**Official** England in The West Indies

[PY]

Is anyone from the UK looking forward to the radio coverage from TalkSport? :rolleyes:

The Team
Jack Bannister (he's good)
Tony Greig.
Chris Cowdrey (he's good)
Mark Nicholas :!(

Compared to TMS, it's pretty pale.

 

[badgerhair]

So you don't care about let-offs.

The biggest problem I see with this "first-chance" mullarkey is that it is weighted wholly against the batsman. It makes no allowance, for instance, for no-chance dismissals - ie where the batsman was sawn off by a poor umpiring decision. If you are going to keep statistics which show what a small score he would have been out for instead of 177 if the umpire had been awake as well as when he was dropped by a fielder, then you owe it to him to credit him with large quantities of extra runs every time he gets given out wrongly without giving any chance at all.

Vaughan has certainly had a couple of fairly dubious decisions given against him, though obviously not as many as Hussawnoff, but I don't suppose you keep detailed statistics on those.

I think the first-chance stat is an interesting one - though with the well-known nervous starts of both Lara and Tendulkar, I can't help wondering what their stats would look like if you had kept detailed records of when they could be deemed to have got off lightly - but I can't see why you place such enormous reliance on it, unless it is that it happens to back up your subjective judgement in a number of cases which you find important.

That's basically my problem with anyone who tries to dress up their judgements with statistics and claim that thereby they have made their judgements objective. They have not. They have simply shifted the subjectivity back a step.

In order to present an argument, you have to marshal the statistics in some way or other - there simply isn't enough time or space to present a comprehensive statistical examination - and by marshalling you introduce your own subjective biases.

For instance, I cannot think of many circumstances in which a batting captain would not welcome a 50 in half an hour or a century in 80 minutes, so fast scoring is obviously a good thing. However, I note that Bradman never achieved either of those marks, while Viv Richards did. That proves that Viv Richards was a better batsman than Bradman, of course, because I say that fast scoring is the be-all and end-all of batting - just as you say (or at least appear to) that first-chance averages are the sole determinant of quality.

By extension of that rather spurious Bradman/IVAR comparison, though, we can see that it is highly unlikely that you can ever use statistics on their own to conclusively prove some proposition about relative player quality: at least once they have a substantial career behind them, it is probable that any two given batsmen will exceed each other on some statistical measures while trailing in others. Therefore one has to decide which statistics are part of the essential core and which are frippery, and within the core, which are the most significant measures and which the lesser, and then devise some weighting system to come out with the adjusted index.

And there are almost as many opinions on the exact relative importance of various player traits as there are cricket fans, so to dignify one's particular selection of criteria as somehow "objective" is arrogance of a very high order indeed.

The more I read about the history of the game, though, the more it becomes apparent to me that the use of statistics as any kind of predictive tool is doomed to failure, because statistics do not measure the most important aspects of a cricketer: cricket is largely played in the mind, and it is qualities like determination, strength of character, and will to succeed which really sort people out - as the comparison between the incredibly single-minded Steve Waugh and his more talented but more dilettante brother might show, for instance. Until you can measure character traits, you are always going to end up with statistical lists which contain anomalies because some players manage to do fortuitously well or badly on some particular aspect and thereby upset the general basis which you have chosen as your foundation.

That's why I have very little time indeed for those who go on about how unlikely it is that Harmison will ever amount to much by reference to his stats. His current Test career is exactly comparable to that of Glenn McGrath at the same stage:

Match O R W Ave
SJH 12 416.3 1215 41 29.63
GDM 12 447.3 1220 40 30.50

Since Harmison after 12 matches has very slightly better stats than Glenn McGrath, the statistical nutcase ought to be arguing that Harmison is McGrath's reincarnation rather than saying how bad he is on the basis of having a better average than McGrath did.

Whether Harmison will go on and emulate McGrath or end up on the scrapheap will depend crucially on his character. I have always had deep suspicions that Harmison will be a dud because I've not been at all impressed that a bloke who gets homesick if he goes down to the local pub has the strength of character to succeed in the cauldron of Test cricket.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[badgerhair]

Is anyone from the UK looking forward to the radio coverage from TalkSport?

