• 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.

It's not about the stats; it's about the joy

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Timely article from former England batsman Ed Smith on how the sublime in sport cannot be measured in statistics alone. Ironically from the home of statsguru cricinfo.

Ed Smith said:
Mark Waugh's Test match average was "only" 41 (that still sounds pretty good to me, but it's undeniable that lots of players average 41 these days). But the numbers don't reflect the pleasure he gave. A sublime Waugh flick through midwicket was only worth four runs - the same as an ugly thick edge from a lesser batsman - but it was worth much more to those who paid money to watch.
As good a summation of why we cricketing romantics will always cherish the lithe, quicksilver genius of a Brian Lara over the starchy functionalism of a Jacques Kallis.
 

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Statistically speaking 87% of this article was based on pure conjecture and bias. I don't think we can take it seriously until he comes up with a proper formula, Enjoyment+Runs>stat-wanking.

or summat.
 

Cabinet96

Global Moderator
It depends whether you view enjoyment more than results when defining greatness. Don't particularly agree with him tbh.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Timely article from former England batsman Ed Smith on how the sublime in sport cannot be measured in statistics alone. Ironically from the home of statsguru cricinfo.



As good a summation of why we cricketing romantics will always cherish the lithe, quicksilver genius of a Brian Lara over the starchy functionalism of a Jacques Kallis.
True, but Mark Waugh is a pretty bad example to use to put his point across.
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
True - but we also get enjoyment from those who were the best at winning the game, not just aesthetics. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't enjoy the game if my side looked good all the time but couldn't win. It's a fine balance to strike.
 

Agent Nationaux

International Coach
Afridi FTW :ph34r:

In all seriousness, it was a nice read but he only talked about the batsmen, and didn't say anything about the bowlers.

Waqar Younis :cool:
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
I'm afraid I'm not agreeing with Ed here - and, the more I think about it, the more I'm confused as to the point the article is making.

Yes, greatness transcends statistics, but consistent performance and victories create greatness. More often than not the theatre of sport comes through commitment and determination under pressure rather than any exhibitionist keepy-uppy: even a scrappy match can be thrilling and engrossing.

It's interesting to try to relate these ideas to my coaching philosophies - which are ultimately pretty simple and boil down to (i) team spirit and unity, (ii) hard work and (iii) executing the basics properly. I know this works: my teams have almost always had the ability to transcend the sum of their parts, share a sense of humour and achieve results. It's not generally pretty (although it's not quite Stokeball, it's not Barcelona).

We had a fixture last week to round off the rugby season, the final of the inter-house competition. My lot were understrength, and probably giving away 6 inches and 2 stone apiece across the back-line... yet we managed what must have been 70% possession, and managed to prevail 24-19 because every single player hit rucks, got into position, ran straight, looked after the ball, and kept discipline at the breakdown. The same boys managed a 7-0 victory earlier in the term despite spending the final 15 minutes in their own 22' with 14 men.

I would take that kind of effort every single time over tika-taka with no end result. The only time I am satisfied with a defeat as a coach is when I know nothing has been left on the pitch: so much of sport is about team performance, not individual dominance.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Somewhat surprising to you all I'm sure, I actually agree with large parts of the article.

As a cricket fan who watches a ****load of cricket (often matches of which I have no emotional investment in the result), there's a lot more to appreciate about the game than how effective each player and each team is. Some players are better to watch than others, some players are more likeable than others and sometimes you just want a player to succeed for no apparent reason. The aspects the game that can't be measured statistically like pressure and momentum are all absolutely fantastic as well.

Cricket is about much, much more than statistics and results as a fan, however I think people let this fact muddy the waters of their judgement when it comes to evaluating a player's quality. The quality of a player to his team is not really effected by whether or not I like watching him play or how much BoyBrumby wants him to succeed; his quality is determined by how good he is at cricket and his value to his side. Determining how good someone is/was and how much you liked watching them play are two completely different things AFAIC.
 

Cabinet96

Global Moderator
Somewhat surprising to you all I'm sure, I actually agree with large parts of the article.

As a cricket fan who watches a ****load of cricket (often matches of which I have no emotional investment in the result), there's a lot more to appreciate about the game than how effective each player and each team is. Some players are better to watch than others, some players are more likeable than others and sometimes you just want a player to succeed for no apparent reason. The aspects the game that can't be measured statistically like pressure and momentum are all absolutely fantastic as well.

