Most cricket fans love an argument over a few pints.  Was Warne better than Grimmett or O’Reilly?  How would WG have compared on modern pitches?  Who is the best medium-paced dobber with a stupid haircut ever?

We don’t take it too seriously, it’s mostly a bit of fun, banter and getting the better of your mates.  In contrast, a statistician with too much spare time on his hands is possibly one of the most dangerous things in our modern world.  Much more so than, say, forgetting to stop, look and listen on the streets of Rome.

The reason most of us don’t take it too seriously is because we know that stats can be twisted to back up any argument you wished to prove.  If I wanted to prove to you that Bradman was actually from Mars and was part of a CIA conspiracy, I could use his test batting stats and present them to you as Exhibit A.

It’s impossible to use stats objectively because they cannot possibly cover every single variable.  Ok, the ICC rankings take into account the relative strength of the opposition and that sort of thing, but can they account for what each team was fed for breakfast before every test match?  Or whether the debutant’s mum accidently packed his Tuesday socks instead of his Thursday ones?  Or even the rules of the game in any given era, damn it.  How do you accurately account for the difference between covered and uncovered pitches?

But the fact that I could use statistics to prove that Devon Malcolm was the finest leg-spinner in history is not the main reason why this has got me so hot under the collar.  The main reason is this:

Oi, Statto. NO!

It is wrong.

I couldn’t care less that Ian Botham has four more career ranking points than Sachin Tendulkar^[1].  Or that the Australian side of 1959/60 is the second highest ranked team ever.

It is simply wrong to try and rank players throughout history.  Anyone who tries to quantify cricket’s history in that way is completely missing the point of why we have that history in the first place.

Cricket’s history is a narrative, an epic opus, not a set of annually posted accounts to be audited and filed away.

When I read an account of a cricket match, I want to know it’s story.  I want to learn about the flow of the game, what happened at the key moments, who grabbed it by the lapels and shook it until it passed out.

I want to know the reactions of the crowd, to understand how the players interacted with each other and the umpires, to get a sense of the emotions and pressures that the participants had to try to adapt to.

I’m not interested in how many dot balls the first change seamer bowled between lunch and tea compared to last year, unless it adds to the narrative of the match in some way.

Most of all, I want to imagine how I would feel if I was there watching it.  To me, cricket history is like a great work of fiction that actually happened.  I want to get to know the characters, journey with them through the plot and experience the moments that the narrative is trying to convey. A bit like this:

There was never much chance of a definite result with one day lost through rain, but the match was made more memorable by the no-balling of Meckiff for throwing and his subsequent retirement from first class cricket. [...]

Then came the dramatic over by Meckiff who was no-balled by Egar on his second, third, fifth and ninth deliveries. That was his only over. Egar was booed and Meckiff was carried shoulder high by a section of the crowd at the close. [...]

No play was possible on Monday and on the fourth day extra police were sent to the ground because of fears that the umpires, selectors and Benaud might be molested because of the Meckiff incident. There were no scenes.^[2]

Did Meckiff know straight away that this would be the last over in his career?  Why was it Benaud’s policy to not use a bowler again in the match if he was called for throwing?  Why did some of the crowd react so angrily when throwing was seen as one of cricket’s greatest misdemeanours?

This also works better as a narrative than it does when converted into a rating and applied to a formula:

Did that chap find any damage done when he peered over the wall? After the 4th six, Sobers turns to the keeper and laughs. I wonder what they said? How did the fielder feel after he had palmed the 5th ball over the rope for another six?

You see, it’s all about the story, not how far each six travelled and whether it was statistically a better achievement than Yuvraj Singh’s 6 sixes off Stuart Broad. Those things have no place in the narrative. Unfortunately I think we have lost sight of this in the current era, with it’s obsession with putting everything into a pigeon-hole, and on-screen graphics that have to be devised live and often in a matter of seconds.

