Why Australia have lost the Ashes

[FaaipDeOiad]

just to continue what you are saying..a couple of workmates (big English cricket supporters who play in the Lancashire League, and cannot be considered to have little knowledge of the game) and I were looking at the series averages yesterday and were staggered by Lees bowling average of over 40. Just goes to show how little stats can tell a story..Lee I thought generally bowled excellently bar the odd innings

Well, Lee's been averaging in the 40s for a while, but what the average for this series doesn't show is how much better he bowled in this series than he did in say the West Indies in 2003. The improvement is there for all to see, but it hasn't shown in the averages. Maybe it will in the next series, or maybe he'll drop off again and it will never been shown in the stats - that's exactly why you can't watch cricket by the scorecard alone.

 

[greg]

Yes.
But please post the win-loss % for all three teams ( ENG, IND and SL) over the last 3-4 series vs OZ.

What? I just posted Slanka's record against Australia and you brushed it aside by claiming that "the games were far more competitive".

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

What matters in cricket is the statistics- that is what determines the result, from a cumulative perspective.
You can be a bowler who misses the edge every 3rd ball and end up with 50-1 while i can be a bowler who gets smacked every third ball and end up with 5-80 and i have done far better than you have, with the result in mind.

Err, so what if I have six catches dropped while fielders take blinders off you? What if the umpiring decisions go against me but you get a couple of batsmen out when you shouldn't have? What if the pressure from me beating the edge every third ball results in the batsment playing a stupid shot against you? What if circumstances only allow me to bowl 15 overs while you bowl 30?

Cricket is a far more subtle game than you give it credit for. You can't read it by numbers alone, or Darren Gough is a better bowler than Ian Botham.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

What? I just posted Slanka's record against Australia and you brushed it aside by claiming that "the games were far more competitive".

Yeah. Surely that's departing from the use of numbers alone? You just said that if a bowler beats the edge every third ball he's not as good as another guy who gets smashed around but has a few catches taken on the boundary or whatever, and yet you rate Sri Lanka for being "competitive" while winning 1 test out of a dozen. Which is it?

 

[C_C]

The improvement is there for all to see, but it hasn't shown in the averages.

There is some improvement evident from the averages - England is a marginally better batting lineup but ultimately, its the result that matters. 3-2 victory while playing rubbish for 2 matches and barely sneaking home in the other 3 is better than 1-4 loss where all matches went down to the tea session on 5th day.
Regardless of how well you bowl or how poorly you bowl, what matters is how many wickets you have taken, how many runs you've conceded and how many overs you've bowled.

 

[Swervy]

Australia beat India in India last year remember. England have been playing well for some time and they outplayed Australia in the most recent series, but then 6-12 months ago Australia had Kasprowicz and Gillespie bowling well, Martyn in the form of his life and so on, while for England Jones was struggling, Strauss wasn't in the team... and so on.

I didn't disagree with you about England outplaying Australia in the last series, but when you said that over the last year or two England had been playing the best cricket in the world. The cricket Australia was playing in 2004 was much more impressive than England belting the crap out of the West Indies, however good England were. The decline of a few players and some improvement from England led to the result in the Ashes series, which was a fair result but not representative of the year or two which came before it in my opinion.

fair point

 

[C_C]

What? I just posted Slanka's record against Australia and you brushed it aside by claiming that "the games were far more competitive".

I asked for the last few cycles... ie, lets say last 2-3 times the teams have played each other.

 

[PY]

I have seen Lillee bowl extensively. There is a remarkable technology called video recorders. I suggest you read up about it.
And whether i was there or not is irrelevant- i have seen a lot of cricketers and i have compared their statistical excellence within their eras.
I dont consider Lillee in the top 10 pacers ever and i have justified it before- something that you havn't countered.

You'll have to argue that one out with the man who's seen more Test matches live than anyone alive.

Richie rates DK Lillee as numero uno.

Just a side point.

 

[greg]

I think there's little point in arguing if one if going to pretend that statistics are the only way to effectively judge cricket.

It was blatantly obvious to all who watched the games that Flintoff was England's best bowler in the recent Ashes series. Jones was good but also had some poor spells, while Flintoff (excluding perhaps the first test) was excellent in each and every test and every innings with the ball, regardless of how many wickets he took. The fact that he averaged 27 with the ball in the series doesn't indicate how well he bowled or even how much impact he had on the series with the ball, whereas someone who never watched the games and just looked at the statistics would say he had a good but not great series with the ball, he in fact had a completely unbelievable series with the ball.

