Statsguru V Eyewitness Accounts

[watson]

The following extract comes from the book 'Cricket My Pleasure' by the Yorkshireman AA Thomson. Thomson was a well respected writer who wrote numerous books between 1953 and 1967. Incidently, the version I have comes with a nice foreword by Len Hutton whom I believe was a good friend of Thomson.

I find the following extract interesting because it shows how tastes and opinions change over time. For example, back in 1954 when the book was published the fast bowler Edgar McDonald was revered and ranked as an equal with Larwood, Lindwall, and Miller. Yet today, McDonald rarely gets a mention other than by certain enthusiasts.

Obviously, we have to respect the opinion of authors like Thomson because the difference between McDonald and Lindwall is only a generation, and therefore it is most likely that they would have spoken directly to any number of eyewitnesses or actual players.

Today we tend to rely on Statsguru because the video footage of old-time players is so poor. But I think that Statsguru only tells half the story. If contemporary, or near contemporary critics and eyewitnesses say that a certain batsman or bowler was truly outstanding, then we should tend to believe them.

So my question is - where do we draw the line between Statsguru and Eyewitness Accounts and their opinions? Which one is more important, and which one should hold more weight?

Have patience a little longer. We have to pick our combined world eleven to tour the solar system, and it should be fairly easy to scramble our England and Australian teams. What of the other great countries of the Commonwealth? What of Ranji, George Headley, Constantine, and Aubrey Faulkner?

Let us try our hand choosing just once more. The first three places should cause no heart burnings. Nobody I think would be willing to interfere with Hobbs Trumper and Bradman. If we are to bring in Ranji, it will have to be at the expense of Hammond and Macartney. Very well then if we must commit this outrage, we must; it is no use not being ruthless. Ranji is in. On similar grounds of reluctant ruthlessness I think we must dispense with Headley. He, something of a Bradman and with his unorthodox methods he was also something of a Ranji. But since Bradman and Ranji is with us Headley need not be.

As a sheer match winner Jessop should never be left out of any eleven and indeed on that score I prefer him to Constantine, whom I would have preferred to almost anybody else. If we are to bring in Constantine then from our English and Australians we must drop an all rounder. It will have to be Hirst (this is a agony!). No no I will not do it. I could never show my face in Kirkheaton. Nor will I part with Jackson. He is my lucky mascot. This means that Constantine will be twelfth man. As a wicked keeper I will have Oldfield out of outstandingly goodly company, though I should not have minded in the least agreeing to except poor Herbert Cameron. At the end of the line come the three who, if I am right, were the best slow, medium, and fast bowlers who have ever bowled. Rhodes, Barnes and McDonald. My young Australian friend wanted O'Reilly instead of Barnes. Barnes at his peak, that is on the 1911-12 tour was superior not merely to O'Reilly, but everybody else.

There is only one more infliction. Lest I should be reckoned too much a praiser of old times, I should like to pick a team of cricketers now playing who could, before setting out on their space tour, to play a challenge match against our world eleven. I would rather sit it down and walk quietly away than argue about it. Here are some of the four elevens;


All-Time England Eleven
01. WG Grace *
02. Jack Hobbs
03. Walter Hammond
04. Frank Woolley
05. FS Jackson
06. Gilbert Jessop
07. Les Ames +
08. George Hirst
09. Wildred Rhodes
10. Harold Larwood
11. SF Barnes


All – Time Australian Eleven
01. Victor Trumper
02. Bill Ponsford
03. Don Bradman *
04. Clem Hill
05. Charlie Macartney
06. Keith Miller
07. Warwick Armstrong
08. Bert Oldfield +
09. Bill O'Reilly
10. Clarrie Grimmett
11. EA McDonald


All – Time World Eleven
01. Jack Hobbs
02. Victor Trumper
03. Don Bradman *
04. Kumar Ranjitsinhji
05. FS Jackson
06. Gilbert Jessop
07. George Hirst
08. Wilfred Rhodes
09. Bert Oldfield +
10. SF Barnes
11. EA McDonald


Cricketers Now Playing
01. Len Hutton *
02. Arthur Morris
03. Bert Sutcliffe
04. Frank Worrell
05. Everton Weekes
06. Vinoo Mankad
07. Keith Miller
08. Godfrey Evans +
09. Ray Lindwall
10. Alec Bedser
11. Sonny Ramadhin

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Opinions mean a great deal, but it has to be from a source you hold the same values as.

