Thursday, January 13, 2011
Cricket and the Arts
"What is Art?".
This is the provocative question posed by CLR James in his magnificent book Beyond the Boundary, widely regarded as the finest cricket book of all time. James attempts to answer this question in a manner which is much too elaborate to be summed up in a blogpost. Nevertheless, he unequivocally concludes that :
These lines intrigued me. Cricket is ofcourse a ball game. But is it fundamentally different from the other ball games? Are we justified in regarding cricket as being closer to the arts (the likes of theatre and literature) than other sports?
I attempt to partly answer these questions in this blog. To my mind, there is one chief characteristic that distinguishes all ball games from the arts:
Ball Games are invariably competitive, in that the performance of the sportsman is contingent on the opposition he is up against. Whereas, in most of the other conventional arts, the performance of the artist is nearly independent of practically everything else.
For instance, Pele scored 1,280 goals in his career over 1,363 games. That's an average of 0.94 goals per game. Suppose Pele had played all his football in the Indian leagues (which are distinctly less competitive), one would naturally expect that average to have been significantly higher (perhaps 1.5 or more).
On the other hand, our appraisal of an artist in the theatre or in the cinema is absolute and is hardly contingent on the prevailing competition or standards.
Now, let us examine the game of cricket. To what extent are performances in cricket dependent on the quality of the opposition? I believe that cricket is closer to the arts than other ball games in this respect. Cricketing feats, be it batting or bowling, are less sensitive to "opposition quality" than feats in soccer or rugby.
Does that sound counter-intuitive? On the surface, Yes. But not if one examines closely the records of great cricketers, past and present.
Let us start with bowling. Below, I have looked at the bowling averages of five great modern bowlers both in Tests and first-class cricket.
It is quite clear that all five bowlers have very similar averages both in Test matches and in First-class cricket. Let us suppose a hypothetical bowling attack comprising these five bowlers. Given that their mean Test average is 23.13, we can expect an average Test-class batting lineup to score 231 runs (23.13 X 10) against this attack. Whereas, an average First-class batting lineup (presumably consisting of relatively inferior batsmen) can be expected to score 222 runs (22.2 X 10) against the same bowlers!
The learning is that the wicket taking ability of these five men is almost independent of the standard of cricket being played. It is quite unlikely that these bowlers are any deadlier in a First-class fixture than in a Test match. In fact, we can infer that the bowling average is very close to being a measure of the intrinsic wicket-taking worth of a bowler. A bowler's average is unlikely to change too much across eras and different playing standards.
What about batting then? Is the career batting average very sensitive to the quality of the bowling attacks faced? The answer is No. Below, I have a similar list contrasting the Test careers of several top modern batsmen with their First-class careers.
Again, we notice that a batsman is quite likely to have similar averages both in Tests and First-class games. In fact, it is quite common to observe cases where the first-class average is lower than the Test average since it is a lot harder to sustain a high batting average over a very large number of first-class fixtures.
I find these tables very revealing. They do suggest how very different cricket is from other ball games. Unlike most other games, performance in cricket is purely a function of the cricketer's inherent skill and not overly influenced by the playing standards of the opposition.
Which is why, it is possible to argue that a cricketer is closer in spirit to a ballet dancer or a movie star than to a soccer player or a rugby forward.
Also, cricket lends itself to comparisons across eras unlike other sports. No serious tennis buff would want to argue too strongly that Bill Tilden transported from the 1920s and equipped with modern raquets would be able to defeat Roger Federer today. The reason is that modern tennis players train harder and are more athletic than champions of yesteryear. In a very physical sport like tennis, training and "professionalism" matter a LOT.
Cricket, on the other hand, is different. Being a skill-based sport, it places less premium on training and athleticism than most other sports. Secondly, the nature of the game is such that it tests one's character as much as skill. If you're a batsman, it only takes one ball to get you out. This holds true regardless of whether it is a Test match at the MCG or a University game in New Delhi. It doesn't matter whether the cricketer in question is WG Grace in 1870 or Viru Sehwag in 2010. It only takes one ball to get you out!!
To my mind, that's the reason why standards in cricket unlike other ball games do not always improve with time. For instance, fast-bowling talent today is most definitely not as rich across the world as it was in the early 1980s. Similarly, the art of leg-spin in the 1970s was surely not as advanced or as prevalent as it was in the 1930s.
Like the other art forms, cricketing standards are subject to crests and troughs. In this regard, it is fundamentally different from most other sports where standards invariably improve with time.
Also, it is possible to think of a batsman or a bowler as an artist in isolation. It is also possible to measure a cricketer's worth by examining his numbers without bothering to consider the numbers of anyone else!
