Cricket is a statistically driven game. So much so that every Australian has the vital statistics of the greatest exponents of the game ingrained into their consciousness.
Best batsman? Bradman’s 99.94. Bowler? Shane Warne’s 708 wickets mean he should be in the conversation at least.
How about the best fielder? More difficult, isn’t it?
Ricky Ponting must be up there, with his 196 Test match catches (and 160 in ODIs). As would Steve Smith of the current crop, but generally fielding statistics aren’t memorable to anyone other then the most dedicated aficionado.
The achievements of Bob Simpson for example – acknowledged as one of the game’s top slippers – in snaring 110 batsmen at a rate of 0.94 catches per innings, a rate unsurpassed by anyone in Test history, would be news to many.
Even Adam Gilchrist’s 416 Test dismissals (379 catches and 37 stumpings) – accounting for 2.178 dismissals per his 191 innings, one of the best strike rates of any wicketkeeper – hardly rolls off the tongue.
We justifiably think of names like Jonty Rhodes or Paul Collingwood when talk turns to the best fielders. But why? Can we say how effective they’ve been in the field throughout their careers? Or are we blinded by their sublime abilities?
These men redefined fielding with their athletic exploits. So how, in a sport so driven by statistics, can we have a situation where whom we think of as being the best fielder relies on a highlights reel over concrete facts?
Fielding is the forgotten discipline. We all know that ‘catches win matches’, yet the way we analyse fielding is desperately antiquated.
The improvement in fielding skills has been remarkable since limited-overs cricket was introduced – particularly in the Twenty20 age. But while bowling and batting performances are subject to countless hours of statistical analysis, there is no real quantifiable way of saying how effective a fielder is other than reputation.
The number of catches is currently the only real way to quantify the ability of a fielder, but this clearly falls woefully short in giving any real information, as it does not include the number of dropped catches. With the absence of a viable alternative, this flawed statistic is the only way to tell us who’s the best fielder around.
And it’s not just catches that are poorly recorded. Run outs – either the strike rate or circumstance – are equally under-represented as a statistical measure for fielding effectiveness.
So should mistakes be highlighted?
In my mind, recording fielding errors should be the next development in cricket scoring.
Errors are a harsh statistic no doubt, but an invaluable one in terms of evaluating the comparative ability of fielders. It is also a fundamental stat in cricket’s distant cousin, baseball.
In baseball’s early years, scorers wanted to differentiate between earned runs and runs scored off mistakes from the fielding team, hence the recording of errors. A key statistic in the game for pitchers, the ‘earned run average’ or ERA, is a nod to this historical fact. The fielding players are there to serve the pitcher, and any errors they make are not considered his fault and should not unduly affect his statistics.
This anointing of individual accountability within team sports, emphasising any irregularities in a system where every player is deigned to be perfect, is ingrained in American sport.
In baseball, an error is charged against a fielder when a normal or ordinary effort would result in an out, the choice being at the discretion of the official scorer.
There is a reasonable argument that attributing an error, such as whether or not a catching chance is dropped, is somewhat arbitrary.
The afternoon session of Day 3 at the WACA gave us a perfect scenario.
Nathan Lyon’s drop of Brendon McCullum off Mitchell Starc in the slips was undoubtably an error. But would the diving effort of Mitchell Marsh to shell Ross Taylor in the next over be considered one? That’s less clear cut, especially as it was Marsh’s athleticism and heightened fielding ability that allowed him to get two hands on the ball in the first place.
The ‘Ultimate Zone Rating’ sabermetric would account for that, but if we are to develop new statistics we should walk before we run.
Attributing errors provides another key talking point in baseball, as was the case in this year’s World Series.
When Daniel Murphy of the New York Mets let a bouncing ball from Eric Hosmer slip underneath his glove in Game 4, he allowed the Kansas City Royals to score the game-tying run in the eighth inning – a game the Royals went on to win on their way to claiming a first World Series in 30 years.