If I am reading The Three Musketeers, I don’t waste time wondering which Musketeer was statistically the greatest. I don’t expect Dumas to explain the average sword-stroke speed of d’Artagnan as compared to Aramis or try and find a way to rank them alongside Milady’s assasins.  You don’t try to break down classic literature into it’s constituent parts and then try and represent it in binary.  Nor do I want to do it with cricket.

Cricket is a stat-heavy sport, with every event recorded for posterity.  By all means use those stats to clarify facts or add colour to the story, and do so freely.

But don’t embark on an impossible task that sucks all the joy and soul out of the experience.  Never mind whether Verity was “greater” than Underwood or Richards was “greater” than Weekes.  We’d need to agree on the definition of greatness first.

Besides, if your statistical analysis shows that Jacques Kallis is the 8th most valuable Test player of all time, while Shane Warne doesn’t even make the top 20, then you’ve probably forgotten to carry the 1.

Footnotes

[1] – Tendulkar fans most definitely would care, but that’s a post can of worms for another, much braver, day than this one.
[2] – Extract from the Wisden report for the 1st Test between Australia and South Africa, Brisbane, 1963

1. Wilfred Rhodes – In the 5th Test at The Oval, with the previous four matches drawn, England turned to an almost 49 year old cricketing legend.  Rhodes promptly took 6 wickets, including 4/44 as Australia were bundled out for 125 in their second innings to give England the Ashes.
2. Cyril Washbrook – 1956 was England’s summer of comebacks, and it began in the 3rd Test at Headingley.  Cyril Washbrook, aged 41, was a selector who took the responsibility upon himself.  When he walked to the wicket on the first morning, England were 17/3.  Washbrook scored 98 and enjoyed a big partnership with Peter May to rescue the situation.  Laker and Lock did the rest in an innings victory.
3. Denis Compton – For the 5th Test of the same series at the Oval, Denis Compton came back into the team.  Compton was 38 and, the previous winter, had had a knee-cap removed.  Again England were stuttering, this time at 66/3, when Compton came in at number 5.  He scored 94, England’s highest score out of a total of 247, and 35 not out in a drawn Test.
4. Colin Cowdrey – Lillee and Thomson terrified England in 1974/5, but Cowdrey at 42 played them as well as anyone.  He had not played in Tests for three years, and whilst he did not score a mountain of runs his courage won him plaudits galore.
5. Geoff Boycott – Having been out of the team for three years by choice, Boycott ended his exile in 1977 for the 3rd Ashes Test at Trent Bridge.  And he scored the small matter of 107 and 80 not out as England won comfortably by seven wickets.
6. Ray Lindwall – Another player to return after three years out of Test cricket, Lindwall was drafted back in to Australia’s team in 1958/9 to open the bowling.  At 37 Lindwall was not the tearaway England once feared, but he was canny enough to take 7 wickets in two matches as Australia won the Ashes for the first time since 1950/51.
7. Charles Macartney – Eight years out of Test cricket for Macartney, although this did include the 1st World War.  He played two Tests at Sydney in 1920/21, scoring 170 in the 2nd of those matches.  Five further Test centuries followed, the last in 1926 at Old Trafford.
8. Craig McDermott – McDermott was injury prone, but on returning to the Australian team during the 1990/91 Ashes, he made a devastating impact, taking 18 wickets in two Tests including 5/97 at Adelaide and 8/97 at Perth.
9. Bruce Reid – Another injury prone bowler who spent two years out of the team.  Reid played four Tests in 1990/91 and took 27 wickets, including a Test best 13/148 at Melbourne.

That the Bodyline series was his last in Test cricket was a tragedy, and largely a result of MCC hypocrisy – congratulatory during the series, they changed their tune after the team returned home and demanded that Larwood apologise for his bowling. He refused, and that was that.

Duncan Hamilton’s biography, written with the assistance of Larwood’s family, is an excellent account, examining the effect that Bodyline had on Larwood for the rest of his life. Always shy, Larwood became more reclusive, shunning publicity to run a sweet shop in Blackpool. Eventually, he emigrated to Australia, where he was welcomed in the country that had the most reason to vilify him.