Cricket sure is a very unique game! A veritable art form? Well, very nearly!
|
"What is Art?".
This is the provocative question posed by CLR James in his magnificent book Beyond the Boundary, widely regarded as the finest cricket book of all time. James attempts to answer this question in a manner which is much too elaborate to be summed up in a blogpost. Nevertheless, he unequivocally concludes that :
It (cricket) is a game and we have to compare it with other games. It is an art and we have to compare it with other arts.....Cricket is first and foremost a dramatic spectacle. It belongs with the theatre, ballet, opera and the dance
These lines intrigued me. Cricket is ofcourse a ball game. But is it fundamentally different from the other ball games? Are we justified in regarding cricket as being closer to the arts (the likes of theatre and literature) than other sports?
I attempt to partly answer these questions in this blog. To my mind, there is one chief characteristic that distinguishes all ball games from the arts:
Ball Games are invariably competitive, in that the performance of the sportsman is contingent on the opposition he is up against. Whereas, in most of the other conventional arts, the performance of the artist is nearly independent of practically everything else.
For instance, Pele scored 1,280 goals in his career over 1,363 games. That's an average of 0.94 goals per game. Suppose Pele had played all his football in the Indian leagues (which are distinctly less competitive), one would naturally expect that average to have been significantly higher (perhaps 1.5 or more).
On the other hand, our appraisal of an artist in the theatre or in the cinema is absolute and is hardly contingent on the prevailing competition or standards.
Now, let us examine the game of cricket. To what extent are performances in cricket dependent on the quality of the opposition? I believe that cricket is closer to the arts than other ball games in this respect. Cricketing feats, be it batting or bowling, are less sensitive to "opposition quality" than feats in soccer or rugby.
Does that sound counter-intuitive? On the surface, Yes. But not if one examines closely the records of great cricketers, past and present.
Let us start with bowling. Below, I have looked at the bowling averages of five great modern bowlers both in Tests and first-class cricket.
| Mean Bowling Averages | ||
|---|---|---|
| Tests | First-class | |
| Shane Warne | 25.41 | 26.11 |
| Wasim Akram | 23.62 | 21.64 |
| Allan Donald | 22.25 | 22.76 |
| Glenn McGrath | 21.64 | 20.85 |
| Muthiah Muralitharan | 22.72 | 19.64 |
| Overall Average | 23.13 | 22.2 |
It is quite clear that all five bowlers have very similar averages both in Test matches and in First-class cricket. Let us suppose a hypothetical bowling attack comprising these five bowlers. Given that their mean Test average is 23.13, we can expect an average Test-class batting lineup to score 231 runs (23.13 X 10) against this attack. Whereas, an average First-class batting lineup (presumably consisting of relatively inferior batsmen) can be expected to score 222 runs (22.2 X 10) against the same bowlers!
The learning is that the wicket taking ability of these five men is almost independent of the standard of cricket being played. It is quite unlikely that these bowlers are any deadlier in a First-class fixture than in a Test match. In fact, we can infer that the bowling average is very close to being a measure of the intrinsic wicket-taking worth of a bowler. A bowler's average is unlikely to change too much across eras and different playing standards.
What about batting then? Is the career batting average very sensitive to the quality of the bowling attacks faced? The answer is No. Below, I have a similar list contrasting the Test careers of several top modern batsmen with their First-class careers.
| Mean Batting Averages | ||
|---|---|---|
| Tests | First-class | |
| Sachin Tendulkar | 56.94 | 59.86 |
| Brian Lara | 52.88 | 51.88 |
| Steve Waugh | 51.06 | 51.94 |
| Kumar Sangakkara | 57.25 | 48.01 |
| Kevin Pietersen | 48.42 | 49.01 |
Again, we notice that a batsman is quite likely to have similar averages both in Tests and First-class games. In fact, it is quite common to observe cases where the first-class average is lower than the Test average since it is a lot harder to sustain a high batting average over a very large number of first-class fixtures.
I find these tables very revealing. They do suggest how very different cricket is from other ball games. Unlike most other games, performance in cricket is purely a function of the cricketer's inherent skill and not overly influenced by the playing standards of the opposition.
Which is why, it is possible to argue that a cricketer is closer in spirit to a ballet dancer or a movie star than to a soccer player or a rugby forward.
Also, cricket lends itself to comparisons across eras unlike other sports. No serious tennis buff would want to argue too strongly that Bill Tilden transported from the 1920s and equipped with modern raquets would be able to defeat Roger Federer today. The reason is that modern tennis players train harder and are more athletic than champions of yesteryear. In a very physical sport like tennis, training and "professionalism" matter a LOT.
