I recently read an excellent article from statistician Anantha Narayanan that used a combination of measures, weighting and assumptions to conclude that current Bangladesh star Shakib Al Hasan is the greatest all round cricketer in history.
Yes, ahead of cricket legends such as Garry Sobers, Keith Miller, Imran Khan and Ian Botham.
For someone who grew up with the Sobers legend, it’s a bit hard to swallow, but it got me to thinking about the ‘science’ of cricket statistics.
Statistics are generally put up as facts beyond dispute, however depending on assumptions, weighting and pre-conceived biases, the same set of figures can provide numerous answers to the same question.
Indeed, if you were to stick two cricket followers in a room with identical data it would actually be a surprise if they came to the same conclusion. They will also likely argue passionately to the death that their conclusion is the only possible answer and that anything else is a deluded fantasy.
If the angle is just right and they squint really hard, a good numbers man can make statistics tell you just about anything.
I’ve seen statistical arguments that Glenn Maxwell is both a genius and a chump, often using the same data set. I’ve seen Victor Trumper ‘proven’ to be better than Don Bradman. I’ve courted controversy myself by alleging that Jimmy Maher and Trevor Barsby were greater opening batsmen for Queensland cricket than Matt Hayden (I copped a bit of flack for that one).
Going back to the Al Hasan situation, the indomitable Sobers was ahead in batting average by some distance and behind in bowling by only a whisker, however these two measures were only given a weighting of 40 per cent in the total analysis. A further 20 per cent was allocated to contribution per Test (i.e. number of runs and wickets), a measure I imagine could be influenced quite a lot by the standard of your teammates, however the runs still need to be made and the stumps still need to be knocked over.
The final 40 per cent was allocated, 20 per cent each, to the frequency of good and standout all-round performances.
The standout performances were counted twice (i.e. they were both good and standout, and counted both times). In addition, this measure intuitively helps out the giants among a team of pygmies and rewards sharp peaks in performance over consistency.
There was also an arbitrary cutoff to determine a ‘good’ and ‘standout’ performance, which were decisions necessarily made by the author.
The decision was taken that to meet the criteria a player had to contribute up to a certain benchmark in both batting and bowling in a particular Test. For example, Sobers’ 365 did not qualify because he only bowled 20 wicket-less overs.
At this point in history Sobers has played 36 more Tests than Shakib (although I’m pretty sure Shakib might play a few more, Sir Garry almost certainly won’t!). Should longevity be a factor? Isn’t that often the Sachin Tendulkar argument?
Sobers started as almost a pure batsman and also had a slight but noticeable decline in performance in the twilight of his career, while Shakib is still in his prime. Should that be taken into consideration? Who won more games for his team? Who performed better away from home? Who played weaker teams? And so on and on and on.
What does all this tell you? Not much except that it was an interesting article. For your information, the basic batting and bowling averages for Sobers are 57.78 and 34.03. For Shakib it’s currently 39.69 and 31.20.
The traditional measure of batting average minus bowling average is just as easy to dispute as any other measure. Let’s just agree that I’d pick either of them for my team in a heartbeat.
There are many reasons that cricket stats sometimes hide more than they reveal. Rich sources of disputes include:
• Should we judge a player at their peak, over their entire career or use some hybrid of the two? ‘The Steve Waugh conundrum’.
• Is relentless consistency more or less valuable than average performance punctuated by dizzying heights? ‘The Adam Voges anomaly Part 1’.
• Should a player’s longevity be a measure of greatness and, if so, how much should it be a factor? “The Tendulkar argument”.
• How can we compared across eras? ‘The Victor Trumper dilemma’.
• Should a player’s greatness be discounted or enhanced by playing for a weaker side? ‘The Murali-Warne paradox’.
• Is a great home player as valuable as a great away player? ‘The David Warner mystery’.
• Do some great averages mask flat-track bullies? ‘The Adam Voges anomaly Part 2’.
• Should an individual’s worth be influenced by the success of his team? ‘The Andy Flower-Shakib Al Hasan perplexity’. (I really hope the answer to this last one is yes given I wrote no less than 18 articles on it last year!)
There are other micro issues concerning batting and bowling averages as well. For example: what is the true value of a not out and how should that affect a batting average? And in assessing a Test batsman, should average be amended in some way to account for strike rate, given that a bowling average is a combination of strike rate and economy rate?
But of course that is confused by the fact that batting ‘strike rate’ is about scoring speed and so it equals bowling ‘economy rate’, whereas bowling ‘strike rate’ is about balls per wicket and is equivalent to a batman’s balls per dismissal, which is not even a mainstream statistic.
And none of these measures includes the basic runs (because of those insidious not outs) or wickets per Test. But a team can’t win without wickets so why is it virtually ignored as a useful statistic? And why do I have a splitting headache?