I'm especially looking forward to them leaving the cricket at 7 pm UK time every evening except Sunday in order to present a 3-hour football show. (Check out their published schedule if you don't believe me.)

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Swervy]

The biggest problem I see with this "first-chance" mullarkey..............
Cheers,

Mike

well that basically sums up what i think as well,and a lot more eloquantly put than i could have done

 

[Richard]

but what about first chance figures for people like Tendulkar,Lara etc.

They're much better.
But of course they score runs when they haven't deserved them, that's inevitable.

 

[Richard]

every player has let offs, but it is the great ones who capitalise on it. we all remember herschelle gibbs' dropped catch of steve waugh in the wc.....if he had taken that SA would have won that world cup!!but he didnt so would u say that australia werent deserving world champions in 99???
do u know how many let offs don bradman might have had??his average might only have been half of what it actually is if the fielding was sharper in those days. don bradman never got to play quality spin bowlers in the sub continent did he....who knows if we playing in the modern era he might have had problems in facing murali in sri lanka!!!so would u say that don bradman is not great??
to quote one of navjot singh sindhus "sidhuisms"......"if 'ifs' and 'and' were pots and pans there would be no tinkers"

Don Bradman faced bowlers equal in ability of Murali, in Grimmett and O'Reilly. He still did pretty impressively. On wickets far, far worse for batting than those we typically see at Galle and Kandy, I might add.
Anyhow, not disputing the Navjot wisdom (as often, not entirely sure I fully understand it), but to attempt to use it in this case is a bad idea as, as I've said countless times, chances are not "what-ifs" - it is a fact that the batsman would have been out, it is not a "he could have been out".
I don't know exactly how many let-offs Bradman had, but I can tell you for certain that in general there were far less let-offs in those days, as I've researched the matter in depth. Scorebook averages, while ideally not being taken for gospel, were at least a more reliable method of determining ability then.
I would certainly say, meanwhile, that South Africa were the best team in the 1999 World Cup. And while it is highly likely they would have won if Gibbs had taken that simple chance, as Liam pointed-out, it is not certain - because "what-ifs" have no place in talking about results of games. Dropped catches aren't very relevant to discussions about the results of games, they only really matter when talking about batsmen's ability.

 

[Swervy]

Don Bradman faced bowlers equal in ability of Murali, in Grimmett and O'Reilly.

erm...Grimmett and O'Reilly were Aussies werent they so how did the Don face them (apart from maybe in the nets):P

 

[Richard]

The biggest problem I see with this "first-chance" mullarkey is that it is weighted wholly against the batsman. It makes no allowance, for instance, for no-chance dismissals - ie where the batsman was sawn off by a poor umpiring decision. If you are going to keep statistics which show what a small score he would have been out for instead of 177 if the umpire had been awake as well as when he was dropped by a fielder, then you owe it to him to credit him with large quantities of extra runs every time he gets given out wrongly without giving any chance at all.

Vaughan has certainly had a couple of fairly dubious decisions given against him, though obviously not as many as Hussawnoff, but I don't suppose you keep detailed statistics on those.

I think the first-chance stat is an interesting one - though with the well-known nervous starts of both Lara and Tendulkar, I can't help wondering what their stats would look like if you had kept detailed records of when they could be deemed to have got off lightly - but I can't see why you place such enormous reliance on it, unless it is that it happens to back up your subjective judgement in a number of cases which you find important.

Let me tell you, the first-chance average does take account of unfair saw-offs. I don't know how many times I've had to state this obvious to people.
Lara and Tendulkar's first-chance stats, in the time I've kept them, are very impressive. I believe I've already said that in any case.

That's basically my problem with anyone who tries to dress up their judgements with statistics and claim that thereby they have made their judgements objective. They have not. They have simply shifted the subjectivity back a step.

