Do you believe slip fielding should factor in to your selection of an ATG XI that you intend to take the field

[shortpitched713]

Slip fielding is very important, but can very much be improved upon, and the ball is always coming at you in roughly the same way at that position.

Fielding at all positions matters, but I'd say the most high value fielding positions are going to be somethings like backward point/gully, short leg, and the silly/batpad positions for pure reflex. Actually, in roughly that order, with slips being about as important, but more "teachable" than all of them.

For outfield positions, all I know is third man is where you hide tired bowlers (or the showers/****ter if you're England), as it's pretty straightforward. The rest of the outfield positions I'd say are roughly equal.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Picking *competent enough* slip fielders matters for an ATG XI team, picking truly elite ones doesn't. I think there's serious diminishing value, if the team was full of slip fielders who never did it or were Kohli level of **** at it, it'd be a problem. There's a baseline level of quality you want, beyond that it's not something that factors into any hypothetical selection I'd make.

 

[ankitj]

ATG XIs are never actually going to play. So do whatever the **** you want to do.

 

[Migara]

Almost all ATG XI batsmen are superb short fielders. Sobers was the best.

 

[kyear2]

Picking *competent enough* slip fielders matters for an ATG XI team, picking truly elite ones doesn't. I think there's serious diminishing value, if the team was full of slip fielders who never did it or were Kohli level of **** at it, it'd be a problem. There's a baseline level of quality you want, beyond that it's not something that factors into any hypothetical selection I'd make.

Say your team is
Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Imran, Hadlee, Marshall, Steyn, Murali.
A hypothetical and extreme example, but you have Sobers and useless with an attack that primarily attacks the edge. You're immediately placing yourself at a disadvantage.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Tendulkar fielded in the slips on occasion (more often in ODIs in the new ball overs) and he always seemed very safe and barely dropped any unlike the keemstar wannabe in our team at the moment. Him and Sobers in the slips is perfectly fine for me.

 

[kyear2]

Picking *competent enough* slip fielders matters for an ATG XI team, picking truly elite ones doesn't. I think there's serious diminishing value, if the team was full of slip fielders who never did it or were Kohli level of **** at it, it'd be a problem. There's a baseline level of quality you want, beyond that it's not something that factors into any hypothetical selection I'd make.

I'm not rehashing anything, just making a point. That's exactly the argument that some use in regards to bat deep
Just use competent enough batsmen (Marshall / Warne), and anything above would be serious diminishing value. If the tail was full of McGrath's, it's be a problem and there's a baseline level of quality you want beyond that it's not something that factors into any hypothetical selection i'd make.

Not being snarky, but hypothetically or in real life scenarios it's purely subjective as to which is seen as more important as apposed to being redundant.

I would propose though, that with a hypothetical batting line up of Hutton, Bradman, Tendulkar, Richards, Sobers and Gilchrist and with an attack comprising any of Marshall, Hadlee, Steyn, Ambrose, Lillee I would suggest that it would behoove to ensure you have a stacked cordon rather than built in batting redundancies, not saying that isn't important in some scenarios.

It's just down to perspective and priorities and while not saying they wouldn't have welcomed an Imran or Hadlee l, sure they would have. The great Windies and Aussies teams managed to attain success without them, while I'm not nearly as sure if they would have without the great personnel they were lucky to have in their respective cordons to support their fast bowlers.

 

[trundler]

It's just down to perspective and priorities and while not saying they wouldn't have welcomed an Imran or Hadlee l, sure they would have. The great Windies and Aussies teams managed to attain success without them, while I'm not nearly as sure if they would have without the great personnel they were lucky to have in their respective cordons to support their fast bowlers.

Reminder that the West Indies in the second of the 80s managed it without a competent #6 and Australia did it without a competent third seamer, both of which are otherwise seen as essential.

 

[kyear2]

Slip fielding is very important, but can very much be improved upon, and the ball is always coming at you in roughly the same way at that position.

Fielding at all positions matters, but I'd say the most high value fielding positions are going to be somethings like backward point/gully, short leg, and the silly/batpad positions for pure reflex. Actually, in roughly that order, with slips being about as important, but more "teachable" than all of them.

For outfield positions, all I know is third man is where you hide tired bowlers (or the showers/****ter if you're England), as it's pretty straightforward. The rest of the outfield positions I'd say are roughly equal.

The reason slip fielding is more important is because that's where the vast majority of catches, and especially difficult catches go.
Backward point is much more crucial in odi's. Bat pad is more crucial I would imagine with a spin heavy attack, but is generally seen as a much less of a specialist position, but again, perspective.

 

[kyear2]

ATG XIs are never actually going to play. So do whatever the **** you want to do.

Wait, so none of this actually matters 🫢

 

[kyear2]

Reminder that the West Indies in the second of the 80s managed it without a competent #6 and Australia did it without a competent third seamer, both of which are otherwise seen as essential.

Little hard on poor Gus, but yeah, I agreed they would have been valuable contributors and could have extended the dynasties.

Would you agree that a Ponting or Richardson would've have helped with the '80's / 90's Pakistan unit as well, (not even going to the the level of Richards or Sobers) sure Wasim and Imran would have enjoyed that as well.

 

[trundler]

Little hard on poor Gus, but yeah, I agreed they would have been valuable contributors and could have extended the dynasties.

These ATG lineups are several steps above regular international cricket (and entirely fictional) so I'm not sure how much we can extrapolate from regular great teams (or any team really) at all tbh. So basically:

ATG XIs are never actually going to play. So do whatever the **** you want to do.

 

[kyear2]

These ATG lineups are several steps above regular international cricket (and entirely fictional) so I'm not sure how much we can extrapolate from regular great teams (or any team really) at all tbh. So basically:

Added an edit that not sure you saw, so ..

Would you agree that a Ponting or Richardson would have improved the Pakistan unit as well in the late '80' / 90's.
Either or both would have made a great difference in the field and shored up a major weakness

 

[kyear2]

Joel Garner was a second slip???

Quoted the wrong message.

 

[trundler]

Added an edit that not sure you saw, so ..

Would you agree that a Ponting or Richardson would have improved the Pakistan unit as well in the late '80' / 90's.
Either or both would have made a great difference in the field and shored up a major weakness

Yeah they would've, for sure. Even if you swapped Saleem Malik for Richardson, somewhat similar quality players.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah they would've, for sure. Even if you swapped Saleem Malik for Richardson, somewhat similar quality players.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[trundler]

That's all I'm saying.

Between this and the strike rate discussion, I feel like I need a baptism now.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I'm not rehashing anything, just making a point. That's exactly the argument that some use in regards to bat deep
Just use competent enough batsmen (Marshall / Warne), and anything above would be serious diminishing value. If the tail was full of McGrath's, it's be a problem and there's a baseline level of quality you want beyond that it's not something that factors into any hypothetical selection i'd make.

Not being snarky, but hypothetically or in real life scenarios it's purely subjective as to which is seen as more important as apposed to being redundant.

Lol you are definitely trying to be snarky thats fine. I don't think slip fielding is as important as lower order runs in ATG context so obviously we're going to differ.

Although tbh, the real reason the ATG XI you posted doesn't need slip fielding is because imran us in it and he doesn't need great slip fielders to get wickets unlike those weaklings Mcgrath and marshall.

 

[kyear2]

All I'm trying to show is that this isn't all hypothetical, there's real world value and should equally be factored into team selections.

 

[trundler]

I'm not sure how to judge fielders pre-footage. Cowdrey, a reputed slipper, looks awful on footage and Knott looks miles better than Tallon despite supposedly being preferred over better keepers for batting.