Baseball fans are well known for their penchant to statistically model everything – and bloggers in the States noted that this error was the seventh most costly in World Series history. That single play reduced the Mets’ chance of winning the series by a whopping 13 per cent.
In a twist of sporting karma, the Mets famously won the 1986 World Series against the Boston Red Sox by benefiting from Bill Buckner’s ‘through the legs’ error, which reduced the Sox’s chances of winning the Series by 20 per cent – the most costly error of all time.
There are parallels in cricket. Herschelle Gibbs’ dropping of Steve Waugh when on 56 – he made 120 – arguably cost South Africa the 1999 World Cup when they met at Headingly in the Super 6s, especially given the game situation at the time – Australia reeling on 3-48 chasing 271. Losing that game, coupled with the tie in the semi-final, meant Australia made the final.
This story has gone down in cricketing folklore, so do we really need to have it written on the scorecard?
I believe so. Scorecards are an impartial record of a match, devoid of the emotion needed to describe the drama while accurately capturing the actual events. Missing off errors simply leaves the story half told.
With Jonathan Wells filling the Gary Pratt role of specialist substitute fielder in the WACA Test, there is an argument that fielding statistics could be useful in all forms of cricket. But it’s Twenty20, where every ball is a scoring opportunity that must be taken, where these statistics would be most valuable.
The mercurial nature of Twenty20 cricket is such that franchises are already barely more than tools for self promotion by globetrotting superstars. Such a heavy emphasis on star power should have its pitfalls as well as its rewards, and if that means recording individual errors for posterity on the scorecard, so be it.
Regardless of what any new statistics or recording would shed on fielding ability, players would never be picked solely for their fielding. Even the aforementioned Pratt, England’s 2003 run out hero, attributed his fall from first-class cricket to being branded as a fielding specialist in a 2010 interview with ESPN.
Additionally, wicketkeepers haven’t been picked based on their keeping ability for years, with quality glovemen such as Jack Russell and James Foster missing out on more international caps due to superior batsmen – Alec Stuart and Chris Reed, Geraint Jones and Matt Prior – occupying the position behind the stumps.
The age old question as to whether it’s more important to have a batsman score runs or a specialist keeper or fielder save them in the field will be unending – although the balance is definitely in favour of runs on the board.
And neither are the practicalities of errors being recorded as straightforward in cricket. But with thought, it could be done.
The fact remains that fielding remains woefully under-represented in the analysis of the modern game. And particularly in Twenty20, where games can swing on an exceptional run out or gravity-defying catch, fielding ability is gaining in importance.
So perhaps the forgotten discipline may yet be the most important statistic moving forward in the future of the game. If so, it’s time to treat it as such.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I remember back in the '80s Joel Garner fielding at gully taking a catch where he jumped up and caught it at full stretch. You'd have to feel unlucky as the batsman. Probably not another player in the history of world cricket who would have taken the catch!
Adam C
Guest
I think this actually reinforces your point Simon. There is no record of what the score was when the catch was dropped. The only way to know is to have the video footage available.
Simon Smale
Roar Guru
I see what you're saying WLC, and I guess part of the art of captaincy is utilising the best players in the most appropriate positions for their skill set. I would expect that if a player was put in a position - no matter what that position was - they should probably be able to catch the ball though... I'm sure I read or watched something where players overall reach was measured (I might be inventing this though...) and the size was definitely a factor, but smaller players still had as good a reach due to superior foot work... Although obviously a 6'2" player would have more chance of catching a high ball than a 5'2" one...
Simon Smale
Roar Guru
Ye absolutely Rellum, all those factors would have to make an impact. Love the tracer bullet analogy though - perfect description!
Warnie's Love Child
Guest
There's also a question regarding a player's stature. For example if Mitchell Starc was fielding at gully, his height and reach means that statistically he would get one or both hands to a shot more often than say a fielder with the height/reach of a David Warner. So statistically Starc would also drop more catches than Warner. Would the stats count against Starc for dropping more catches ( though not necessarily as a % of attempts), or against Warner for not even getting a hand on shots that Starc might catch, or even against the Captain for putting the wrong player in the wrong position ?
