But I am pleased, Rod, that someone read my story 11 months after being posted.

http://www.cricinfo.com/australia/content/player/6647.html

Who knows because who decides whose non Anglo?….whatever that means

And who knows what its like in NT because you’re the one deciding what a so called non Anglo is

http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/07/30/will-cricket-copy-baseball/

As we’ve seen with India in the past, simply having a large pool of players doesn’t make you world champions, New Zealand for a country with 4.3 residents does particularly well compared to India’s one billion especially considering that in NZ cricket has to compete with rugby while in India it iis by far the largest sport.

County Cricket, in my opinion isn’t as high in quality as Australian Domestic cricket, that’s probably why Australian’s who perform well at state level do better in the national side than english players coming in from County Cricket, the quality is simply higher.

Last but not least and I can’t say I have first hand experience of it but I know in India, pressure from the districts is large as they put their own interests first, trying to get their best players in the national team. It is too an extent like that in Aus (Darren Lehmann being a good example although that was as much his arguements with the board) where NSW rightly or wrongly get the most players selected and to some extent surely the counties flex their muscles and perhaps they just have too much influence, trying to get their players picked to represent England.

Australia on the other hand is the polar opposite often affording established players too much time in the team when they hit a spot of poor form (anyone Remember Taylor not scoring a run for about a year?). The Windies stats are inflated due to contract negotiation problems and the South Africans should have played more test cricket

At Point 1) You may consider his 80 innings a long enough space to make a clear statistical case for his average, in cricketing terms (in particular in Bradman’s time when less cricket was played) it probably is enough however as Australian’s we often overlook two important factors.

A) Bradman played part of his career during the timeless tests era. Ponting could probably average a hundred today if tests were timeless but he has to adjust to game situation, bat for the team etc, not time. Time isn’t generally made up for rain delays etc so if Ponting (or perhaps Kallis, Tendulkar, Lara, which ever great batsman of the modern era you want) batted without time constraints he could build his innings and would inevitably bump his average up.

B) Cricket has moved on since Bradman’s day. Unfortunately there were no radar guns in the 30′s to tell us how fast Larwood is but inevitably with all the coaching etc modern bowlers would be quicker and hence more difficult to face.

Sure you can argue its easier for modern cricketers with the invention of helmets and playing on flatter pitches but oppositions are far better prepared today, physically, mentally and tactically. Field settings were hardly inventive in Bradman’s day and it was still very much a Gentleman’s game back then (probably until Bodyline), I believe the lack of preparation (in comparison with modern day cricket) would certainly have aided Bradman in bumping up his scores and overall average.

Last but not least. I don’t think anybody on the Roar has seen Bradman play live but from all the clips I’ve seen of him, he hit EVERYTHING on the ground. I had a book with his career stats and I seem to remember there weren’t many catches other than by the keeper.

At Point 2)
Catching isn’t the only part of fielding but “catches win matches”, it’s not often that a test match is drastically effected by runouts or poor fielding, it’s dropped catches that change games.
I certainly would put Ponting above Dravid in the slips but it seems gone are the days of the genuinely good slippers, Taylor, M Waugh etc. and while Dravid is very good, he won’t be an all time great but you’re right, people don’t give enough credence to India’s fielding which has improved and Australia’s which has over time gotten worse.

I’d be interested to know how many if any of Dravid’s catches where as a Keeper in Test-cricket. I know he’s pulled on the gloves in ODI’s but I’m not sure about tests. Kensi, there’s something for you to research

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/content/records/223646.html

Of course (number of test players)/(total number of tests played) will be an average over histories throughout which all has not been equal. For example, in the era of 10-15 tests per year, there should not be the need to select as many new players as when there was 0-5 per year. But the ratio should certainly give a decent indication of selection policies in the case of Australia vs England.

Two little points:

1. My understanding is that (professional) sports statisticians do recognize Bradman’s batting average as statistically genuine rather than being artefactual. There would not be many areas of endeavour where 80 (his number of innings) is considered too small a sample space.

2. Funny you should mention the catching of Dravid. (a) Catching is only a part of fielding, so let’s not take catching ability as an index of general fielding ability. No-one would suggest that because of Dravid’s catching record he is a better fielder than Jonty. But one can sustain an argument that he has become a better catcher. (b) A major but almost-never-stated reason for recent Indian supremacy over Australia in test cricket is slips catching. Put that down to Dravid, who has barely dropped a catch in recent series between the teams, whereas the Australians have shelled plenty in the slips. Who would ever have thought that Indians would catch better than Australians? But it has been the case. Dravid has worked really hard at his slips catching and has become arguably the best slipper in the world.