Cricket, on the other hand, is different. Being a skill-based sport, it places less premium on training and athleticism than most other sports. Secondly, the nature of the game is such that it tests one's character as much as skill. If you're a batsman, it only takes one ball to get you out. This holds true regardless of whether it is a Test match at the MCG or a University game in New Delhi. It doesn't matter whether the cricketer in question is WG Grace in 1870 or Viru Sehwag in 2010. It only takes one ball to get you out!!
To my mind, that's the reason why standards in cricket unlike other ball games do not always improve with time. For instance, fast-bowling talent today is most definitely not as rich across the world as it was in the early 1980s. Similarly, the art of leg-spin in the 1970s was surely not as advanced or as prevalent as it was in the 1930s.
Like the other art forms, cricketing standards are subject to crests and troughs. In this regard, it is fundamentally different from most other sports where standards invariably improve with time.
Also, it is possible to think of a batsman or a bowler as an artist in isolation. It is also possible to measure a cricketer's worth by examining his numbers without bothering to consider the numbers of anyone else!
Cricket sure is a very unique game! A veritable art form? Well, very nearly!
Labels: cricket
Saturday, November 27, 2010
On Risk, Return and Batsmanship
In Finance, one of the cardinal sins is to undertake an investment decision without assessing the forecasted return in the context of the risk exposure. Risk and Return are inextricably linked. I'd rather have my money earn 3.5% in the Savings account if an alternative market investment promises a 10% return with a standard deviation of 50%!
A common metric often employed to evaluate portfolio performance is the Sharpe Ratio, which is basically the premium return that is offered by an investment for each unit of risk undertaken. No wonder "risk-adjusted return" is a hackneyed phrase one hears from portfolio managers.
How is all this related to Test Match Batsmanship? Very closely related as we shall see.
Batsmen in Test Matches are often judged on the basis of their "batting average". An average of 50+ is usually regarded as outstanding and is often the figure that most Test batsmen aspire for. Ofcourse, one needs considerable skill to maintain an average of over 50. But more than skill, I think the key is to understand risk-return dynamics well.
There are two components to the batting average that ought to be understood if one wishes to optimize it:
Sounds too obvious, yes. But this is not exactly a simple plain-vanilla two-variable function. What's often overlooked by batsmen and cricket pundits is that A and B are not independent variables. A is a function of B and vice-versa.
In fact, the two components influence each other negatively. Typically, a batsman with a high strike rate spends less time in the middle, because of the risks involved in trying to force the pace. Similarly, a batsman who bats for long periods of time tends to have a lower strike rate, for reasons that are obvious.
So what should one do to optimize the Batting Average? Should the batsman adopt a risk-averse style by concentrating only on putting away the rank bad ball and defending the rest? The likes of Hutton, Gavaskar and Dravid have achieved great Test records by optimising Component A, without overly worrying about Component B. Nevertheless, for every Gavaskar, there are a dozen other fine technicians who couldn't reach the magic figure of 50 despite their excellence at Component A. Geoff Boycott is a name that readily springs to mind.
There are others who have Test records just as enviable as those of a Gavaskar or a Dravid thanks to their extraordinary strike rates. Viru Sehwag is an obvious example. Here's a guy who is a very limited batsman in many ways, with serious technical deficiencies against the short rising ball. A guy who lasts only 64 balls each time he comes in to bat (that's probably about half the number of balls per innings faced by someone like Gavaskar). And yet, he has a brilliant batting average of 54, significantly better than Gavaskar's 51!! The secret of his success is that he manages to maintain a strike-rate of 80 and yet lasts 64 balls per innings!
There have been several daredevil strokeplayers in the past who have graced the game of cricket. Think Gilbert Jessop, Kris Srikkanth and more recently Shahid Afridi. All of them had batting averages significantly below 40. This is because their high-risk approach to the game significantly reduced their average duration at the crease.
The reason why Sehwag is such a great treasure is not because he is a great strokemaker (there have been several such players in the past) or a great technician (which is hardly the case). Sehwag's greatness lies in his ability to understand the dynamics of risk and return. He is able to play his normal game without taking undue risks that were the bane of players like Afridi or Yuvraj Singh.
It is vital for batsmen around the world to grasp the importance of maximising risk-adjusted returns. The tradeoff between risk and return may vary among batsmen depending on their skill level. Yet, the magnitude of the tradeoff can be minimised only if you are aware of the tradeoff in the first place!