In Englad, the stigma lasted longer, at least within the cricket establishment, and it was many years before he was welcomed into an England dressing room. Eventually, official recognition came with an MBE in 1993 (instigated by cricket loving PM John Major) and he is now recognised as one of the country’s finest cricketers.

Whilst Bodyline is clearly the defining event of Larwood’s life, Hamilton manages to provide a rounded story including his formative days working in the mines and the importance of figures such as Nottinghamshire captain Arthur Carr.

For anyone interested in the story of Bodyline, or the history of English cricket in general, this is a must-have.

For the most partt it was enjoyable viewing, and I was pleasantly surprised when, having begun the programme with 2005, the program went on to describe the decline since that Ashes win.  It would have been easier to end on a note of glory, but the programme in general was not afraid to dwell on English failings – and in particular the MCC’s handling of the D’Oliveira affair.

Plenty of familiar faces were interviewed – Tom Graveney, Trevor Bailey, Bob Willis and David Gower – along with writers and historians.  My favourite quote came from Tom Graveney talking about Willis’ bowling at Headingley in 1981 – “it’s always nice to see an Australian going white”.

There were a few omissions – some of England’s less successful periods were passed by, and certain names received no mention, such as Ranjitsinhji, Trueman, May etc – but this was probably more to do with time constraints than anything else.  And I did not necessarily agree with the assertion that Ray Illingworth was England’s finest post-war captain, particularly as no mention was made of Mike Brearley even when significant attention was given to the 1981 Ashes series.

But these are fairly minor quibbles, and I would thoroughly recommend the series to anyone interested in the history of cricket.  The first episode is available to watch on iPlayer (follow the link above), and the 2nd episode airs on Sunday 7th June at 9pm on BBC2.

HERE it is – the dawning of a new era in which England are the best cricket team in the world

So said Sir Ian Botham after the conclusion of the Oval test match and the reclaiming of the Ashes, for the first time since Andrew Flintoff was knee-high to a pedalo.  So earth-shattering was this victory that “proper” news was pushed off the front pages, people danced in the streets as if world peace had been achieved and even Paul Collingwood’s performance (17 runs, 1 catch, 4-0-17-0) was considered worthy of an MBE.  In short, England went potty.

Here’s what actually happened:

Despite a good start, England were thoroughly outplayed in the 1st test, losing by 239 runs.  Glenn McGrath took 9-82 as England were bowled out for 155 and 180.  That they were able to fight back and win the series 2-1 was due to plenty of luck (McGrath’s injury before the 2nd test, poor Australian catching in the 3rd) and the strength of their bowling attack.

Although Australia could still boast McGrath and Warne, the rest of their attack was not nearly as strong.  Simon Jones and Flintoff made superb use of reverse swing, allowing England to keep the Australian batting under pressure when the ball was old.  They deserved to win, but it was mighty close and could easily have gone the other way.

Several years earlier, the ECB had vowed to turn England into the no1 test nation by 2007 (and win the World Cup in the same year).  The Ashes represented a good start, a foundation from which to press on and create a dynasty for years to come.

In reality all of England felt that, having beaten Australia in one series, they had achieved their aim two years early.  English cricket hit the snooze button.

The result was that they went to Australia in 2006/7 thoroughly under-prepared and were humiliated, losing all 5 tests.  Since then the team has continued to muddle along, losing to India (twice), Sri Lanka, South Africa and West Indies.  They have tried four test captains and three coaches, have had dressing-room dis-harmony, front-page scandal, administrative mis-management and more.

Despite all of this, Australia’s decline (through retirement rather than incompetence) means that the Ashes this summer could still be close.  But the following lesson should be learned from 2005: if we are successful, it will be by small margins and percentages, the uncontrollable variables.  We should not get carried away!

