Are Players Overly Concerned with their Stats?

[Engle]

I for one, am not fond of players who play for their stats. The truly greats dont do this. (Bradman, Sobers, Viv, Jack, Shane...). Now, I do agree that if their pursuit of stats bolsters the team effort, then it can be a good thing.

Otherwise, if everybody played solely for their stats, then it could have an overall adverse team affect. Two examples of team before individual are Atherton's denying Hick his 100 vs Aus and Imran denying Miandad's 300 vs India for the sake of the team.

 

[Ikki]

I personally think you pick on Kallis a bit too much (and there aren't too many batsman around atm who I'd choose ahead of Kallis. Eg. I'd choose Kallis over Sehwag anyday, despite Sehwag's better SR), but I agree with the majority of this post.

I think your declaration point is superb. The fact that teams declare at all suggests that runs are not always the be all and end all. If a captain is willing to declare with a lead of 500, that means the extra 40 runs that a player may make to get the lead to 540, whilst still runs, are less useful and don't mean too much.

Hence if a player comes in with the lead at 400, and blasts a quickfire 50 off 65 balls to help the team get to a lead of 500, that is more valuable, and hence better, than a player grinding to a century, and the team eventually gets a lead of 540.

I again stress that strike rate does not thus make the better player, my point just means that runs in a situation are (and how they are made) are sometimes, and very often, more important than simply making runs. It goes the other way too, where a batsman grinding in tough conditions and making a ton is better than a player swinging freely on a green wicket, scoring 30 off 40 balls, but eventually going out.

Kallis may not be better than Viv, but he's still one of the five best test batsman in the world today. I understand he's not popular here in Australia, but boy he cops a hard wrap.

LOL Jono, I really don't see Kallis as that bad really. I just used him as an example and was a bit unforgiving on the wording/description of the scenarios .

 

[Barney Rubble]

To be honest, I feel this is an allegation which is often levelled at players very unfairly. It's often levelled at Kallis, and it's even been used on Pietersen once (his ton in an ODI a while back, think it was during the World Cup, when he slowed down at the end of the innings). The vast majority of international cricketers, particularly top quality ones such as those, don't care about their averages. A large number of them probably don't even know their average. Hell, I'm a terrible cricketer and even I never spent time thinking about my average when I was playing regularly. It doesn't take much to be a team player, and I doubt Fleming himself was thinking about his average a great deal.

 

[funnygirl]

Rahul Dravid denying Tendulkar a 200 is also an example .

Javed is still crying about that missed 300

BTW ,if players are overly worried about stats ,how can we blame them . After few months ,their ''current '' form will be checked based on their stats .

And years later computer experts discuss about their efficiency by ''stats guru ''.

 

[Top_Cat]

Kallis may not be better than Viv, but he's still one of the five best test batsman in the world today. I understand he's not popular here in Australia, but boy he cops a hard wrap.

Not always been the case, though. After he scored a fairly gritty Test ton in Melbourne which pulled a draw from the jaws of defeat on his first tour, he was pretty popular and rated very highly as one to watch. People like backs-to-the wall players but only when they play like that in backs-to-the-wall situations. That Kallis plays exactly the same way whether SA are struggling or dominating does much to fuel the perception of selfishness I reckon. It's not entirely unfair; even as dour a bloke as AB allowed himself to cut loose on occasion and he was accused of playing for his average as much as anyone.

I personally reckon it's a myth that Warnie didn't care about his stats too. I heard and saw enough in interviews and other circles to suggest that whilst he was no McGrath (who, up until around the 500 wicket mark could remember the batsman, method of dismissal and venue for any Test wicket anyone cared to name) he wasn't entire aloof either.

 

[GIMH]

To be honest, I feel this is an allegation which is often levelled at players very unfairly. It's often levelled at Kallis, and it's even been used on Pietersen once (his ton in an ODI a while back, think it was during the World Cup, when he slowed down at the end of the innings). The vast majority of international cricketers, particularly top quality ones such as those, don't care about their averages. A large number of them probably don't even know their average. Hell, I'm a terrible cricketer and even I never spent time thinking about my average when I was playing regularly. It doesn't take much to be a team player, and I doubt Fleming himself was thinking about his average a great deal.

