Are Players Overly Concerned with their Stats?

[GIMH]

Whilst watching Sunday night's play, Michael Atherton had a lot to say about how much he disliked the fact that there was so much talk about Fleming ending with a 40 average, and Fleming should just be concerned with helping NZ rather than his own average.

Do a lot of cricketers care much for their average, and should they? I know that stats are a divisive point round here, some think that an average is very important, some think averages must be placed in context and perhaps modified, whereas others don't care one jot for them. But what about the players themselves? Do all batsmen strive through their careers to reach specific marks. KP should finish averaging 50 but I hate the thought of him batting slowly, or carefully for a NO in his final tests to ensure this (hopefully that's a good 8 or 9 years in the future anyway!!!).

I'm not sure how much emphasis players place on their stats, I get the feeling the it's something batsmen care about a lot more than bowlers. Thoughts?

 

[Neil Pickup]

I heard that Trescothick's illness was mainly caused by the thought of what another scratchy tour would do to his first-chance average.

 

[cover drive man]

Human nature. Players are always going to care more about they're own careers than they're teams success.

 

[sideshowtim]

I heard that Trescothick's illness was mainly caused by the thought of what another scratchy tour would do to his first-chance average.

LOL.

I think there definitely would be players who care a lot about their stats. I mean it's just human nature isn't it? Most fans of the game are obsessed with stats, so I don't see why some of the players wouldn't be either.

I reckon Kallis is one who cares about his stats a bit too much, and it's glaringly obvious...Recent Test in Bangladesh for example. He should've come out and tried to pound the bowlers all over the place. Smith and Mackenzie made it look easy and South Africa were in a ridiculously strong position...They should've pushed on and looked for a quicker declaration...but he decided to strike at 32.50 and finish not out...I mean c'mon...

 

[GIMH]

Human nature. Players are always going to care more about they're own careers than they're teams success.

DWTA, strongly. Someone like Flintoff has never struck me as being bothered by his stats (good job too), otherwise he wouldn't bowl 50 overs on the trot, which in all reality is very rarely going to be an average booster even if you take a few wickets.

Professional sportsmen should care more about the team than themselves, and I am sure that there are plenty that do, but obviously there are some that don't.

 

[Ikki]

I think some are, and I don't really like it. That's why I love guys Miller, Gilchrist and Warne. They did what they needed to and only as much as it helped the team.

Miller needs no explanation, he pretty much gave his wicket away when his side was that far ahead. He is probably the prime example of a great player who did not care enough for stats.

I'd say the same for Gilchrist. He could've batted slower, a bit more carefully when the result didn't rely on his speed of scoring and his average would be a few points up. Same with his walking. He could continue to bat and raise his average if he didn't walk.

Same with Warne. He never took himself off or got into a shell if he was being hit around. He'd always try new things and keep having a go. He'd just keep at it. Conversely, in the last Ashes, he was used to stem the run-rate, and he did that and played his part instead of throwing it up and trying to get more wickets.

I am sure there are many more players like that but those 3 spring to mind fast.

 

[sideshowtim]

DWTA, strongly. Someone like Flintoff has never struck me as being bothered by his stats (good job too), otherwise he wouldn't bowl 50 overs on the trot, which in all reality is very rarely going to be an average booster even if you take a few wickets.

Professional sportsmen should care more about the team than themselves, and I am sure that there are plenty that do, but obviously there are some that don't.

Yeah, no doubt there are plenty who don't care. Gilchrist is a big one in terms of this.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, all great examples, Warne came to mind for me, but y'know, I'm a mark for Freddie

 

[sideshowtim]

Phil Jaques cares about his stats a fair bit. Heard a couple of interviews where he's cited some of his stats perfectly right off the top of his head (regarding Pura Cup, Aus A tour to Pakistan etc).

 

[Jono]

I think all the attention Fleming's average of over 40+ got from himself and the media was ridiculous, and quite unexpected.

I expect a lot of that from message boards, and even some websites. But for a player to actually mention it and for the commentators to bring it up when he got to that landmark was very surprising. Not like I've lost respect for Fleming doing that or anything, but he was batting to save a frickin' test series against England! Who cares if he averaged more than 40 in that context?

Don't get me wrong, I myself wanted him to get to that mark, but as a player batting in a deciding test I found it quite weird, and was a little uncomfortable with it. Just didn't feel right.

I have no doubt a lot of players care about their stats btw. Your legacy is always important.

 

[GIMH]

Are your stats necessarily your legacy though?

 

[Jono]

No, but unless you're as good as a Freddy, a Warne or a Gilchrist (some of the names been mentioned here), they certainly help your legacy.

Fact is, Fleming will be looked upon better for having an average over 40, when in truth it doesn't really mean that much more than 39.95 or whatever it may have been. He will be known as a 'terrific captain, who was one of NZ's leading batsmen, and one of the few to average over 40 at test level'

It sounds better than 'terrific captain, who almost averaged 40, and should have barring a series of missed opportunities in his career'

Obviously people who watched the players, stats don't mean that much (eg. Viv, but again he's already being taken down by some for not averaging over 55), but to many they do. Whether their opinion really matters is another thing.