Cricket is about much, much more than statistics and results as a fan, however I think people let this fact muddy the waters of their judgement when it comes to evaluating a player's quality. The quality of a player to his team is not really effected by whether or not I like watching him play or how much BoyBrumby wants him to succeed; his quality is determined by how good he is at cricket and his value to his side. Determining how good someone is/was and how much you liked watching them play are two completely different things AFAIC.
Completely agree.
 

robelinda

International Vice-Captain
Yeah I rarely care about victories etc, I just want to watch good looking cricket. Its not very often i will revisit a famous victory, but a stylish Mark Waugh 60 from the early 90's in some lost match i would definitely revisit. Much prefer to watch that Ponting 164 regardless of the fact we lost the match, magnificent innings, like the Sachin 175. I laugh at those who banish those innings to the depths of hell because they weren't in a winning cause, pure batting awesomeness.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
I'm afraid I'm not agreeing with Ed here - and, the more I think about it, the more I'm confused as to the point the article is making.

Yes, greatness transcends statistics, but consistent performance and victories create greatness. More often than not the theatre of sport comes through commitment and determination under pressure rather than any exhibitionist keepy-uppy: even a scrappy match can be thrilling and engrossing.

It's interesting to try to relate these ideas to my coaching philosophies - which are ultimately pretty simple and boil down to (i) team spirit and unity, (ii) hard work and (iii) executing the basics properly. I know this works: my teams have almost always had the ability to transcend the sum of their parts, share a sense of humour and achieve results. It's not generally pretty (although it's not quite Stokeball, it's not Barcelona).

We had a fixture last week to round off the rugby season, the final of the inter-house competition. My lot were understrength, and probably giving away 6 inches and 2 stone apiece across the back-line... yet we managed what must have been 70% possession, and managed to prevail 24-19 because every single player hit rucks, got into position, ran straight, looked after the ball, and kept discipline at the breakdown. The same boys managed a 7-0 victory earlier in the term despite spending the final 15 minutes in their own 22' with 14 men.

I would take that kind of effort every single time over tika-taka with no end result. The only time I am satisfied with a defeat as a coach is when I know nothing has been left on the pitch: so much of sport is about team performance, not individual dominance.
Smith isn't suggesting that at all, he baldly states of sportsmen "They must try to win, too (no one is entertained by skill without will)."

He's not espousing a particular coaching philosophy either, just that statistics don't tell the full measure of a sportsman's worth.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
The quality of a player to his team is not really effected by whether or not I like watching him play or how much BoyBrumby wants him to succeed; his quality is determined by how good he is at cricket and his value to his side. Determining how good someone is/was and how much you liked watching them play are two completely different things AFAIC.


The quality of a player is something that cannot EVER be perfectly quantified, IMO. My signature has a quote that enunciates it better than I can ever do.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
No of course it won't. But how entertained the fans are are pretty irrelevant to the team, and the coach who's job is on the line.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
No of course it won't. But how entertained the fans are are pretty irrelevant to the team, and the coach who's job is on the line.
Entertainment is a pretty subjective thing anyway.

I'd much rather watch Cook bore his way to a double ton in a crushing victory than see Bell play an innings full of pretty looking shots but fail to get past 40.
 

Flem274*

123/5
I actually like watching Jacques Kallis...

And Mark Richardson will forever be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than Martin Guptill, despite Guppy's orgasmic straight drive.

Though again, I like watching Rigor...
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
No of course it won't. But how entertained the fans are are pretty irrelevant to the team, and the coach who's job is on the line.
I do not think entertainment should be confused with excellence and I honestly do not think Ed Smith did so in that article either.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that article, but just Brumby's comment about a sportsman's "worth"

It depends whose view of "worth" we are looking from.

That is all. Stats don't tell the full story of a player's worth to a team (sacrificing your wicket in a run out situation for the team's cause, hitting out because it's better for the team, sacrificing your strike rate to bat for a draw etc.) but neither does entertainment of course.

From a fan's point of view, it is so subjective and random for it to be impossible to assess. So why even bother bringing it up really?
 
Last edited:

Top