Warne on crowds

[chalky]

Err - who doesn't deserve the wicket? The bowler doesn't deserve the wicket having bowled an excellent delivery?
The batsman deserves to carry-on, having done something different to what he'd done if the catch was caught?
No, neither of the above.
The team mightn't deserve the wicket, but look carefully... where did I say they did?

Yes the opposition wasn't good enough to get him out therefore he continues his innings.

 

[Richard]

And that says nothing - absolutely nothing - about his own ability.

 

[Jono]

How is the batsman's ability any different if he edges the ball which flies just over the slips compared to if he edges a ball that goes straight to slip. Neither of the shots were intentional, and its hardly right to argue that if Batsman A edges the ball that goes over slip and then makes a century, whereas Batsman B edges the ball straight to slip, is dropped, and then makes a century, Batsman A's knock is better simply because he wasn't dropped per se. He still played a stupid shot. Technically if first slip was 7ft tall he would have been caught. Nothing to do with the batsman's skill at all.

 

[Matt79]

I think catching/general fielding is an extremely reliable barometer of where a team is in terms of their mentality/commitment. Fielding is merely the most obvious area where a team not being mentally in the game or "switched on" will be shown up. Good fielding sets the standard for the teams performance, and if a team can't be bothered getting that right, they're going to struggle with bat and ball as well. Witness Australia in England last year and South Africa in their recent tests home and away against Australia.

Therefore I don't think you can say "we played really well except for dropped catches". Take the first test in South Africa - South Africa's collective heads were still at Wanderers' and it showed in their batting, bowling and catching. Basically, unless you're severely uncoordinated or visually impaired, you should catch well if your in good form.

Finally catching is obviously not a 'black and white' skill, in terms of you can either do it or you can't. It's simply that the outcome is generally much more black and white. The outcome and the process are different things and shouldn't be confused.

ANY bowling attack is only as good as the teams fielding.

 

[Top_Cat]

ANY bowling attack is only as good as the teams fielding.

Excellent point and rammed home by Jones' excellent catching efforts in the current Test against India. He took a couple of excellent ones and turned what could have been a 'he bowled well but didn't get the results he deserved' performance by Anderson into 'He bowled well'. A good indicator of the true morale of a team often is in the catching because it shows where a lot of team members' heads are at. If fielders are up with the bowler supporting him, etc., the catches will be taken. The Aussie drops in the Ashes were pretty telling I reckon.

 

[Ikki]

Once the fielder is placed, catching is a black-or-white, on-or-off, whatever - issue.
Some fielders will get some things, some won't get what others would have.
But the fielder is there before the shot is played.
It is perfectly realistic to say that "if catches had been taken" is totally different from "if we'd bowled\batted better".

No it isn't, it's the same thing. Just as fielders are placed, so are bowlers. They're there to take wickets. By your reasoning, bowling is also black-and-white which it certainly isn't as you've also said.

 

[Richard]

How is the batsman's ability any different if he edges the ball which flies just over the slips compared to if he edges a ball that goes straight to slip. Neither of the shots were intentional, and its hardly right to argue that if Batsman A edges the ball that goes over slip and then makes a century, whereas Batsman B edges the ball straight to slip, is dropped, and then makes a century, Batsman A's knock is better simply because he wasn't dropped per se. He still played a stupid shot. Technically if first slip was 7ft tall he would have been caught. Nothing to do with the batsman's skill at all.

If you're seriously expecting a big innings to be played without a stupid shot you're expecting one hell of a lot.
Indeed - often edges that go over or fall short of fielders have been played better - ie the if-you-flash-flash-hard or playing-with-soft-hands theories.
Every innings involves play-and-misses, arial shots just away from or short of fielders.
As I say - if first-slip is 7ft tall, it might be a chance. But the fielder is placed before the ball is bowled.
Normally, catches are taken. Stupid shots, as I say, are played. No two ways about that - just sometimes they result in giving chances, sometimes not. Once the chance is given, though, things are out of the batsman's control, and whether it's dropped or caught the batsman's done the same.

 

[Richard]

A good indicator of the true morale of a team often is in the catching because it shows where a lot of team members' heads are at. If fielders are up with the bowler supporting him, etc., the catches will be taken. The Aussie drops in the Ashes were pretty telling I reckon.

So what do you make of England's catching in the same series?
Clearly both teams' catching was extremely poor - yet would you say that England's morale was down?
No, it's just technically neither team was up to it. Australia and England both had some poor catchers, and it showed.
England got away with it because they bowled far, far better. Virtually no amount of dropped catches could blunt Jones and Flintoff.

 

[Richard]

No it isn't, it's the same thing. Just as fielders are placed, so are bowlers. They're there to take wickets. By your reasoning, bowling is also black-and-white which it certainly isn't as you've also said.

Rubbish.
With bowling there are all sorts of way to take wickets.
Bowlers certainly aren't "placed" - they are just nominated to bowl 6 deliveries with the hope or intention of taking wickets.
With catching, you either take or you miss.
Simple as.