In order to present an argument, you have to marshal the statistics in some way or other - there simply isn't enough time or space to present a comprehensive statistical examination - and by marshalling you introduce your own subjective biases.

For instance, I cannot think of many circumstances in which a batting captain would not welcome a 50 in half an hour or a century in 80 minutes, so fast scoring is obviously a good thing. However, I note that Bradman never achieved either of those marks, while Viv Richards did. That proves that Viv Richards was a better batsman than Bradman, of course, because I say that fast scoring is the be-all and end-all of batting - just as you say (or at least appear to) that first-chance averages are the sole determinant of quality.

By extension of that rather spurious Bradman/IVAR comparison, though, we can see that it is highly unlikely that you can ever use statistics on their own to conclusively prove some proposition about relative player quality: at least once they have a substantial career behind them, it is probable that any two given batsmen will exceed each other on some statistical measures while trailing in others. Therefore one has to decide which statistics are part of the essential core and which are frippery, and within the core, which are the most significant measures and which the lesser, and then devise some weighting system to come out with the adjusted index.

And there are almost as many opinions on the exact relative importance of various player traits as there are cricket fans, so to dignify one's particular selection of criteria as somehow "objective" is arrogance of a very high order indeed.

The more I read about the history of the game, though, the more it becomes apparent to me that the use of statistics as any kind of predictive tool is doomed to failure, because statistics do not measure the most important aspects of a cricketer: cricket is largely played in the mind, and it is qualities like determination, strength of character, and will to succeed which really sort people out - as the comparison between the incredibly single-minded Steve Waugh and his more talented but more dilettante brother might show, for instance. Until you can measure character traits, you are always going to end up with statistical lists which contain anomalies because some players manage to do fortuitously well or badly on some particular aspect and thereby upset the general basis which you have chosen as your foundation.

That's why I have very little time indeed for those who go on about how unlikely it is that Harmison will ever amount to much by reference to his stats. His current Test career is exactly comparable to that of Glenn McGrath at the same stage:

Match O R W Ave
SJH 12 416.3 1215 41 29.63
GDM 12 447.3 1220 40 30.50

Since Harmison after 12 matches has very slightly better stats than Glenn McGrath, the statistical nutcase ought to be arguing that Harmison is McGrath's reincarnation rather than saying how bad he is on the basis of having a better average than McGrath did.

Whether Harmison will go on and emulate McGrath or end up on the scrapheap will depend crucially on his character. I have always had deep suspicions that Harmison will be a dud because I've not been at all impressed that a bloke who gets homesick if he goes down to the local pub has the strength of character to succeed in the cauldron of Test cricket.

I have debated basically the point of the contents of this thread with Corey, and it has enlightened me beyond prediction. There is, quite simply, no such thing as objective. Any statistic used to attempt to prove a case is always going to be comprised of something that reflects someone's attitudes and values. The basic fact is, scorebook-averages are as biased as anything you may choose to come-up with. It's just they're the most commonly-used thing, so most people place most value on them.
My attitudes and values are reflected in the fact that I think the first-chance average along with an assesment of the conditions relative to the ability of the bowlers is the best way to determine a batsman's ability. Not that many people agree with me.
The thousands of people who follow cricket Worldwide will have produced God knows how many different ways of measuring a batsman. The relative importance of them is all a question of their attitudes and values, but one thing for certain - the most commonly valued one will be the scorebook average. That is why it is perceived as "objective".
It's exactly the reason that it's perceived as objective that murder is bad. Because everyone agrees that it's bad.
Right and wrong is determined by majority and minority, simple as.

 

[Richard]

erm...Grimmett and O'Reilly were Aussies werent they so how did the Don face them (apart from maybe in the nets):P

Domestic cricket? ...

 

[marc71178]

I'm especially looking forward to them leaving the cricket at 7 pm UK time every evening except Sunday in order to present a 3-hour football show. (Check out their published schedule if you don't believe me.)

You have to be kidding.

