Statement:\n“No aspect of cricket is more indispensable than good fielding.” — a captain’s statement.\n\nConclusions:\nI. To win a cricket match, it is necessary to learn and practise good fielding.\nII. Good fielding alone is enough to win a cricket match.

Introduction / Context:
The captain ranks “good fielding” as the most indispensable aspect. Indispensable means necessary/essential. We must see what this implies about winning conditions, without ignoring other facets like batting or bowling.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Good fielding is framed as the most indispensable aspect.
• No claim is made that other aspects are unnecessary.
• No statement says fielding is sufficient by itself for victory.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion I aligns with the statement: if good fielding is (most) indispensable, learning and practising it is necessary for winning consistently. Conclusion II asserts sufficiency (“enough by itself”), which goes beyond necessity; the statement makes no such sufficiency claim.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Translate “most indispensable” → strongest necessity among facets → I follows.2) Necessity ≠ sufficiency; other elements still matter → II does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
A team may field brilliantly but fail to chase a target; thus fielding alone cannot guarantee victory. Yet poor fielding can lose matches, supporting its necessity framing.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Both” conflates necessity with sufficiency. “Either/Neither” fail to respect the explicit necessity claim.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating “indispensable” with “all-sufficient.”

Final Answer:
If only conclusion I follows.