Fielding is now the most important aspect of cricket

[WCE2000]

england dropped 11 catches in the 2nd test, australia dropped 2 or 3. Thats 8 extra dropped catches, which is a whole innings. That was the difference between the two sides.
IMO, fielding has not just "more important than it used to be" but it has become the most important aspect of a cricketer.

Anyone else agree.

[Dipper]

Afraid not.
I think bowling is & probably always has been the most important discipline.What the bowler does with the ball dictates what the batsman can do & if the bowler wasn't inducing the batsmen to edge or hit the ball in the air then there'd be no catches to drop anyway.
Watching this current Australian attack at times it's hard to see what the batsmen can do to score runs, obviously there's gaps when they open up with 6 slips & a short leg but run scoring is still difficult but when you have say Warne & McGrath bowling in tandem with a not too attacking field it appeared almost impossible to score runs without taking ridiculous risks & then the pressure builds up & you either wait for the inevitable or play a kamikazee shot like Ramprakash.
It's not even like playing against some teams where you can see out the best/tightest bowler & try to score off the others because you can leave Warne at one end all day & rotate Gillespie & McGrath with a few overs from Lee & you'll hardly see a bad ball bowled.
So for me it's bowling that wins(or loses) matches 90% of the time & it's only when you get a genius like Lara or Tendulkar in prime form taking on bowlers that are bowling well that you can really say that batsmen are winning games.
Obviously catching is important & makes a helluva lot of difference if you drop too many or drop a guy on 0 who then goes on to make a 100 but of those dropped catches by England about 3 or 4 were to the same player (Gilchrist) & a,lot of them occured after we were behind the 8 ball anyway.Even if they'd taken them all we'd still have lost & that's the sad truth of the matter.Looking at the 3rd Test I don't know the stats but it didn't appear that England dropped particularly more than Australia but we were still outclassed & soundly beaten & that seemed a lot to do with more consistent bowling.If you look at what happened England bowled well for one session where they smashed the Aussie batting line up in helpful conditions but they hadn't bowled well at the start (Austrlaia 0/48) & they bowled dreadfully on the Saturday morning to Gilchrist allowing Australia to eventually get the lead.

[London Dave]

Agree with both posts somewhat. Bowling backed by good fielding wins test matches, but unless you are competent in all three aspects, you will get rolled.
If you cant field, you shouldnt play the game. Being able to catch is a basic skill, and those who cant should never be selected. I recall blokes like Tuffers (early on) who wasn't even up to park cricket standard) but to his credit, he is 'servicable' now, as well as a few blokes from India who were ablsolute stiffs.
Don't care how good a bat or bowler you are, if you are a crap fieldsman, you cannot call yourself a cricketer.