Is anyone else tired of sporting cliches? He’s a class player – well which class is he in? He’s a talented player – he’s playing first class cricket, that’s a given.
He’s got potential – well call me back when he’s fulfilled it. I have little time for these popular buzzwords unless coupled with a greater depth of analysis.
Hitting them well in the nets is great news. Now hit them well out in the middle and you’ve got something worth sharing.
The Australian squad for the South African tour, like most Test squads, was not without its criticisms.
And most of its critics had ready-made replacements for the men deemed inappropriate, or thoughts on those being nominated by others.
Names were thrown forward, names were dismissed, names were forced and names were laughed away, but it was surprisingly uncommon for these names to be noted along with the cold, hard and strangely beautiful aspect of cricket: the numbers.
Rather, as is the trend in selection these days from the top, they were pushed with superlatives which added very little to the discussion.
If the numbers don’t tell the full story, they at least tell a few chapters of it.
Waxing lyrical about a classy, talented player with potential in spite of what they’ve actual produced contains less of the story than a tweet.
Say what you want about Phil Hughes.
I’m usually stunned silent by his devoted cult of followers, but at least he has runs on the board in 2013/14.
He has undeniable, quantitate evidence that in a game of first class cricket, he can get the job done.
His past struggles at the very highest levels rightfully hold him back from selection for now, but he isn’t relying on his ‘potential’ to try and get him into the top side again.
The effort is coming from hard graft on the cricket pitch.
The selection of players based on intangibles over results is horrible selection policy in any sport. When a player is struggling in reserve grade, you wouldn’t pick him for firsts. When a player is struggling in the Sheffield Shield, how can you expect them to perform against the greatest players the globe has to offer.
Wickets and runs must be at the core of selection.
The individual talents and flaws of a player come to the fore after, not before. When two players have the necessary first class runs or wickets, then it’s time to debate their personal merits.
To do so beforehand is going in blind. It’s a matter of proving yourself, of knocking down the door of the Australian team and demanding you are given a spot, not meekly sitting on the front steps hoping for a baggy green to fall from the window and land in your lap.
That being said, you can’t just pick from the top of the run scorers table, but being somewhere at the pointy end of it should be a minimum for consideration.
There are other factors that come into play but only once a player has proved they are capable of performing consistently in the domestic cricket should they be factored in.
The list is too long to compile here, but all potential in the world means nothing until the runs and/or wickets are up on the board.
Stats do matter, but it goes beyond pure numbers.
However, if one is claiming a player should be selected on the basis of their favourite adjectives when the numbers aren’t there at all, it’s time to buy a bib because it’s nothing but dribble.
You can shake your head at more of Hoss’ thoughts on sports at his blog, www.madatsport.blogspot.com.au or his Twitter @The_Hoss12
Bearfax
Guest
The three factors I think you need to look at with statistics is firstly how young the player is because the fewer the games the less stats can offer a true value of the player. Thats why its important to be careful with Silk's, Lynn's. Maddinson's stats because its only based on 10-30 games and one big score can change the apparent value significantly. Further young players tend to be less consistent and therefore averages fluctuate significantly. However their averages even at that stage do suggest something about the player. If they are averaging in the 40s when aged less than 25 you can expect them to get much better with time. Secondly, all players go through form changes and it is I guess important to pick a player when he is most in form. But this should be conditional that he is already a proven performer already with a decent average. If a batsman is averaging 45 one season but his general average after many seasons is mid 30s, you can be fairly sure their performance will eventually fall back to their average Third despite the 'hows' and 'whens' a player may perform best, over time such variations tend to balance out. And once a player has reached his 30s his average is likely to remain variable by only a run or so up and down because they have reached near their optimum level of performance on average. This is why ignoring FC averages of players and just promoting on looking good at the right time etc is generally going to fail and seems to me poor selection policy
Nick Potter
Guest
I think The Barry has it very right. Where, when and how you get runs should matter. There are many examples of this, Faulkner in the shield final last year, Doolan in the Nsw run chase recently. Good attacks, big stages. Hughes North Khawaja have been given a few chances and can't be risked again. As for Marsh, I'd rather take Joe Burns or Travis Head or Jordan Silk and give them some experience. Baileys spot is down to Faulkner or Doolan so why not give a young promising player some experience
Adam
Guest
Well white ball for. Sure helped Johnson back in to the test team...