 

[tooextracool]

Don Bradman faced bowlers equal in ability of Murali, in Grimmett and O'Reilly. He still did pretty impressively. On wickets far, far worse for batting than those we typically see at Galle and Kandy, I might add.

how do u know that grimett and o reilly are equal in ability to murali??just because u read some fat cricket book that says bill reilly was great or just because don bradman said so??bradman also said that he batted a lot like tendulkar when there is clearly no resemblance between the 2 batting styles. im not a big murali fan but im quite sure that murali turns the ball much more than anybody to ever play cricket and i might add that playing spinners in the sub continent is different from playing them in australia and england.

I don't know exactly how many let-offs Bradman had, but I can tell you for certain that in general there were far less let-offs in those days, as I've researched the matter in depth. [/B]

with all the media around in those days nobody had a clue whether the lbw decisions and catches that might have hit the ground first, which the umpires gave out were right or wrong. i repeat fielding in those days were far worse from what they are now and nowadays if u saw somebody miss a diving double hand catch in the slips u would say that it was a chance missed and he doesnt deserve those runs...but in those days im sure fielders in the slips werent as athletic or agile as there are today and wouldnt have even attempted a diving catch. to put it plainly everybody has luck...if u say that a player doesnt deserve to have such a high avg then so do ALL the players in the history of the game coz they have all had chance!!

 

[marc71178]

I don't know exactly how many let-offs Bradman had, but I can tell you for certain that in general there were far less let-offs in those days, as I've researched the matter in depth.

No, all you can say for certain is that there were less let-offs reported in those days.

Without seeing all the games, you cannot claim anything else as certain.

 

[marc71178]

Let me tell you, the first-chance average does take account of unfair saw-offs. I don't know how many times I've had to state this obvious to people.

I don't remember you saying this.

What do you do then in this unkept average to a batsman that is sawn off?

 

[Swervy]

but in those days im sure fielders in the slips werent as athletic or agile as there are today and wouldnt have even attempted a diving catch. to put it plainly everybody has luck...if u say that a player doesnt deserve to have such a high avg then so do ALL the players in the history of the game coz they have all had chance!!

this is quite true...in fact it was considered ungentlemanly like to dive for catches or to dive for a ball racing along the ground..and that was right up to the second world war.

Its got to be said, I dont understand where this thing that there are more chances or whatever comes from

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I woudl hardly describe yet another injury problem as being "perfect" and I think that if the 4 specialist seamers are selected, we need to concentrate on the best bastman for the no. 6 position.

My meaning is that I don't rate Dwayne Smith as a Test class player and I rate Hinds higher as a batsman. Therefore I would prefer to see him in there.

Powell's improved form in the SA 1-dayers might give him the edge despite Hinds' more consistent showings in the Carib Beer Cup.

I still think that we need something approaching quality spin to support the seamers. Yes, we're picking four specialist seamers, but some variety would be nice too. I don't think Gayle's bowling is suited to doing anything but blocking an end in Tests (though Sarwan has some potential) and Hinds is clearly a better bowler than Powell.

If both batsmen are about equal on contribution, I would pick the allrounder over the specialist in a heartbeat. That said, Powell will very likely get the call.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

how do u know that grimett and o reilly are equal in ability to murali??just because u read some fat cricket book that says bill reilly was great or just because don bradman said so??bradman also said that he batted a lot like tendulkar when there is clearly no resemblance between the 2 batting styles. im not a big murali fan but im quite sure that murali turns the ball much more than anybody to ever play cricket and i might add that playing spinners in the sub continent is different from playing them in australia and england.

That's a stupid comment which is also somewhat of a contradiction on the basis of the accusations put to Richard. Have you seen everyone to ever play the game?

 

[badgerhair]

My attitudes and values are reflected in the fact that I think the scorebook average along with an assesment of the conditions relative to the ability of the bowlers is the best way to determine a batsman's ability. Not that many people agree with me.

