Samir, my friend, I am blown away that such an obvious yet necessary thing has never been done. Imagine what Jonty Rhodes would rank on the all-time records. It would encourage players to field more strenuously if they knew their efforts would be rewarded (or lambasted). Imagine.... picking a player PURELY on fielding skill ! Saving 30 or 40 runs in the field, and 5 or 10 with the bat is surely as good as a middle order batsman who scores 30 with the bat and saves 5 or 10 in the field.

A few years ago in a SA vs Aus series in South Africa, a competition was set up to judge who was the best fielder in the world, namely between Rhodes and Ponting. All runs saved or lost, catches taken or dropped, run outs taken and missed were all calculated to get an overall score. At the same time, they applied the same rules to Gibbs for comparison. It was extremely enjoyable to be able to keep track of who was doing what in the field. Needless to say, Rhodes won ;-D

Most national teams these days have a laptop carrying analyst who records detailed information for every ball and associates it with the video clip for the ball and the players/coaches later do all sorts of analysis on that data. Some of the information recorded include line, length, speed of ball, type of shot played, and yes, any fielding lapses/highlights. The system I was part of developing used by the Indian team included all these. From the matches that were recorded in the initial years, a top fielder's net contribution (runs saved by good fielding - runs conceded by bad fielding) used to be something like 8-10 runs per odi.

The problem is that most fielding events are qualitative. Was that a bad miss on the boundary or a good try? What's more is that nowhere in the game are runs not scored recorded, so taking note of that seems rather problematic to me. I mean you could take a tally of dropped catches but how would you record David Warner's effort for NSW on the boundary against Somerset? He caught the ball but was going out of bounds and thus threw it back in.

What is a crime is that we don't keep track of what would be the qualitative statistics. Namely: Run Outs Direct, Run Outs Affected.

We do record byes but it's almost impossible to get a keeper's record in this regard without going scorecard by scorecard.

Also, I've sometimes thought that there is some justification in recording overthrows against a fielder, instead of, as at present, against the bowler. The batsman still scores them - they put pressure on the field - but the fielder making the throw concedes them.

Recording runs saved by fielders sounds grand in theory, but how will the number of runs saved by fielders be determined and applied equally across all fielders in all matches? What if in one match, Cricinfo commentator 'A' determines a stop in gully as saving four, but in another match Cricinfo commentator 'B' determines a similiar stop in gully as saving three? Stats for misfields, clean fields, overthrows, catches taken and dropped and run outs made and missed would be ok, but it would appear recording runs saved would be left too much to the interpretation of the commentators.

Total agreement. I even lament the lack of a good compilation of "the best fielders". I have dvd's of batsmen and bowlers,but give me one showing the best fieldsmen stopping runs,and/or catching. Once they've departed their feats are lost!
It is such a huge component of the game, and the analysis is generally light to nil apart from the keeper's record. All players should have their worth measured in the field and commentating would be helped with quantitative stats in front of them, giving an insight into the whole team not just the jontys or pontings

Runs saved on the boundary or elsewhere, mathematically reduce to the difference between the expected outcome and the observed outcome. The treatment of the problem on hand via a mathematical expression brings with it a set of challenges. It does not consider other variables like,the stage of the game, tiredness of the batsman, batsman's perception of a fielder, availability of a back up position (ball beating slip could be fielded by someone at thirdman) and so on. It is therefore fool hardy to try and capture the number of runs saved through the course of the game for all instances on which a ball was fielded by someone.On the other hand a contribution of a fielder could be better judged by the delta between the time when a run out/ catching opportunity was missed to the eventual score of the batsman. Catching rates, run outs per hundred opportunities could be other statistics that you could measure for the fielder.

i understand there are major problems with trying to do stats for fielding.but do we need any? i remember the great fielders and im sure other people remember them aswell [border rhodes m.waugh logie etc} plus the modern greats.but we also remember the bad ones.really i was always told fielding is something we can all do well maybe some modern players could reminded of this too.

Samir, I just happened to watch the semi-final yesterday between NSW and the Vics and saw that they were displaying stats such as 'misfields', 'runs saved', catches dropped and catches for some of the players. Wonder whether it was for the whole tournament or just the match! Anyhowz, looks like Modi is reading ur blog! :)

I think you may have a problem with run outs for example. In his recent success in the ODIs against England Ricky Ponting accepted the accolades but ruefully pointed out that in each case he had missed the stumps with an earlier throw. The point is that he and Ian Bell are in that position entirely because of their world class record as fielders known to their team and coaches. They are bound to miss some but they also threaten the batsmen with their lightning pick-ups. The runs they prevent and cut off just by their speed of reaction aren't measured.
I remember Fletcher saying he didn't mind a failure at a difficult catch or a near miss throw at the stumps, what he objected to was the fielder who decided not to expose himself by not trying.

Sounds well-intentioned but I am somehow not enamored by this. What ails Cricket is its complexity..

Imagine teaching an alien what football is - 11 people on either side trying to hit the ball without using legs on a goal.

Try explaining cricket..It's way too complex a sport that makes it difficult to spread. Why add all these unnecessary complications. We all know Jonty Rhodes was the best..No need to quantify it...

To all those who THINK Jonty Rhodes was the best (And he was a very good fielder) I have just one thing to say :
S O B E R S