Rahul Dravid vs Shaun Pollock

[kyear2]

A slip catch does not equal a whole wicket worth of value that is being given, the bowler should obviously also be getting credit, and imo a lion's share of it.

Then that doesn't take into account the replace-ability of one slip catcher to the next, and that difference of a really top tier slipper being less than that between two batsmen ( even in the lower order ) being of different quality. Ultimately it's tough to gauge, especially as only one of those two tends to have hard numbers behind it ( the batting differences ), but the intuition of almost everyone besides 1 poster on this forum seems to be that the batting differences at most positions would be of greater value.

Just don't carry team fielding like Pakistan's has been historically, as this is all assuming a baseline level of professional competence which applies to almost all the Test teams.

And what share is there to go around of it's dropped?

Joe Root isn't a great catcher, we have some good but inconsistent guys, but that should improve with experience, you can watch and tell who's elite.

You want to look at numbers, I want to look at impact.
You're looking at stats, I prefer to look for contributors to test wins.

Becuse it's not as easily statistically identifiable, doesn't make it less vital.

 

[Bolo.]

For the genuine life of me, I don't see how that statement can be made.

Having a strong cordon is as, if not more important to a team as having a strong tail.

But putting that aside for just a moment, if we're comparing the value of two players and they are tied on primary skills and one is decent and one elite, that doesn't matter?

I don't know where this argument that lower order batting or even reserve bowling is so much important than having a strong cordon has come from. And I don't know how you can watch any test match and the value isn't immediately evident.

When building a team all three factors to varying degrees have to be factored in, one is literally built in the the team format with an batting all rounder slot for an additional bowler. No one wants a totally useless tail, with some resistance being welcomed to assist with building totals. Re the cordon, each innings starts with 3 slips and a gully, and most of fast bowler's and a healthy amount of spinner's wickets comes from catches taken behind the wicket and is immeasurably vital to most bowlers success.

So this not comparable argument is so very far off is crazy.

And I don't care who it annoys, but let's have this discussion again.

1. Team success.
If we did a couple lists of the best teams since WW2, there's a few things they all have in common were aggressive middle orders, really fast and skilled bowlers and elite catching. Conversely there's never been a correlation between "great" lower orders and elite teams, partially because teams that have heavily relied on their lower order tends not to be very good, at least not having a reliable middle order. I will continue to ask if those great Australian or WI teams would have traded out their elite cordons for a Pollock or Imran quality bat in the tail. Not saying they wouldn't have taken both, but wouldn't trade their elite cordon for it. I can with confidence say that neither team would have been successful without those guys they have in the cordon.

Bowlers success.
2. Your pacers, especially in SENAW are ultimately only as successful as their collective cordon. Look back at the careers of Lillee, Hadlee, the Quartet, Marshall, Ambrose, McGrath, Steyn, and it's obvious how much they benefitted from having elite guys back there. All of them had elite cordons with specialists at 2nd slip, the premier position. I would like to single out one of them to say how elite their support was, but all of them were well stacked. Guys like Chappell, Coney, Greenidge, Hooper, Waugh / Ponting, Kallis consistently converted half chances and were worth their weight in gold.

From my perspective, I don't see how there's any argument to positional value and how the roles aren't comparable.

Even with regards to Dravid, he was key to two spinners success as well, as was Taylor / Waugh / Hayden to Warne and Jayawardene to Murali, equally as vital for the spinners. Those 210 catches are all direct wickets, each dropped one a missed opportunity.

His 210 catches a match work out to 1.28 per match.

He may have taken 90% of catches. If someone takes 80% of what he did, that puts them at 72% catch rate, which is fairly poor. That's 0.26 extra catches a match. At the Indian bowling average for his career of 36.7 runs a wicket, that is 9.4 runs a game. Around 5 runs an innings. Which is a lot less than Pollock.

Feel free to adjust these numbers if you think they are off.

 

[ma1978]

In the recently concluded test match both first innings centurions were dropped (I want to say in their 30's) how mu h did that cost?

Yes, all fielding is important, no doubt, but the same way all batting is important, your no. 3 and 4 are more important than your 10 & 11. Slip fielding is very much a specialist position and where the vast majority of opportunities for wickets go. There's no comparison.

I'm not saying his runs aren't important, I'm saying to say it ain't comparable is ridiculous.

A team cannot consistently win without a great cordon, not to it's full potential, many teams have managed to without a guy averaging 35 runs a match in the the tail.

That's not even touching on the fact that the reason these guys are lower order batsmen are because they aren't as consistent as their top order counterparts, and not nearly as reliable.

Oh, and what Ponting and Kallis didn't isn't replicable by 90'% of test fielders, that's just not true.

The point is the difference between the elite and simply average slip fielders is too small to make any meaningful difference

 

[sayon basak]

In the recently concluded test match both first innings centurions were dropped (I want to say in their 30's) how mu h did that cost?

Yes, all fielding is important, no doubt, but the same way all batting is important, your no. 3 and 4 are more important than your 10 & 11. Slip fielding is very much a specialist position and where the vast majority of opportunities for wickets go. There's no comparison.

I'm not saying his runs aren't important, I'm saying to say it ain't comparable is ridiculous.

A team cannot consistently win without a great cordon, not to it's full potential, many teams have managed to without a guy averaging 35 runs a match in the the tail.

That's not even touching on the fact that the reason these guys are lower order batsmen are because they aren't as consistent as their top order counterparts, and not nearly as reliable.

Oh, and what Ponting and Kallis didn't isn't replicable by 90'% of test fielders, that's just not true.

That wouldn't justify that a great slip fielder= a great bowler