Take Dravid for instance. The man averages a fantastic 53 with a strike rate of about 42 per 100 balls faced. He roughly faces 110 balls each time he visits the crease in a Test match. I'd like to argue that he has not consciously thought about the tradeoff during his career. For a batsman of his ability, the tradeoff between strike-rate and duration at the crease shouldn't be too large.
Mathematically, the tradeoff can be stated as shown below :
The objective should be to minimise the absolute value of the above differential!
Cutting down the aerial strokes to the extent possible and running well between the wickets are some of the ways of achieving this objective.
Let us suppose Dravid had been a little more aggressive during his Test career and maintained a strike-rate of 50 instead of 42. This might have reduced his "No of balls per innings" figure from 110 to perhaps 100. Nevertheless, it is a great trade-off. His hypothetical batting average in this case is 56.5, a good three runs higher than his current average! (Note: I'm assuming the same no of "Not out" innings as before)
The man widely regarded as the greatest batsman in Test history is ofcourse Sir Donald Bradman. People often have endless debates on what made him so special. The Don was a somewhat frail man with poor eyesight. In fact, he came perilously close to losing his life on account of poor health during his career. By most accounts, he wasn't a particularly "correct" batsman, with a very unusual grip and a notorious tendency to play across the line. Yet, he averaged 99.94 in Tests and more astonishingly 95.14 in all first-class cricket!
The secret to his success is that like Sehwag, he understood the risk-return tradeoff probably better than most people. No wonder he was a professional stock-broker off the field. The Don managed to maintain a strike-rate of 60 in Test matches (astonishingly high back in the thirties) and lasted about 145 balls per innings.
The figure of 145 is not as exceptional as his batting average. It's still probably better than the Component A of most other batsmen in Test history. But I'm sure there are several bastsmen who are running him close. What made him special was his ability to score at a strike rate as high as 60 without compromising on the time spent in the middle.
I know this post may sound a tad too obvious to a lot of people. But I think it bears repeating. The Risk-return tradeoff is something we're all aware of, yet we don't always consciously think of optimising it in the daily business of life!
|
In Finance, one of the cardinal sins is to undertake an investment decision without assessing the forecasted return in the context of the risk exposure. Risk and Return are inextricably linked. I'd rather have my money earn 3.5% in the Savings account if an alternative market investment promises a 10% return with a standard deviation of 50%!
A common metric often employed to evaluate portfolio performance is the Sharpe Ratio, which is basically the premium return that is offered by an investment for each unit of risk undertaken. No wonder "risk-adjusted return" is a hackneyed phrase one hears from portfolio managers.
How is all this related to Test Match Batsmanship? Very closely related as we shall see.
Batsmen in Test Matches are often judged on the basis of their "batting average". An average of 50+ is usually regarded as outstanding and is often the figure that most Test batsmen aspire for. Ofcourse, one needs considerable skill to maintain an average of over 50. But more than skill, I think the key is to understand risk-return dynamics well.
There are two components to the batting average that ought to be understood if one wishes to optimize it:
Component A : Time Spent in the Middle i.e the No of balls that one lasts on an average per innings
Component B : The ability to force the pace while in the Middle. This component is better known as "Strike rate" i.e the No of runs that one scores per 100 balls faced.
Batting Average = F(Component A, Component B)
Sounds too obvious, yes. But this is not exactly a simple plain-vanilla two-variable function. What's often overlooked by batsmen and cricket pundits is that A and B are not independent variables. A is a function of B and vice-versa.
In fact, the two components influence each other negatively. Typically, a batsman with a high strike rate spends less time in the middle, because of the risks involved in trying to force the pace. Similarly, a batsman who bats for long periods of time tends to have a lower strike rate, for reasons that are obvious.
So what should one do to optimize the Batting Average? Should the batsman adopt a risk-averse style by concentrating only on putting away the rank bad ball and defending the rest? The likes of Hutton, Gavaskar and Dravid have achieved great Test records by optimising Component A, without overly worrying about Component B. Nevertheless, for every Gavaskar, there are a dozen other fine technicians who couldn't reach the magic figure of 50 despite their excellence at Component A. Geoff Boycott is a name that readily springs to mind.
There are others who have Test records just as enviable as those of a Gavaskar or a Dravid thanks to their extraordinary strike rates. Viru Sehwag is an obvious example. Here's a guy who is a very limited batsman in many ways, with serious technical deficiencies against the short rising ball. A guy who lasts only 64 balls each time he comes in to bat (that's probably about half the number of balls per innings faced by someone like Gavaskar). And yet, he has a brilliant batting average of 54, significantly better than Gavaskar's 51!! The secret of his success is that he manages to maintain a strike-rate of 80 and yet lasts 64 balls per innings!
