Fielders

I read a post the other day that referred to Jonty Rhodes as the cricketer who transformed (out)fielding.

Although I've heard a lot about Rhodes, we never see cricket here and so I was never fortunate enough to see him play or follow his career.

When I first started folowing cricket, there were plenty of specialist close fielders (Mickey Stewart, Tony Lock, Peter Sainsbury, Peter Walker to name just a few) but very few outstanding outfielders, Neil Harvey the only one who comes to mind. We saw Statham's "arm" and Lindwall was once a good fielder but, depending upon temperament, they were more often hidden at mid on/off or grazed on the boundary, chatting to the punters, hoping for a surreptitious pint.

The first outfielder I remember a big fuss being made about because of his work in the field, rather than at the crease, was Colin Bland, followed by 70's types like Clive Lloyd, Ross Edwards and Derek Randall. Obviously one-day cricket made a helluva difference, Hampshire sometimes including Andy Murtagh solely because of his fielding, but would be interested in the perspective of others.

Was fielding transformed by one-day cricket or transformed again by the greater athleticism of cricketers-turned-highly-trained-athletes? Was Jonty Rhodes the best? How good was Collingwood in comparison?

I don't know, but I'm sure 606v2 does!

To be honest, I do think the idea that Rhodes (or any other modern-day fielder, for that matter), 'transformed' fielding is somewhat overstating the case, IMO. Certainly, fielders such as you mentioned, Bland, Lloyd, Randall, Viv Richards, even David Gower, were all as good IMHO, as top fielders today. What I think has, indisputedly, changed, is the overall standard of fielding. While players like those above were head and shoulders above their contemporaries, almost everybody today can field to a very high standard.

I think the massive improvement we have seen in overall fielding recently is down to mainly three factors:
- one-day cricket showed how important good fielding could be (not only in terms of run-outs and catches but also saving runs).
- cricket moving into the professional era: first of all, statistical analysis was able to confirm the importance of fielding (and having your best fielders in certain areas, depending on the style of bowler/batsman) and of course the fact that cricketers have become truly professional has meant that coaches can demand they put in the effort required on their fielding.
- Jonty Rhodes who showed everyone how it could be done.

OK I exaggerate slightly to make my point, but in my view Jonty Rhodes was a catalyst for the changes to fielding that we are still seeing today. Yes, he was lucky in that he came along at the right time (one-day cricket, or one-day cricket as a different form of the game rather, was still in its infancy, and of course the professional era was looming), but I don't think you can overestimate the effect Rhodes had on coaches and players around the world. When we talk about fielding, we still talk about Rhodes. Not Bland or Randall, and not Ponting or Collingwood or AB (who are in absolute terms "better"). We use Rhodes as an example. And trust me, most cricketers I coach, despite not being born in 92 when he burst onto the scene, know who he is and what he did.

People will claim (hoggy has already) that others before him were "just as good". I disagree. Rhodes did things in the field which made you sit up and go "wow". When you watch footage of (say) Randall straight after, it isn't the same. It was amazing at the time because very few people around did it, and it remains amazing if you watch continuous footage from that era, but in purely qualitive terms, it is comfortably beneath what Rhodes could do (and did).

You then ask the question "was Jonty Rhodes the best?": it depends IMO entirely on what you mean by the best. Are we talking relative terms (compared to his peers) or absolute terms (compared to all fielders ever, after all fielding is just about measurable from era to era)? In absolute terms there are at least half a dozen fielders around now who are technically better, by which I mean more athletic, better at diving stops and/or run-outs, and/or better hands: amongst them Ponting, Collingwood, Pollard, Warner (although different role), AB. Possibly Clarke and Dwayne Bravo as well. Certainly Guptill.

In relative terms there is also an argument that Neil Harvey (who played in an era where he was more or less the only good fielder) was better, but Rhodes would certainly be further up there. Certainly in terms of better than anything that had been seen before, Rhodes is streets ahead of anything seen before, or since, or that probably will be seen.

