May 29, 2014

Is T20 giving fielding short shrift?

Ways to raise the standard would be to have substitute fielders, and to bring in stats, like there are for batting and bowling
22

Statistics play an important role in summarising a cricketer's performance and stature in the game. This may be true when it comes to batting and bowling, but when it comes to fielding, the stats are oddly meagre. It begs the question why, because fielding is what cricketers do the most when they are playing.

The time has come for this to change and there is no better place to start than in T20 cricket. While T20's entertainment value is at an all-time high, the time will come when it, too, will look to spice things up. A fielding-substitution option may be an interesting experiment.

Is T20 doing fielding any good? Not really, since fields are being made as small as possible in the belief that more boundaries will be struck. The downside is that fielders have less to do because the angles and ground they need to cover are smaller. On bigger fields batsmen have bigger gaps to play with and can weight or chip the ball into the outfield, which is a skill missing from T20.

On such grounds, batsmen would also be running more between the wickets, as more twos and threes would be on offer. As a consequence, fielders would be under greater pressure to gather cleanly and get powerful throws in over the stumps. With both batsmen and fielders having to make judgement calls and execute skills at full pace, the quality of cricket can only be improved.

There will also be more work for the inner-ring fielders, who would have to chase more balls to the boundary, whether to collect or assist.

The fittest, quickest and most agile players ought to be on the field at all times in T20, but this is not the case. One of the consequences of this is that you don't see captains spend too much time thinking about which fielders they want where and when. Bowlers are being murdered and their biggest asset, the fielder, is being marginalised.

Would a substitution option be good for a squad?

Every team has back-up players, one or two of whom are the best fielders in the squad, but their game time is limited and usually depends on poor form and injury to another. The substitution option would make the squad more inclusive and would bring a new dynamic into the selection process.

In the IPL, for example, there are too many stragglers in the field who get game time because of their match-winning potential with bat and ball. To see captains try to hide these players in the field makes for a poor spectacle, especially when you are trying to sell it as an energy and glitz extravaganza. Cricket must be the only team sport where sub-par performances are tolerated on the field when world-class performers are on the bench. We have seen far too many international stars spend just about their whole IPL careers on the sideline. Granted, you need a few as back-up but there ought to be room also for players who are potential fielding substitutes, as they would spend far more time on the field and be a smart investment, especially in this format, where a brilliant save or catch can win you a game.

Cricket must be the only team sport where sub-par performances are tolerated on the field when world-class performers are on the bench

How best can it be managed? The key issue would be when to deploy your substitutes. The easiest way to manage it would be to nominate them before the match starts, because during running play it could be problematic from a timekeeping point of view. It would mean that the substitutions named before the match would only be batsmen, which is pretty straightforward. To get around the timekeeping problem, you could have captains and coaches wired up with a match official so everyone can be notified of an impending substitution. The change-over should be quick and easy.

The tricky part is when a captain intends using a bowler, who he also intends to substitute, in split spells. It would make for interesting viewing how captains and coaches manage this, because in terms of the flow of the game, once a player is substituted, he should not be allowed back on the field.

Going back to fielding stats: what can be recorded? The argument for more advanced statistical gathering has to take into account the problem of subjectivity. Runs, wickets and catches taken are undisputable, but when it comes to how many runs a fielder saves, interpretation can differ. The solution may be for match referees to do all the adjudicating. All of them come from strong cricketing backgrounds and their assessments will be far more credible than, say, that of a whole score of unknown statisticians tasked with the job. On the point of subjectivity, it is worth remembering that the biggest moments in cricket, the dismissals of batsmen, are often hotly debated. Cricket by its very nature and construction can't get away from this.

So what can possibly be recorded over and above what already is? Run-outs could be recorded in three categories. Direct hits are indisputable and must be recorded as such. When one fielder and a receiver combine to effect a dismissal, it should be recorded as a direct run-out. All other run-outs, which involve three players or more, would be recorded as assists.

