Whats special about cricket stats ?
There's something special about cricket stats
Gavyn Davies does the maths
Thursday April 13, 2006
The Guardian
I had always intended, when I am packed off to my desert island, that the one book I would take with me would be the 1949 Wisden Cricketers' Almanack, which records Don Bradman's last tour of England. But now I have changed my mind. The 2006 Wisden, published this week, is the best edition ever.
I now own 117 of the 143 Wisdens which have been published. It gives me a sense of warmth and security to know that I can look up the score of every batsman who has gone to the crease in any first-class match in England since Gladstone was prime minister. I am slightly miffed that this privilege will soon be available to any old Tom, Dick or Harry on the web, but I expect I will get over it. There is no real substitute for the slightly musty smell which a real Wisden emits as you remind yourself of Hampshire's second innings at Edgbaston in 1922 (521, to win the match, after being all out for 15 in the first innings, of course).
This year, Wisden selects Andrew Flintoff as the Leading Cricketer in the World. This is hard to quibble with, though Shane Warne might feel aggrieved that his unbelievable feat of taking 96 test wickets in a single calendar year has gone unrewarded. Flintoff is good value for the award and, as Wisden says, England has finally found the next Botham.
A few months ago, I was slated by readers for daring to suggest that Flintoff, though a magnificent and inspirational cricketer, was not yet quite as good as Botham. Freddie's towering contribution to England's series draw in India may have narrowed the gap, but I stick to my guns. Freddie has now played 59 tests, scoring 3,080 runs at an average of 33.47. At the same stage of his career, Botham slightly pips these batting figures (3,234 runs at 36.75), but it is in bowling where the difference is especially marked. Freddie has so far taken 174 test wickets at 31.45 each, whereas Botham's equivalent figures at the same stage were 267 wickets at 24.47 each. The key point is that Botham would have been one of the all-time greats on his bowling performance alone, whereas Flintoff would not.
But Wisden is not just a book for statistical nerds like me. Now that the outstanding Matthew Engel has the editorship, good writing is a crucial part of the package. He describes the Ashes series of 2005 succinctly: "The perfect mix of chivalry and venom. Here was the best game in the world, at its best." Certainly, it was the best thing I have ever seen on a sports field.
But the real charm of Wisden is that it records the true quirkiness of world cricket: the test team that appealed against the colour of the umpire's trousers, or the Oxford player who did his batting practice in a swimming pool (with water in it). And then there was Jason Gallian, the Nottinghamshire batsman who last year became the 8th man in history to be run out for 199. Bad enough, you may think. But later in the season, he also became the 9th man in world history to suffer exactly the same fate. Don't you just love it?
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cricket/comment/0,,1752861,00.html
There's something special about cricket stats
Gavyn Davies does the maths
Thursday April 13, 2006
The Guardian
I had always intended, when I am packed off to my desert island, that the one book I would take with me would be the 1949 Wisden Cricketers' Almanack, which records Don Bradman's last tour of England. But now I have changed my mind. The 2006 Wisden, published this week, is the best edition ever.
I now own 117 of the 143 Wisdens which have been published. It gives me a sense of warmth and security to know that I can look up the score of every batsman who has gone to the crease in any first-class match in England since Gladstone was prime minister. I am slightly miffed that this privilege will soon be available to any old Tom, Dick or Harry on the web, but I expect I will get over it. There is no real substitute for the slightly musty smell which a real Wisden emits as you remind yourself of Hampshire's second innings at Edgbaston in 1922 (521, to win the match, after being all out for 15 in the first innings, of course).
This year, Wisden selects Andrew Flintoff as the Leading Cricketer in the World. This is hard to quibble with, though Shane Warne might feel aggrieved that his unbelievable feat of taking 96 test wickets in a single calendar year has gone unrewarded. Flintoff is good value for the award and, as Wisden says, England has finally found the next Botham.
A few months ago, I was slated by readers for daring to suggest that Flintoff, though a magnificent and inspirational cricketer, was not yet quite as good as Botham. Freddie's towering contribution to England's series draw in India may have narrowed the gap, but I stick to my guns. Freddie has now played 59 tests, scoring 3,080 runs at an average of 33.47. At the same stage of his career, Botham slightly pips these batting figures (3,234 runs at 36.75), but it is in bowling where the difference is especially marked. Freddie has so far taken 174 test wickets at 31.45 each, whereas Botham's equivalent figures at the same stage were 267 wickets at 24.47 each. The key point is that Botham would have been one of the all-time greats on his bowling performance alone, whereas Flintoff would not.
But Wisden is not just a book for statistical nerds like me. Now that the outstanding Matthew Engel has the editorship, good writing is a crucial part of the package. He describes the Ashes series of 2005 succinctly: "The perfect mix of chivalry and venom. Here was the best game in the world, at its best." Certainly, it was the best thing I have ever seen on a sports field.
But the real charm of Wisden is that it records the true quirkiness of world cricket: the test team that appealed against the colour of the umpire's trousers, or the Oxford player who did his batting practice in a swimming pool (with water in it). And then there was Jason Gallian, the Nottinghamshire batsman who last year became the 8th man in history to be run out for 199. Bad enough, you may think. But later in the season, he also became the 9th man in world history to suffer exactly the same fate. Don't you just love it?
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cricket/comment/0,,1752861,00.html