That Rhodes revolutionised fielding is in my opinion not in doubt. He deserves all the credit people will give him.

Kwini - very interesting article.

Some very fine fielding names rightly trumpeted. Many now forget or don't even know what a brilliant cover fielder Clive Lloyd was prior to serious knee trouble. I'll give you two bonus points for referring to Andy Murtagh and the world famous Jonty Rhodes in the same article. If Murtagh is a household name, it'll only be in his own home! Do you recall Jim Foat? For about a decade from the early 1970s, a lorry driver in the winter and in the summer a jobbing lateish middle order batsman and superior fieler for Gloucs. The Corporal reminded me some time back that their supporters used to say, ''Foats like a butterfly''.

Hoggy writes that ''almost everybody today can field to a very high standard''. I would add that they have to. Not only to be in the county team but even on the books. Gone are the days when a duffer could be hidden in the field. Nowadays, pretty much the opposite applies. As Mike suggests, it is very much about specialist fielders in specialist positions.

One of the main reasons for the change since you left for the States in the mid '70s has been the serious way in which ODIs are now regarded and played. As a result, things have changed, developed and spread a lot. A key aspect rightly flagged by Mike has been the use of statistical analysis to confirm and emphasise the importantance of fielding.

Every ball is now seen as so important. In all formats, captains are far more wary than they used to be of letting the game drift. I'll flag a few changes since you departed these shores - you'll know them but they may surprise some younger readers:

* When ODIs started in the early '70s, there was no specialist squad chosen. The games were just tagged on to the end of a Test series and the same players used as for that.

* I think this will be amazing to some. When watching televised one day county and international games in the '70s and '80s, you didn't hear much mention (if at all) of strike rate. It wasn't a common term at all. Batsmen continued to be judged very much just on the number of runs they scored. I know Cric Info etc show individual strike rates for old ODIs but that was something rarely shown in the cricket press at the time.

* Until the mid '80s the fastest century scored in each County Championship season was measured in hours and minutes, not balls faced.

All very different from today. With the introduction of specialist ODI squads and the appreciation of strike rates, far greater importance was attached to fielding which spread to all formats.

Rhodes clearly demonstrated that importance and took things to the next level. I am in no position from a coaching perspectiven to critricise what Mike says about him. Nor do I wish to do so. He certainly caught the public and professional imagination which, as Mike confirms, is still held today. However, in the context of your article, I see Rhodes as more of a fantastic catalyst than a revolutionary. The genie was already out of the bottle.

Good stuff guildford; I checked up on Jim Foat and read allegations that he's a business tycoon. Amazing!

Agree what you say about strike rates, fastest centuries etc; thought you might like my remembrance of Roy Marshall in the underrated thread - sorry, couldn't think of too many underrated Surrey players of that generation! Tremlett apparently now though!

I'll have to dig up some YouTube files of Rhodes . . . . Think the only South African touring side I ever saw live was the McGlew, Goddard, McLean, Van Ryneveld, Heine, Adcock, Tayfield crew. And Griffin I suppose. Long time passing and certainly don't recall any talk of strike rates!

I think there is a consesus here that professionalism has changed the way a team as a collective fields. I agree Jonty Rhodes wasn't the catalyst that transformed fieldning. I think fielding prior to the world cup with Jonty's famous dive was televised over and over never recieved the attention and therefor the focus as the "third" discipline.

Jonty's dive was one of those magical moments that was used by the media to elevate cricket as a whole, we need to remember cricket is not a sport played at a high level in many countries, so marketing the sport is important and as cricket can often be seen as rather pedantic, slow and boring by ill informed outsiders it is moments like that where a player does something that looks spectacular on screen when used correctly can elevate a sport's image.

There were many world class fielders, Ponting was for example more accurate at the stumps than Jonty, but Jonty's image was enhanced as his dive looked more spectacular.

It is the same principal as where Ponting is deemed better than Kallis becuase of some spectacular knocks, Jonty is deemed the best by many becuase of his dive.

