Assessments based only on statistics can go haywire
Here’s a trick question. Which batsman has the second highest Test batting average in the history of the game yet? If you’ve named Adam Voges without consulting ‘Dr Google’ or one of the cricket sites, give yourself a pat on the back for being a true cricket buff.
For those who don’t know much about Voges, he was a late blooming Aussie batsman who had one terrific season, and retired last year having played 20 Tests and made 1,485 runs at a whopping average of 61.87.
This puts him ahead of stalwarts like George Headley, Graeme Pollock, Sobers, Jack Hobbs, Gavaskar, Sangakarra, Ponting, Tendulkar, Dravid, Lara, Miandad, Younis Khan, de Villiers, and Viv Richards (to name only a handful from) 42 batsmen averaging more than 50.
Only the very naïve would think Voges is the second best batsman in Test history despite his fancy ranking. This is not to deny him his due, but see his achievement in perspective. Voges’s average flatters him. And he’s not the only one in this list I dare say.
In fact Viv Richards, whom a wide body of critical opinion rates as the best after Bradman, is 41st in the list with an average of 50.23! Virender Sehwag, arguably the most destructive batsman since Richards, tails in at no.49 with an average of 49.34.
Neil Harvey and Graeme Smith, among the finest left-handers, finish 55th (average 48.41) and 57th (average 48.25) respectively. Closer home, Gundappa Viswanath, for many critics still among the top five Indian batsmen of all time, averages 41.93, paltry by today’s standards.
The point I’m trying to make is that in today’s data-driven environment, where average and strike rate are thrown about with abandon, and help form hasty opinion, it is easy to be misled about a player’s calibre and misconstrue greatness.
Statistics are pivotal in cricket. They are generally a reliable index to the worth of team/player performances. But assessments based only on statistics unless given context can go awry, sometimes haywire.
This is truer for batting than bowling. Unbeaten innings can have a huge impact since they are not included in computing the batting average. This ends up inflating a batsman’s average — and often times his true worth.
For instance, Sehwag remained not out only six times from 180 innings. Had the number of unbeaten innings been even 10 (ballpark number is 10 per cent of total innings), he would have easily averaged over 50.
As an attacking batsman — and an opener at that — the likelihood of Sehwag remaining not out also diminishes considerably compared to middle and lower order batsman. Shiv Chanderpaul had 49 not outs in 280 innings, Steve Waugh 46 from 260. This helped both climb into the 50+ average club.
Sometimes batsmen are known to have notoriously played to remain not out so that their average cou;d be boosted. But this can countermand THE ASIAN AGE New Zealand: C. Munro (not out) 109, K. Williamson c Sharma b Mohammed Siraj 12, T. Bruce (not out) 18. Extras: (lb 2, w 10) 12. Total: (for 2 wckts, in 20 overs) 196. FoW: 1-105, 2-140. Bowling: Kumar 4-0-29-0 (2w), Siraj 4-0-53-1 (1w), Bumrah 40-23-0, Chahal 4-0-36-1 (2w), Patel 3-0-39-0 (5w), Pandya 10-14-0. India: R. Sharma c Phillips b Boult 5, S. Dhawan b Boult 1, S, Iyer c & b Munro 23, V. Kohli c Phillips b Santner 65, H. Pandya b Sodhi 1, M.S. Dhoni c Santaner b Boult 49, A. Patel c Williamson b Boult 5, B. Kumar (not out) 2, J. Bumrah (not out) 1. Extras: (b2, lb1, w1) 4. Total: (for 7 wkts in 20 overs) 156. FoW: 1-6, 2-11, 3-65, 4-67, 5-123, 6-130, 7-154. Bowling: Milne 4-0-30-0 (1w), Boult 4-0-34-4, Grandhomme 1-0-10-0, Santner 4-0-31-1, Sodhi 4-0-25-1, Munro 3-0-23-1.