If you think the scorebook average is so important, can you explain why you don't hail Michael Vaughan as a fine opening batsman, given that he has a scorebook average of almost 52 as a Test opener, with most of his runs coming against Australia, India and South Africa so that it's not as though he has bloated his average by Bangling, and go on instead about his first-chance average? It looks awfully like an instance of choosing a different statistical measure because your normally-favoured one doesn't come up with the "right" answer, but maybe I'm missing some nuance in your position.

I'd take issue with what you've said there anyway, but at a much more pedantic level. I don't think it is reasonable to use actual performance as an indication of *ability*, because I think "ability" equates to concepts like "potential" and "talent", and we're all aware of people who seem to have all the talent but don't perform, and people who seem to be totally clueless but still manage to score oodles of runs or run through batting orders like a dose of salts. If you were to say "quality" rather than "ability", I'd be much more likely to agree.

Of course, there comes a time in any cricketer's career when one requires the ability to be translated into performance, By the time a player has played 50 Tests, there ought to be little difference between perceived ability and numbers in scorebooks, but it seems bananas to me to expect a novice player to realise his complete potential from the get-go.

So I tend to be much more interested in whether a junior player is making forward progress or going backwards than exactly what the career figures say. As long as a currently-disappointing average is on a generally-improving trend, the fact that it hasn't yet reached what one might call an acceptable level doesn't bother me too much.

It's a big problem for England that the generation of bowlers which shold have grown up to replace Gough, Fraser, Caddick and Malcolm didn't, and that we now pick people like Jones, Harmison and Anderson faute de mieux.

But since I mentioned Harmison in the previous post, I might as well proffer my view on him. I wasn't at all enthusiastic when he was first picked, and I remained unconvinced throughout the Ashes series, despite his wickets at Sydney. As far as I could see, he sprayed it everywhere, and at his pace it was quite likely that he'd pick up wickets here and there simply on the grounds that even people throwing darts randomly while blindfolded occasionally hit a treble 20. But then I saw him bowl a whole over of good/goodish balls against Zimbabwe and thought, hmmm, maybe he's not a completely useless show-pony. And then came the match at The Oval, where before and after tea on day four, he bowled a whole *spell* of mostly good balls. "Blistering Barneses!" thought I, "perhaps the bloke could become a bowler after all." And though I entirely discount the average and so forth from his Bangles Test, I was encouraged to see that he was bowling whole spells of reliable stuff rather than snatching wickets with flukes. He spent 2003 exhibiting improvement, albeit rather less than I would have liked.

So, while remaining to be convinced about him for the medium and long term, I am more favourably disposed towards his selection than some around here. His performances in the last two Tests he played were sufficiently in advance of what went before to earn him the right to a few more chances - the crucial point being that I'm not fondly hoping that he'll repeat something which he once did ages ago, but that he will carry on from where he left off and keep getting better.

A year ago, I thought he was going to be another Alan Ward, very very fast but hopelessly uncontrolled and injured on a very regular basis. But in his last two games he opened up the possibility that he might actually be a real fast bowler, and I'm at least interested: if he does more of what he had just started to do, he'll be worth keeping. He's lucky that there's no-one else around with more obvious credentials, but he's converted me from deeply sceptical to open-minded about him.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[PY]

I'm especially looking forward to them leaving the cricket at 7 pm UK time every evening except Sunday in order to present a 3-hour football show. (Check out their published schedule if you don't believe me.)

Cheers,

Mike

WHAT!?!?!?!?!?!? :!( :!(

 

[Langeveldt]

Is anyone from the UK looking forward to the radio coverage from TalkSport? :rolleyes:

The Team
Jack Bannister (he's good)
Tony Greig.
Chris Cowdrey (he's good)
Mark Nicholas :!(

Compared to TMS, it's pretty pale.

Why is it that you can get better cricket coverage up an Omani mountain than you can at Lords??? Im fed up with the complete lack of competition when it comes to cricket radio/TV coverage here :!( :!( :!(

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Why is it that you can get better cricket coverage up an Omani mountain than you can at Lords??? Im fed up with the complete lack of competition when it comes to cricket radio/TV coverage here :!( :!( :!(

Move here :P