Jonty bought a lot of new techniques in, or at least was the poster boy for them. Hes also the one famous for making a position his own, and bringing a new level of athleticism to fielding. Theres no question he had an impact on generral fiedling standards IMO.
Since then cricket has alos learnt a lot from bringing is baseball coaches. The general standard and attitude has improved, but also the way people field has fundamentaly changed. Throwing techniques, slides and the angles covered have all changed considerably over the last 20 years.

I think youre right to point to one day cricket and the "every run counts" attitude as being a driver of this too.

Let me throw another name in to the mix - Trevor Penney. A sublime fielder.

Fists of Fury wrote:Let me throw another name in to the mix - Trevor Penney. A sublime fielder.

Pity that he wasn't much cop as a batsman. IIRC, England tried to have him available as sub fielder as often as they could.

How about also including mention of Gary Pratt - rarely even made the Durham first XI, but was a semi-permanent member of the England fielding side in the 05 Ashes, and probably did more to merit an MBE than Collingwood in that series.

Back to the main point of the thread, I think that one thing Jonty's fielding ability did mean was that international teams in particular started to consider general fielding ability in their selection of players: Jonty probably wasn't one of the 5 or 6 best batsmen in SA at the time, althuogh he did have the knack of scoring runs when most needed, but his ability as a game changer in the field was on many occasions worth far more than the 10 runs (on average) more that a better pure batsman might have contributed. One of the ways in which he did differ from previous great fielders was the amount of energy he brought to the whole side - rather than walking in slightly as the ball was bowled, I remember Rhodes would be running fairly quickly as the ball was bowled, and this did bring a sort of electricity to the field.

Dummy I agree. Becuase of his ability in the field he was seen as an allrounder and not just a pure batsman.

His batting average of 35 was never awe inspiring but the impact he made on his team mates had a lot to do with him being a regular fixture in tests and ODI's, his first class record was at an average of just over 41.

I think what must also be considered is that when he was still batting an average of 40-45 was acceptable in international cricket.

It has only been in the last few years where a plethora of batsmen started to average 50 or above. Perhaps an indication that bowling standards have slipped?

dummy_half wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:Let me throw another name in to the mix - Trevor Penney. A sublime fielder.

Pity that he wasn't much cop as a batsman. IIRC, England tried to have him available as sub fielder as often as they could.

How about also including mention of Gary Pratt - rarely even made the Durham first XI, but was a semi-permanent member of the England fielding side in the 05 Ashes, and probably did more to merit an MBE than Collingwood in that series.

Back to the main point of the thread, I think that one thing Jonty's fielding ability did mean was that international teams in particular started to consider general fielding ability in their selection of players: Jonty probably wasn't one of the 5 or 6 best batsmen in SA at the time, althuogh he did have the knack of scoring runs when most needed, but his ability as a game changer in the field was on many occasions worth far more than the 10 runs (on average) more that a better pure batsman might have contributed. One of the ways in which he did differ from previous great fielders was the amount of energy he brought to the whole side - rather than walking in slightly as the ball was bowled, I remember Rhodes would be running fairly quickly as the ball was bowled, and this did bring a sort of electricity to the field.

That's right, Dummy, Penney was used on a few occasions by England as a sub fielder. Made a lot of sense.

Some excellent contributions from guilford, and dummy-half.

Guilford mentions specialist fielding positions. I don't think this means anymore what some people may think it means, i.e. a specialist backward point. I would say it is more a case of specialist "roles" than positions, by which I mean the key positions may vary depending on who is bowling. So for example, it is probably usual to put your least athletic fielder at short fine-leg in a T20 when the fast bowlers are operating, but you would never put him there for an off-spinner. Time for an anecdote, recounted to me by someone who was there: at an England training session once, they were doing some middle practice, Swann was bowling, and Andy Flower stopped the game, called over Collingwood (who then was captain) and said "Why have you got Yardy, our worst fielder at 45 [short fine-leg]?"

