| 
Posts and words
Loading ...
averages
Statistics can lie
By Alex Try 2 years ago, mid-October, 3 Comments »
|
||
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics” alleged former British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli.
I’m not sure if Disraeli was a cricketer: perhaps this was said in response to a particularly bad season in which his batting average belied the way he was striking the ball in the nets? One thing is sure: statistics hold a powerful grip over the mind of the cricketer and the cricket fan. You don’t hear Manchester United fans discussing Cristiano Ronaldo or Wayne Rooney’s respective goals-to-shots ratio. Be it bowling averages or strike rates, we are obsessed, and this obsession often clouds our judgement of a player.
Ricky Ponting, Australia’s captain, began the current series under a cloud. Prior to the first Test he had scored a grand total of 172 runs in eight matches against India in India, at a dismal average of just 12.3. Much was made of this statistic in the pre-match posturing between the sides, and Ponting himself was obviously acutely aware of his past failings.
“Ponting’s poor record is an advantage for us,” Zaheer Khan told an Indian news channel. “This could be his last series as a captain, [and] if you see his statements in the press you can make out he is under pressure.”
As proved by his 123, past records can often count for little on the day. Commentators could have spent more time examining his play in the nets or the state of the pitch when making pre-match predictions. All but one of Ponting’s previous matches in India came before 2001 – back when he had only scored 2500 Test runs, and was averaging 43. He has changed markedly as a player since then. He has scored 7500 further runs, made a staggering 28 hundreds and raised his average to a lofty 58. His average against India in Australia is over 70.
Like a batsman who just received a ball that kicked-up off a good length and must play the next ball entirely on its merits – we must take a step back before making our judgments on a player before a series. Ponting’s record tells a story – it shows us his early weakness against spin, and the grip Harbhajan has held over him. It didn’t, however, tell us how this series was going to pan out. Ponting is an exceptional batsman and his innings yesterday wasn’t just redemption – it was a return to his brilliant status quo (if more tempered and watchful than usual).
Another player whose pre-series statistics masked his undoubted talents was Ishant Sharma. Before this match he had taken 23 wickets at an average of 36 from nine matches (the standard for a good fast bowler being under 30). There is no footnote next to these figures saying: “NB: bowled a great spell against Ponting at Perth a year ago – very good prospect”. If his career had ended before this match, a casual observer of Wisden in 20 or 30 years time would have assumed he was dropped for indifferent form. His four-wicket haul showed true class as he bowled beautifully on a slow surface.
Statistics are an indelible part of the game – they are recorded for posterity and will be your marker when you are gone. But they are only numbers. The game isn’t just about runs and wickets – it’s about people, places and stories. Is Michael Hussey the greatest player since Bradman? No he is not, but his average could make you think so. The two team’s final batting and bowling stats for this series will tell us who played consistently – but they might mask a crucial five not out by a tail-ender that won a pivotal test match. Put simply: they say the stats don’t lie, but sometimes they do.
Alex Try will be (hopefully) writing his thoughts on the India-England series for The Corridor
3 Comments »Is 50 the new 40?
By Will 2 years ago, at the end of March, 7 Comments »
I don’t listen to TMS nearly as much as I used to, as we’re usually plugged into Sky (for obvious reasons), so it’s been like welcoming back an old friend this Test, flicking it on for the first session. One statistically-minded listened just wrote into Aggers and co wondering why they (and the media in general) gripe and moan about our batsmen when each of them averages 40 – the benchmark of a fine player. Or is it?
My colleague and I have debated this for some time, and agree that 50 is now the new 40. Flatter, covered pitches; big, powerful bats and, most importantly of all, the standard of bowling nowadays is not what it once was. Vic Marks made a good point, that averages can’t be compared cross-generation…and I agree, to an extent. But look at someone like Mike Atherton who averaged 37.69. Had he made his debut ten years later, would he have averaged under 40? Unlikely.
But the most intriguing angle of all this is to wonder how the likes of Ian Bell (averaging 43.15) would have coped a decade or 20 years ago…
7 Comments »Is 50 the new 40?
By Will 3 years ago, at the end of July, 18 Comments »
My colleague and I were watching Kevin Pietersen crash his way to yet another hundred today when a thought popped into my head. Is the new benchmark for batsman to average 50, rather than 40 as it was a decade ago? He disagreed so we settled on the conclusion that, to be considered a “pretty damn good” batsman you’ll be averaging 45 as a minimum.
And it got us thinking back to the dark old days in the 1990s when none (Alec Stewart apart, briefly, I think) of England’s top-order averaged 40, while some lurked in the dismal gloom of the low-thirties. But these days, they’re all over 40 and two – Matt Prior and Kevin Pietersen – are averaging over 50.
On a similar line, if batsmen’s averages are increasing – and I have no evidence with which to support this claim as I’m rambling like a loon – are bowlers’ also inflating? A decade ago, a really decent bowler was said to be averaging under 25. But with batsmen enjoying such shorter boundaries, and the game’s frenetic pace spiralling upwards with each year, is 30 the new 25?
Thoughts welcome.
18 Comments »