There have been several daredevil strokeplayers in the past who have graced the game of cricket. Think Gilbert Jessop, Kris Srikkanth and more recently Shahid Afridi. All of them had batting averages significantly below 40. This is because their high-risk approach to the game significantly reduced their average duration at the crease.
The reason why Sehwag is such a great treasure is not because he is a great strokemaker (there have been several such players in the past) or a great technician (which is hardly the case). Sehwag's greatness lies in his ability to understand the dynamics of risk and return. He is able to play his normal game without taking undue risks that were the bane of players like Afridi or Yuvraj Singh.
It is vital for batsmen around the world to grasp the importance of maximising risk-adjusted returns. The tradeoff between risk and return may vary among batsmen depending on their skill level. Yet, the magnitude of the tradeoff can be minimised only if you are aware of the tradeoff in the first place!
Take Dravid for instance. The man averages a fantastic 53 with a strike rate of about 42 per 100 balls faced. He roughly faces 110 balls each time he visits the crease in a Test match. I'd like to argue that he has not consciously thought about the tradeoff during his career. For a batsman of his ability, the tradeoff between strike-rate and duration at the crease shouldn't be too large.
Mathematically, the tradeoff can be stated as shown below :
d(No of Balls per innings)/d(Strike Rate) <= 0
The objective should be to minimise the absolute value of the above differential!
Cutting down the aerial strokes to the extent possible and running well between the wickets are some of the ways of achieving this objective.
Let us suppose Dravid had been a little more aggressive during his Test career and maintained a strike-rate of 50 instead of 42. This might have reduced his "No of balls per innings" figure from 110 to perhaps 100. Nevertheless, it is a great trade-off. His hypothetical batting average in this case is 56.5, a good three runs higher than his current average! (Note: I'm assuming the same no of "Not out" innings as before)
The man widely regarded as the greatest batsman in Test history is ofcourse Sir Donald Bradman. People often have endless debates on what made him so special. The Don was a somewhat frail man with poor eyesight. In fact, he came perilously close to losing his life on account of poor health during his career. By most accounts, he wasn't a particularly "correct" batsman, with a very unusual grip and a notorious tendency to play across the line. Yet, he averaged 99.94 in Tests and more astonishingly 95.14 in all first-class cricket!
The secret to his success is that like Sehwag, he understood the risk-return tradeoff probably better than most people. No wonder he was a professional stock-broker off the field. The Don managed to maintain a strike-rate of 60 in Test matches (astonishingly high back in the thirties) and lasted about 145 balls per innings.
The figure of 145 is not as exceptional as his batting average. It's still probably better than the Component A of most other batsmen in Test history. But I'm sure there are several bastsmen who are running him close. What made him special was his ability to score at a strike rate as high as 60 without compromising on the time spent in the middle.
I know this post may sound a tad too obvious to a lot of people. But I think it bears repeating. The Risk-return tradeoff is something we're all aware of, yet we don't always consciously think of optimising it in the daily business of life!
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Ranji - the most underrated cricketer of all time?
The name Ranji immediately conjures up a smallish brown man of royal lineage who lit up the English cricket fields with his brilliantly unorthodox strokeplay about a hundred and ten years ago. He is widely regarded as one of the game's great early innovators and a very popular cricketer in England at the turn of the century.
But pundits don't normally invoke Ranji seriously while discussing all-time greats. Recently, Cricinfo picked an "All-Time XI" for each of the major international Test playing countries. I was flabbergasted to learn that Ranji was not even nominated as a middle-order choice for the All-Time England XI!!
English cricket lovers are not exactly known for their ahistoricism, unlike Indian fans who tend to focus on the here and now. It is very hard to find any English cricket writer who hasn't turned in a few lines on the likes of WG Grace, Sidney Barnes, Gilbert Jessop, Jack Hobbs among others. In fact, Wisden went to the extent of picking Hobbs as one of the five greatest cricketers of the Twentieth century!
Being an Indian with a fair share of interest in English cricket, I wondered - Where does Ranji rank in the pantheon of great English cricketers? Is he widely known today primarily on account of his exotic Indian origin? Are we guilty of overrating his stature in the context of English cricket history? After all, he was the first person of colour to play Test match cricket.
I turned to Cricinfo Statsguru to better understand Ranji in terms of hard numbers. The idea was to move beyond the romantic prose penned by the cricket writers of his time and judge the man using figures alone.
What one discovers is a true cricketing colossus!