What is happening more and more is that teams are identifying their best fielders for run-outs, flat catches, skied catches, diving stops, strong arms etc. They then use statistical analysis to figure out where these fielders will be most useful to every bowler. So it is not unusual to see Hussey (who probably has the best pair of hands in the Aussie side) be at gully to Hilfenhaus and the quicks, but then long-on or cow-corner to the off-spinner. Similarly De Villiers in the last year or so has fielded slip, gully, backward point, mid-off, mid-on, mid-wicket and long-on. At least. It is all about having your key fielders in the key positions.

And no longer do you put your less athletic guys on the boundary. Very often your boundary riders have to be fast with a good arm, particularly in T20 when batsmen are looking to steal a second run wherever possible. Actually I was astounded in the last IPL to see Kallis on the boundary and Morgan in the in-field during the latter stages of an innings. For me, that showed an extraordinary lack of awareness in today's game. You'll see England often use Morgan in the outfield in all forms. Often at deep mid-wicket to Swann for example.

Both guilford and Dummy touch on the point that fielding ability is now taken into account when picking a side. Certainly I have no recollection of this being the case before Rhodes. But now of course, even to be considered at county level you have to field to a certain standard. Even down at our low level we require our fielders to be reasonable (at the end of our first training session last season I pointed to a young player and said "mate you batted really well this week-end, but if you field like you did there's no way we can pick you in our 11" thankfully he got the message and got himself from abysmal to decent).

And with good reason (again as touched on by dummy). Some "old farts" (present company excluded) like to have a moan when Tremlett goes for a dive ("but what if he gets injured?" they ask). Well, firstly, if he does it properly the chances of getting injured are slim. Secondly, a good bit of fielding lifts the side. We see it time and time again: batting side under pressure, a bowler bowls a bad ball, a fielder makes a great stop and saves a certain 4, everyone's buzzing. Or if the batting side is going well, such a save can lift the fielding side out of its stupor. All of a sudden there's more energy. On the other hand, a poor piece of fielding (never mind a dropped catch) deflates a side. Momentum plays a huge part in cricket, and fielding plays a huge part in momentum. People have recognised that, ever since Rhodes.

I went to cricinfo to read up on Jonty's record, I know it is going a little off topic.

Not sure if you are aware of this, I certainly wasn't.

Up to the end of 1997 Jonty was only averaging 29.72 with the bat. Up to that point in 48 innings, he only scored 1 centry and 7 fifties.

He then did an overhaul of his technique and in his last 32 innings averaged 44.78 with the bat, scoring 2 centuries and 10 fifties.

Mike

I know you are also into rugby - there is a parallel between this and the selection policies Clive Woodward used for England before the 2003 RWC (after their time with the Marines). Some players were identified as good energisers of those around them, while others were noted for pulling the energy levels down - based on this identification a few players came up from the fringes of the squad and a few others slipped down the hierarcy.

A fielding team in cricket needs its energisers - England are good at this, with the likes of Prior, Collingwood etc always giving off a lot of positivity and enthusiasm, whereas India (for example) don't have the same buzz about them especially when in a tight situation.

IMO top 10 fielders to play the game


Randall
Dravid
Kallis
M.Jaywardene(slip)
Younus Khan(slip)
Jonty Rhodes
Ricky Ponting
Paul Collingwood
Viv Richards
AB De Villiers

cricketfan90 wrote:IMO top 10 fielders to play the game


Randall
Dravid
Kallis
M.Jaywardene(slip)
Younus Khan(slip)
Jonty Rhodes
Ricky Ponting
Paul Collingwood
Viv Richards
AB De Villiers

Younis Khan???

Sorry, your lists always get criticised so had to do it

Back to the Post.

I find it ironic that players like Rhodes are picked because they can field but keepers are now picked because they can bat.

he is world class in that slip position, hardly ever drops a catch and is phenonemal there

M. Waugh was the best slip fielder I've ever seen. Jayawardene is good, but the other 3 slip fielders you've picked aren't in that league at all IMO.

Actually slip fielding is something which I'm not sure has improved all that greatly. Maybe because there's not much left to improve.

