it because you replied to it.

 

[kyear2]

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.

I didn't criticize him for his performances over here, I don't think it's comparable to what Ambrose did vs Australia and that's a point I've made before. It should also be mentioned that unless I'm mistaken, both Marshall and Richards missed the game we lost in that series.

 

[kyear2]

All of kyear2's arguments fall off the rails

And again that's your opinion. Nothing I've said was a lie or a misrepresentation. We can disagree on context or perspective, but that's subjective.

You disagree and you're allowed to do that.

 

[kyear2]

Bowlers win test matches. You have to take 20 wickets. Bowling AR (who are good) are worth their weight in gold. This is also why a great bowler adds more than a great batsman.

I think we've taken this bowlers are better than batsmen thing too far. Yes I agree that bowlers have slightly higher value especially if you value wins.
But without batsmen you still lose every contest, not draw, lose.

That's never been a great team without a ATG batsman in the top 4 to complement the ATG bowler.

So if a great bowling all rounder is worth their weight in gold, aren't the likes of Sobers, Kallis, Hammond etc as well?. An ATG batsman, equally useful 5th bowler with 5fers and an ATG slip fielder par excellence who's safe while taking half chances.

This post is the exact premise of the entire thread right there, one is seen as invaluable while the others are seen as much lower.

All two both* are invaluable, but those 3 way guys are even more impactful because they influence all aspects of the game.

There's a reason Sobers is seen as one of the two undisputed deities of the game and at worse 1A among players.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Not taking either side here but the effect catching is being heavily under-represented by a lot of people in the thread. Trying to assign a value based on average scores is not how cricket works. "Catches win matches" is not just a euphemism.

Even qualitatively you can look at the effect a dropped catch can have on a fielding team, bowlers and everyone else. It can completely change a game of cricket.

 

[kyear2]

87% of the batters' innings in Tests end in a dismissal. Batters will eventually get out, there is no stopping bowlers from getting wickets.

Honestly don't get the point of this, plus it's pretty important how many they score before they get out.

Also, ever heard of declarations?

 

[kyear2]

You've never once satisfactorily addressed any of the points he raised. Just regurgitating the same stuff and saying we disagree

I made an entire post where I responded to each point individually.

 

[kyear2]

Not taking either side here but the affect catching is being heavily under-represented by a lot of people in the thread. Trying to assign a value based on average scores is not how cricket works. "Catches win matches" is not just a euphemism.

Even qualitatively you can look at the effect a dropped catch can have on a fielding team, bowlers and everyone else. It can completely change a game of cricket.

I don't post much in tour threads, but whenever there's a critical drop or someone mentions the importance of understated value of slip fielding, and it happens in every single match, I do pop in to mention it.

It's a seriously understated and underappreciated part of the game but some, but it's critical to the success of every team.

I love Jaiswal's potential, I remember in the last series they were taking about how beneficial it was to have two young batsmen with good hands in the slips and how critical it will be going forward.

This isn't that difficult, but I'm aware of a couple reasons for the pushback and honestly doesn't make sense.

 

[Coronis]

15th?

But again, your right to do so even if I, and history disagrees.

Well yes, as I said, higher than his overall record at face value would suggest. Excluding certain players for short career lengths/current short careers he comes out to average what, 30th highest. Clearly I rate him if I have him 15th

 

[TheJediBrah]

I still think you might be overestimating the importance though, especially if comparing 2 players with a slight difference in fielding ability at best.

However, I don't see how people can watch games of cricket, even like those in the recent Aus summer where Pakistan almost literally dropped a Test match and NZ dropping Marsh led to a 150 run partnership that decided the Test, and then come in and say "a dropped catch is worth 16 runs on average so that's that"

 

[kyear2]

Well yes, as I said, higher than his overall record at face value would suggest. Excluding certain players for short career lengths/current short careers he comes out to average what, 30th highest. Clearly I rate him if I have him 15th

Ummmmm

Somewhat of a drop for a guy Wisden ranked as the 5th best cricketer of the 20th century, .

But I digress and I should mention jest.

 

[kyear2]

I still think you might be overestimating the importance though, especially if comparing 2 players with a slight difference in fielding ability at best.

However, I don't see how people can watch games of cricket, even like those in the recent Aus summer where Pakistan almost literally dropped a Test match and NZ dropping Marsh led to a 150 run partnership that decided the Test, and then come in and say "a dropped catch is worth 16 runs on average so that's that"

Not almost, literally dropped the match.

I've not been comparing guys if equal value. The purpose was again, two fold.

The same way Hadlee, Pollock and co are given boosts in overall player rankings because they can bat, and not saying they shouldn't, guys like Hammond, Kallis, Simpson, Ponting, Chappell etc etc should be elevated and rated by their secondary skills as well. When we do comparisons as crickets, let's include that yes Wasim could bat, but Ponting was one of the greatest slips ever.

And secondly, yes it does matter in team selection. You can't factor in a fifth bowler, a reverse swing guy, no. 8 that can handle a bat and never think, who's cathing the ball when they edge.

That's it. It was turned into something else, but that wasn't the premise.

Wasn't about ranking who was slightly better than who and sure as hell wasn't about who was dragged into it.

 

[Xix2565]

So one step at a time.

1. As primary skills, yes batting and bowling are more important. For all rounders they are considerably worse in said secondary skills that devalues it to varying degrees.

2. They are not just in the team as a catcher , they have their primary role, think that's somehow lost in some of these arguments.

3. There's a brilliant video on YouTube of the WI in Australia in 1984. In what is a sad rarity, it shows all of the WI wickets from the series as well as all of the misses. Richie Richardson throughout and Lloyd to start the series wasn't only flawless, but took multiple half chances to take wickets, especially RR. Each of those was a wicket that the average slip isn't taking, thought out that series I think the cordon dropped a total of 2 catches. That makes the difference between wins and losses in close matches or the catalysts for blowouts. It lifts the team and encourages the bowlers to keep pitching it up and going for wickets. I don't know how that isn't important.

4. Which do you think contributed to more wins, Waugh's catching or Hadlee / Pollock's batting? This great cordons of Taylor, Waugh and Warne, or the one that followed of Hayden, Waugh and Ponting. Even Smith, Kallis and deVilliers, that vid that someone shared (and would be grateful if someone can tag me with a repost) of Steyn's wickets shows the value these guys have. Kallis was immense in the slips, way better than he was as a bowler.

5. The recent Pakistan / Australia series is an outlier for sure, but it's far from unique in the history of the game. You keep dropping catches, you will lose. It's that simple, seems like that's an impactful position to me.

4. Hadlee/Pollock being handy lower order batters for sure. They have the more valuable secondary skill.

5. I generally don't expect the top levels of teams to have such a disparity in terms of being good fielders that it shapes matches more than bowling or batting. Hence I don't value it as highly or players being good fielders as highly unless their primary skill is better than their competition.

 

[Xix2565]

Honestly don't get the point of this, plus it's pretty important how many they score before they get out.

Also, ever heard of declarations?

The point is that bowlers dominate Tests more than batters.

Declarations just highlight how weak the opposition bowling is if you can make one and set up a big target for your own bowlers to defend.

 

[ankitj]

Kallis was immense in the slips, way better than he was as a bowler.

Kallis must be in your top 5 cricketers of all time I assume?

 

[ankitj]

"Catches win matches" is not just a euphemism.

It's a phrase used as consolation for fielding, a skill everyone knows is hygiene factor and not a winner. No one looks at two XIs and says that the team with better fielding is going to win the contest.