Here is a man who played First class cricket in England for 25 years spanning from 1895 to 1920. A man who scored nearly 25,000 First class runs at an average of 56.37!! (yes, you read that right) These figures are very impressive even by today's English first class standards, notwithstanding the fact that English pitches in Ranji's time were a lot livelier by most accounts, even when unaffected by rain. Just to put that average into perspective, Graeme Hick, the most prolific English first class batsman of the past 20 years averages 52.
During his time, Ranji played Test match cricket with/against names like Grace, Trumper, Jessop, Fry and Hobbs among others. All these guys represented the cream of talent the world had on offer during that period. How does Ranji compare with each of them?
I must say Ranji trumps them all going by the first class averages. In fact, he is miles ahead of the rest.
It is a very revealing table! Ranji is about 6 runs ahead of the next best batsman. That's a really huge margin. The most striking revelation is that Ranji averaged a good 17 runs more than the great WG in his First class career and about 12 runs more than the celebrated Australian legend - Vic Trumper.
The two guys who approach him in consistency are Jack Hobbs and CB Fry. However, Hobbs scored the bulk of his runs post WW-I during the twenties, when batting became a lot easier thanks to the improved pitches of the time. It is quite likely that Hobbs averaged well below 50 if one considers only his pre WW-I record. CB Fry had an outstanding First class record, but disappointed in Test cricket with an average of barely 32.
How does Ranji rank among all the great first-class cricketers of the past 150 years?
To attempt an answer to this question, I looked at the top 10 batsmen with the highest first-class averages in cricket history (with a minimum run aggregate of atleast 20,000 runs). Ranji ranks sixth in this list.
Ranji is the only person on this list who made his first-class debut prior to 1920. In fact, he played nearly all his cricket before World War I. Now that was an era when an average of 35-40 used to be regarded as a very good record in first-class cricket.
I think these tables ought to be better known. Ranji was so much more than a mystical Oriental talent who played unorthodox strokes. He was, without doubt, the foremost batsman of his generation. In fact, it can be argued that Ranji was the most dominant and consistent batsman the world had seen until Bradman came along in the thirties.
Surely it's a career that deserves more recognition by cricket historians and greater mindshare among cricket fans (especially English cricket fans)!
|
The name Ranji immediately conjures up a smallish brown man of royal lineage who lit up the English cricket fields with his brilliantly unorthodox strokeplay about a hundred and ten years ago. He is widely regarded as one of the game's great early innovators and a very popular cricketer in England at the turn of the century.
But pundits don't normally invoke Ranji seriously while discussing all-time greats. Recently, Cricinfo picked an "All-Time XI" for each of the major international Test playing countries. I was flabbergasted to learn that Ranji was not even nominated as a middle-order choice for the All-Time England XI!!
English cricket lovers are not exactly known for their ahistoricism, unlike Indian fans who tend to focus on the here and now. It is very hard to find any English cricket writer who hasn't turned in a few lines on the likes of WG Grace, Sidney Barnes, Gilbert Jessop, Jack Hobbs among others. In fact, Wisden went to the extent of picking Hobbs as one of the five greatest cricketers of the Twentieth century!
Being an Indian with a fair share of interest in English cricket, I wondered - Where does Ranji rank in the pantheon of great English cricketers? Is he widely known today primarily on account of his exotic Indian origin? Are we guilty of overrating his stature in the context of English cricket history? After all, he was the first person of colour to play Test match cricket.
I turned to Cricinfo Statsguru to better understand Ranji in terms of hard numbers. The idea was to move beyond the romantic prose penned by the cricket writers of his time and judge the man using figures alone.
What one discovers is a true cricketing colossus!
Here is a man who played First class cricket in England for 25 years spanning from 1895 to 1920. A man who scored nearly 25,000 First class runs at an average of 56.37!! (yes, you read that right) These figures are very impressive even by today's English first class standards, notwithstanding the fact that English pitches in Ranji's time were a lot livelier by most accounts, even when unaffected by rain. Just to put that average into perspective, Graeme Hick, the most prolific English first class batsman of the past 20 years averages 52.
During his time, Ranji played Test match cricket with/against names like Grace, Trumper, Jessop, Fry and Hobbs among others. All these guys represented the cream of talent the world had on offer during that period. How does Ranji compare with each of them?