Mistakes in the field can't be ignored, and catches dropped is a pretty straightforward statistic, as long as a fielder has got hands to the ball. Fumbles made in the field, and runs resulting from such, must be recorded as runs given away by a fielder.

The issue of subjectivity comes in when determining how many runs a fielder saves. While this can never be determined with 100% accuracy, if a metric is devised for it, it will be the most telling fielding statistic, alongside catches taken in a player's career.

What about distance covered in the field? So much emphasis is on fitness these days. Distance monitors could be worn by every fielder to determine how good his work rate is.

And while it probably would be impossible to record, it would be great to know which fielders have the most powerful arms in the game.

The ultimate assessment would be an overall rating for performance and expertise in a particular fielding zone or all zones combined. The rating would be an aggregate of the good and bad. If baseball can come up with comprehensive fielding statistics and performance ratings, why can't cricket?

While a substitution option may not be acceptable to all, it can no longer be ignored that fielding needs a massive statistical boost. If fielding stats are brought in, cricketers will also attach far greater importance to the discipline because of the recognition rewards. Batting and bowling have individual rankings; why can't fielding have the same? The game and spectator experience can only be enhanced.

Daryll Cullinan played 70 Tests for South Africa between 1993 and 2001

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • kunderanengineer on May 29, 2014, 16:29 GMT

    Although I would prefer watching a T20 cricket match to a baseball match anytime of the year, I think there's one thing that cricket can borrow from baseball and that is the idea of an "unearned run" caused by a misfield not being charged to the bowler. Case in point: Rasool bowling to Yusuf in the recent ipl clash where he was officially charged with 22 runs in an over. In baseball he would have only been charged with 14 since 6 runs were scored when Steyn let a routine catch (at least for him) slip from his hands and jump over the boundary and then on the very next delivery, Holder misfields a grounder which should have resulted in only 2 runs, to go past the boundary. In the first case the bowler is being penalized twice; not only is a wicket taken away from him but he is also charged with 6 extra runs which bloats his economy rate! Pretty cruel if you ask me.

  • VVG57 on May 30, 2014, 14:47 GMT

    Agree wholeheartedly about the need for descriptive fielding statistics. But substitutions solely to make up for fielding weaknesses of individual players is completely against the spirit of not only cricket, but all sport. It is in fielding that the team aspect of cricket is most apparent.

  • on May 30, 2014, 13:00 GMT

    Some nice ideas, and necessary. Because as much as I love Test cricket, the reality is it will die, probably within a generation (20 years) from now. Or at most only remain between 3 - 5 nations. T20 will remain and become increasingly popular. Change is inevitable, and should be embraced. Not sure about the stat of runs saved, because as pointed out it's too subjective. Perhaps record the occasions they saved runs by making a clean stop, rather than speculating how many they might have saved. Like an assist in basketball, it is a tally of the action. I like the substitute fielder idea too, changeover in the timeouts or any other stoppage. Set number of substitutions, so if a team wants to bring a specialist bowler on and off a few times, so be it. How they use their quota is up to them. Brings additional strategy into the game. Change, the world has been made by it, evolve or die.

  • yorkshire-86 on May 30, 2014, 12:23 GMT

    Anything that helps stop the face of captains insisting the same guy fields deep square to a LHB and a RHB batting together is a good thing.

  • MSGharat on May 30, 2014, 11:25 GMT

    There is one more issue about the top batsman getting the Orange Cap. Take the case of KKR where openers or at least batsmen 1-4 get maximum balls to face. Take the case of KKR Robin Utappa has opened and is the holder of the Orange cap. Then take Suryakumar Yadav who can only bat a few balls as bats lower, so he will never be the holder of the orange cap unless he bats in the top 4. Orange cap should be given on points basis rather than no. of runs scored, if a player batting lower down has a greater impact on the match than the no.s 1-4 batsman scores more runs, but the lower order batsman help to win the match after a stiff run chase, but the runs scored by earlier batsman are more so helps in getting the orange cap.

