By John Coomber
August 5th 2009 @ 3:59am
View The Roar's top cricket writers.
Love new art, fashion, music? Check out Aussie site which unearths all things cool and creative.
Join Australia’s community for solo & micro business at FlyingSolo.com.au
The Ashes series that doesn’t add up
Cricket is a numbers game, yet this Ashes series doesn’t add up. Over the first three Tests Australia have scored more runs (1,933) and lost fewer wickets (41) than England (1,799 and 45).
Australian batsmen have made six centuries to England’s one.
Five of the six leading runscorers are Australian and four of the five leading wicket-takers [...]
This article is over 2000 days old and has been trimmed.
Get Australia's best Cricket opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(4)
Michael said | August 5th 2009 @ 9:48am | Report comment
Well said well researched. Amazing really. Australia just haven’t taken their chances at the last hurdle and aren’t making enough 1st innings runs.
Mushi said | August 5th 2009 @ 3:06pm | Report comment
The thing with stats is they need context, especially when looking at such a small sample one or two data points have the capacity to really skew everything.
This is one of those times. Australia’s statistical dominance is due to the single 6 wicket innings in the first test. Over one third of Australian’s runs come from a single innings of their five. And they got them giving up only 6 wickets.
Contrast this to England’s innings and their highest of 6 contributes just less than a quarter, an indication of a much more consistent output.
So really Australia’s statistical advantage is only derived from one innings whilst England have been far more consistent in their results.
If you look at the last two tests, yes Australia has scored more runs, but part of that comes from having an extra innings which ahs resulted in 9 more wickets taken by the english.
Alec Swann said | August 5th 2009 @ 8:36pm | Report comment
I played golf with my Dad the other week, hit more fairways than him and more greens in regulation and lost.
The statistics don’t seem to add up when you look at them closely, but that is one of the beauties of sport as a whole.
And that is certainly true of the Ashes.
Andrew Flintoff doesn’t appear in the top five wicket-takers yet he bowled a matchwinning spell in the only game to have produced a positive result.
Paul Collingwood isn’t in the top six run scorers yet without his contribution in Cardiff, England would’ve headed to Lord’s 1-0 down.
Everything’s relative and statistics, as has been proven, aren’t the decisive factor all the time.
Greg Russell said | August 5th 2009 @ 9:07pm | Report comment
What these statistics show is that Australia has stronger batting than England, but this counts for little if one doesn’t have the bowling. It’s not news that bowlers win test matches.
The truth is that both sides have relatively weak bowling, with Flintoff being the only champion bowler in the series, as reflected by his 5-wicket haul at Lord’s being the difference so far in this series (in terms of generating a result).
To be fair, I also rate Anderson’s bowling when it’s cloudy and damp. (But when it’s not … well let’s just say that I wouldn’t mind facing him.)
Strong batting, weak bowling, rain, dodgy umpiring … it all adds up to draws and variability, i.e., the statistics not reflecting the results. Usually cricket is a game where the better side wins, but these elements are making this series into a contest like one of these football or rugby matches where possession and territory do not dictate the winner.
To be fair, even though I’m a passionate Australian, I am comfortable with England being ahead. Australia has played a lot of decent cricket this series, but at the same time they have played enough poor cricket that they cannot complain about being behind.