Hypothetical Question

[Shady Slim]

for sure

 

[SteveNZ]

Sure he'd get selected. Put him at third man / fine leg.

Ridiculous though. If he's that good a batsman, his hand-eye co-ordination can't be that bad.

Not completely without precedent. Mark Richardson was a pretty average fielder, not horrendous as the OP describes but pretty bad. John Bracewell used to work him over something silly after a day's play/training to make him passably decent. Sure there's others that I can't think of right now

But yeah, of course this guy would be picked.

 

[TheJediBrah]

So effectively playing with 10 in the field.

I guess the real question is whether that one horrible fielder will cost more than say 60 runs a fielding innings (assuming another batsman chosen to replace him would average about 40), which is very possible.

I think in Tests you would lose 60+ runs from having 1 fielder as bad as you describe and selecting him would be a bad choice.

 

[Athlai]

Hypothetical Question 2

Would you pick a bowler that was Malcolm Marshall 2.0 who was also legally blind?

Only enough sight to make out the pitch, has a bright orange bowling mark, Just enough vision to make out a batsman charging.

Zero batting or fielding ability.

 

[Athlai]

*athlai anxiously awaits the moderator response to his hypothetical question. Unlike Cameron can he avoid a hypothetical ban?*

 

[harsh.ag]

Malcolm 2.0 ain't no Bradman. Ghtfo and put a non-blind Hadlee.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah, hypothetical seems impossible.

Ridiculous though. If he's that good a batsman, his hand-eye co-ordination can't be that bad.

Premise is absurd anyway. Likelihood is that anyone capable of averaging 100 with the bat would be a better than average fielder. Most great batsmen are gun fielders also, cos the skills required are similar.

I'm struggling to see a hypothetical situation where this could exist

Why can't the guy field though? Seriously? I struggle to see how a batsman who averages 100 could not field at all. Is there a reason? Expand on the hypothetical pls?

Do you guys even know what hypothetical means? It's an assumption you morons. Assumptions should never be the focus of a question like this. They exist only to set up the question itself. OP was right.

#BringBackCameron

 

[Athlai]

We already established that he was afraid of balls.

 

[Athlai]

We already established that he was afraid of balls.

#postwithoutcontext

 

[harsh.ag]

Do you guys even know what hypothetical means? It's an assumption you morons. Assumptions should never be the focus of a question like this.

OS rendering the entire null-hypothesis testing industry obsolete to bring back random poster,

 

[sledger]

If the guy was really fat you could just have him lie down on the boundary somewhere.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Question # 3

There is a guy who can fly. Where do you place him in the field?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Question # 3

There is a guy who can fly. Where do you place him in the field?

Fly slip?

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Fly slip?

what if he could genuinely fly aka superman 2.0

 

[honestbharani]

Question 1: Yes, he will be selected coz even if he were that bad, the assumption among most cricket coaches is fielding can be improved to a passable degree over time.. Assuming the guy is averaging 200+ in FC (which he should if he were that good in today's FC standards) he will be selected at a reasonably young age which means most people will think his fielding can be improved.


Question 2: He will be invaluable in day night tests with the pink ball.. #1 pick IMO, preferably for NZ


Question 3: Faf fields at mid-off for the Super Kings... How is your question hypothetical?

 

[mintykip]

Question 4: Would you rather a fielder who has a 100% catch rate and can catch absolute screamers from pretty much anywhere or a fielder who can throw the stumps down 100% of the time from anywhere on the field with absolute rockets? I haven't really thought this one through all that much so there's probably a really obvious answer, but, meh.

 

[harsh.ag]

3. Place them anywhere in the V, towards the boundary.

4. Fielder who can throw down the stumps hands down. Would get so many wickets.

 

[Dan]

4. Fielder who can throw down the stumps hands down. Would get so many wickets.

I don't know, the 100% accuracy rocket arm dude would pretty quickly gain a reputation as "don't ever ****ing run if the ball is near him". That being said, this still happened:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFsl9g4PUQA

 

[mintykip]

And you can stick beast catching guy real close in the covers which would absolutely **** with the batsman's head as they know anything even slightly aerial thorugh that area is deadset gone.

 

[honestbharani]

yeah.. the superman catching guy will basically lock out one side of the field for the batsmen..