Yeah, don't think Uppercut was trying to say he's bad. He's just not incredible anymore.He minght not be as good as he once was but IMO he's still plenty good.
It weirdly is.He still can pull off the incredible with reasonable regularity tbf. The number of runouts he has pulled off in the last 18 months or so is staggering.
The utility of the 'athletic ball-stoppers' is not merely in the actual runs they save though. Facing a batting line-up like India's filled with 'stroke-makers' who depend on scoring boundaries to get going, they are crucial in building pressure when combined with good bowling. I agree that this still doesn't make them more useful than a solid dependable slips/close-in catcher - But reducing them to simply saving runs underrates their utility IMO.I think that sort of fielding is vastly over-rated in Tests cricket. You can have a team full of the most athletic ball-stoppers in the world but they'll still only save about 20-40 runs a Test innings through ground fielding at most (and I think even this is quite exaggerated, but I'll give it to you), and if they dropped one catch it could cost them 200 runs. If you have a team whereby everyone is a good catcher in the position they're fielding in, it's a good Test fielding unit, IMO.
I think nine Laxmans would save more runs in Test cricket than nine Clarkes.
Sri Lanka yes but the Indian fielding can still leave a lot to be desired, especially in limited overs cricket.My point about the Indians & Lankans is that they were totally hopeless, say 15 years ago. Nowadays I'd say they're pretty much on par with everyone else.
Wasn't meaning to suggest otherwise tbh. Just don't think there's much of a problem aside from that, despite what a few others were suggesting.Pretty big problem though. It's not like you have numerous chances offered up to square leg.