Reducing cricket to numbers

[CSK Fan]

I have seen some interesting discussions going around here recently, comparing different batsmen across eras. I have seen lots of stats being thrown around, each being twisted according to one's convinience. And I was disheartened Is that really what cricket is all about? Numbers? Runs scored and wickets taken? Are those numbers what makes us sit in front of a TV set or keep hitting the refresh button on a webpage for hours? I am sure each one of us are ardent admirers of cricket or else we wouldnt be on a cricket site. We love the game; passionately follow it. We got lost in the excitement of a good cricket match and skip studies, work and food. There has to be more than numbers to the game. when I watch Sachin hit a perfect cover drive, it doesnt matter to me whether the bowler is McGrath or Sami. Its cricket at its best to me. Similarly catching the likes of Lara, Murali, etc in action gave me the same feeling. it was never about numbers. Winning and losing the match of course mattered but the journey was worth it too. Many a journeys and many a movies have sad endings but there is so much in between which one enjoys. Can someone explain whats so great about Kapil? Or whats so great about Inzamam? What about Lara or richards? Both were taunted at one point as the best (or second best) ever Can you prove that by stats? Its fine coming onto a website where we enjoy our common passion and having our little discussion and arguments. We all have our point of views and sometimes are quite possessive about them. But what i am afraid of, is that some of the youngsters(and maybe also the oldsters), will lose all sense of perspective and will be lost in the myriad of stats. Stats dont give us pleasure, the game does. 6 runs added to the total dont make us jump for joy, the sight of the ball crossing the boundary does. If stats were all that mattered, the best team on paper would always win. If stats were all that mattered Bangladesh wouldnt have any passionate fans. cricket related stats were created just as an interesting tidbit for the game. It was never meant to be used as a measure of the game. The game of cricket doesnt allow greatness to be measured by tangibles. Perhaps we will all do well to keep this in mind

[Sachinism]

Very well put MTC. The article you wrote about Sachin some time back summed up quite well why he means so much to us.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[CSK Fan]

^^^ I agree with most of what you say but would also like to add thats stats are just one aspect of following sports. Its not the end all of it or the only criteria to measure a player

[thevortex]

May I jump in to say, My Two cents, that this is something that I have been hollering about for some time now? :) Cricket produces statistics. It is not the other way round. Statistics are a by-product of the game. Nothing more but certainly nothing less.

[Roshanrocks]

statistics....is another way at looking at sports... its like an icing at the top of the cake or something liek that.... it is like the chemical added to make concrete stronger, its like ...blah am not gifted in writing... tendulkar may go down as a great player, the best all round batmsna capable of hitting all shots in the book, the marauder or 90's the ccumulator of the noughties, but its the stats that will strengthen the belief... if bradman had avergaed in the 60's who would have fought for him so heavily like we see people now... its his stats which sort of reinforce his "greatest test batsman" tag but its just that... a reinforcement about something we all know, not the ummm.... cake :dash1: my writing skills

[King Tendulkar]

I always say its all about the cricket eye as well:cantstop:

[CSK Fan]

statistics....is another way at looking at sports... its like an icing at the top of the cake or something liek that.... it is like the chemical added to make concrete stronger, its like ...blah am not gifted in writing... tendulkar may go down as a great player, the best all round batmsna capable of hitting all shots in the book, the marauder or 90's the ccumulator of the noughties, but its the stats that will strengthen the belief... if bradman had avergaed in the 60's who would have fought for him so heavily like we see people now... its his stats which sort of reinforce his "greatest test batsman" tag but its just that... a reinforcement about something we all know, not the ummm.... cake :dash1: my writing skills

the problem with Bradman is that all we have is stats. I dont think anyone here has seen him play live. We also dont have more detailed stats about him as we have for the current players. So Bradman is rated purely on stats and on the basis of commnets from real expert who have seen him play. for current players every Tom with an internet connection has statsguru and an opinion BTW how Tendulkar will go down in history will not be decided by you or me. it will be decided by real cricket experts, his peers and ex-players. And we all know how they rate him. A bunch of guys with statsguru are not going to bring Tendulkar down from his pedestal. There is a reason when knowledgable cricket experts write on players, they never take the help of stats

