BETTER FIELDING

Colin Bland of South Africa, generally regarded as the greatest of fielders

Cricket has progressed. As a statement of the bleedin’ obvious that is up there with:

“Illegal immigration is…illegal.” (President John Kennedy)

“Whoever said that the pen is mightier than the sword never encountered automatic weapons.”(General Douglas MacArthur)

“I notice that anyone who is for abortion has already been born.” (President Ronald Reagan)

“Date of birth?” “5th July.” “Which year?” “Every year.” (In an English courtroom)

Nonetheless, it is a truism; cricket has evolved in ways that those of my generation can scarcely believe. Yet ‘twas ever thus. Bowlers used to bowl underarm. Leg-side play was frowned upon once upon a time. Gentlemen and players had to enter the field of play through separate gates. Helmets had not been invented. Wicket-keepers were not expected to score runs. Fast bowlers paid lip-service – or should I say boot-service - to fielding.

We all agree that batting has developed out of all recognition in the past 20 years or so. The cynics among us might argue that bigger, stronger batsmen, thicker bats and smaller boundaries – and the introduction of helmets - have been pivotal in this transformation. I was chatting to my old team-mate, Barry Richards, a few days ago and he posited the view that several batsmen of recent vintage that have gained iconic stature in the game would probably be dead by now had they batted the way they did without a helmet. Quite possibly true but would we have worn helmets had they been available when we were playing? Of course we would. The game moves on. But it’s noT Ijust about helmets and thicker bats. Certainly, the technological advances and slavish attachment to the gym have played their part but is more than that. It is a shift in mindset, largely brought about by the advent of T20. Sixes – now more achievable than ever they were – have given the modern batsman the confidence to believe that anything is possible with as bat in his hand. As for the bowling….well, here I believe the naysayers have a point. Whatever happened to the maiden? ‘Keeping it tight’ seems to be a lost concept. Is the bowling today any better than it was 50 years ago?

Where we can all agree is that the standard of fielding today is light years ahead of what it used to be. Let me just qualify that. The best fielders today are no better than those of yesteryear; it’s just that there are many more of them. Every team used to have a top-class fielder in the side, sometimes two or three. Now, all eleven players are expected to field to the highest standards. Well, let’s say ten of any team in which Monty Panesar was playing.  

Oops. Down goes another one from Monty  

Dear old Monty. There is a wonderful picture of him dropping the ball on the boundary with his face contorted into an expression of surprise and horror. Behind him is the advertising hoarding clearly visible: “Should’ve gone to Specsavers.” He was well aware of this weakness in his game, and he practised and practised and practised but still he couldn’t run, and his fingers remained buttery. Non-fielders like him were a-plenty in county cricket, but no more. No doubt we all saw the incredible double catch in the recent England v India Test at Headingley (though it must be pointed out that a number of catches were dropped, by both sides, during that match). Jamie Smith, on 40, pulled a short ball from Krishna but mistimed it. Jadeja at deep square-leg in catching the ball felt himself toppling over the rope so he threw the ball in the air infield for it to be caught by Sudharsan, who was lurking alongside. Great athleticism, quick thinking and admirable teamwork. Teams from the sub-continent traditionally regarded fielding as a necessary chore and were not terribly good at it. No longer.

Butch White (l) and Derek Shackleton (r) would bowl 1,000 overs a season, but it is doubtful how many runs they saved in the field.  “Autres temps, autres moeurs”, as they might have said in the French dressing room.

In comparison, let me remind you of the two opening bowlers for Hampshire when I first started at the club, Butch White and Derek Shackleton. White was a bear of a man, who charged in like a runaway train and frightened a few with his pace. Shackleton was tall, upright and stiff and bowled a mean ball with just enough nibble off the seam to keep even the best on their toes. As fielders, they were pedestrian at most, who used their boot to stop the ball rather than having to bend to pick it up. As for diving…well, they left that to the Olympians in the swimming pool. Yet they both bowled their 1,000 overs every season and regularly took over 100 wickets. On balance, it was felt they more than justified their roles in the team. Would either have survived in the helter-skelter in the modern game? Probably not. I would have loved to have seen their reaction to the concept of ‘warming down’ and iced baths. Butch preferred his pipe and a pint. Shack would light up a fag.

So, it is agreed that the modern-day professional cricketer more than fulfils the definition of an elite athlete.

And yet, and yet…. I was at the Oval last Sunday watching the first day of the Surrey v Durham county match. Durham were bowling, having won the toss and elected to field on a boiling hot day. There were runs a-plenty on that pitch, I thought, and so it proved with Sam Curran and Dominic Sibley filling their boots. (Curran scored a hundred and Sibley a triple, with Surrey declaring on 820. So much for putting them in!) Curran clipped a ball, beautifully timed, past mid-on’s left hand. Matthew Potts, a fast bowler, do not forget, who has played for England, set off in hot pursuit. It was one of those chases where the winner, ball or fielder, is in doubt until the last stride. In a desperate attempt to save the four, Potts went headfirst over the rope, flicking the ball back infield. But his impetus took him into the boundary fence with a sickening thump, and there he lay, motionless and prone, as the ball nestled a foot inside the rope. After a few

seconds, it was clear Potts wasn’t going to get up. How many runs the batsmen took before they stopped, clearly concerned for Potts’ welfare – or maybe the umpire called ‘dead ball’ – nobody could recall (though I guess the scorers did), as concerned team-mates, the team physio and a doctor from the stand rushed to his attention. At length Potts was helped to his feet and was led shakily back to the dressing room accompanied by ripples of sympathetic applause. Miraculously, he was not seriously harmed and later resumed his place on the field, even coming back for a spell of bowling.

Matthew Potts. To be fair he is a good fielder and a more than useful batsman to go with his potent bowling

My point is this. He had saved one run, three instead of four, and it could be said – it often is - that every run counts. But at the same time, he had risked serious injury, potentially robbing Durham of one of their pace attack on a day when it was clear they were going to have to dig deep into their bowling resources. Was the cake worth the candle? Are all team members encouraged – coached – to risk injury in desperate dives over the rope to save one run? Is there not a case when discretion plays the better part of valour? Are fast bowlers really expected to throw themselves around in the field when, more often than not, they are not physically built for such gymnastics? When is it a good idea to cast common sense out of the window? I bet Tom Richardson, Harold Larwood, Fred Trueman, Frank Tyson, John Snow, Bob Willis et al never contemplated a reckless dive in the field. They preferred to keep their powder dry.  

The Bearded One, opening the batting for England with CB Fry. Could you ever imagine WG bringing off a diving catch? He would never have got off the ground. But he still scored 52,111 runs in First-Class cricket.

Incidentally, that one run saved by Potts meant that Durham were facing a deficit of only 820, not 821. In the long run, if you will pardon the pun, that might make all the difference. Alright, the World Cup was won by England in 2019 by the tightest of margins; had New Zealand scored one more run they would have prevailed. But, as in all things in life, you have to pick your moment.