Rellum
Roar Guru
Baseball has may reasons why they do throw harder and appear throw harder. First up I personally think their technique is better than crickets. Not just the mechanics of it but also because throwing is more more integral to their game. So kids are taught and practice far more than young cricketers do. Secondly when watching a game it is not that often a cricketer throws the ball flat out. Most of the time they just lob it back in. No need to risk injury when you don't need to, where as in baseball just about every game situation requires them to throw it flat out. Then you have the ball itself. In my experience it is smaller and maybe heavier so that combination to me makes it go faster for longer. Lest resistance and more weight/force to slow down. Then as you suggest Simon it is also the height of cameras and seats that give the illusion of the balls going like tracer bullets. When you see a ground level shot the arc of the ball is more apparent. And lastly as Ronan says there are still cricketers that could hold their own against MLB's best guys buy on average they are better at throwing the ball.
Rellum
Roar Guru
There are balls that do more after they have gone past the batsman or keep rising so not all unstoppable byes in my opinion can be considered wides.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
There are some amazing arms in MLB like Yaseil Puig. But I'd put guys like Brett Lee in his prime right up there too.
Simon Smale
Roar Guru
And I can see that - when I went to my first MLB game in the states I could not believe how hard and flat they threw the ball in the outfield - so much so that it seemed to hold its horizontal trajectory for an absolute age... (probably an optical illusion of sorts from high up in the gods at AT&T Park in San Fran and Yankee Stadium but impressive none the less!) Ichiro Suzuki (who I've mentioned in another comment) is someone who exemplifies that. Fielding far out in right field he would still get the ball into the diamond - and occasionally as far as third base with extraordinary power and accuracy. It was amazing. I wonder would the gloves be a factor in the throwing as well in the sense that they know the guy they are throwing to will be able to catch it pain free? Subconsciously perhaps? Probably not actually but is interesting. Plus they are throwing to a man in baseball, with a greater range than perhaps a single fielder in cricket who is hovering over stumps...?
Simon Smale
Roar Guru
Absolutely Baz, someone could be a great fielder in the deep yet pretty ordinary at silly point or silly anything for that matter. And slips are effectively specialist positions akin to the wicketkeeper. Fielding could therefore be split into "close", "midfield", "outfield" and "slip" or something similar. I guess with the whole positional issues there is the problem that bowlers tend to field at fine leg when they are in the middle of a spell... Mitch Johnson had an amazing arm, but plenty of others don't quite have that powerful a throw, particularly towards the end of a spell... I'm inclined to agree with Rellum in the sense that if a fielder gets a hand to a catch then it should be counted as a chance... however I get your point. Perhaps there could be a stat for one handed verses two handed catches and drops etc...
Rellum
Roar Guru
Craing young did say catching in cricket is a level above anything in MLB. MLB was ahead in the throwing and ground coverage.
Rellum
Roar Guru
Personally I think any catch that someone gets a hand on should count. Then you will see who really is great as they will take more. Yes they may get hands to more as well but I bet the truly great ones make more chances and take more.
baz
Guest
You ha e missed a point they need to record where the catches are taken on the field the position of the fielder. That would give great data. On what slips take more catches. I would think if on a ground first slip rarely took a catch he would go to second. Some position would lack data but over a few seasons you would bring the data up. I know I'm not talking about errors but you could have a simple rule got 1 hand got 2 hands, required a dive, or in case of close in fielders fielding closer than 15m and out of the middle of bat would not be an error as far as I'm concerned. What do ppl think
Simon Smale
Roar Guru
Ye Rellum, the wides and byes issue is an interesting one for wicket keepers... on occasion you see runs given as byes when realistically there is no way any 'keeper would have got to it and it should perhaps have been called a wide...
