Because their stats in other areas more than make up their deficiencies in one place.....
Strike Rate? Well they are so heavily influenced by situation.
Ricky is a proven failure against India in India, based on stats alone, why should he be picked for a tour of India ? That he averages 60 against everyone and everywhere else shouldn't matter here.
Sure, because of overwhelming superiority in all other cases, I would give him a chance to redeem himself, knowing that if he does, he'll be more valuable than anyone else. If he had an average of 12 in the entire subcontinent, I wouldn't pick him (well, unless he was the captain).
But when he was great, he did have great stats. When he was crap, his stats were crap....
Statistics are obviously only one part of the puzzle but they are an important part. You think statistics can be deceptive? Opinions and anecdotes can be equally, or rather even more deceptive. Richard accurately pointed out that most opinions are full of prejudice and bias. Statistics are "evil" if they are used how they usually are - selective manipulation to support a pre-determined stance. Yet, statistics can be examined with a greater degree of objectivity and very often reveal more about a cricketer's achievement. For example, you could watch Sehwag bat and laud him as a match-winner (as many commentators seem to do), but only statistics reveal that he's actually been very inconsistent - rather, consistently poor (in one-day cricket). On the whole, I do agree with you that there is more to a player's achievement than mere statistics, even if the statistics are examined objectively ... but going purely on opinions is also not getting 'it'.
That's a great example of the kind of analysis that makes people think stats are "evil".
Thus the line "...on top of that we have the stats to make a complete picture of the player and their career."
Let's not shift the goal post. Pitches in India, Pakistan and SriLanka are not of same or similar nature, at least not in the era Ricky Ponting has played. Ricky has played 8(?) tests in India over a period of 10 years and on the basis of stats alone, you would be forced to keep him out.
No, it depends on who replaces him. If the replacement averages 50+ in India, of course. If not, then you have a better chance betting on Ponting to come through based on his overwhelming record elsewhere.
But, this is exactly that is being done here by a lot of members. Stats are treated above everything including cricket history, cricketers, cricket books etc. According to them everything is biased and the only true and neutral assessment can be dont through stats.
Well, a true and neutral assessment of stats should come ahead of cricket history, cricketers and cricket books, though these factors should also be considered. On the other hand, a flawed assessment of stats means next to nothing. It all depends on how objectively the stats are analyzed.
Exactly. There might be a hundred million people in India writing tomorrow that Dhoni is the best batsman of all time, and someone who knows about cricket, Shane Warne, just put Tim May as the best finger spinner in his list.
I don't find it often, I find it every now and then. These cases are outnumbered vastly by the times that a player's match figures either do him justice or flatter him.
I disagree completely. Too often looks obscure output. It's no good if a player is perceived "to have it" if he's getting out cheaply ATT.
The emotional side of the game has nothing to do with judging the skill and impact on the actual match in question. In this case, Trescothick and Thorpe's contributions (as Matthew Engel - as so often - put it succinctly) were the case; Flintoff's was merely the icing. Trescothick's contribution > Flintoff's, and this is from someone who has never really rated the batting of either that much.
