• 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.

Stats are evil

biased indian

biased indian

International Coach
Stats may be evil when u want to compare people.but to get an idea how good a player was u need to have a look at the stats...

to me bradman is the greatest cricketer ever and its based on the simple stat that he avg 99.94 in test ..i have never ever seen a single inngs from him nor of any of the great players before 1990...so when we judge these players we have to follow the stats...

unlike almost any other game...cricket is very closly related to the playing conditions..which vary to every match or ground..say unlike football or tennis....so stats do give u a good idea like how a player played in a particulr condtion and place.
 
pasag

pasag

RTDAS
SJS said:
Stats miss the power, passion
Peter Roebuck

Cricket needs to extract itself from the cold embrace of its statisticians. Over the last few seasons these calculators on two legs have wielded an inordinate influence. Far from retaining the dignified silence befitting those whose main attribute is an ability to count allied to an abiding fascination with the peripharies of the game( the discovery that Tom Bloggs twice scored 74 on a Tuesday afternoon in Derby sends them into raptures), these numbers men roar like agitated bulls whenever something displeases them.

In recent weeks, these dismal creations have complained about to issues, Jason Gillespie's lengthy innings in Chittagong (previously thought to be a movies feating Dick Van Dyke) and the authenticity of the World XI matches played last October. The fact that no sensible person cares a hoot about matters of this sort passes them by. True cricketers concentrate on the game itself, with its majesty and its follies, and look forward to the next match without fussing about trifles.

Gillespie's mistake was to score a double hundred in a Test match played against a minnow. No sooner had the pace bowler performed his mighty feat than those obsessed with figures started pointing out that the South Australia had put himself alongside, or not far behind, two of the greatest batsmen of the era, Sachin Tendulkar and Jacques Kallis. Neither the Indian or the South African has been prolific in the matter of huge scores. More fool them. Plenty of chances have come their way.

Obviously these historians and bean counters believe that the records have been distorted by easy runs collected against weak attacks representing nations prematurely awarded Test status. So what? As the schoolboy saying goes " get over it!". Cricket is not answerable to figures collated by some poor soul whose youthful dreams were crushed by endless days at third man. This reverence for figures provokes resentment at every change that compromises them. Cricket may delight mathematicians but to put them in charge is akin to allowing traffic wardens to form a government.

No-one in their right mind relies entirely on figures in their assessment of a cricketer. Gillespie's mum does not imagine that her offspring can bat half as well as Tendulkar or Kallis, or Brett Lee for that matter. His innings against Bangladesh was a marvellous effort, nothing more, nothing less. No need arises to point out, or to regret, that the South Australian has achieved something beyond much better players. Everyone already knows that.

In any case the figures have in recent years been affected by numerous other factors, such as vastly improved bats consisting of thick, light and unpressed wood, and boundaries shortened for safety purposes and for dramatic effect by ropes. Both Matthew Hayden in his record-breaking innings in Perth, and England on the first day of the second Ashes Test in Edgbaston ( when 11 sixes were hit) took full advantage of these changes. Demented statisticans will need to take these matters into account, with table showing the bulk of the bats and length of the boundaries used in each contest. Meanwhile sensible people will be celebrating the game and opening a bottle of plonk.

Admittedly the status of the World X1 is, or was, a valid topic for discussion. It does seem odd, though not objectionable, that matches between a country and a scratch outfit can be put in the same category as a contest between the best two nations can muster. It is not so much a question of standards as legitimacy. The Australians were representing something substantial. The World was a shadow.

However the decision to award Test status to these matches was taken by the responsible body and it is time to move on. Only those obsessed with status work themselves into a fury about these things. Apparently a scorer by the name of Bill Frindall has refused to include these contests in his book of records, and never mind that his figures will be wrong. Here is an instance of the cart pulling the horse.

No other game assigns such a significant role to bare figures. Pele is not judged solely or even mainly by the goals he netted, or Naas Botha by the points he scored. Cricket needs to put the statisticians back in their box. It is a game to be relished not an account to be scrutinised. To concentrate on averages is to miss the power, the poetry and the passion.
Click to expand...
Yeah agree with quite abit of that. Not a huge fan of Roebuck's style usually though but that hits the nail on the head for me although I find it a tad harsh in places.
 
adharcric

adharcric

International Coach
Haha, Peter Roebuck seems like an idiot who doesn't how to analyze statistics properly and thus assumes that they must be "evil". (not implying that everyone else who agreed in here are idiots, they actually had some valid reasoning) Pointless article, really.
 
Last edited:
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Roebuck is hardly popular accross CW TBH, and that encompasses a wide range of several different things (ages, nationalities, etc.).
 
Swervy

Swervy

International Captain
adharcric said:
Haha, Peter Roebuck seems like an idiot who doesn't how to analyze statistics properly and thus assumes that they must be "evil". (not implying that everyone else who agreed in here are idiots, they actually had some valid reasoning) Pointless article, really.
Click to expand...
do you know how to analyze statistics properly?
 
Swervy

Swervy

International Captain
adharcric said:
Yes. I don't know how good I am but I don't use anything even close to being as ******** as the examples Roebuck counters in his stupid article.
Click to expand...

Care to give any examples of some of the statistical analysis you might use?
 
Swervy

Swervy

International Captain
adharcric said:
No. You can keep track of my posting and find them yourself, if you'd really like to.
Click to expand...
Dont worry , I wont be stalking you on here (leave that type of behaviour to others). If I see one, I will make a quiet mental note.

:)
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
And I said you won't be leaving it to others either, because you can't leave someone to do something that's not possible to do.
 
F

funnygirl

State Regular
When a discussion like Wasim Vs Mcgrath occurs ,Stats are facts .:)

When a discussion like Imran Vs Botham occurs stats are evil:dry: (stats don't tell the whole story etc etc.....)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top