I think basbeall statistics are a bit different than crickets stats, for starters baseballers play a 162 game season (MLB), plus play-off series compared with what, 10-14 Tests a year, maybe 20-30 ODI’s and I dunno how many T20′s.

Statistics generally have a lot bigger meaning in baseball. In cricket they can be misleading, take Bradman’s average for example. 99.94 is Superhuman, the kind of thing you manage only in a video game and there is no doubt to the man’s talent but he batted in 80 innings, Ponting for example has batted 229 and over time these things are simply bound to sink but Ponting’s average of 55.58 says a lot. Stats in cricket can be misleading because of this fact whereas in baseball they are generally over a longer period of time also technology hasn’t made great improvements to the game (bats are improved but not the extent of those in cricket) and the rules are more-or-less the same.

Further their importance comes from the two different leagues, American and National. Pinch-Hitters for example take the place of the pitcher in the batting lineup, as their only purpose is to be a good batter the team average is inflated whereas in the National league, pitchers (who are generally poor batters) are forced to bat and often only average .150-.200 .

It is these sort of differences between two leagues that compete with each other which make stats so interesting in baseball, it’s not a c. Marsh b. Lillee type of statistical game, it’s a fly to second with a runner at first and two down bottom of the 7th, this sort of thing, the game situation is just as important and moreso than in cricket and yeah sure they have a wagon wheel but that can’t tell you much, they often are representative of the bowling rather than the batting.

Stats are nice, we just shouldn’t read into them so much. Is Rahul Dravid even in the same class as Mark Waugh or Jonty Rhodes when it comes to fielding? I think not but he holds the record for most test catches. As I said, they are often misleading because of the “relatively” small data pool used for the stats and last but not least, the discrepancy between the quality of the teams. When hayden held the world record for the highest score in test cricket of 380 we weren’t considering it was better than Bradman’s 334 or Taylor’s 334* simply because it was against Zimbabwe on a batsman’s paradise but stats don’t take things like this into account.

You are correct about your cap figures. In the morning I had given cap numbers as at 7/1/2009.
In the afternoon I gave figures as at now. (See my comment). Here is repeated the updated list:
Spiro and Brett,
Here is the complete and updated list of Test caps:
England 645, Australia 411, South Africa 304, West Indies 280, New Zealand 243, India 260, Pakistan 196, Sri Lanka 112, Zimbabwe 74, Bangladesh 56. Thank you, Rajesh for the confirmation.

Enter the text shown:

How about runwickmetrics for study of cricket statistics?

Also, if I my self-correct (becuase I’ve thought about this a little closer), Australia awards Test numbers in alphabetical order where more than one player debuts in the same Test (not batting order as Michael Slater infamously found out), so Hilfenhaus is actually 407, Hughes 408, North 409, Bryce McGain 410, and Graham Manou is No.411.

Rajesh Kumar, my friend from India and a respected cricket statistician, confirms that my list of overseas-born Australian Test cricketers is complete.

Spiro and Brett,
Here is the complete and updated list of Test caps:
England 645, Australia 411, South Africa 304, West Indies 280, New Zealand 243, India 260, Pakistan 196, Sri Lanka 112, Zimbabwe 74, Bangladesh 56. Thank you, Rajesh for the confirmation.

Kersi, you missed out Damien Martyn, who was born in the Northern Territory (Darwin). Just joking.

As of 2007, Marto and NZ’s Mathew Sinclair (Katherine) were the only two test cricketers born in the NT (see http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/287834.html).

I have something nagging in the back of my mind that I recently noticed a new international cricketer born there, but I can’t confirm this.

And I do kid about Brendan Julian, on his day he was a very handy cricketer, it’s just internationally at least, that “day” was a Thursday. And during his short stint on Getaway, just as many women tuned in for him as did blokes for Catriona Rowntree

Spiro and Brett,
Going by Wisden 2009, Test caps for each country are listed below (as at 7 January, 2009):
England 641 players, Australia 406, South Africa 302, West Indies 272, New Zealand 242, India 260, Pakistan 190, Sri Lanka 110, Zimbabwe 74 and Bangladesh 54. I’ll update the list as at October 2009 and report on it later on. Brett, the numbers you have given for Australia and England appear spot on. Fourteen cricketers have appeared for two countries.

Fewer Australians have played Test matches than for England is because Australia has played 705 Tests as against 879 played by England (both as at 7/1/09). Also in general, Australian selectors do not chop and change as much as their English counterparts do.

And don’t run down Brendon Julian, Brett. Many women watch cricket on TV just to see Brendon’s smiling face — going ooh and aah!!

Someone has to keep the test cricket fires burning. Good stuff

Brett,

Give Brendan some credit, it was mediocre fast-medium….