One-eyed Jack
Guest
Who is advocating picking red ball bowlers on white ball stats?
Stu
Guest
Yeah, but Invererity wasn't high school headmaster of Hughes or North's dads.
Stu
Guest
"Silk has calmed down after starting with a bang" - starting? He's still not played 10 first class matches. C'mon.
Felix
Guest
Good article Pat, ahh stats the age old delimma. I think they certainly tell part of the story, but not all. Let's move from the bat to the ball briefly, take for example Faulkner's last two wickets in this ODI. Batsmen going the tonk and holing out a couple of metres in from the boundary. These stroke his average and stats nicely, if they go a couple of feet higher, his day at the office looks a heck of a lot more bleak. However, on paper, he's cleaned up a few wickets. I think it's critical to look at both sides, the qualitative and the quantitative, which is why we have a selection panel and not an algorithm picking the side.
Simon
Guest
You would have fathered Sean Marsh Gav? Should Geoff demand a DNA test?
Simon
Guest
"albeitly" - brilliant. I make up words too. I don't do it as goodly as you though.
Simon
Guest
Totally agree. The stats matter. In a very big way. IMHO the stats should account for at least 50% of the selection process. Sure, sometimes stats have to be adjusted - for example, you might look at adjusting for run-outs or for dismisals when the batsman came in late and was asked to provide 'quick runs'. But generally, stats are extremely useful in evaluating a player's contribution to team success. Certainly more useful than any other measure that exists. Heck, they even made a movie about it - "Moneyball".
Bearfax
Guest
I also agree The Bush. Pick from the cream not from the whey
Buk
Guest
Good article Pat. Your opening comments summed it up. Reality is there is a lot more mental pressure out in the middle than there is in the nets, and at test level a heap of mind games come into play.
Hossey
Roar Guru
Well said Bush.
Lroy
Guest
Its ironic that Invarerity's test average was 17 with the bat... yet he deems Phil Hughes doesn't have the technique, attitude, whatever to play test cricket... yet he averages 60 odd in this years domestic comp. North is averaging 90 or so.. some young guy about 50... Yet Marsh is the guy picked?? Get Warne, or Taylor or one of the Waughs as a national chairman of selectors for goodness sakes.
The Bush
Roar Guru
"That being said, you can’t just pick from the top of the run scorers table, but being somewhere at the pointy end of it should be a minimum for consideration." This sums it up perfectly for me. I don't mind not selecting Phillip Hughes or Khawaja etc, if the guy being preferred is there or there abouts statistically. I could also live with it if they have selected a young player that they see as a risk, but with potential to shine. I could even live with picking a lessor batsmen if they batted in a particular position or style that was deemed necessary. What makes no sense is picking a guy who wouldn't be in the top 20 for batting averages in the Shield (career) and I believe way less than that this year, who is 30 and therefore has already achieved his potential (whatever that is) and finally has proven to be useless against fast bowling and his only Test century came against spin...
Gav
Guest
Hi Pat Very timely write up! The numbers never lie.......but adding context to them is the art in business or sport. The background (eg Phil Hughes), the circumstances, the where, against whom, and the how must all be taken into account when looking at the stats.
Gav
Guest
Would have fathered him than Marsh, for sure. Then we would have had 2 spots in the batting order covered as well.
jameswm
Guest
Burns has 305 runs at 50 this season. I'd hardly call that horrible.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Nick...I'm not making a case for Marsh on either a statistical or subjective level. This article is about how stats should be used in selection. I partly agree because with some players their stats tell the story of their career. Marsh is a slightly below average FC bat who is no better form at the moment than he has been for the whole of his career. However they can't be used exclusively because the stats of a Boon or M Waugh aren't necessarily accurate reflections of their abilities. As said above the quality of Doolans runs may be the factor in his selection over Hughes. I can't fathom on any level how Marsh could be selected.
Bruce Reid
Guest
Yep, agree. If Marsh makes big runs then good on him, but it will have been a lucky punt and I really hope if that is the case that selectors don't then use this total dismissal of stats as a new model for future selections.