"Fielding is the most important part of cricket"

[open365]

Agree or disagree?

I'm sick of being told by people(especialy coaches) that fielding is the most important part of cricket, it's simply not true.

Now i know there isn't a MOST important aspect of cricket because batting and bowling are equaly important, but fielding is NOT the most vital skill not the aspect that makes the most difference to a side.

It's just a myth said by coaches to make you work harder in fielding drills.

[Nishant]

it is an importnat part....but definitely not that important when compared to batting and bowling!

Just take the examples of current cricketers; Kaif, for india.....great fieldsman, but cant bat to save his life!

Raina; im not even gonna start with him!

[Kweek]

you can have the best fielding side...still ****e if you can't bat or bowl

although the game is 80% fielding, it is very important, but not the most important imo.
a good batting side, backed up by a very good fielding side, will make up for the average bowling side partly.

[silentstriker]

Depends, if you mean catching (and I assume this is Test cricket, unless otherwise specificed), it is extremely important. If you mean outfield fielding, it's not as much.

50% bowling
35% batting
10% catching
5% outfielding

And yes, those are completely made up and completely arbitrary.

[Richard]

Drop catches, lose (or don't win at best) matches. Simple as. That applies to any cricket.

Ground-fielding is overrated if you say "the best fielding side wins". Poor ground-fielding can lessen the impact of quality bowling (and it's deeply frustrating to me when it does, even if I'm not the bowler) but good fielding can't disguise poor bowling. Batting is an independent thing. The worse you field (and bowl), the better you have to bat.

But IMO nothing can make high emphasis on fielding a bad thing. If it means you have to use hyperbolic statements like "ground-fielding wins matches", so be it. Because poor fielding, as I say, especially catching, can lose it.

[BoyBrumby]

It's obviously not; the fact that Mike Young (generally regarded as the best fielding coach, I think) is an American from a baseball background proves that. It is , however, a very important adjunct to batting & bowling.

[Richard]

Eh?

How on Earth does Mike Young's nationality mean anything?!?!?!?!?!

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Richard

Eh?

How on Earth does Mike Young's nationality mean anything?!?!?!?!?!

It doesn't in itself, the germane point was obviously that he's from a baseball background. Fielding, whilst important, isn't peculiar to cricket in the same way that batting & (particularly) bowling are, so cannot be said to be the most important part of the sport.

[adharcric]

Let's just say (poor) fielding loses matches, batting gives you a chance to win matches and bowling wins matches. Never mind.

[Richard]

Isn't that... more or less... what I just said?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

It doesn't in itself, the germane point was obviously that he's from a baseball background. Fielding, whilst important, isn't peculiar to cricket in the same way that batting & (particularly) bowling are, so cannot be said to be the most important part of the sport.

Well... no, it's not, but... how does not being peculiar to cricket make it less relevant?

[adharcric]

Originally Posted by Richard

Isn't that... more or less... what I just said?

No.

[Richard]

O...K...

Well ya coulda quoted me or summat.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Richard

Well... no, it's not, but... how does not being peculiar to cricket make it less relevant?

I made no mention of relevancy; I was answering the question posed by open365: "Fielding is the most important part of cricket; agree or disagree?"

I disagreed.

There, all clear?

[adharcric]

Originally Posted by Richard

O...K...

Well ya coulda quoted me or summat.

First of all, you only mentioned fielding losing matches. Second, that was my own opinion. Third, not everyone examines your posts every time. Fourth, stop being annoying.