  • on May 30, 2014, 0:07 GMT

    This is an excellent idea to implement and improvise the cricket .. Players should be evaluated by their fielding performances and substitute fielders should be allowed to make the cricket game more exciting ..,,

  • on May 29, 2014, 19:17 GMT

    Stats use in cricket is improving but still very poor. For instance a bowlers stats in limited overs cricket never even mention which overs he bowled. Powerplay? Normal? Death? Seems statisticians assume it doesn't even matter.

    Bowling in the powerplay the bowler is effectively playing a game with different rules to the rest of the innings - but no one cares that much.

    Even Statsguru makes no mention. you need to go through the commentary and remember yourself the PP rules to work it out.

    This is just one example of many where stats are poorly thought out, ignored or badly presented. Example: "KKR win 78% of their games when KP scores 40 or more" Where's the context? Is that good or does it apply to just about everyone? What's the sample size? What percentage do they win or lose when he DOESN'T score? Is it the same? But the TV parades these empty figures and it gives fans a warm glow. But for people looking for knowledge? They mean next to nothing.

  • Batmanian on May 29, 2014, 18:31 GMT

    @BigINDfan, I'm always saying that Australia's BBL is a bit of a dud, but people tell me it isn't and that it's quite popular. This IPL tournament seems to have been going for months. I'm not saying the income into the cricketing ecology isn't welcome, but rather that I'm surprised that Indian fans seem to find it so compelling.

  • Anurag_Chandak on May 29, 2014, 17:59 GMT

    While I do agree that there is a need to introduce a lot more fielding stats than currently available, I do not agree with the idea of fielding substitutions. Whenever in the past, teams have had options to choose something like this, it has been a fail. Case in point are 'DRS reviews by teams, and not umpires' and the now trashed 'supersub'. The flaw with the substitution idea is that bowlers (who usually tend to be second best to batsmen in terms of fielding) cannot be substituted for a long time, since they are required to be on the field to be able to bowl.

  • on May 29, 2014, 17:20 GMT

    we had the supersub earlier and tht didnt work out but u cant have substitutes bowling or batting anyways. in gully cricket all tht may work but on the field implementing the substitution may cause a few problems in its early stages but wouldnt mind seeing tht. keeping track of runouts and catches can be implemented immediately though the number of runs saved or given will take a little more time to develop a system fr tht.if there was a place fr fielding players only in cricket players like kaif would have easily made it into the team.

  • kunderanengineer on May 29, 2014, 16:29 GMT

    Although I would prefer watching a T20 cricket match to a baseball match anytime of the year, I think there's one thing that cricket can borrow from baseball and that is the idea of an "unearned run" caused by a misfield not being charged to the bowler. Case in point: Rasool bowling to Yusuf in the recent ipl clash where he was officially charged with 22 runs in an over. In baseball he would have only been charged with 14 since 6 runs were scored when Steyn let a routine catch (at least for him) slip from his hands and jump over the boundary and then on the very next delivery, Holder misfields a grounder which should have resulted in only 2 runs, to go past the boundary. In the first case the bowler is being penalized twice; not only is a wicket taken away from him but he is also charged with 6 extra runs which bloats his economy rate! Pretty cruel if you ask me.

  • VVG57 on May 30, 2014, 14:47 GMT

    Agree wholeheartedly about the need for descriptive fielding statistics. But substitutions solely to make up for fielding weaknesses of individual players is completely against the spirit of not only cricket, but all sport. It is in fielding that the team aspect of cricket is most apparent.

  • on May 30, 2014, 13:00 GMT

    Some nice ideas, and necessary. Because as much as I love Test cricket, the reality is it will die, probably within a generation (20 years) from now. Or at most only remain between 3 - 5 nations. T20 will remain and become increasingly popular. Change is inevitable, and should be embraced. Not sure about the stat of runs saved, because as pointed out it's too subjective. Perhaps record the occasions they saved runs by making a clean stop, rather than speculating how many they might have saved. Like an assist in basketball, it is a tally of the action. I like the substitute fielder idea too, changeover in the timeouts or any other stoppage. Set number of substitutions, so if a team wants to bring a specialist bowler on and off a few times, so be it. How they use their quota is up to them. Brings additional strategy into the game. Change, the world has been made by it, evolve or die.