On 4th June 1993, Shane Warne changed the English cricketing mentality with that one delivery.  We all know the story.  Mike Gatting was England’s best player of spin bowling.  He would send the young upstart packing, and England were well in pursuit of Australia’s 1st innings 289.  Except he didn’t.

For the next 10 years, we felt that the mere sight of Shane Warne marking out his run meant the beginning of the end for the England innings, whether they had 1 or 10 wickets intact.

He above any other of the recent Australian greats – McGrath, Steve Waugh, Gilchrist – had the snakes inside English heads hissing like a cobra on steroids.

All of this was with good cause, for Warne was perhaps the greatest spin bowler the world has ever seen.  Certainly, he was the spin bowler who was great for longest.

But, don’t worry, England batsmen.  That scary man can’t hurt you anymore.  Australia’s latest spin bowler’s best efforts were recently bludgeoned halfway round Africa by the Proteas, and the other pretenders to the throne have not exactly set the world alight either.

Here are some other facts that show us why a Warnealike is not going to happen in the near future:

1. Warne had defined a new era in cricket at the age of 24.  Clarrie Grimmett, Australia’s previous “best ever” didn’t play in tests until he was 33.  Leg spinners usually take much longer to develop than Warne did.
2. Grimmett wasn’t even Australian, unless you count Dunedin as a remote outpost of Victoria.
3. Warne was only the 2nd Australian legspinner since World War II to take 200 test wickets.  The 1st was Richie Benaud, who retired before Warne was born.
4. Stuart MacGill became the 3rd in 2007.  Australia have used up their complement for the next few decades.
5. Not even England are that unlucky

So, England batsmen, when you see an Australian spinner limbering up this summer, the correct positive thought is not

Aha, a mighty sorcerer.  Perchance I shall soon be able to acquaint myself with the results from Chepstow.

but rather

Aha, a feeble twirler.  Verily I shall deposit his tripe into the next borough without delay as I have my merry way with him.

History is the present. That’s why every generation writes it anew. But what most people think of as history is its end product, myth. – E.L. Doctrove

England have suffered so many heavy defeats to Australia in the last 20 years that the weight of this history influences our view of the present.  We almost expect to lose, feeling that the cycle cannot be broken.  After 2005, we could have expected this to change, had not Australia’s revenge been so brutal and complete.

Therefore, I have decided to take a look back through my memories of recent history and identify the reasons why we should adopt a more positive view.  Australia are not invincible.  They do not have us beaten before the contest begins except in our minds and our memories.  The aim of this series of Ashes Flashbacks is to add context to debunk the myth and build some positive reasons why the Ashes can be regained.

The History

England in 1989 were strong favourites to retain the Ashes at home.  Australia had been uninspiring in the previous few years, and Allan Border was attempting to blend a new team together.  With home advantage, it was expected to be England all the way.

Australia regained the Ashes with a 4-0 victory, one so complete that the Wisden report for the series states that

But for loss of playing time through rain and bad light there [6th Test @ The Oval], and in the Third Test at Edgbaston, Australia’s four-love winning margin might easily have been six-love; and with a single reservation, many of those who saw every Test would have considered they deserved it. It had been a long time since the development of a series – any series – had been so much at variance with general prediction

My personal memories of the series are limited to images of Steve Waugh chewing gum, batting without a helmet and happily flaying bowlers who had no more idea of how to engineer the fall of his wicket than medical science has of curing the common cold.

Steve Waugh in 1989 was a cricketer of unfulfilled potential.  In 26 test matches he had yet to make a century, and averaged a little over 30.  By the end of that years Ashes series, he had improved his average to over 40, and had scored 506 runs in 8 innings with an average of 126.50.  Yet, he was not even the player of the series for Australia – that award went to Terry Alderman, who took 41 wickets (England’s leading wicket taker was Neil Foster with 12).  Both Dean Jones, with 566, and Mark Taylor, with an incredible 839, scored more runs than Waugh.