Harper IMO was the best allround fielder that has set foot on a Cricket field.

M Waugh was indeed a great slipper.

Can't argue with Waugh, Ponting, Dravid, Botham, Richards even Flintoff had great hands in the slips. And too many more too mention.

Michael Bevan and Chris Harris were both pretty handy fielders back in the 90s too, as was Symonds in the early 00s.

I suspect with slip catching a number of players who might have become excellent slip catchers have been pushed into other fielding roles due to the greater emphasis on fielding to contain runs in the modern era. Or possibly it's the case that with a lot more time put into practising other fielding skills, there's less slip work being done.

Anecdotally I remember being told that Lance Cairn's finest ever spell for NZ went wicketless due to the policy that match of putting bowlers in the slips for a rest and 6 catches went down. Richard Hadlee didn't mind though, he picked up a 7-fer.

i consdered Harris but thought there were better ones.

Mike
I thnk you are right about slip fielding - probably hasn't improved a great deal on an individual level since Bobby Simpson (although teams are probably more aware of adjusting their alignment and spacing than in the past). I guess the main reason for this is that taking chances at slip is much more about reaction than pro-action, so all you can ever do is teach the basics (i.e. keep watching the ball and if possible get both hands there together) and the rest is down to a certain amount of natural aptitude (agility, getting the hand(s) in the right place and having the knack of feeling the ball and closing the hand round it).

There are probably more good slip fielders now than in the past simply because more players have trained themselves to be agile and are prepared to throw themselves around, but the standard of the best of them is probably little better than Simpson or Botham.

Stella
Good point about everyone being able to field, but teams now being loathe to pick a wicket-keeper solely on the quality of their glovework, even though regularly missing chances behind the stumps is likely to far outweigh the better batting contribution of (for example) Alec Stewart over Jack Russell.

Fair enough CF. Actually on reflection from NZ Hamish Marshall may have been better.

And from guys not really regarded as "super fielders", I never get tired of watching this catch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3DDLs2CRkY

Actually, and this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=9IOHVlQ43GM (slo-mo replay is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=4XzNnHeicFw

Seems like Hayden's been victimised a few times!

Poor Matthew Hayden - between the catch KD links above and the Collingwood catch, has anyone ever been victim to more spectacular bits of fielding?

dummy_half wrote:Mike
I thnk you are right about slip fielding - probably hasn't improved a great deal on an individual level since Bobby Simpson (although teams are probably more aware of adjusting their alignment and spacing than in the past). I guess the main reason for this is that taking chances at slip is much more about reaction than pro-action, so all you can ever do is teach the basics (i.e. keep watching the ball and if possible get both hands there together) and the rest is down to a certain amount of natural aptitude (agility, getting the hand(s) in the right place and having the knack of feeling the ball and closing the hand round it).

There are probably more good slip fielders now than in the past simply because more players have trained themselves to be agile and are prepared to throw themselves around, but the standard of the best of them is probably little better than Simpson or Botham.

Just about spot on. Good point on spacing, people do seem to be beginning to understand that you don't space yourselves out by extending your arms and touching fingertips (a notion I always found ridiculous). Also, there are a couple of new techniques being taught. But as you say slip catching is as much about reflexes as anything, so...

I guess in future someone may come up with a better way of simulating slip catches than "nicking off" off some throws. Anyone know of one? If so, please do tell...

Mike

As a teenager I played as a keeper and spent some time working with a lad a couple of years younger who was showing promise (went on to play a bit for a couple of first class counties). We did quite a lot of training bouncing a ball out of a net, as the bounce was unpredictable and required reaction movements plus was good for honing the basics of technique (i.e. keeping the gloves together to provide a big 'pocket' for the ball to land in). However I think it would be very difficult to beat the simulation of the ball off a bat - the way the ball spins and dips is different from any simulation I'm aware of. Also, part of the art of catching behind the stumps is to be 'primed' by the movement of the bat so that you are anticipating the likely direction of any deflection (particularly if this will need you to move forwards or upwards).

