Cricketweb decides the best fielder ever

[kiwiviktor81]

Rhodes

 

[Debris]

Rhodes

I have to admit that I never understood how anyone could rate Rhodes as the best fielder ever because he was too specialized. He had one elite skill as a ball stopper in the covers but was an average catch, average outfielder and not particularly great at hitting the stumps. What is it that others are seeing that I am not?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Come off it, Jonty wasn't an "average" catcher.

 

[Victor Ian]

Ponting had a significantly better dismissals per test than Rhodes. In ODI they were similar.

 

[OverratedSanity]

That's because Ponting fielded in the slips.

 

[cnerd123]

No way was Rhodes just average at throwing down stumps either.

Incredible ground speed, incredible reflexes, great arm, great set of hands, and fantastic anticipation. I haven't seen any fielder who can covers as much ground as him within the circle. Terrific reach + great anticipation + amazing speed. The best ball stopper of all time.

Ponting was excellent in slips and as a close catcher, but Rhodes has him beat for ground fielding IMO.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The thing with Rhodes was that he was so unbelievably quick at getting to the ball and releasing it in one motion that he didn't really need to hit that much anyway. He saved a truckload of runs and affected tons of dismissals simply by causing that moment's hesitation in a batsman's mind "Well it's an easy single... Oh **** wait I've hit it near Jonty... ummm...*panic* ".

Sure, this happened with Ponting as well, but Jonty's speed to the ball and his quick release was unmatched.

 

[Gob]

I suspect the fact he (Ponting) is a better batsman is being factored in as I never saw him as being anything other than serviceable as a fielder.

Rhodes

Lowl

 

[cnerd123]

I remember games where basically it would just be Rhodes patrolling the cover point to the backward point region all on his own. Third man would be fine, and there would be a deep cover, and no one behind Rhodes. They didn't need anyone. He could cover so much space and the batsmen just couldn't get anything past him no matter how hard they hit it. If it was in his reach, it was cut off. Saved a ton of boundaries and made the entire bowling attack more potent because he covered the space of two men by himself, giving the bowlers an extra fielder essentially.

Ponting took wickets as a fielder, with his catching and throwing, but Jonty was just as impressive in a different way.

 

[honestbharani]

I have to admit that I never understood how anyone could rate Rhodes as the best fielder ever because he was too specialized. He had one elite skill as a ball stopper in the covers but was an average catch, average outfielder and not particularly great at hitting the stumps. What is it that others are seeing that I am not?

He was better than everyone else and he fielded in more positions than you have any idea, I guess.. He was THE best outfielder in my time of watching cricket. Check out any game that RSA played when he was around and the slog was on and watch him at long on, or long off, or deep midwicket, anticipate better than anyone else, run faster than anyone else and dive and get up faster than anyone else and save loads and loads of runs. The only aspect Ponting was better than Jonty was in hitting the stumps but Rhodes was so far ahead in anticipation, diving and getting up fast and basically just getting to the ball so that the batsman do not even think of a run, and he did it all standing a good 10 to 15 yards closer to the batsman than Ponting.

 

[viriya]

Surprisingly high drop percentage for Punter though

I wouldn't say 11% is high necessarily.. The data suggests great fielders have <=10% drop rates with some as low as 5%, so it is higher than you might think. I also think "great catch getters" tend to drop more than those who drop the tough chances but are safe otherwise (Rahane, Guptill, AB as examples there).

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I wouldn't say 11% is high necessarily.. The data suggests great fielders have <=10% drop rates with some as low as 5%, so it is higher than you might think. I also think "great catch getters" tend to drop more than those who drop the tough chances but are safe otherwise (Rahane, Guptill, AB as examples there).