Simon Smale
Roar Guru
"You sort of need to record the negatives to give meaning to the positives." Exactly Chris. Saying someone has caught 30 catches in a season effectively means nothing other than he has caught 30 catches. Saying they have only dropped one in that season means when the ball has got within arms reach of them, they've caught the ball ~97% of the time. If they had dropped 40 but caught 30 - well 43% success rate isn't so hot is it! I agree that the number of times the ball is fielder per player would be interesting, as well as what they do with the ball when they get it (i.e. parry it, clean pick up, pick up and throw, catch etc.) That would have a variety of applications - although perhaps that would keep once scorer busy for the majority of the game! I think with the drops I agree with Paul D, it just has to be a judgement call. As with Marsh's effort when he dropped Taylor - was it a drop? Well he got two hands to it, so I would actually say a fielder of his standard should have caught it. Would I say the same if he got a finger tip to it? No - thats harsh. Commentators readily argue over whether or not an aerial ball was a "chance" or a "drop" throughout a game. Some are harsher than others - which would make things difficult in terms of consistency. But then again wides are often a judgement call, as are byes (much to the chagrin of wicket keepers at times!)
Simon Smale
Roar Guru
Australias fielding was always brilliant in his era - although the standard hasn't dropped too dramatically for me (another judgement call no doubt!). Makes sense that a baseball fielding coach would improve the standard. With errors so starkly highlighted in baseball they are simply not acceptable or tolerated in any way - so they have to be almost perfect. When you look at scorecards from the MLB I'm still impressed as to how few errors you see recorded... Granted the gloves help, but overall the movement and athleticism from the fielders is incredible. Ichiro Suzuki is a classic example - his highlights real is exceptional and his arm is frankly ridiculous. Awarding Golden Gloves is a nice way to recognise excellence in the field and gives credence to the title of "best fielder".
Simon Smale
Roar Guru
Ye agreed Paul, it seems like every sport seems to provide more and more data as time goes on - but cricket resolutely ignores fielding in its statistics. Champion Data or Opta are almost certainly able to provide this service (and as I've mentioned in another comment - perhaps they already do as part of a marginal-gains style analysis of the opposition?) and there is no doubt they should. Most first class cricket games seem to have two scorers, it wouldn't be a stretch to suggest that they could record these pieces of information. I wonder if any scorers do record these sorts of stats already? I've encountered some pretty dedicated scorers in my brief time in village cricket in England - who produce works of art masquerading as scorecards - with more information than you'd typically see on a scorecard...
Simon Smale
Roar Guru
Absolutely TB, great points about the runs... I guess in theory every scoring shot is worth no runs unless it goes to the boundary or the batsmen decide to run - it's as much their judgement call as it would be a scorer as to how many runs are saved. How many times in ODI's or T20's do the crowd bemoan a turned-down second run when the batsmen settle for one. Was it good fielding or bad running? Stats should always be taken in context - they can be used to prove virtually anything after all... But yes, I guess my biggest point was that the data isnt being taken in the first place, making all these ideas purely speculative. It would be great to have the data of catches, drops and run-outs, and then that data can be used as fans or analysts see fit - much in the same was as sabermetrics are used by fans in baseball.
Simon Smale
Roar Guru
And yet El Greco, that is precisely the reason why it would be more useful in twenty20 cricket! The bookies would love it. It adds yet another thing that can be bet on officially during the game (as if they needed more) and even means that because so much money is being bet on these games, the punters can be more savvy with their bets and more aware of exactly who they are betting on in terms of their ability to take wickets in the field. It's just another piece of information that can be used. In fact, I'd bet there are teams who have this analysis going on in-house already just for this reason.
Simon Smale
Roar Guru
Ye I tend to agree with you to be honest Paul... It would be much "easier" to attribute errors in the shorter format simply due to the fewer number of permutations available rather than a multi-innings game. It would also make for an interesting time at IPL auction time when team owners would have a clear idea as to what type of fielding player they can get... It might (although probably won't) make the difference between picking one player over another, and might even add some value to players - giving them a different dynamic.