Jersey #10 Posted April 19, 2014 Posted April 19, 2014 I'd play ABDV as a fielder - even if he didn't bat. The guy saves like 20 runs in the field every time and grabs those impossible catches.
Sidhoni Posted April 19, 2014 Posted April 19, 2014 Rhodes used to play on his fielding but I doubt that may happen in the modern day cricket. In the current lot, I would play guys like Rahane, Warner, ABDV, Guptill
Marut Posted April 20, 2014 Posted April 20, 2014 No one. Even if he saves some runs (which may not happen every time), that won't make any difference to the match if the guy doesn't bat or bowl.
CG Posted April 20, 2014 Posted April 20, 2014 No one. Even if he saves some runs (which may not happen every time)' date=' that won't make any difference to the match if the guy doesn't bat or bowl.[/quote'] :two_thumbs_up:
nevada Posted April 20, 2014 Posted April 20, 2014 Good fielders' role is not limited to saving runs alone. They can save boundaries and frustrate the opposition batsmen into taking risks. They can effect run outs. They can take catches and turn the momentum in their team's favor. Remember Gary Pratt? He is the English substitute fielder who ran out Ponting in the 2005 Ashes. That run out is considered a turning point in the series.
rahulrulezz Posted April 21, 2014 Posted April 21, 2014 No wonder why we were stuck with that useless Kaif for 8 years... Fielding is over-rated in my opinion.. Yes, fielding is a bonus but in now way, fielding should be given preference over genuine batsman or bowlers.. Pakistani with its crappy fielding has a great ODI record overall... Heck they used to beat us for for fun till 1990s with its pathetic fielding... I rather have Inzimams over Kaifs and Jadejas
Marut Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Good fielders' role is not limited to saving runs alone. They can save boundaries and frustrate the opposition batsmen into taking risks. They can effect run outs. They can take catches and turn the momentum in their team's favor. Remember Gary Pratt? He is the English substitute fielder who ran out Ponting in the 2005 Ashes. That run out is considered a turning point in the series. But would you select any fielder, knowing that he won't bat or bowl? Fielding is a bonus skill, no player can be selected based on fielding as the primary skill.
I6MTW Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 But would you select any fielder' date=' knowing that he won't bat or bowl? Fielding is a bonus skill, no player can be selected based on fielding as the primary skill.[/quote'] If a player can field well, then he can be selected into the side as a substitute fielder. So even if a person isn't bowling or batting properly, he can still be able to field for his team.
cricketpitch Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Rhodes used to play on his fielding but I doubt that may happen in the modern day cricket. In the current lot, I would play guys like Rahane, Warner, ABDV, Guptill Jonty Rhodes is an underrated batsman. He played in an era where an ODI batting average of 35 was considered good. Teams had great bowling attacks and pitches around the world weren't that flat. His LOI batting average of 35 with SR of 81 coupled with his fielding was gold for SA. I am sure he would have the talent to play as a batsman even in the current era of flat wickets and poor attacks around the world. His test average of 35 should also be taken with the period he played test cricket in. We are talking about the 90's when only 3 batsmen averaged over 50 (Sachin, Waugh and Lara). So it wasn't an era where every tom dick and harry used to average 50+ like the current generation. So he offered more to SA than you are actually giving him credit for.
Marut Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Jonty Rhodes is an underrated batsman. He played in an era where an ODI batting average of 35 was considered good. Teams had great bowling attacks and pitches around the world weren't that flat. His LOI batting average of 35 with SR of 81 coupled with his fielding was gold for SA. I am sure he would have the talent to play as a batsman even in the current era of flat wickets and poor attacks around the world. His test average of 35 should also be taken with the period he played test cricket in. We are talking about the 90's when only 3 batsmen averaged over 50 (Sachin, Waugh and Lara). So it wasn't an era where every tom dick and harry used to average 50+ like the current generation. So he offered more to SA than you are actually giving him credit for. True that, Rhodes would have never made the SA side on the basis of fielding alone, he was a quite useful batsman - he has the 14th best test average among all SA batsmen to have played since their readmission, and in his playing days he was the 5th best in the team. In ODIs, he is 15th in the list of all SA batsmen, and he was the 6th best batsman in his playing days. No way he was in the team because he was a top fielder alone. Rhodes made 33 ODI fifities and two hundreds. He has three test hundreds and 17 fifties. He has a test hundred at Lords and also scored a 100 against a WI side featuring Walsh. He is no mug with the bat.
Sidhoni Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 My point is he would've kept someone with similar or a bit superior batting talent out of the side on basis of his fielding.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now