biased indian
International Coach
and i think Baseball give more importance to stats than cricket do
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.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.
do you know how to analyze statistics properly?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.
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.do you know how to analyze statistics properly?
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.
No. You can keep track of my posting and find them yourself, if you'd really like to.Care to give any examples of some of the statistical analysis you might use?
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.No. You can keep track of my posting and find them yourself, if you'd really like to.
You won't, it's not possible to stalk people on an online forum.Dont worry , I wont be stalking you on here (leave that type of behaviour to others).
I know I won't...that is why I said I won'tYou won't, it's not possible to stalk people on an online forum.
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.
Says someone whose entire contribution to this forum can be defined by just one word - 'Stalking'.You won't, it's not possible to stalk people on an online forum.
Submission.ok Richard
No, it can't, for reasons I've just explained.Says someone whose entire contribution to this forum can be defined by just one word - 'Stalking'.