 

[the big bambino]

You will generally find statistics will vouch quality so this will rarely be an issue. Where they can't really apply for people like Ted Mac then reading about them from credible writers is the next best thing

 

[Athlai]

Statistics don't lie, sample sizes do. These two things should compliment one another not be lauded over one another.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Stats are useful, but where would we be without the stories of Bodylibe, the fear of facing Larwood and Voce. Or any other great fast bowling groups. Without the eyewitness accounts, the stats aren't as impressive.

 

[the big bambino]

I rate the accounts for sure. But they are not universally respected. If a person is determined to exercise a bias against a player nothing written will change that. Stats will reflect quality and thereby the opinion of witnesses. (Sample size is another matter but there are ways to get around that). When stats back a writers recollections then they can't really be refuted.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

True bias isn't a common thing for stats lol And Warne's opinion of Buchanan doesn't mean he's a rubbish coach necessarily

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Guess it has to be a mixture of both when coming to a conclusion. I try to find multiple written accounts and read whenever possible.

 

[the big bambino]

True bias isn't a common thing for stats lol And Warne's opinion of Buchanan doesn't mean he's a rubbish coach necessarily

Yeah we can see when someone selectively uses stats and its comical value is in how obvious the attempt has been. I don't know if Buchanan was rubbish but it helped he had such a great team. I like a coach whose players improve under him and that is measured in averages. Thinking about it for the 1st time I'd probably rate Dav Whatmore as the best coach.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Yeah we can see when someone selectively uses stats and its comical value is in how obvious the attempt has been. I don't know if Buchanan was rubbish but it helped he had such a great team. I like a coach whose players improve under him and that is measured in averages. Thinking about it for the 1st time I'd probably rate Dav Whatmore as the best coach.

Does Whatmore have anyone who would have an open bias against him and say he's hopeless or maybe good? That's all I was meaning, that opinions can be skewed.

On Watson's initial post again, it's pretty straight forward that stats don't tell the whole story. A catch that goes down can cause changes in an average. We generally like to believe that it all evens out, but it's hard to really know. In my head right now is the statistical anomaly himself Don. He, and many others, rate his 254 higher than his 334 which was made just one test later. The first against Tate and Gubby Allan, the second against Tate and Larwood (and others of course). Bradman had a few "false" shots in the 334 (though he only gave one chance on 280 or so iirc). But why is the first rated higher? The first resulted in a win, but so might the second had rain not intervened.
I'm just saying statistics, even first chance stats, would rate the second innings higher in this example. But eyewitness stories that fill me with wonder make me wish I could have seen the 254

 

[the big bambino]

Well yeah I reckon that's right. Stats will never reveal someone's preferences.

 

[fredfertang]

Without wishing to re-open a CW running sore, and not suggesting the number would be of any intrinsic value, but I can't believe that amongst the millions of words and figures surrounding the Don that no one has worked out his FCA - anyone know what it is?

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Without wishing to re-open a CW running sore, and not suggesting the number would be of any intrinsic value, but I can't believe that amongst the millions of words and figures surrounding the Don that no one has worked out his FCA - anyone know what it is?

Not sure how reliable it is,

If he had been out to the first chance he offered in Test matches, he would still have averaged 74.79 - more than anyone in history.

Bradman trivia - Cricket - www.smh.com.au

 

[Furball]

Statsguru will never persuade me that Michael Hussey was a better batsman than Michael Clarke.