In terms of match impact, is Botham better than Tendulkar and McGrath?

[subshakerz]

There are players who probably would never have been selected for England had they not been exceptional catchers. Examples are Ernie Hayes, Jim McConnon, Peter Walker, Phil Sharpe and Graham Roope.

That's all well and good but we can all agree it's the exception. Vast majority are selected based on skills in your specialization.

 

[kyear2]

Hadlee, Marshall, Bumrah likely

Ummmm, we'll see.

Surprising, will book mark this, lol.

But yeah, a good and probably the correct answer.

 

[kyear2]

Obviously they just need to select Kuldeep

Yup get Kuldeep and a proper bat in imo

All two, both.

 

[kyear2]

No you've raised the slips point repeatedly in selection discussions

That Root didn't even attempt a catch that would have turned the match?

No one mentioned it.

 

[subshakerz]

That Root didn't even attempt a catch that would have turned the match?

No one mentioned it.

didn't address my point

 

[subshakerz]

Ummmm, we'll see.

Surprising, will book mark this, lol.

But yeah, a good and probably the correct answer.

Why are you surprised?

I have repeatedly praised Bumrahs skill. I would only switch for Imran if I think Bumrahs fitness issue is that severe by that point to exclude him.

 

[kyear2]

So you are dropping who for Barry based on slips, Hutton or Hobbs?

My XI's are literally in my signature.

 

[kyear2]

didn't address my point

That was literally what the post was about.

You're just trying to be argumentative

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yes it does bear consideration, I did a poll a few years back asking just that, should it be a factor when selecting teams in general.

It's also about not being regarded when speaking of and rating cricketers here in general. Two days ago there was a comp between Trueman and Chappell. If it were Pollock vs Chappell, everyone would talk about the inflated batting average of the former that impresses everyone. There was however, no mention of the fact that Chappell was a top 10 slip of all time.

Back to real selections, I'm hearing quite a few people calling for Nair to be dropped, but he's been their most consistent and best catcher (from what I saw) for the series. I'm not saying he's undroppable because if it, but should be a consideration in his favor.

I'm saying it's a critical part of the game that's not fully appreciated here by some , one who literally thinks you can stick anyone there and coach them up. It's however very much a specialist position, and I also disagree with the notion that it's conventional wisdom to choose a team and just figure it out after.

It doesn't even happen in practice much, honestly. The vast majority of players in my time of watching cricket have been picked for their:
- Specialist Batting
- Specialist Bowling
- Wicketkeeping ability
- Secondary batting/bowling skill

Put your bias aside for a moment and think about how many players have been selected for their skill of slip fielding. It might have played a role for guys like Roger Harper, or Carl Hooper. But in 99% of cases, I'm sorry I just don't see it. Players are selected for their secondary batting/bowling all the damn time, and rarely ever selected for their slip catching. You can argue that's wrong, but I don't even see how this is arguable that it's not how selections are made.

 

[kyear2]

That's all well and good but we can all agree it's the exception. Vast majority are selected based on skills in your specialization.

Sir Garfield Sobers, Carl Hooper, Roger Harper, all 3 either kept or long term maintained their places due largely to their catching.

 

[subshakerz]

My XI's are literally in my signature.

Ok but you aren't dropping anyone for slips, yes?

 

[subshakerz]

Sir Garfield Sobers, Carl Hooper, Roger Harper, all 3 either kept or long term maintained their places due largely to their catching.

Because there werent better specialist available.

 

[subshakerz]

That was literally what the post was about.

You're just trying to be argumentative

That wasn't the general point I was making on you.

 

[peterhrt]

That's all well and good but we can all agree it's the exception. Vast majority are selected based on skills in your specialization.

It's the exception now. It wasn't always. Picking specialist catchers was usually a reactive measure after missed chances affected results.

Either side of the First World War the issue was mobility in the outfield and ability to throw in from the boundary. Poor fielding was highlighted in the press. Digby Jephson wrote in 1901:

To write well of the fielding in 1900 is but to forge a romance that exists nowhere, save in the writer's brain. Taken as a whole the fielding has been bad, thoroughly bad. The energy, the life, the ever-watchfulness of ten years ago is gone, and in their place are lethargy, laziness and a wonderful yearning for rest.

A great batsman having produced a colossal score seems content with his performance. He loafs in the field. It would be a good thing for cricket if many a great batsman could be confined to the slips, for there there is always the chance of a sudden shock, a sudden realisation that he is in the field to do some work.

Many cricketers returned from the war with wounds and disabilities that affected their mobility and throw. It was sometimes claimed that Middlesex men Hendren and Robins partly owed their England careers to being based at Lord's. It was equally true that they were far more athletic than their rivals in the field.