  • yorkshire-86 on May 30, 2014, 12:23 GMT

    Anything that helps stop the face of captains insisting the same guy fields deep square to a LHB and a RHB batting together is a good thing.

  • MSGharat on May 30, 2014, 11:25 GMT

    There is one more issue about the top batsman getting the Orange Cap. Take the case of KKR where openers or at least batsmen 1-4 get maximum balls to face. Take the case of KKR Robin Utappa has opened and is the holder of the Orange cap. Then take Suryakumar Yadav who can only bat a few balls as bats lower, so he will never be the holder of the orange cap unless he bats in the top 4. Orange cap should be given on points basis rather than no. of runs scored, if a player batting lower down has a greater impact on the match than the no.s 1-4 batsman scores more runs, but the lower order batsman help to win the match after a stiff run chase, but the runs scored by earlier batsman are more so helps in getting the orange cap.

  • on May 30, 2014, 0:07 GMT

    This is an excellent idea to implement and improvise the cricket .. Players should be evaluated by their fielding performances and substitute fielders should be allowed to make the cricket game more exciting ..,,

  • on May 29, 2014, 19:17 GMT

    Stats use in cricket is improving but still very poor. For instance a bowlers stats in limited overs cricket never even mention which overs he bowled. Powerplay? Normal? Death? Seems statisticians assume it doesn't even matter.

    Bowling in the powerplay the bowler is effectively playing a game with different rules to the rest of the innings - but no one cares that much.

    Even Statsguru makes no mention. you need to go through the commentary and remember yourself the PP rules to work it out.

    This is just one example of many where stats are poorly thought out, ignored or badly presented. Example: "KKR win 78% of their games when KP scores 40 or more" Where's the context? Is that good or does it apply to just about everyone? What's the sample size? What percentage do they win or lose when he DOESN'T score? Is it the same? But the TV parades these empty figures and it gives fans a warm glow. But for people looking for knowledge? They mean next to nothing.

  • Batmanian on May 29, 2014, 18:31 GMT

    @BigINDfan, I'm always saying that Australia's BBL is a bit of a dud, but people tell me it isn't and that it's quite popular. This IPL tournament seems to have been going for months. I'm not saying the income into the cricketing ecology isn't welcome, but rather that I'm surprised that Indian fans seem to find it so compelling.

  • Anurag_Chandak on May 29, 2014, 17:59 GMT

    While I do agree that there is a need to introduce a lot more fielding stats than currently available, I do not agree with the idea of fielding substitutions. Whenever in the past, teams have had options to choose something like this, it has been a fail. Case in point are 'DRS reviews by teams, and not umpires' and the now trashed 'supersub'. The flaw with the substitution idea is that bowlers (who usually tend to be second best to batsmen in terms of fielding) cannot be substituted for a long time, since they are required to be on the field to be able to bowl.

  • on May 29, 2014, 17:20 GMT

    we had the supersub earlier and tht didnt work out but u cant have substitutes bowling or batting anyways. in gully cricket all tht may work but on the field implementing the substitution may cause a few problems in its early stages but wouldnt mind seeing tht. keeping track of runouts and catches can be implemented immediately though the number of runs saved or given will take a little more time to develop a system fr tht.if there was a place fr fielding players only in cricket players like kaif would have easily made it into the team.

  • BigINDFan on May 29, 2014, 16:39 GMT

    @Robert Horne and @Batmanian - T20 is here to stay and will fund the Test matches and ODIs in the future. IPL may have it's share of scandals and flaws but so does every major sport event that is popular and has lot of money at stake. It is interesting that no other country has been able to replicate or create a product like IPL.