England’s wicket tally for each match was 10, 14, 12, 11, 6 and 14 respectively.  Australia’s outscored England by 3,070 to 1,758 runs on 1st innings.  Terry Alderman took 5 wickets on six occasions, whilst the best bowling for England in the entire series was Angus Fraser’s 4-63 in the 3rd Test.

Behind the history

England were ravaged by injuries and loss of confidence, and used twenty nine different players during the six match series.  The loss of players to the rebel tour of South Africa also contributed to this.

1989 proved to be the hottest summer since 1976.  This helped the Aussies feel at home, and made for conditions

which at times not only encouraged the illusion they were playing in Adelaide or Perth but also provided constant match-play (Wisden 1990)

A muddled selection policy was perhaps the biggest culprit.  David Gower as captain was not chairman of selectors Ted Dexter’s first choice – controversies counted against Mike Gatting.  Chris Broad, who had had the measure of the Australian bowlers in the previous series, was dropped after just two matches, and no bowler played in more than three matches in that series.  This quote is taken from the Wisden report for the 6th Test:

Dexter himself amazed a defeat-saddened nation by insisting, during his post-match oratory, “I am not aware of any mistakes I’ve made”.

The poor English leadership could not have contrasted more highly with their Australian counterparts Allan Border and Bob Simpson.

As much as the Australians were better than expected, and England were unlucky, England played into their hands and were greatly responsible for their own demise.  Of course, none of these facts are included in my own memories of the series.

Lessons Learned

• Select the right captain – David Gower had his successes as captain, but was not pro-active under pressure, allowing Australia to remain dominant.  Andrew Strauss is still learning on the job, but with the right support will prove a good captain.
• Consistency of selection – 29 players in six tests almost guarantees failure, but this was not unusual at the time for England.  With central contracts now in place, we do not need to resort to plucking untried players from the counties.  Last summers selection of Darren Pattinson is further, recent proof of the disruptive nature of inconsistent selection.
• Injuries – In 1989, players were selected for their counties between test matches.  Central contracts allow England to protect their players somewhat from injury.

I decided to do some research using the Cricinfo Statsguru tools to see how many batsmen average over 50 during a given period, with a qualifier of 2,000 runs, starting from 1950.

These are the results, by decade:

So, in this decade so far, 19 players have scored 2,000 runs at an average of 50 or more.  But if we look at the qualifications spread over players entire careers, only 34 players have achieved the feat, 16 of whom appear on the list for this decade.  It seems clear that batting has become far easier in the last decade, and whilst there are more tests played now than ever, it should be noted that of the seven players to play in less than 50 tests, only two are from the modern era – Pietersen and Hussey.

How does the quality of test bowling have an effect on this?  Here is a similar study for bowlers, with qualifications of 50 wickets at an average of 25 or less:

This shows a downward trend for the current decade despite, or perhaps because of, the increase in test cricket – that age-old battle between quantity and quality rearing its head once again. Looking at the same qualifications, but for a players entire career, there have been 61 instances in test history of bowlers taking 50+ wickets at an average of better than 25. Of these, only 5 (Shane Bond, Shabbir Ahmed, Dale Steyn, Mohammad Asif and Stuart Clark) began their careers in this 2000s. Two others (Muttiah Muralitharan and Shaun Pollock) have had a substantial part of their careers in the current decade.

With all of this taken into consideration, how does the average of a modern day player compare with his historical counterpart? One way of gaining an impression of this is to look at how each player performs above and beyond the average for their generation. For example, Andrew Strauss has a test average of 42.71 at the time of writing. The average wicket in matches in which Strauss has played cost 34.01, so we could say that Strauss is worth 8.70 runs above the average. See the table below for some comparisons:

This shows, albeit in a fairly arbitrary way, a comparison between some of the main English performers down the years. For example, for Andrew Strauss to have scored the same percentage of the current teams runs as Graham Gooch did he would need an average of 49.50.  Of course, these figures can be influenced by the relative strengths of the teams in which these players appeared – the current team averages far more now than it did in the 1980s or ’90s – or the opposition they played against.