 

[kyear2]

It doesn't even happen in practice much, honestly. The vast majority of players in my time of watching cricket have been picked for their:
- Specialist Batting
- Specialist Bowling
- Wicketkeeping ability
- Secondary batting/bowling skill

Put your bias aside for a moment and think about how many players have been selected for their skill of slip fielding. It might have played a role for guys like Roger Harper, or Carl Hooper. But in 99% of cases, I'm sorry I just don't see it. Players are selected for their secondary batting/bowling all the damn time, and rarely ever selected for their slip catching. You can argue that's wrong, but I don't even see how this is arguable that it's not how selections are made.

Cricketers are primarily selected for their primary skills, period.

On many team, there's often a player who's chosen for the all rounder role, filling the need of a batsman who can bowl as needed.

But that's the only one that's generally selected for a secondary skill.

Teams at least 95% of the time, choose their bowling attacks based on just that, the bowling. Yes there are guys who can bat a bit, but only very rarely as well is that part of the primary calculation, and as with slips one gets lucky.

So there's no real distinction here, only batting all rounders are primarily chosen for their primary skills, and teams have at most, one of those.

 

[kyear2]

Ok but you aren't dropping anyone for slips, yes?

We covered this like 4 times

 

[kyear2]

Because there werent better specialist available.

You can choose to believe whatever you wish.

 

[kyear2]

It's the exception now. It wasn't always. Picking specialist catchers was usually a reactive measure after missed chances affected results.

Either side of the First World War the issue was mobility in the outfield and ability to throw in from the boundary. Poor fielding was highlighted in the press. Digby Jephson wrote in 1901:

To write well of the fielding in 1900 is but to forge a romance that exists nowhere, save in the writer's brain. Taken as a whole the fielding has been bad, thoroughly bad. The energy, the life, the ever-watchfulness of ten years ago is gone, and in their place are lethargy, laziness and a wonderful yearning for rest.

A great batsman having produced a colossal score seems content with his performance. He loafs in the field. It would be a good thing for cricket if many a great batsman could be confined to the slips, for there there is always the chance of a sudden shock, a sudden realisation that he is in the field to do some work.

Many cricketers returned from the war with wounds and disabilities that affected their mobility and throw. It was sometimes claimed that Middlesex men Hendren and Robins partly owed their England careers to being based at Lord's. It was equally true that they were far more athletic than their rivals in the field.

So I want to make two points and then wrap up this conversation.

So we have two scenarios and what would be reasonable reactions to solve them.

Your batting is collapsing and you're not scoring enough runs, you feel like your scores are constantly below par. How does one fix that?

Second scenario, your fast bowlers are producing edges, but they're being put down and you're missing out on crucial opportunities. How is that fixable.

I imagine the best solution to the first would be to strengthen the top and middle order. However, somehow the notion arouse, specially in the SC apparently, that the best way to do that would be to bolster the lower order, often weakening the bowling in the process, still making it harder to actually win.

Now which of those two solutions seem more viable or even sound?

For the second scenario, it's straight forward. You strengthen the cordon. Now how, you ask? There's probably been less than a handful of teams in history that had a quality lineup 1 to 6, with at least a couple below test standard batters hanging on through the supplementary skills of bowling and or catching.

Now to the second point.
Apparently where one was indoctrinated into the sport seems to have an impact on ones perspective. Based on conditions and experiences.

The subcontinent has been traditionally slow and low, the bastion of spinners and often not the most skilled ones with the bat. Slips would not have been much of a priority and especially not at home, and as it's been primarily to the spinners, you could get away with just one good one.

I grew up during the dynastic years of the WI, and it was aggressive batsmen, fast bowlers and the best cordons imaginable. It was same for the Aussie team there after and the SA team after that as well.

You can't win in the traditionally WI, Aus, Eng or SA without being able to catch in the cordon. That's where the dismissals happen, it was a hyper focus, a priority.

Today with more limited over matches than domestic first class ones, it's lost its pride of place and the quality has plummeted.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes there are guys who can bat a bit, but only very rarely as well is that part of the primary calculation, and as with slips one gets lucky.

This has been our point all along

 

[peterhrt]

Monty Noble covered the 1924-25 Ashes series in Australia. He provided a comprehensive report of dropped catches in the series.

A feature of the Test Matches was the number of dropped catches. No fewer than 45 were missed, 24 by the Australians and 21 by the Englishmen. It is hardly creditable that two international sides should average five "misses" an innings, or nine every match. But more surprising still is the great number of runs that these rejected chances cost the offending teams. Contrary, no doubt, to general expectations, Australia was by far the greatest sufferer - says the Sydney Sunday News. Taking as a guide the number of runs the various batsmen scored after receiving a 'life', we find that missed catches cost Australia 897 runs! England's mistakes in the field cost 576.

In addition to missed catches, there were, of course, a few stumping opportunities lost by Strudwick and Oldfield, and also possible runs-out.

Sutcliffe was dropped nine times, costing 507 runs. He scored 734 in total. In the first innings of the fourth Test he offered an easy chance to Ponsford when on 9, and went on to make 143.

Most of the chief culprits were normally good fielders. Gregory dropped five and Oldfield three. For England Woolley put down four and Hendren three.