As swervy said earlier (although I disagree with him about the England team as a whole being the best in the world), Flintoff is now the second best pace bowler in the world. The only competition he has for the spot is from Shoaib, and Flintoff has shown himself against the best opposition available in this series to be clearly the better bowler. The fact that he averages 32 with the ball in his career (although 24.75 over the last two years) is largely irrelevant.

The only thing letting Flintoff's statistics down at all at the moment is the no. of noballs he is bowling (his fault i admit). I think you're actually a bit harsh on Jones - apart from Lords, where he still always looked threatening just was giving a four ball every over, I can't offhand remember him bowling a bad spell. The problem seemed more that Vaughan was massively underbowling him until Old Trafford, after which Australia seemed to have little answer both with new and old ball.

 

[Swervy]

I asked for the last few cycles... ie, lets say last 2-3 times the teams have played each other.

but teams change...what happened 5 years ago is not relevant..

and remember, the last time England played in India, India won 1-0, although England were clearly the better team in 2 of the other tests...England are now a vastly improved team..india are a team on the downslide compared to back then!!!! Suggests to me, India will have it tough this time round

 

[greg]

I asked for the last few cycles... ie, lets say last 2-3 times the teams have played each other.

Well that's exactly what I did post. Perhaps you have some access to some different statistics?

 

[C_C]

Err, so what if I have six catches dropped while fielders take blinders off you? What if the umpiring decisions go against me but you get a couple of batsmen out when you shouldn't have? What if the pressure from me beating the edge every third ball results in the batsment playing a stupid shot against you? What if circumstances only allow me to bowl 15 overs while you bowl 30?

Cricket is a far more subtle game than you give it credit for. You can't read it by numbers alone, or Darren Gough is a better bowler than Ian Botham.

Blinders and dropped catches along with umpiring descisions level out over the time if we two are teammates. Obviously there is some discrepancy over these things between different teams but there is no quantifiable way of guaging it. And i am not talking one specific spell or innings but rather, overall. Everyone has good days and bad days and therefore, they both must be weighed against each other to establish the true value of a player.
But then again, i have never used barometeres i cannot measure as reliable. I certainly dont see you or anyone else using the same standards evenly- for surely, if you consider the fact that India is a far inferior catching unit (until recently - they still are inferior, mind you) than Australia and that Warney averages just as much as Kumble when he doesnt have McGrath to expose the middle order for chump change on the board, Kumble is atleast in the same league as Warney and would be considered superior if not for his inferior overseas bowling performances ?
I certainly dont see anyone bringing that point up as a favouring condition to Murali, since it is evident as daylight that Murali has had a far inferior fielding unit to put up with than Warney.....

Intangiables are just that- intangiables. You have no way of knowing if they affect the condition by 0.000000001% or 1%. But ultimately what matters is the bottomline.
You have a job to do ( take 20 wickets as a bowling team). How you accomplish your mission ( as long as its fairplay and weather) is irrelevant to whether you have accomplished you mission or not.

 

[C_C]

If you want to go by this current english team, they have been largely intact for the last 10 matches or so- very very small number to draw a conclusion. Again, i will bring up India in the early 70s or Vinod Kambli/Steve Waugh as to point out the fallacy of using extremely short periods of time as a benchmark.

If you want to go by a reasonable benchmark ( 6-7 years), then these are the stats against OZ for IND, SL, RSA and ENG, in a played-won-lost-drawn-%won-%lost-difference between % won and % lost format.

ENG: 20-5-12-3-25.00-60.00- (-35.00)
IND : 17-6-8-3-35.29-47.05 - (-11.76)
RSA: 9-1-6-2-11.11-66.66 - (-55.55)
SL : 8-1-4-3-12.50-50.00 - ( 37.50)

Based on the abovementioned data ( going back to 97, which is around 7 years ago), India has done the best, there isnt much of a difference between SL and ENG and RSA has done the worst.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

How many players in the current England team were playing in 1997? About 0?

Obviously the results then are completely irrelevant. What does how well Mike Atherton and Darren Gough did compared to Gary Kirsten and Allan Donald have to do with the comparison between the two teams today? It's a ridiculous thing to bring up. I may as well claim the West Indies are a great team because Malcolm Marshall and Joel Garner ripped Australia apart in 1984.