[Sachinism]

Lets put it this way. I and I'm sure a lot of people here didn't become fans of Tendulkar because of his numbers, I'm sure nobody opened up statsguru and saw his numbers and decided I like this guy because of that

[Roshanrocks]

There is a reason when knowledgable cricket experts write on players, they never take the help of stats

did u read that article on sehwag by Mr. Singh... truly breath taking...if thats what you mean.... that i am in full agreeement :D

[King Tendulkar]

Good stuff here by two cents.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[SJS50]

I have seen some interesting discussions going around here recently, comparing different batsmen across eras. I have seen lots of stats being thrown around, each being twisted according to one's convinience. And I was disheartened Is that really what cricket is all about? Numbers? Runs scored and wickets taken? Are those numbers what makes us sit in front of a TV set or keep hitting the refresh button on a webpage for hours? I am sure each one of us are ardent admirers of cricket or else we wouldnt be on a cricket site. We love the game; passionately follow it. We got lost in the excitement of a good cricket match and skip studies, work and food. There has to be more than numbers to the game. when I watch Sachin hit a perfect cover drive, it doesnt matter to me whether the bowler is McGrath or Sami. Its cricket at its best to me. Similarly catching the likes of Lara, Murali, etc in action gave me the same feeling. it was never about numbers. Winning and losing the match of course mattered but the journey was worth it too. Many a journeys and many a movies have sad endings but there is so much in between which one enjoys. Can someone explain whats so great about Kapil? Or whats so great about Inzamam? What about Lara or richards? Both were taunted at one point as the best (or second best) ever Can you prove that by stats? Its fine coming onto a website where we enjoy our common passion and having our little discussion and arguments. We all have our point of views and sometimes are quite possessive about them. But what i am afraid of, is that some of the youngsters(and maybe also the oldsters), will lose all sense of perspective and will be lost in the myriad of stats. Stats dont give us pleasure, the game does. 6 runs added to the total dont make us jump for joy, the sight of the ball crossing the boundary does. If stats were all that mattered, the best team on paper would always win. If stats were all that mattered Bangladesh wouldnt have any passionate fans. cricket related stats were created just as an interesting tidbit for the game. It was never meant to be used as a measure of the game. The game of cricket doesnt allow greatness to be measured by tangibles. Perhaps we will all do well to keep this in mind

Bravo. Well said. This is a rare sentiment in today's context. Here is my two cents, if you please :) 1. Cricket is not about stats, stats are about cricket. One needs to understand the game well without the stats and that is the debate about the game. Then, at times, stats will come in handy to buttress some, only some mind you, of those arguments. Stats cant be the argument. 2, Stats are quantitative data. No debate about merits of players can be based on quantitative data alone. Qualitative analysis is the foremost tool to be used. And quality does not just refer to the protagonists under purview; the quality of the conditions, the quality of opposition, s\the state of the game, the laws of the game (in case we are discussing player across history) etc are a vast number of criteria to be considered particularly when comparisons are being made. The Lohmann is the greatest is a case in point. A similar one could be why Grace is considered such a great batsman when he averaged just 32.3 in Tests. 3. Cricket is not a sport like where one player is contesting directly against another and here I do not consider one batsman facing one bowler. In athletics, in tennis, in golf etc players are displaying the same skills at the same time under same conditions. Its easier to compare them. Team games are different and cricket with its many variables is very different. 4. Thats not to say that stats are useless in a cricketing debate. But they have to be used carefully and objectively to support, if needed, a point that is well argued even otherwise. Someone commented elsewhere about my use of stats in an article on Sehwag. Its strange that this came up. In that topic I was discussing Sehwag's phenomenal strike rate without a corresponding drop in his batting average. If we are going to talk of rate of scoring how are we going to do it if not with figures. The terms themselves are quantitative. But if I have to argue that Sehwag is a better batsman than, say Viv Richards, I wont be using stats to prove that point (if I did believe this was the case) even though Sehwag's figures in Tests in this regard appear better. In CW I started a mock thread taking a tongue-in-cheek poke at those who first decide who is their favourite player and then look for statistics to prove their point. I called it "SJS's Stats Factory - Providing Flexible Stats for the Inflexible Mind!" and argued, sarcastically, that I could find a statistics to prove anything I was asked about cricket. Friends on that site took me on and we had a whale of a time proving some very interesting theories. Here are some. . . .

1. Prove Richard Hadlee was a crap bowler. Provide statistical evidence to support.
2. Bradman was the biggest bunny in the history of the game !!!
3. Ajit Agarkar is a better all rounder than Wasim Akram

and so on. . . It was great fun. People kept trying to make it more and more difficult and i had a great time finding statistical arguments to prove that day was night :). From all feedback, it remains one of the most popular threads on Cricket Chat at CW. Visit it when you have spare time. Its good for a smile or two :) Hear, Hear, Hear : Lend me your Ear

[Mr. Wicket]

SJS, fully agree. At times people who delve too heavily into the math lose the ability to really enjoy aspects of the game. BTW, there is also a hilarious (and similar) thread here by the Outsider about whether Agarkar is better than Akram. :--D

[vvvslaxman]

Numbers come into picture only when there is a debate. Otherwise i think everyone enjoys every aspect of the cricket. You could see that in commentary threads.

[Lurker]

Is that really what cricket is all about? Numbers? Runs scored and wickets taken? Are those numbers what makes us sit in front of a TV set or keep hitting the refresh button on a webpage for hours?

Cricket is obviously much more than runs scored, wickets taken etc. Of all the sports cricket is perhaps the most complex, and hence most rewarding. To fully understand the subtelities of the game one has to spend years, if not more, to understand the game. If it was restricted to numbers circket would be no different than the New York Stock exchange where a player's worth is judged the same way as the Dow Jones index. Indeed this is observed more and more these days with 75 different rankings world over. So why number you may ask? Well multiple reasons. The genuine reason often includes the part where it is impossible to make a judgement without using numbers of some kind. An example that comes to mind is that of an Aussie batsman (whose name I forget but I could pull it out of one of my cricket books) who had a strong distaste for Don Bradman. The latter had dropped selected Bill Brown ahead of him. The batsmen I mention was close to Richie Benaud and Benaud never understood very much why Bradman was alleged to make a wrong decision. He checked the scorecards and found Brown's performance good, if not great, and even in the series that Brown was picked he was selected as one of Wisden's 5 player of the year. So all in all not a bad performance. He then compared their numbers in domestic cricket as well and found Brown to be slightly ahead (about 850 runs @65) while the miffed cricket had about 650 runs@60(something like that). Thus Benaud concluded that it was unwise to allege Bradman made the wrong call. On the other hand you will have a scenarion where a youngster reads about a match where Sobers took on the Indian champion all-rounder Salim Durrani, looks up to see Durrani stats, then scoffs t 75 wickets@35 with a "Champion all-rounder my as$" and ends up mocking everyone from Sobers to Durrani. In the end stats are like potent weapons I suppose, in hands of good folks (Dhondy, BB and Varun) they can be extremely useful, in hands of pretty much everyone else it will become a WMD. It also has to be related to our degrading reading skills. People dont have time, or desire, to learn/read. To them it is easier to check Sunny scored 34 centuries without reading through his books or checking series by series performance etc. xxx

[SJS50]

SJS, fully agree. At times people who delve too heavily into the math lose the ability to really enjoy aspects of the game. BTW, there is also a hilarious (and similar) thread here by the Outsider about whether Agarkar is better than Akram. :--D

Must check it out for "copyright infringements" if any :)

[Mr. Wicket]

http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=177595

[Tapioca]

SJS, you are here too !

[SJS50]

SJS' date=' you are here too ![/quote'] Hi Tapi. How are you my friend. Long time no see. What a pleasant surprise. I remember posting on CW, "Whats happened to Tapioca" I was just bored and not able to sleep last night so I googled cricket forums and this was one of those that came up and it had a current thread about George Lohmann which I found very interesting so I registered and posted a reply and here I am :)