• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Hypothetical Question

Would he be selected?

  • Yes

    Votes: 31 86.1%
  • No

    Votes: 5 13.9%

  • Total voters
    36

Camel56

Banned
Ok,
Surpose there was a batsmen as good or perhaps even better than Bradman. He was a certainty to average around 100 in test matches just a Bradman did.

BUT

He couldnt field at all. He was the worst fieldman you could possibly imagine. Ten, twenty times worse than the the worst you can think of. He's big, fat and slow. Has trouble bending down to field etc. Appauling catching, will drop absolute sitters and no amount of practise can make him better.

Now my question is, in this day and age where fielding is so important and the standards of fielding are so high, would this brilliant batsmen be selected to play test cricket?
 

GotSpin

Hall of Fame Member
I don't think he would be selected, but then again. You could put him down at fine leg or something and train him harder.
 

a massive zebra

International Vice-Captain
Camel56 said:
He's big, fat and slow. Has trouble bending down to field etc.
Can't see someone like that averaging 100 because their footwork would be terrible and their stroke production would be limited.


Camel56 said:
Appauling catching, will drop absolute sitters
If you cannot catch then your eye sight and co-ordination would probably be crap so you would struggle to hit the ball.
 

a massive zebra

International Vice-Captain
Camel56 said:
But imagine all the boundaries he would let by because of his total lack of speed etc.
Well if he averaged 100 then he would need to concede at least 60 runs per innings to not be worth his place in the side (if you average 40 most people recognise you as an instrumental member of the side), and I can't see anyone conceding that many runs at fine leg unless the wicket-keeper sucks.
 

Camel56

Banned
a massive zebra said:
Can't see someone like that averaging 100 because their footwork would be terrible and their stroke production would be limited.




If you cannot catch then your eye sight and co-ordination would probably be crap so you would struggle to hit the ball.

Yes im aware of these things thats why it was a hypothetical question.
 

Camel56

Banned
a massive zebra said:
Well if he averaged 100 then he would need to concede at least 60 runs per innings to not be worth his place in the side (if you average 40 most people recognise you as an instrumental member of the side), and I can't see anyone conceding that many runs at fine leg unless the wicket-keeper sucks.
Why couldnt he? There are plenty of balls played off the batsmens hip to fine leg. Easy for him to conceed that many if he is as bad as ive said he is.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yes im aware of these things thats why it was a hypothetical question.
A hypothetical question of this nature also has to have an element of plausibility to it or it makes no sense.
 

Camel56

Banned
It is perfectly plausible. I have played against grossly obese players who were very very good batsmen. They would usually field in the slips but werent very good when it came to taking catches.
 

tassietiger

U19 Debutant
Yes, he would get picked, and I would play him at mid-on or mid-off, as that is a rather easy position where your main job is to give the ball to the bowler.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
It is perfectly plausible. I have played against grossly obese players who were very very good batsmen. They would usually field in the slips but werent very good when it came to taking catches.
A massive zebra wasn't disputing whether overweight people can play the game at all but whether they would have the physical ability to be picked in higher level teams. Bit different.

As for my take on the matter, a batsman would have to have a considerable level of batting ability to offset the lack of fielding ability. Unless they were the very incarnation of Bradman, I'd say it would be better to pick a slightly lesser batsman who was a far better fielder.
 

Slow Love™

International Captain
I don't think there's anything wrong with Camel's hypothetical. It's the nature of hypotheticals that you take the premise offered, and answer the question asked. In any hypothetical, you could say "but then this guy wouldn't have..." or "I've never seen a player offer those two choices.". It's beside the point. The tradeoff is between the terrible fielding and the Bradmanesque batting.

Myself, I'd play him, and as some others have proposed, try and hide him in the field where he'll do the least damage. Fine leg probably would be best, as long as your bowlers are disciplined enough to remember he's there. :)
 

crickey

Cricket Spectator
Fielding is far too important these days IMO. After watching a lot of archives over the weekend due to rain it is amazing to see the increase in overall pace of the game within just the last 10-20 years!!!

you're better off working closely with other batters on bringing up their abilities...anyway we do OK (i emphasise OK) considering we dont have a modern day bradman
 

Linda

International Vice-Captain
How could you not play someone who averages 100? That would just be ridiculous, no matter how much of a shocker he was in the feild. Feilding can be taught to an extent, there is no way batting like Bradman can be.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Slow Love™ said:
I don't think there's anything wrong with Camel's hypothetical. It's the nature of hypotheticals that you take the premise offered, and answer the question asked. In any hypothetical, you could say "but then this guy wouldn't have..." or "I've never seen a player offer those two choices.". It's beside the point. The tradeoff is between the terrible fielding and the Bradmanesque batting.

Myself, I'd play him, and as some others have proposed, try and hide him in the field where he'll do the least damage. Fine leg probably would be best, as long as your bowlers are disciplined enough to remember he's there. :)
Its really a question of whether you are better off fielding with ten or with eleven but an average of around 50-60 runs less per innings. I think the answer would be pretty obvious. There are places in the field where less than 50 runs are scored per innings on an average . Fine leg and third man are the best examples assuming the bowlers dont want to prove the skipper wrong for taking the fellow in the side :p
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
you can't say "we'll field him at fine leg all the time" because that doesnt happen in cricket anyways (unless the captain really hates you), he would have to be brought up to mid off or mid on every second over. and in addition, if you were to make him run from fine leg to fine leg, because he was fat and slow, it would take him so long to get there that the captain would end up being suspended for a slow over rate.

anyways, i'd play him. just to see a very very obese man slap fit people to all corners of the ground
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
vic_orthdox said:
you can't say "we'll field him at fine leg all the time" because that doesnt happen in cricket anyways (unless the captain really hates you), he would have to be brought up to mid off or mid on every second over. and in addition, if you were to make him run from fine leg to fine leg, because he was fat and slow, it would take him so long to get there that the captain would end up being suspended for a slow over rate.

anyways, i'd play him. just to see a very very obese man slap fit people to all corners of the ground
I have suggested that you decide if you are better off fielding with 10. Then his being on the field becomes optional :)
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
if he were that large, he could lay down and let the ball hit him, just become a road block. its better than him not being on the ground at all.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
vic_orthdox said:
if he were that large, he could lay down and let the ball hit him, just become a road block. its better than him not being on the ground at all.
point !! :p

He could be made to lie down in front of the helmet when it is kept on the ground, it would prevent the occasional runs which result from the ball hitting it !! :p

He could also be made to stand next to the non striker, to run them out if they back up too much !! :p
 

Top