 

[Richard]

Whilst watching Sunday night's play, Michael Atherton had a lot to say about how much he disliked the fact that there was so much talk about Fleming ending with a 40 average, and Fleming should just be concerned with helping NZ rather than his own average.

Do a lot of cricketers care much for their average, and should they? I know that stats are a divisive point round here, some think that an average is very important, some think averages must be placed in context and perhaps modified, whereas others don't care one jot for them. But what about the players themselves? Do all batsmen strive through their careers to reach specific marks. KP should finish averaging 50 but I hate the thought of him batting slowly, or carefully for a NO in his final tests to ensure this (hopefully that's a good 8 or 9 years in the future anyway!!!).

I'm not sure how much emphasis players place on their stats, I get the feeling the it's something batsmen care about a lot more than bowlers. Thoughts?

Truth is, if you help your career stats, you help your team.

Exceptionally, exceptionally rare is the personal goal that runs counter to the team goal. Don Bradman put it best: "I always try to do the best I can for the team that I'm playing for. If they want me to go in there and lose my wicket so they can win the game, well, I'll be very happy to do so. If, on the other hand, they want me to get runs, then I try and get as many runs as I can."

That could just as easily be Sydney Barnes saying "I always try to do the best I can for the team that I'm playing for. If they want me to go out and give away runs without trying to take wickets so they can win the game, well, I'll be very happy to do so. If, on the other hand, they want me to as many wickets for as few runs as possible, then I try to do that."

The better the batsman's batting-average, the more use he is to his team. The better the bowler's bowling-average (and strike-rate, and economy-rate), the more use he is to his team.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Fact is, Fleming will be looked upon better for having an average over 40, when in truth it doesn't really mean that much more than 39.95 or whatever it may have been. He will be known as a 'terrific captain, who was one of NZ's leading batsmen, and one of the few to average over 40 at test level'

I think the same thing goes for the stat of hundreds.
Why should the fact you score in triple figures be so special? Is their much difference between a score of 89 and one of 101? 12 runs? But if you look at stats then 89=50, 101=100.
Same for big hundreds. 274*=100, 101=100.

I hate judging players by stats. Hence I don't like judging players I have never seen before, just from looking on cricinfo.

Regarding Fleming, I think he underachieved as a batsman in Test Cricket, not because he only scored 9 centuries and averaged only 40, but because I have watched him play a lot and think he was capable of a lot more.

 

[Jono]

I agree with you definitely. Amazingly however, Fleming not getting 10 (and more) hundreds really disappointed him, and for one of the biggest tacticians and famous captains of the last 15 years, it showed stats mattered to him. I was surprised.

 

[Richard]

I particularly hate the centuries thing. As KiWi points-out, there's little difference between 89 and 101 anyway, and there's also the fact that the needs of each game are different. Where in one game, 74 might be a considerable score that will go a long way to winning the match, in another 130 might not be enough.

Batting average is way, way more important than number of centuries. And a look at the actual games in question more important still.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Batting average is way, way more important than number of centuries. And a look at the actual games in question more important still.

Indeed. Although I wouldnt say averages are important. But more so than number of centuries, so fair enough.

Conditions also come into it. If you play the bulk of your cricket on green seamers, then your average is effected my such. Same goes for if you play the bulk of your cricket on flat decks.

Quality of Opposition - just read any post from that Richard guy. Minnow bashing anyone.

Situation - scoring a hundred with the game already over versus scoring runs under pressure.

Do give a more accurate average all sorts of systems/weightings/stats/whatever. But when it comes down to it watching a cricketer is the best way to rate them.

 

[GIMH]

Truth is, if you help your career stats, you help your team.

Exceptionally, exceptionally rare is the personal goal that runs counter to the team goal. Don Bradman put it best: "I always try to do the best I can for the team that I'm playing for. If they want me to go in there and lose my wicket so they can win the game, well, I'll be very happy to do so. If, on the other hand, they want me to get runs, then I try and get as many runs as I can."

That could just as easily be Sydney Barnes saying "I always try to do the best I can for the team that I'm playing for. If they want me to go out and give away runs without trying to take wickets so they can win the game, well, I'll be very happy to do so. If, on the other hand, they want me to as many wickets for as few runs as possible, then I try to do that."

The better the batsman's batting-average, the more use he is to his team. The better the bowler's bowling-average (and strike-rate, and economy-rate), the more use he is to his team.

Fair point, but let's jsut say it's day five of a Test, you can stick or twist. You can go for quick runs or safely play out the draw. You're risking your average going for the win, you get the red ink playing for the draw, if it's a 50-50 kinda thing then I think it really does depend on the type of player you are.

Agree with the points made re 100s, there have been times when quick 50s have been worth so much

 

[Ikki]

I particularly hate the centuries thing. As KiWi points-out, there's little difference between 89 and 101 anyway, and there's also the fact that the needs of each game are different. Where in one game, 74 might be a considerable score that will go a long way to winning the match, in another 130 might not be enough.

Batting average is way, way more important than number of centuries. And a look at the actual games in question more important still.

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. 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.

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. 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.

 

[Jono]

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. 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.

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. 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.

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.