I must say Ranji trumps them all going by the first class averages. In fact, he is miles ahead of the rest.
| First-class Averages of Ranji and his Contemporaries | ||
|---|---|---|
| Ranji | 56.37 | |
| Jack Hobbs | 50.70 | |
| CB Fry | 50.22 | |
| Charles MaCartney | 45.78 | |
| Vic Trumper | 44.57 | |
| Clem Hill | 43.57 | |
| Frank Woolley | 40.77 | |
| WG Grace | 39.45 | |
| Archie MacLaren | 34.15 | |
| Gilbert Jessop | 32.63 | |
It is a very revealing table! Ranji is about 6 runs ahead of the next best batsman. That's a really huge margin. The most striking revelation is that Ranji averaged a good 17 runs more than the great WG in his First class career and about 12 runs more than the celebrated Australian legend - Vic Trumper.
The two guys who approach him in consistency are Jack Hobbs and CB Fry. However, Hobbs scored the bulk of his runs post WW-I during the twenties, when batting became a lot easier thanks to the improved pitches of the time. It is quite likely that Hobbs averaged well below 50 if one considers only his pre WW-I record. CB Fry had an outstanding First class record, but disappointed in Test cricket with an average of barely 32.
How does Ranji rank among all the great first-class cricketers of the past 150 years?
To attempt an answer to this question, I looked at the top 10 batsmen with the highest first-class averages in cricket history (with a minimum run aggregate of atleast 20,000 runs). Ranji ranks sixth in this list.
| Highest First-class Averages of all Time (Qual.criteria : 20,000 runs) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Don Bradman | 95.14 | |
| Sachin Tendulkar | 59.63 | |
| Darren Lehmann | 57.83 | |
| Geoff Boycott | 56.83 | |
| Ricky Ponting | 56.73 | |
| Ranji | 56.37 | |
| Bob Simpson | 56.22 | |
| Wally Hammond | 56.10 | |
| Rahul Dravid | 55.89 | |
| Len Hutton | 55.81 | |
Ranji is the only person on this list who made his first-class debut prior to 1920. In fact, he played nearly all his cricket before World War I. Now that was an era when an average of 35-40 used to be regarded as a very good record in first-class cricket.
I think these tables ought to be better known. Ranji was so much more than a mystical Oriental talent who played unorthodox strokes. He was, without doubt, the foremost batsman of his generation. In fact, it can be argued that Ranji was the most dominant and consistent batsman the world had seen until Bradman came along in the thirties.
Surely it's a career that deserves more recognition by cricket historians and greater mindshare among cricket fans (especially English cricket fans)!
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Puncturing Inflated Legends
Here's another cricket post!
I've been spending a lot of time on Cricinfo lately, where they've been busy compiling All Time XIs. These exercises are fun as they help you put the performances of current players into proper perspective by sparing some time to objectively judge bygone careers which are not fresh in the memory of the cricket watcher.
The passage of time often dims our memory of past players, to the extent that we're very unlikely to appraise them on their merits. Certain cricketers are unfairly forgotten as the years roll by since their once-impressive career records achieved under more challenging circumstances appear less flashy today - an era which has generally been kinder to batsmen. Certain other past cricketers are more fortunate. They end up occupying disproportionate mindshare thanks to legends that inflate with time!
This post concerns a cricketer of the latter kind - a top-class opening bat of his time who has gathered a somewhat undeserved reputation as one of the greatest batsmen of all time thanks to poorly remembered legends. Sunil Gavaskar.
Gavaskar's inflated reputation rests on his seemingly outstanding record against the premier team of his era which possessed a four-pronged pace attack - the West Indies. He averaged about 65 runs per test innings against them with 13 Hundreds! Seven of them in the West Indies. I encountered these stats about a decade back when my obsession with cricket was far greater than it is today and I was busy devouring any form of cricket literature.
My initial reaction was awe, but it was soon tinged with doubt and scepticism. Something was amiss I wondered. I didn't think it was quite likely for anybody to make that many big scores against an attack consisting of Andy Roberts, Michael Holding, Joel Garner and Malcolm Marshall.
Thanks to Cricinfo Statsguru, I now discover that my doubts were well founded. Gavaskar played six Test series in all against the West Indies. Here's a summary of his performance in each of them.
Very Impressive on first sight. But distinctly less impressive if someone actually bothers to visit the scorecards!
Let's briefly examine what Gavaskar had to contend with in each of these series.
1970/71 : This was Gavaskar's debut series. Probably the most outstanding series return for any batsman making his debut, in the history of Test cricket. The West Indian team he was up against was far from formidable. It was a team in transition captained by an ageing Sobers. The bowling attack was composed of Vanburn Holder (career bowling avg : 33.27), Shillingford (avg : 35.8), Noreiga (avg: 29.0) and Sobers himself (avg : 34.03).
