Comments on: The Ashes series that doesn’t add up

By: Greg Russell

Greg Russell — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:07:18 +0000

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.

By: Alec Swann

Alec Swann — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 10:36:00 +0000

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.

By: Mushi

Mushi — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 05:06:45 +0000

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.

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 23:48:10 +0000

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.