    I agree with Daryl on elevating the importance of fielding but there is no need for wholesale changes or complicated stats. Every team has the option of substituting 2 fielders either due to injury or after strategic timeouts. This keeps it simple and no time wasted. As for stats, only record catches taken vs dropped and run-outs effected vs missed. Fumbles are subjective and players get embarassed enough on big screens with replays so stats will not have added effect. Plus fumbles add fun to the game just like bowlers bowling wides and batsmen missing simple shots.

  • Batmanian on May 29, 2014, 15:28 GMT

    I can't believe the IPL is still going. I mean, this year, and as an annual fixture. I think it could be a fun thing to do for the kids every second, or fourth year.

  • Hardy1 on May 29, 2014, 12:26 GMT

    Definitely agreed on the introduction of fielding stats. With regards to different positions being easier/more difficult to field in, I think the match referee would be more than capable of acknowledging this & whilst it would of course be somewhat subjective, I still believe that it would result in an accurate measure of a fielder's contribution in a game.

    Since we're talking about fielding I'd just like to mention that one thing I find very disappointing is the diminishing value attached to wicket keeping skills. Increasingly specialist batsmen are finding themselves behind the stumps even when not very adept at the job & I would surely have thought that if a specialist wicket keeper can take one catch more in a game or save a boundary or two more than a non=specialist, the difference in batting average would become negligible.

  • dinosaurus on May 29, 2014, 10:47 GMT

    Can we please keep playing cricket! That means everybody bats, everybody fields and everybody is allowed to bowl. Wheeling out a fielding team and a batting team turns cricket into baseball. Next thing we'll have specialist "catchers" and specialist "defense" (note the *intended* spelling) fielders!!

  • py0alb on May 29, 2014, 9:19 GMT

    Actually t20 is great for fielding. Only being in the field for 20 overs means that fielders don't have to conserve energy and can throw themselves around with uninhibited vigour, and the reduced nature of the contest means that every diving stop, catch or misfield counts double. It only takes one over of fielding errors and the game can completely switch.

    I often go to T20 games here in the UK just to enjoy the incredible standard of fielding. With batsmen playing shots all the way through, there are more opportunities than ever for a good fielder to really excel and impose himself on the game. A good cover fielder can save 15-20 runs and take a couple of wickets compared to an average one; that's the difference between winning a losing.

  • on May 29, 2014, 9:16 GMT

    I think fielding has improved a lot due to T20. Having better statistics for fielding is a great idea. Also like the substitution for fielders concept. Would love to see thios being implemented.

  • Ace89 on May 29, 2014, 8:31 GMT

    When it comes to substitutes, the ICC have got to be careful. Substitutions can stop play and thus cause a loss in momentum.

    It's a better idea to have 2 squads, one for the batting innings, one for each innings. That way, substitutions would only take place between innings and not impact time. And captains would not need to hide poor fielders or have tailenders lower down the order.

  • TATTUs on May 29, 2014, 6:32 GMT

    Some ordinary fielders will be made to look good while exceptional fielders in difficult positions will be made to look bad.

  • on May 29, 2014, 6:28 GMT

    No - just abandon 'T20', which is 'cricket' for people who don't like cricket.

  • mehuljain2k on May 29, 2014, 5:23 GMT

    I remember something similar being done in Titan Cup in 1996. It was a simplistic system wherein runs saved were added to a fielder's score and runs conceded were subtracted. Although bringing in other aspects of the fielding has merit. Run outs, the vital game changing ones, have not been recorded consistently across the ages, but the time for change has come. Also the sensor is a brilliant idea. Although, subs would make it too radical right now, it may be tried out for some time.

  • on May 29, 2014, 4:28 GMT

    A cool dynamic to this is nominating the substitute fielder as a bowler or a batsman. Not sure if there would/could be restrictions on this but it would be interesting and needed. Also stats for fielders can easily be done. Technology is there for it.