Mike Selig wrote:Some excellent contributions from guilford, and dummy-half.

Guilford mentions specialist fielding positions. I don't think this means anymore what some people may think it means, i.e. a specialist backward point. I would say it is more a case of specialist "roles" than positions, by which I mean the key positions may vary depending on who is bowling. So for example, it is probably usual to put your least athletic fielder at short fine-leg in a T20 when the fast bowlers are operating, but you would never put him there for an off-spinner. Time for an anecdote, recounted to me by someone who was there: at an England training session once, they were doing some middle practice, Swann was bowling, and Andy Flower stopped the game, called over Collingwood (who then was captain) and said "Why have you got Yardy, our worst fielder at 45 [short fine-leg]?"

What is happening more and more is that teams are identifying their best fielders for run-outs, flat catches, skied catches, diving stops, strong arms etc. They then use statistical analysis to figure out where these fielders will be most useful to every bowler. So it is not unusual to see Hussey (who probably has the best pair of hands in the Aussie side) be at gully to Hilfenhaus and the quicks, but then long-on or cow-corner to the off-spinner. Similarly De Villiers in the last year or so has fielded slip, gully, backward point, mid-off, mid-on, mid-wicket and long-on. At least. It is all about having your key fielders in the key positions.

And no longer do you put your less athletic guys on the boundary. Very often your boundary riders have to be fast with a good arm, particularly in T20 when batsmen are looking to steal a second run wherever possible. Actually I was astounded in the last IPL to see Kallis on the boundary and Morgan in the in-field during the latter stages of an innings. For me, that showed an extraordinary lack of awareness in today's game. You'll see England often use Morgan in the outfield in all forms. Often at deep mid-wicket to Swann for example.

Both guilford and Dummy touch on the point that fielding ability is now taken into account when picking a side. Certainly I have no recollection of this being the case before Rhodes. But now of course, even to be considered at county level you have to field to a certain standard. Even down at our low level we require our fielders to be reasonable (at the end of our first training session last season I pointed to a young player and said "mate you batted really well this week-end, but if you field like you did there's no way we can pick you in our 11" thankfully he got the message and got himself from abysmal to decent).

And with good reason (again as touched on by dummy). Some "old farts" (present company excluded) like to have a moan when Tremlett goes for a dive ("but what if he gets injured?" they ask). Well, firstly, if he does it properly the chances of getting injured are slim. Secondly, a good bit of fielding lifts the side. We see it time and time again: batting side under pressure, a bowler bowls a bad ball, a fielder makes a great stop and saves a certain 4, everyone's buzzing. Or if the batting side is going well, such a save can lift the fielding side out of its stupor. All of a sudden there's more energy. On the other hand, a poor piece of fielding (never mind a dropped catch) deflates a side. Momentum plays a huge part in cricket, and fielding plays a huge part in momentum. People have recognised that, ever since Rhodes.

Mike,

Thanks for the feedback. Appreciated.

I had picked up from your first post that ''specialist fielding positions'' does not have the same meaning as in the past. However, you're right to emphasise and illustrate that. By way of another example local to me, Jason Roy (sorry to bore senseless again!) is Surrey's best fielder today and probably ever. ''Where does he field?'', some might ask. The answer is that it depends upon the bowler, the batsman and the state of the match.

I agree strongly with your concluding point that ''fielding plays a huge part in momentum''. I suspect this has only been properly appreciated and applied in recent years. Since the game first started, it's always been recognised that an isolated bit of fielding could be match changing - a spectacular run out, a brilliant catch, a dreadful drop, etc. However, it's largely since Rhodes (regardless as to whether he's seen as a cause or a catalyst) that the match influencing impact of a whole team's fielding has been fully taken on board. Someone like Randall was a brilliant fielder. However, his brilliance was generally only seen in isolation (through no fault of his own) and, whilst it was admired by his team mates, it wasn't necessarily seen as the way forward for them. Today, there is a much wider recognition that a couple of stopped singles could win a match just as much as a wondrous one handed catch and the opportunities to do so are most likely to be there.