V Australia. Glad he did though, smith had to have a Man U avatar because of it

 

[ret]

I heard the famous story abt Bradman needing a few runs to get an avg of 100 and then he retired probably coz he didn't want to hurt is avg .... so players have been concerned abt their stats since ages and rightly so as it is what they are judged on, years down the line

But playing to improve stats is a different issue and probably criminal, esp sometimes when we see players just bat and bat without taking any initiative like Ganguly or Kallis for example in ODIs

On flat pitches in ODIs, I would love to see a Kallis or Ganguly in the opposition team and preferable bat for as long as the 40th over as it will take some runs out of the opposition's total

Someone presented the stats of Chandrapaul in ODIs on some thread boasting abt how he avgs recently, but without taking strike rate into consideration we may never know how effective he has been .... 2ndly playing for a team that often loses, makes you play for the stats more and sometimes, you are even thinking abt playing out the 50 overs rather than setting up a challenging total

 

[Ikki]

I heard the famous story abt Bradman needing a few runs to get an avg of 100 and then he retired probably coz he didn't want to hurt is avg .... so players have been concerned abt their stats since ages and rightly so as it is what they are judged on, years down the line

But playing to improve stats is a different issue and probably criminal, esp sometimes when we see players just bat and bat without taking any initiative like Ganguly or Kallis for example in ODIs

On flat pitches in ODIs, I would love to see a Kallis or Ganguly in the opposition team and preferable bat for as long as the 40th over as it will take some runs out of the opposition's total

Someone presented the stats of Chandrapaul in ODIs on some thread boasting abt how he avgs recently, but without taking strike rate into consideration we may never know how effective he has been .... 2ndly playing for a team that often loses, makes you play for the stats more and sometimes, you are even thinking abt playing out the 50 overs rather than setting up a challenging total

Er, if Bradman wanted to keep his average all he'd have had to do was retire one match earlier.

 

[James_W]

Er, if Bradman wanted to keep his average all he'd have had to do was retire one match earlier.

Do you think Bradman knew he was going to score a duck?

 

[ret]

Er, if Bradman wanted to keep his average all he'd have had to do was retire one match earlier.

may be i should re-phrase that, i.e. he didn't want to lower it further .... i guess, he may have wanted to score 4 more to get to 7000 in his 52nd test but then didn't play more tests to risk lowering his avg

anyway the point is that stats, esp avg, have been imp to players since ages

 

[ret]

btw, I have heard that Imran Khan used to play mostly against strong team like WI, Aus & Eng, along with the traditional rival India ..... hardly played games against SL & NZ, which I guess were weak teams of his time

If thats true then thats a big positive on Imran and his stats .... Top players should take a leaf out of his book and not line up to play against BD, Zim and may be even WI

 

[James_W]

btw, I have heard that Imran Khan used to play mostly against strong team like WI, Aus & Eng, along with the traditional rival India ..... hardly played games against SL & NZ, which I guess were weak teams of his time

If thats true then thats a big positive on Imran and his stats .... Top players should take a leaf out of his book and not line up to play against BD, Zim and may be even WI

He should've played all the matches he was available for, surely?

 

[Ikki]

Do you think Bradman knew he was going to score a duck?

What would it matter? If Bradman wanted to retain that average again all he'd have had to do was play on.

may be i should re-phrase that, i.e. he didn't want to lower it further .... i guess, he may have wanted to score 4 more to get to 7000 in his 52nd test but then didn't play more tests to risk lowering his avg

anyway the point is that stats, esp avg, have been imp to players since ages

That's pretty much a rubbish statement, pardon me.

He scored 173 not out (206 for the match) in Test right before. Lower it further? It would have went even higher.