Have you got the drop percentages for Tim Southee? Quite a good article here:

Cricket: Tim Southee and those flawless bucket hands - Black Caps - NZ Herald News

 

[viriya]

Have you got the drop percentages for Tim Southee? Quite a good article here:

Cricket: Tim Southee and those flawless bucket hands - Black Caps - NZ Herald News

cricrate | Best/Worst ODI Fielding Careers suggests that it's pretty high at 24% (listed under Worst Fielders)

I found a small bug yesterday that might affect this number, but I don't think it will change significantly even after fix. Anyway, please continue any more discussion on this at:
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/65351-fielding-statistics-new-approach-15.html

 

[G.I.Joe]

It is possible that the great fielders have a high drop percentage because they create more chances by getting their hands on the ball where ordinary fielders would be nowhere near it.

 

[viriya]

It is possible that the great fielders have a high drop percentage because they create more chances by getting their hands on the ball where ordinary fielders would be nowhere near it.

The setup avoids that by ignoring tough chances when calculating drop rates. It's possible there are bugs, but I don't think that explains the drop rate differences between great fielders though.

 

[Burgey]

Ponting

 

[marc71178]

It is possible that the great fielders have a high drop percentage because they create more chances by getting their hands on the ball where ordinary fielders would be nowhere near it.

It's total bollocks to claim drop percentages because unlike runs and wickets, there is no way of measuring drops.

A bit like direct hits being only counted when they dismiss someone. Does it make a fielder worse if he hits the stumps directly 20 times but 18 of them don't result in a run out?

 

[Victor Ian]

How often did Ponting field in slips? I have memories of him throwing down stumps and fielding in the circle. Less of him slips fielding. Was it something he did later in his career, or did he do it when the new ball was on (and more slips in place) and then move to the field?

Either way, He takes nearly two more wickets every ten games. That might be 60 runs saved, at least, and probably more by creating new batsmen at the crease, game tension, etc, and other things that don't even require Ponting to thereafter get near the ball. I don't know how to equate how many runs Jonty saved to see if it is better. Perhaps Jonty is saving runs because he is not getting the batsman out and thus getting more balls hit his way by a batsmen who has gotten 'in'. You say Jonty made his bowlers a better unit. Surely someone who is effecting more dismissals per game is making his bowlers a better unit. Winning comes through taking wickets, not making the batsmen score more slowly.

Basically, there is an argument for which part of fielding matters more - picking the ball up from the ground and returning it for less runs over time, or taking catches and performing runouts for less runs per innings. If catches matter, Ponting takes more. If Throw-downs matter, Ponting performs more.

 

[Ikki]

How often did Ponting field in slips? I have memories of him throwing down stumps and fielding in the circle. Less of him slips fielding. Was it something he did later in his career, or did he do it when the new ball was on (and more slips in place) and then move to the field?

Yes, IIRC it was later on. While we had the likes of Hayden, Warne, etc he wasn't really sitting in the slips all day.

 

[honestbharani]

How often did Ponting field in slips? I have memories of him throwing down stumps and fielding in the circle. Less of him slips fielding. Was it something he did later in his career, or did he do it when the new ball was on (and more slips in place) and then move to the field?

Either way, He takes nearly two more wickets every ten games. That might be 60 runs saved, at least, and probably more by creating new batsmen at the crease, game tension, etc, and other things that don't even require Ponting to thereafter get near the ball. I don't know how to equate how many runs Jonty saved to see if it is better. Perhaps Jonty is saving runs because he is not getting the batsman out and thus getting more balls hit his way by a batsmen who has gotten 'in'. You say Jonty made his bowlers a better unit. Surely someone who is effecting more dismissals per game is making his bowlers a better unit. Winning comes through taking wickets, not making the batsmen score more slowly.

Basically, there is an argument for which part of fielding matters more - picking the ball up from the ground and returning it for less runs over time, or taking catches and performing runouts for less runs per innings. If catches matter, Ponting takes more. If Throw-downs matter, Ponting performs more.

You are talking as if Ponting took 3 or 4 great catches every test and Jonty dropped sitters every other day. Useless argument coz neither is true. Ponting hit the stumps a bit more often than Jonty and took more catches coz he fielded in slips (Jonty hardly ever fielded there anyways). Jonty easily better inspite of those.