Cricket. Best game ever.
Micko
Roar Rookie
I think you're underrating your boy Cairns there Targa, I'd definitely have him higher.
johnb
Guest
I should add that on a method I suggested for rating all-rounders - runs per test plus (wickets per test times 15) - Hasan pips Sobers and gets the highest score I've seen. Whether he remains ahead on that measure at the end of his career may be another matter. Regardless, he's undoubtedly a hell of a player. But not better than Sobers
Johnb
Guest
Garry Sobers actually started in test cricket as a bowler (slow left arm orthodox) who could bat a bit. He batted at 9 in his first test (pretty well - 40 runs for once out in the match) while bowling a lot of overs to take 4-75 in his first bowling innings. This perhaps illustrates one of the things making using stats in comparisons difficult - players change, sometimes dramatically, over their careers. I'm pretty confident Sobers > Hasan though.
Micko
Roar Rookie
Wow! I never knew Sangakkara had "lows". Look forward to the article Matt. :thumbup:
matth
Roar Guru
Bill Lawry
matth
Roar Guru
Actually despite his mercurial reputation, when you look at his career, Lara was remarkably consistent. His highs and lows are less extremes than say Ponting or Sangakkara. I will releasing an article on this next week.
Renato CARINI
Roar Rookie
Very interesting. I have a good look and break down his performances against Australia.
Micko
Roar Rookie
I just had a thought that, despite his inconsistency (maybe like Trumper as well?), that Brian Lara seemed to thrive under pressure when the WI needed him, particularly against Australia. Could Lara be the closest non-aussie equivalent of Trumper in test cricket history???
Renato CARINI
Roar Rookie
Yep Just the stars Tendulkar, Lara, Kallis, Sangakkara, Kohli.
Micko
Roar Rookie
It's all interesting Renato, feel free to do what you want and I'm sure it'll be interesting. :thumbup: :cricket: P.S You'll do non-aussie players too?
Renato CARINI
Roar Rookie
Stay tuned, Micko. I'm working on this very idea. Should appear next week. Apart from Clarke, S Waugh, Hussey, Border, Ponting, Smith, Anyone else you'd like me to analyse?
matth
Roar Guru
Both very real discussion points. How should rating a player’s career be affected by the strength of his teammates and the strength of the opposition he play against ?
matth
Roar Guru
Aww I’m going to blush. The secret to buckets of comments is simply to make half of them yourself! :happy:
All day Roseville all day
Roar Guru
The only predominantly-cricket Roar writer with a career of 100-plus (articles) and a personal best of almost 200 (comments in reply) ? And without ever resorting to clickbait, or controversy for controversy's sake.
matth
Roar Guru
A ratio of numerical errors as a percentage of total statistics presented could be mildly embarrassing :stoked:
matth
Roar Guru
As I said it was off the top of my head. Cairns should be in the list, although he was injury prone. Pollock as well.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Khawaja is more in the Warner mould of scoring heavily mainly at home. Funnily enough all of North's 5 test tons were overseas as were 9 of Damian Martyn's 13.
Peter Warrington
Guest
do we think he was put in there as a fallback in the inevitable transition to Clarke didn't work? i mean, he was almost 30 when they picked him. he averaged about 25 in the Shield in 07-8. and only 38 in the Shield the season before SA. i clearly remember Roebuck talking him up out of nowhere despite him having a terrible run in the Shield in early 2009. clearly someone had tipped him off he was going to be picked. I guess with Hayden likely to retire and Hughes coming in, Symonds out of favour and Watson not yet loved, McDonald on the radar but not sure why, Ponting in decline, spinners in flux and a very raw pace attack, they might have felt North was a Ross Edwards type stabiliser for a few years? but agree he was best when about to punted. not dissimilar to latter day Khawaja in that respect.
Brainstrust
Roar Rookie
If you make statistics based on how many wickets and runs combined they score in a test then your biasing things in terms of the ability of the rest of the team. If your an allrounder in a top team then you wont get less of a bowl, and you will bat lower down the order and miss out on second innings more often. If your one of the best at both in an inferior team you have an allrounder who bats 5 or 6 and bowls heaps. A lot more second innings so more chance of reaching both bowling and batting targets in these contrived stats. The second issue is now test cricket has become almost a two divsion affair and here is a player with lesser performances against top teams and played mostly in Bangladesh against lower teams or teams with players missing to t20 and county cricket. Andy Flower is a different case, while he played hardly against AUstralia when they were very strong , he played most of his matches against stronger teams and before the T20 stripped some teams.
Pedro
Guest
Agree Pollock probably should be on the list somewhere. Long career, averaging 23 with the ball and 32 with the bat. Interesting comparison with say Flintoff who has lesser stats but arguably influenced the course of more games. Also the comment above about the difficulty comparing batting and bowling allrounders is right.