Greatest Batsmen of All Time - followup
Arunabha da,
Though the compilation is really impressive and in many cases indicative there is a basic flaw that only the viewer of the game can detect. Namely the quality of innings. Statistical listings only tell you the prominent compilers of run, similarly it also reflects a particular phase in the career of the player. For example Youhana has scored 9 centuries this year alone and only 13 in last 8 years. No wonder his conversion rate has hit a high. Similarly I personally feel Kallis is the most boring run compiler around but he is considered at par with Sobers (who off-course (sic) I never had the opportunity to see in action :-))
Sudeepta
Hi Sudeepta,
Thanks for the comments.
The points are very relevant. Your observation about Youhana in particular is very pertinent and points out the dangers of comparing the present with the past. For the present, we can only capture what has happened till now - we cannot foresee the future.
Youhana may have a slump later on in his career, or may carry on in the same vein. Only time will tell.
However, he has played as many as 73 Tests and that is a long enough career for him to be evaluated without the pitfalls of burdening one season wonders with the mantle of greatness. It just happens that he is on an upswing right now. If he was to call it a day tomorrow, as Martyn has already done, this is where he will stand in comparison with the other greats.
About Kallis and Sobers, however, I really do not see what else can be done. True, we can bring strike rate into the equation and try to look at the quickness of scoring and give it some weightage in the rating. Unfortunately we do not have access to the strike rate of all the players in history.Even Sachin Tendulkar's strike rate in Tests is not listed in Cricinfo, because one particular innings of 11 againts Sri Lanka in 1989-90 does not have the number of balls listed.
Yes, from the viewer's point of view, statistics may present a picture not digestable, as the most endearing players may not really end up as high as you would expect them, judged by the cold harsh numbers. Numbers do not distinguish between a delightful 75 which gladdens the hearts and has one raise a toast to the batsman, and a workmanlike one which has the crowd dozing and coaxes several trips to the tavern in search of beer. Yet, that was the point of the whole exercise. To look at the numbers and try to rank the players according to them, without the bias brought about by dare-devilery or dead-bat. Statistics may not tell us everything about the game, but , used judiciously, it can be a very relevant and eloquent speaker.
Beauty, joy and boredom unfortunately cannot be quantified - well, beauty just about might, but that's when the statistics get too vital. And the things of beauty and grace in cricket and the joy that the game and its players provide the crowds with need not be quantified and compared, they can be enjoyed, captured for posterity in high tech video images, or old fashioned romantic prose, and can be picked out of memories and shelves to linger on the moments extraordinaire. It should not be confused with the question of efficiency as projected by figures.
Van Gogh should not be told that flowers cannot be that yellow. Neither should Armstrong be reprimanded for revealing the darkness and craters on the moon because Blake compared it to a flower in heaven's high bower, that sits and smiles on night with silent delight.
As someone mentioned about the Lords' test match of 1990. Gooch made 333 and
123, but I don't remember a single stroke. Azhar made 121 and so many of the strokes stick to my memory.Given a choice I would watch Azhar every time rather than Gooch. However, the records will show that the test ended in a win for England.
In the end, with figures screaming for him, Kallis needs to be complimented for going beyond a player of the stature and legend of Sir Gary.
By the way, Sudeepta, do I know you?
posted by Arunabha @ 8:41 PM
2 Comments:
Arunabha da, another case in point is the claim that Hammond is the best if we pluck the Don out of calculation, but the cold stats donot prove the same (you have him at 16). There must be something very vital missing even if it is merely statistical, something like the deviation from the mean run scored per innings by fellow team mates (or only top 6). For example it doesn't value the 32 Hammond made in 1937 in MCG, arguably his best innings. So may be we should make the paramters for greatness a bit more stringent. Also a no 5 batsman is likely to have more unfinished innings than say a no. 3. Undoubtedly then there would be a positive bias in favour of a no 5 or no 6 in batting averages. We should then consider all innings played instead of the finished one in finding the averages (ie. average run scored per innings instead of average score every time the batsman is out). Or may be we should draw a preliminary list of top 30 first, like the way you have, and then compare each person with the other persons of his era in matches that they have played together (thereby approximating to similar pitch conditions). This comparison can be based on the sum over of all the deviations from the mean run scored by top 5 of either teams. The person finishing with higher s.d could be thought of as the better scorer, the person with most positive deviations could be considered the more dominant scorer.
Sudeepta
I agree with a lot of what you say Sudeepta, but to carry out an analysis based on deviations from team mates etc. is very time consuming.
So, I guess, I will leave that for the ones who are paid to do it (The Numbers Game of Cricinfo may try it, but I have hardly seen any deeper analysis than simple mean from them).
Maybe, when there is plenty of time and an urge to make the facts public, or if there are many people clicking on the ad on top of my blog to make me some money, I will get my head down to do it :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home