Things that should be changed in cricket

[Richard]

I find it hard to believe that fielding is worse now than in the 1950s with the amount of OD cricket played. Wicketkeeping I can accept as it's no longer a specialist position.

Simply from reading match-reports there are far fewer mentions of missed chances in the 1930s and 1950s. Taking a particular interest in this topic I thought to myself "that can't just be different reporting techniques, can it?" EW Swanton and J Woodcock, for instance, the doyens of cricket journalism, had (in Woody's case still has) very distinctive styles that didn't change much down the years.
And I am perfectly serious when I say Walter Hammond apparently dropped 13 catches in his entire First-Class career. It was a figure he came-up with, and people who had watched lots of him said he wouldn't have been far out. If he's that near, I'd guess he was exactly right.
Bobby Simpson, also, said he'd be surprised if he dropped 30 catches in his career (albeit he played far fewer matches than Hammond). Richie Benaud rated him the finest slipper he'd ever seen, Mark Waugh second IIRR. And Mark Waugh is pretty much indisputably the best of the last 10 years. Yet I've definately seen him drop 13 catches in the few matches I've seen him (about 30 at the most) and heard of plenty more.
Nothing can, of course, be certain regarding catches and without any question ground-fielding is better now than ever, almost certainly due to one-dayers. However, it is the impression I get that catching is distincly poorer now than it used to be.

 

[marc71178]

Simply from reading match-reports there are far fewer mentions of missed chances in the 1930s and 1950s.

Which means nothing since reports don't always mention them

And Mark Waugh is pretty much indisputably the best of the last 10 years.

What about Mark Taylor?

 

[Richard]

I rate Waugh just above Taylor. Don't know his drop:catch ratio, but I'd be surprised if it's better than Waugh's.
And most decent reports mention let-offs, because most people realise they're quite important.

 

[marc71178]

And most decent reports mention let-offs, because most people realise they're quite important.

Yes, current reports do, but the focus in the 30's, 40's and 50's was not on highlighting mistakes, more celebrating successes.

 

[Richard]

Really? And how on Earth d'you come to that conclusion?
I consider the reports of the earlier days excellent and far less biased than now. They focused on giving an accurate account of the play, not on celebrating or highlighting.
So do those nowadays, just to a lesser extent.