 

[Swervy]

If you want to go by this current english team, they have been largely intact for the last 10 matches or so- very very small number to draw a conclusion. Again, i will bring up India in the early 70s or Vinod Kambli/Steve Waugh as to point out the fallacy of using extremely short periods of time as a benchmark.

If you want to go by a reasonable benchmark ( 6-7 years), then these are the stats against OZ for IND, SL, RSA and ENG, in a played-won-lost-drawn-%won-%lost-difference between % won and % lost format.

ENG: 20-5-12-3-25.00-60.00- (-35.00)
IND : 17-6-8-3-35.29-47.05 - (-11.76)
RSA: 9-1-6-2-11.11-66.66 - (-55.55)
SL : 8-1-4-3-12.50-50.00 - ( 37.50)

Based on the abovementioned data ( going back to 97, which is around 7 years ago), India has done the best, there isnt much of a difference between SL and ENG and RSA has done the worst.

but as we know generally RSA have been the superior team for most of that period over India.

India lost the last series at home to Australia..England have just outplayed Australia and won the series at home..thats all you need to know. What happened in 1997 is not relevent

 

[C_C]

How many players in the current England team were playing in 1997? About 0?

Obviously the results then are completely irrelevant. What does how well Mike Atherton and Darren Gough did compared to Gary Kirsten and Allan Donald have to do with the comparison between the two teams today? It's a ridiculous thing to bring up. I may as well claim the West Indies are a great team because Malcolm Marshall and Joel Garner ripped Australia apart in 1984.

Well this team has been largely intact for the last 10-15 matches or so ( no KP, Simon Jones, Strauss, Bell before that period) and that is far too little a span to compare over.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Blinders and dropped catches along with umpiring descisions level out over the time if we two are teammates. Obviously there is some discrepancy over these things between different teams but there is no quantifiable way of guaging it.

Summed it up in one go. Cricket is about how you play, not just whether or not you win and how many runs you make. I might bowl really well one day and get no wickets because the batsmen do really well or I'm unlucky and bowl shockingly another and pick up a few.

How do you gauge the impact of the pitch with statistics? Or the umpires? Or pressure on the players? Or the crowd? Or the weather? Or luck? All of these things would be evident to someone who watched the game. I know Ricky Ponting scored 250 odd against India a couple of years ago and 150 odd a few weeks back at Old Trafford, and I know the second one was the better innings because I watched the games. I know Mark Waugh scored 20 test centuries but the most amazing of the lot was a small one, 116 against South Africa in 1997, where he made it on a green pitch against a lethal attack in the fourth innings chasing 270 odd to win, when only one other guy passed 25 and Australia won the test and the series. I know Andrew Flintoff bowled better in the Ashes than he did in South Africa. You can't tell these things with statistics.

 

[SJS]

You'll have to argue that one out with the man who's seen more Test matches live than anyone alive.

Richie rates DK Lillee as numero uno.

Just a side point.

But your "side" point misses the point dear PY !

Its not a question of watching the game or understanding it but of knowing the statistics and interpreting them !

I hear The Telegraph and The Guardian are sacking their cricket correspondents and hiring half a dozen young statisticians from Philedelphia to write on cricket for them

 

[C_C]

but as we know generally RSA have been the superior team for most of that period over India.

India lost the last series at home to Australia..England have just outplayed Australia and won the series at home..thats all you need to know. What happened in 1997 is not relevent

And yes, i would say that over the past 5 years RSA has been a superior team to IND- they had a better overall record against India and did better against most opposition where almost 50% of their opposition wernt 3 of the worst teams to represent test cricket. But that isnt the case with England.

Well what happened yesterday isnt relevant either then, is it ?
I have defined a relevancy period as appox. 5-7 years, as it is around half-the period for a stalwart and near-fulltime for a regular decent player.
Below that is largely irrelevant.
So take your pick - either this team is way too new in its composition and thus cannot be evaluated unless they play 3-4 more seasons together or that they havnt done much apart from the last 2 years or so and that too, a large percentage of the time against rank minnows.
Both boil down to the same thing.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Well this team has been largely intact for the last 10-15 matches or so ( no KP, Simon Jones, Strauss, Bell before that period) and that is far too little a span to compare over.

That's where common sense comes it to it, then. Obviously this team hasn't been together long, but last year most of it was intact, the bowling attack was exactly the same aside from the odd injury and the batting lineup had a couple of changes but a lot of the same players. They are fair results to include, but what relevance does a game with none of the same players in it have?