Gooch had the pleasure of starting his career against Lillee and Thomson, and battled the likes of Marshall, Holding, Hadlee, Kapil Dev, Alderman and so on.  Strauss has faced good bowling (Warne, McGrath etc), but there are far more average bowlers on the list.

I think this shows quite clearly that the mark of a really good test player now should be considered to be 45 and not 40, which would put the current crop of England batsmen outside of that bracket (Pietersen excepted).

Few would argue that these gladiators do not deserve the recognition of their sporting achievements. After all in cricket, as in everyday life, very few cricketers become household names and fewer still achieve iconic status, although cynics may argue that this is ever easier in this age of hyperbole and 24hr sports coverage.

But what about those cricketers who perhaps do not achieve greatness, who do not travel the globe and perform heroic deeds in crowded stadiums?  What about those whose main goal is to earn a living doing something they enjoy, whose dreams of greatness have faded over time or been shattered by cruel circumstance? We are of course talking about the honest county cricketer, whose hard work and sweat go unheralded and oft unreported, who perform week after week in empty stadiums and in much maligned competitions.

These journeymen who, upon returning to the pavilion one last time, swiftly become a statistic in the history of the game, an average next to a forgotten name, surely deserve their own place in our hearts for the transient yet no less pleasurable moments they brought to our sport and our lives.

Never mind that they ended their career with a bowling average greater than, or a batting average less than 35. From time to time these players would find it within themselves to perform at or above the peak of their abilities, and how easy it was to share in their moment and experience the journey with them – after all, these county pros were men after our own hearts, giving their all without gaining the rewards of the more gifted or extravagant superstars. How we rejoiced at the unexpected success of an underdog, for these were times when we were reminded that there is hope for us all.

For me, an abiding cricket memory will always be the Natwest Trophy final of 1993 between Sussex and Warwickshire.  Sussex had set Warwickshire a final record target of 322 thanks to a superb innings of 124 from David Smith.  With Warwickshire reduced to 93-3 in reply Asif Din, with assistance from Paul Smith and then Dermot Reeve, made a superb century to win the trophy, with Roger Twose scoring the winning runs off the final delivery. In this match, none of the major contributors, with the exception of Reeve, were current international players – Twose would not play for New Zealand until 1995 – so this classic match was a real triumph for some of the lesser known players.

In 2001, Somerset won the C&G Trophy thanks to man of the match performances by Keith Dutch (semi final) and Keith Parsons (final). An unbeaten 110 from Phil Weston and bowling figures of 10-3-23-4 by James Averis lead Gloucestershire to a final win in 2004 against Worcestershire. This season saw an astonishing Twenty20 innings by Essex’ Graham Napier when he smashed the Sussex bowling to score 152 not out.

Such performances in trophy finals are, of course, more memorable, but the County Championship is no less notable for outstanding performances by lesser known players.  Umer Rashid will be remembered for his tragic death in 2002, but in July 2001 for Sussex against Durham came the performance of his career – a first innings 106 and match bowling of 5-15, including 2nd innings figures of 9.1-5-9-4, were major factors in a 133 run victory during Sussex’ promotion season.

Sometimes great players achieve great feats with the support of lesser players. Would Brian Lara have been able to score 501 not out against Durham in 1994 had Keith Piper not supported him with an innings of 116 not out? Perhaps not.

These are just some of the performances through the years that have been branded upon my memory, and there are others. I wondered at Lords as Middlesex wicketkeeper/batsman Keith Brown won a match against Surrey with a 2nd innings unbeaten half-century. I rejoiced as Richard Montgomerie scored a hundred for Sussex against Essex in a Norwich Union league match in 2001.

The feats of the great international players may be first in the memories of most, but cricket wouldn’t be cricket without the stirling contributions of the lesser lights. Long may it continue.