Beyond Statistics: From Numerics to Newer Merics

(Photo by Clive Rose/Getty Images)

"Cricket would be a better game if they didn’t publish the averages"—Sir Jack Hobbs

In an age where tectonic plates of logic have begun to show signs of unsteady shifts, it is safe to assume that one needn’t be an achiever to covet laurels. After all, if one can win the Nobel Peace Prize for attempt , a more polite word used instead of "trash-talk," so can any batsman who promises to score 1,500 runs in the upcoming calendar year and win the ICC Player of the Year award. I mean no disrespect to Barack Obama here—damn, here I go again; I promised my mum I’d never lie, so let me take that back.

The year 2009 was a joke with respect to the committee choosing Obama’s name within ten days of him assuming the role at Washington—but of course, I would wholeheartedly understand their decision in a Post-Bush era, where an American leader can safely be given the Nobel Peace Prize if he doesn’t wage a war within his first six months in office. This isn’t a move that is going to gain traction—after all it has vividly defied all forms of logic. Hopefully, other committees awarding achievers with laurels will withstand the avalanche from Scandinavia.

The optimal moment has arrived—rather, has reached a state of contrived urgency—to understand any random committee’s reasoning behind certain shortlists for awards. Looking at our own sport, there was a buzz of disbelief surrounding the notable absence of certain South African names for the prestigious ICC awards this year. Who were the wagons that drained the urge of determined ICC officials and members of other cricketing boards to talk to the concerned party regarding the norms used for shortlist? The answer would have been simple anyways—statistics .

A common cliché in the cricketing community runs: "We don’t play for individual records, the team comes first." Sounds nice, but how true is it? There’s nothing wrong in playing for personal glory as long as you don’t forget your prime motive—help your team win the game.

Many believed West Indies could have salvaged something out of the game against England if Lara had not aimed for 400—yeah right ! In a game against Pakistan, the Australian media praised Mark Taylor for his declaration when he was unbeaten on 334, as he had a very good chance to beat Lara’s record of 375 (back then), but placed the interests of the team ahead.

At the end of the day, it is important to understand that each and every individual has his/her own way of going about playing sport and we need to respect that.     

Coming back to the focal point of the discussion, there is an obvious need to clear the heap of debris that surrounds statistics in cricket. When captains and lovers of the game brand the so-called "rankings" as rubbish , in that unmistakable Yorkshire accent, why isn’t the ICC taking any efforts to reveal the mysteries behind this system?

I’ve always known the ICC to be an organization that has refused to be bogged down by its own ideologies when it comes to the pursuit of global sporting interests. Yet, with a community rubbishing a system for which it is the brainchild, silence certainly isn’t silver.

Even the country boards have their own ranking systems to grade domestic players. It would prove politically risky to puncture the illusion of the reasoning that the BCCI create with respect to omission/consideration of players, but what we are certain of is that the term credibility is way out of the picture.

Nascent signs of zonalism and insipid regional policies, as a factor with selectors, emerged a good three decades ago. It invoked curiosity, which later transformed into frustration, especially to anyone outside Mumbai. Yet, with all this standing out quite clearly, statistics are still used as the factor for justification.

Cricket lovers in India will find it extremely easy to list out names of domestic cricketers who deserved to make the international cut, but for some strange reason, couldn’t do so. The same sample set will find it a lot easier to list out names that never deserved to play at the highest level, but still ended up doing so—often seen as an act of cautious optimism. Yes, it is

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?