  • Cricket_theBestGame on May 29, 2014, 4:11 GMT

    "If baseball can come up with comprehensive fielding statistics and performance ratings, why can't cricket? "

    because baseball is poor mans sport of cricket !!

    you do have point of fielding stats. runs outs, misfields, etc should recorded as well. just like for a wicket keeper, the runs he lets through goes against him.

    substituting a fielder would only make Ponting pretty angry i'd say ;)

  • Cricket_theBestGame on May 29, 2014, 4:11 GMT

    "If baseball can come up with comprehensive fielding statistics and performance ratings, why can't cricket? "

    because baseball is poor mans sport of cricket !!

    you do have point of fielding stats. runs outs, misfields, etc should recorded as well. just like for a wicket keeper, the runs he lets through goes against him.

    substituting a fielder would only make Ponting pretty angry i'd say ;)

  • on May 29, 2014, 4:28 GMT

    A cool dynamic to this is nominating the substitute fielder as a bowler or a batsman. Not sure if there would/could be restrictions on this but it would be interesting and needed. Also stats for fielders can easily be done. Technology is there for it.

  • mehuljain2k on May 29, 2014, 5:23 GMT

    I remember something similar being done in Titan Cup in 1996. It was a simplistic system wherein runs saved were added to a fielder's score and runs conceded were subtracted. Although bringing in other aspects of the fielding has merit. Run outs, the vital game changing ones, have not been recorded consistently across the ages, but the time for change has come. Also the sensor is a brilliant idea. Although, subs would make it too radical right now, it may be tried out for some time.

  • on May 29, 2014, 6:28 GMT

    No - just abandon 'T20', which is 'cricket' for people who don't like cricket.

  • TATTUs on May 29, 2014, 6:32 GMT

    Some ordinary fielders will be made to look good while exceptional fielders in difficult positions will be made to look bad.

  • Ace89 on May 29, 2014, 8:31 GMT

    When it comes to substitutes, the ICC have got to be careful. Substitutions can stop play and thus cause a loss in momentum.

    It's a better idea to have 2 squads, one for the batting innings, one for each innings. That way, substitutions would only take place between innings and not impact time. And captains would not need to hide poor fielders or have tailenders lower down the order.

  • on May 29, 2014, 9:16 GMT

    I think fielding has improved a lot due to T20. Having better statistics for fielding is a great idea. Also like the substitution for fielders concept. Would love to see thios being implemented.

  • py0alb on May 29, 2014, 9:19 GMT

    Actually t20 is great for fielding. Only being in the field for 20 overs means that fielders don't have to conserve energy and can throw themselves around with uninhibited vigour, and the reduced nature of the contest means that every diving stop, catch or misfield counts double. It only takes one over of fielding errors and the game can completely switch.

    I often go to T20 games here in the UK just to enjoy the incredible standard of fielding. With batsmen playing shots all the way through, there are more opportunities than ever for a good fielder to really excel and impose himself on the game. A good cover fielder can save 15-20 runs and take a couple of wickets compared to an average one; that's the difference between winning a losing.

  • dinosaurus on May 29, 2014, 10:47 GMT

    Can we please keep playing cricket! That means everybody bats, everybody fields and everybody is allowed to bowl. Wheeling out a fielding team and a batting team turns cricket into baseball. Next thing we'll have specialist "catchers" and specialist "defense" (note the *intended* spelling) fielders!!

  • Hardy1 on May 29, 2014, 12:26 GMT

    Definitely agreed on the introduction of fielding stats. With regards to different positions being easier/more difficult to field in, I think the match referee would be more than capable of acknowledging this & whilst it would of course be somewhat subjective, I still believe that it would result in an accurate measure of a fielder's contribution in a game.

    Since we're talking about fielding I'd just like to mention that one thing I find very disappointing is the diminishing value attached to wicket keeping skills. Increasingly specialist batsmen are finding themselves behind the stumps even when not very adept at the job & I would surely have thought that if a specialist wicket keeper can take one catch more in a game or save a boundary or two more than a non=specialist, the difference in batting average would become negligible.