 

[Richard]

I think catching/general fielding is an extremely reliable barometer of where a team is in terms of their mentality/commitment. Fielding is merely the most obvious area where a team not being mentally in the game or "switched on" will be shown up. Good fielding sets the standard for the teams performance, and if a team can't be bothered getting that right, they're going to struggle with bat and ball as well. Witness Australia in England last year and South Africa in their recent tests home and away against Australia.

Therefore I don't think you can say "we played really well except for dropped catches". Take the first test in South Africa - South Africa's collective heads were still at Wanderers' and it showed in their batting, bowling and catching. Basically, unless you're severely uncoordinated or visually impaired, you should catch well if your in good form.

No, South Africa have dropped catches all winter. The previous Sunday made no difference.
Equally, as I've already said - England and Australia both dropped catches aplenty last summer, though clearly both were incredibly "switched on".
Quite why good catchers should suddenly start dropping them all the time is a mystery - all the more reason to say that it's a black-and-white issue - because there's no technical reason for it.

Finally catching is obviously not a 'black and white' skill, in terms of you can either do it or you can't. It's simply that the outcome is generally much more black and white. The outcome and the process are different things and shouldn't be confused.

Err, the skill mightn't be black-and-white - the outcome clearly is.
And what I've said isn't that South Africa "should have fielded better" or whatever - I've said that but for dropped catches they might very well have won the series.
Which there is simply no two ways about.

 

[Ikki]

Rubbish.
With bowling there are all sorts of way to take wickets.
Bowlers certainly aren't "placed" - they are just nominated to bowl 6 deliveries with the hope or intention of taking wickets.
With catching, you either take or you miss.
Simple as.

Uh, no. There are also several methods of taking a catch. By your reasoning I'm saying you could say: "You're put their to bowl, you fail every wicket you don't take a ball and those you do are your only successful deliveries". Hence you either bowl them out or you don't...which sounds silly, but is pretty much the same thing you're saying about catching.

It seems useless arguing this point because you don't seem to understand this small aspect, of franky, common sense.

 

[Richard]

Bowlers have certainly not failed if they bowl a dot-ball. Even when they go for runs - it's nowhere near as much of an heinous sin as dropping a catch. Any bowler will tell you that they'd prefer go for 20 off an over than drop a vital catch.
Catching is, I repeat, purely and simply a "do or don't" thing. Yes, there are different techniques to take a catch, etc. - hardly important. However you do the thing, the outcome is the same.
The same cannot be said for stopping runs being scored and taking wickets.

 

[Ikki]

Bowlers have certainly not failed if they bowl a dot-ball. Even when they go for runs - it's nowhere near as much of an heinous sin as dropping a catch. Any bowler will tell you that they'd prefer go for 20 off an over than drop a vital catch.
Catching is, I repeat, purely and simply a "do or don't" thing. Yes, there are different techniques to take a catch, etc. - hardly important. However you do the thing, the outcome is the same.
The same cannot be said for stopping runs being scored and taking wickets.

The bolded part is key. It is not AS much. So that mean's it ISN'T black and white then. There is a scale and there is a difference. Whilst someone can be good at catching, another can be worse. The same goes for bowling. So it isn't black and white, if they were good enough, and if that aspect of the game were to take that much impact it would rest purely on their skill in taking it. Which they didn't, so no saving grace with the Southies there. This is where a comment like "if they had caught the catches they would have won" argument is disputed, the same thing can be said about every aspect.

 

[Richard]

For crying out loud - if you drop more than 2 or 3 catches in a series, you've done bad - especially if one of them proves crucial.
Look back a year - against England, South Africa did not drop one important catch, in 5 Tests. No England batsman scored many runs after benefiting from a let-off.
"Catching" in itself isn't black-and-white - "a catch" in itself is. Whereas "a delivery" isn't black-and-white even in it's single nature, it's still on a continuum.
I don't know how many times I've said it's NOT a saving-grace for South Africa to have lost only because of dropped catches - for most or all of the fielders who dropped them, there's been no excuse whatsoever. Almost all have previously proven to be excellent catchers.
The point is there's no assumption about dropped catches - they could have been caught. We have no way of saying for certain that the bowling could have been better than it was.

 

[Ikki]

Either I'm missing something here or you are mate. Nevertheless, I'm tired of beating the dead horse.

 

[Richard]

Maybe we're both missing something?
I'm trying as hard as I can to get my point across. If you don't see it, there's not a lot I can do. I think I'm understanding what you're saying, and I also think you're slightly misunderstanding what I said ITFP.

 

[marc71178]

Any bowler will tell you that they'd prefer go for 20 off an over than drop a vital catch.

Mick Lewis would love to be guaranteed that low an economy rate!

 

[Richard]

Poor old Mick Lewis.
I wonder... has anyone ever been the butt of so many jokes in such a short space of time?

 

[marc71178]

Yes, you.

 

[Richard]

Err...
I think not.
I am only joked at by a small number of people on a relatively small forum.