 

[Richard]

btw, I have heard that Imran Khan used to play mostly against strong team like WI, Aus & Eng, along with the traditional rival India ..... hardly played games against SL & NZ, which I guess were weak teams of his time

If thats true then thats a big positive on Imran and his stats .... Top players should take a leaf out of his book and not line up to play against BD, Zim and may be even WI

New Zealand were considerably stronger than England and Australia for a decent proportion of Imran's career.

 

[Richard]

He should've played all the matches he was available for, surely?

Imran only ever missed matches through lack of fitness and typical Pakistani reasons to my knowledge, not because he didn't consider the opposition worth his attention.

 

[Richard]

You just said that the more runs you get the better - because you see very few cases that don't require the extra effort.

Now you've said there is not much difference between an 89 and a 101, which kinda contradicts what you said.

No it doesn't, that's a different matter. The point is that the difference between 89 and 101 is no more or less than the difference between 77 and 89, or 101 and 113, yet it is often treated as very much so.

Because that is the whole point. There really isn't much difference between a batsman that averages 50 and one that averages 52. Especially if we consider that the former batsman was less concerned about the runs he's made and more that the team actually needs. In cricket, there is a reason why a team might declare...because they don't need those extra runs. In a smaller model, the player too can face that same fact. Also, let's not forget how SR figures into this. I'd rather a batsman that strikes 15 balls quicker even if he averages 3 runs less.

All other things being equal, I might too. But it'd depend on what those strike-rates were. If it was 35 to 50, yes. If it was 60 to 75, I'd have the batsman with the better average, anyday.

Also, there is something that can be said that stats does not show. Usually, the selfish stats-minded batsmen aren't the most helping in the team.

Batsmen who are selfish are exceptionally rare. What you mean is slower-scoring.

I'll illustrate: imagine a Kallis slowing the game down, striking slower, so he can score more runs. Not only can that damage the team, if the need is for a fast scoring, but it does not help the mentality of the batsmen around you. Kallis, will not inspire his teammates. But let's consider someone like Viv. He will come in, blast the opposition, demoralize the bowlers and give confidence to the rest of the team. And hey, he may even score 10 less runs because of it. But that kind of innings is much more valuable to his team.

Kallis certainly does inspire his team-mates, you can see that by how popular he is. Knowing full well of course that Kallis is just an example, though, the "Kallis type" of batsman this is not even true.

Inspiration can be both irresistable-force and immovable-object. Both things are highly inspirational to a team.

 

[ret]

That's pretty much a rubbish statement, pardon me.

He scored 173 not out (206 for the match) in Test right before. Lower it further? It would have went even higher.

heck .... isn't it common sense that it could either go up or down

after 51s test 101.xx, after 52nd test 99.xx .... 53rd test ? .... there can be no 'would', only 'could'

 

[ret]

New Zealand were considerably stronger than England and Australia for a decent proportion of Imran's career.

could you tell me more abt the NZ squad of that era coz I haven't heard much abt it

 

[Richard]

In the second half of the 1980s, New Zealand had players of the like of Richard Hadlee, John Wright, Martin Crowe, Jeremy Coney, Ian Smith, Ewan Chatfield, John Bracewell and Bruce Edgar, who were either all-time greats, fine Test players or useful back-up cricketers.

Between 1986 and 1989, England won 3 Tests out of 42, all of which were against the even-weaker Australians in 1986/87 and Sri Lankans in 1988. Between March 1984 and January 1989, Australia won 7 Tests out of 45 (1 of these was against Sri Lanka, and 3 others were dead matches).

In the second half of the 1980s, England and Australia were both truly woeful, the worst either team have ever been in their cricketing history. Imran's career runs, essentially, from 1976/77 to 1990/91. So a fair chunk of this saw New Zealand be a bigger power than either.

 

[pasag]

I heard the famous story abt Bradman needing a few runs to get an avg of 100 and then he retired probably coz he didn't want to hurt is avg ....

No, not a chance. Maybe he retired because he was a few days away from 40 and had been playing for 20 years?