• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Fixated on facts and figures!

DanielFullard

U19 Vice-Captain
Fixated on facts and figures!

Cricket is more than game played on paper. Yet if you listened to some fans you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise.

Basically this thread and my rant-ish argument derives from a line of debate in the England in India thread above and concerns the tendency of some Cricket fans and even pundits/journalists to get wrapped up in streams of facts and figures and forget about what matters most….the physical playing of the sport. Admittedly, Cricket is a fact heavy game and a lot of the time using facts bolsters arguments but some people have the tendency to get carried away and end up quoting realms of figures without any substance. Facts do matter, figures do matter but sometimes I think people need to bare in mind there is more to cricket than purely facts and figures.

That is why for instance I much prefer to hear the thoughts of fans who have actually been to the games and can give a good indication of how a player is doing rather than someone who has never seen the guy play trying to argue a case based on figures alone.

I have had trouble wording this thread but hopefully I have got my point across but just to reiterate, do you think some people get carried away with facts and figures? Don’t get me wrong, facts and figures are essential to cricket and provide a more than basic outline as to how well a player is doing but sometimes I find myself getting annoyed at people who solely rely on facts and figures as the basis for their opinions. I am not pointing the finger at anyone on here and really professional magazines and newspapers are just as guilty but its one tendency amongst Cricket buffs I find quite irritating.
 

adharcric

International Coach
People definitely do show an overreliance on statistics once in a while. Statistics are tools for us to construct arguments, but people stretch that definition just a little too far.
 

howardj

International Coach
I can understand what youre saying mate. However I do think figures are pretty important. For instance, I think the best batsmen in the world are guys like Ponting, Dravid, Kallis, Inzy, Hayden. They also have outstanding stats. Figures, granted, are not everything, but they do give a pretty good guide for players who have played 20+ games.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
DanielFullard said:
Basically this thread and my rant-ish argument derives from a line of debate in the England in India thread above and concerns the tendency of some Cricket fans and even pundits/journalists to get wrapped up in streams of facts and figures and forget about what matters most….the physical playing of the sport. Admittedly, Cricket is a fact heavy game and a lot of the time using facts bolsters arguments but some people have the tendency to get carried away and end up quoting realms of figures without any substance. Facts do matter, figures do matter but sometimes I think people need to bare in mind there is more to cricket than purely facts and figures.
Granted, in an argument where the aim is to distinguish between two players as to who is better, the real goal is to see who performs better. Performance is quantified by the amount of runs or wickets. In those instances, the use of facts and figures as a major part of the argument is very much justified.

For example, in terms of distinguishing who is the better batsman between Ganga and Dravid, some would say they prefer watching Ganga or that in terms of physical play, Ganga matches Dravid in technique admirably. The fact is that Ganga hasn't backed that physical aspect with performance and statistics reflect this adequately.
 

adharcric

International Coach
Neil Pickup said:
Blasphemy.

Then again ...

Neil Pickup said:
I've made my bed with refusing to rate Pathan now. Same as Graeme Smith - no matter how many runs/wickets they get, I get in this mindset, then I refuse point-blank to accept any improvement ever. It's much like Richard, only with much more sarcasm and bread products.
Shame on you. :p
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
If team A scores 330, and Team B scores 215. Team A are the winners

Stats, at the end of the day, are all that matters.. Prize money isn't awarded to the batsman who suprised a few with his strokeplay, or the bowler who had Lara dropped on 56 before he goes on to make 200, because that doesnt go down in the book...

I look forward to the day that they don't play cricket, and then I can go and photograph the old man, with the weathered face, who will input values and algorithms into a computer program coming out with one hell of an Ashes series..
 
Last edited:

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Stats aren't everything that's for sure, but cricket is one of few sports that rely so heavily on pure statistics. To my knowledge only baseball would come close one would think.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Langeveldt said:
I look forward to the day that they don't play cricket, and then I can go and photograph the old man, with the weathered face, who will input values and algorithms into a computer program coming out with one hell of an Ashes series..
You've already met Richard once though haven't you?

Isn't it tempting fate to go for a repeat?!
 

open365

International Vice-Captain
I think the main problem with stats is that they can prove anything you want as long as your willing to add the neccesary stipulations.

That said, i think it's great to look at all these complex stats, justa s logna s you don't read to deeply into their meanings.
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
Langeveldt said:
I look forward to the day that they don't play cricket, and then I can go and photograph the old man, with the weathered face, who will input values and algorithms into a computer program coming out with one hell of an Ashes series..
My face isn't weathered.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Neil Pickup said:
That proves nothing other than that you don't just have to blindly take the first stat someone offers you.
There is a stat that sums-up Pathan's Test bowling very well - his average against Test-class teams.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
open365 said:
I think the main problem with stats is that they can prove anything you want as long as your willing to add the neccesary stipulations.
The simple fact is, there are many, many millions of stats that tell you one hell of a lot about players.
As long as you're skilled and willing enough to look for them, you'll find-out much.
As for having to watch a player to have a clue about them - nonsense. There has never, I repeat NEVER been a good player with poor stats.
There have, of course, been poor players with good ones.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Stats are important but cricket has WAY too many variables involved in it to be quantified or qualified by stats and stats alone.
 

Robertinho

Cricketer Of The Year
Langeveldt said:
If team A scores 330, and Team B scores 215. Team A are the winners

Stats, at the end of the day, are all that matters.. Prize money isn't awarded to the batsman who suprised a few with his strokeplay, or the bowler who had Lara dropped on 56 before he goes on to make 200, because that doesnt go down in the book...

I look forward to the day that they don't play cricket, and then I can go and photograph the old man, with the weathered face, who will input values and algorithms into a computer program coming out with one hell of an Ashes series..
That has to be one of the most pointless posts ever. Stats, at the end of the day, are clearly not all that matters. How many Australian batsmen averaged over 50 leading into the Ashes? How many English batsmen also managed to? And what was the result? If you'd tried to predict the result of the Ashes using these statistics, you would've been completely wrong.

I'm wondering - have you completely missed the point of this thread or something? He's saying that people all too often say "Bowler A averages 5 runs less than Bowler B, he's obviously a better bowler" and that it represents a fixation on stats.

Finally, and for the 2nd time, I'll refer to your saying that "Stats, at the end of the day, are all that matters". Okay, say Bowler X bowls alright but has problems with his line. His figures are nothing special. He learns from this and becomes a better bowler. Does this mean that the match was meaningless for him? Of course not, he's gained experience and will be a better bowler next time round.

Honestly, I don't know why you'd even say that...
 

Top