Thursday, 13 September 2007

Let's stop pretending fielding is a huge deal

It's time to call the emperor's new clothes. Fielding is simply not worth this price:

Cricket: Sussex excel despite Rana's shoulder agony Cricket Guardian Unlimited Sport

Sussex lose one of their main bowlers, Naved Rana, sliding near the boundary. Earlier this summer, the West Indies lost captain Sarwan to a fielding injury, sliding near the boundary. Flintoff injured his knee during the ODI at Bristol, sliding near the boundary. Flintoff went all the way into the advertising boards. The game needs it's stars to stay fit more than it needs the spectacle of sliding saves.

This need not mean standing around like Saurav or Munaf. We can have superbly athletic fielding without asking 6 ft 4 in 240 pound fast bowlers running full tilt to launch themselves at the advertising boards in the hope of saving one or two runs. We need to steer back towards the middle ground.

This is a great baseball funda from Moneyball that applies to cricket. Fielding is the most systematically over-valued discipline in baseball. Fielding is a great spectacle. This creates the impression that the fielder is a committed and gifted athlete, and this in turn has a big impact on the price of the fielder on the transfer market. Careful analysis of the data shows that the same spectacular fielding has little or no impact on winning more games.

So the smart team, the Oakland A's, sells the hot shot fielders. It buys fat, ugly batters who get on base a lot. In cricketing terms, they buy players who nurdle the ball around and rotate the strike. And so the A's win a lot. The Oakland A's would play Laxman and Kumble.

No comments: