How good was Basil D'Oliveira?

[Richard]

Easing my way out of this debate, but just a quick clarification which I perhaps should have made earlier; I included Wilson for England because I had Goddard in there who also benefited from uncovered wickets. In any case Goddard was at the end of his career. You can take the two of them out and I think my general point about first-class averages still remains.

Do you know the ins and outs of South Africa and covering of wickets?

'Cos I certainly don't.

 

[Richard]

How often has this truism been quoted on this forum?

Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

Seems it is not always borne in mind by some

Quite often - too often, really. I bear it in mind much, and I've always said you've got to be careful with stats, and examine them properly.

But equally to dismiss them as irrelevant, as a few like to, is foolhardy.

 

[fredfertang]

It was the reference to Alan Ward that brought it to mind

 

[Dissector]

Well my whole point is that first-class stats can be completely misleading when it comes to evaluating test players. Ultimately only test match performances over a long period count both when it comes to teams and individual players. Anyway no point flogging a dead horse.

 

[Richard]

Well my whole point is that first-class stats can be completely misleading when it comes to evaluating test players.

Over a period, I'd suspect that more good players at domestic level tend to be good at international level than not.

And remember - career averages are not the only averages.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

How often has this truism been quoted on this forum?

Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

Seems it is not always borne in mind by some

Stats are useful in the right context. On this board they're all too often conveniently dissected to attempt to prove a point - which always fails - or analysed into oblivion by people who think they can use them to prove that x was .00022228877 a better player than y. In the hands of people who fail to realise that every game of cricket is unique, stats are worthless.

 

[Dissector]

And remember - career averages are not the only averages.

Well that is all the more reason to be skeptical of first-class averages since we don't have the means of breaking them down.

 

[Richard]

Yes, we certainly do. CricketArchive "Player Oracle" now offers a basic "filter". Nothing like as powerful as the CricInfo StatsGuru one, but enough to help look into the matter.

 

[SJS]

His figures are not mediocre but still they do not do justice to his immense abilty. It must be remembered that Dolly was a far greater player than these figures.

He could not play Test cricket, for reasons that are well known, till he was 33. That is almost as old as Ponting and Laxman are today or Dravid was when his game started declining.

He played from then till he was 41. Age catches up with everyone. A batsman's peak, by and large is around 30 and for a medium pace around 25. He was well past both. That he still performed as he did in those eight years should be looked at to wonder how he may have done but for the system in which he grew up and not to run down this magnificent cricketer.