The era of Roberts, Holding and Co was still 3-4 years away. I know it might sound a little churlish to grudge Gavaskar his accolades. Averaging 150+ over 4 games is an achievement in any form of the game, be it Tests or club cricket, especially for a 22 year old batsman. However, it is quite unlikely that Gavaskar on debut would've achieved similar results against the West Indian attack of the early eighties!
1974/75: Gavaskar only played in two of the five test matches owing to injury. And he wasn't particularly successful against an attack spearheaded by the great Andy Roberts in the two test matches that he did play in. Note : West Indies was still some distance away from their era of fast bowling glory. Roberts had already announced himself. But the rest of the quartet were yet to make their test debuts. Gavaskar's friend and brother-in-law GR Viswanath was a lot more successful against Roberts in this series winning two test matches almost single-handedly at Kolkata and Chennai.
1975/76 : Gavaskar did well in this series with two hundreds, including a match winning knock enabling India chase a 400+ target on the fifth day! Nevertheless, it is worth remembering that the record chase was achieved against an attack that was somewhat mediocre barring Michael Holding. The rest of the attack included B.Julien (avg: 37), AL Padmore (avg: 135), Imtiaz Ali (avg: 44.5) and R.Jumadeen(avg: 39.3). That's the kind of attack against which even a flat-track bully like Yuvraj Singh will fancy his chances.
1978/79 : Now, this was a rewarding home series for Sunny in which he harvested four hundreds! But, mind you, this was against a weakened West Indian touring party thanks to Kerry Packer! I grant that the great Malcolm Marshall was around. But hang on. This was his debut series!
The other bowlers whom Gavaskar flayed round the park were ST Clarke (avg: 28), N Philip (avg: 37) and Vanburn Holder (avg: 33). Hardly terrors on subcontinental pitches.
1982-83: Ah. Now, for the first time, Sunny Gavaskar was pitted against a full strength West Indian attack in the West Indies, with Holding, Roberts, Garner and Marshall operating simultaneously. Sunny averaged a paltry 30 over five tests.
1983/84: Here, I must give credit where it is due. He was up against some very formidable bowlers. Holding, Roberts and Marshall. Sunny acquitted himself well with a healthy average of 50, including an unbeaten 236* at Chennai in the final test. Nevertheless, the average of 50 looks flattering thanks to that unbeaten double century.
Sunil Gavaskar was one of the great Indian batsmen. Arguably the finest Indian bat of his generation. But his record against the WI is made to look more brilliant than it actually is thanks to some pretty easy pickings against weakened Carribean attacks on flat pitches.
His record against the full-strength West Indian attack of the early eighties is somewhat sketchy, not necessarily better than that of other great players of that generation against the same attack.
And yet, I invariably find pundits of all hues championing Gavaskar as one of the top 2-3 opening batsmen in the history of Test cricket! That may not be an altogether unreasonable claim, given that the guy scored over 10,000 Test runs and lasted nearly two decades at the highest level. But it is definitely not very easy to sustain that claim based solely on his record against the West Indies!
|
Here's another cricket post!
I've been spending a lot of time on Cricinfo lately, where they've been busy compiling All Time XIs. These exercises are fun as they help you put the performances of current players into proper perspective by sparing some time to objectively judge bygone careers which are not fresh in the memory of the cricket watcher.
The passage of time often dims our memory of past players, to the extent that we're very unlikely to appraise them on their merits. Certain cricketers are unfairly forgotten as the years roll by since their once-impressive career records achieved under more challenging circumstances appear less flashy today - an era which has generally been kinder to batsmen. Certain other past cricketers are more fortunate. They end up occupying disproportionate mindshare thanks to legends that inflate with time!
This post concerns a cricketer of the latter kind - a top-class opening bat of his time who has gathered a somewhat undeserved reputation as one of the greatest batsmen of all time thanks to poorly remembered legends. Sunil Gavaskar.
Gavaskar's inflated reputation rests on his seemingly outstanding record against the premier team of his era which possessed a four-pronged pace attack - the West Indies. He averaged about 65 runs per test innings against them with 13 Hundreds! Seven of them in the West Indies. I encountered these stats about a decade back when my obsession with cricket was far greater than it is today and I was busy devouring any form of cricket literature.
My initial reaction was awe, but it was soon tinged with doubt and scepticism. Something was amiss I wondered. I didn't think it was quite likely for anybody to make that many big scores against an attack consisting of Andy Roberts, Michael Holding, Joel Garner and Malcolm Marshall.
Thanks to Cricinfo Statsguru, I now discover that my doubts were well founded. Gavaskar played six Test series in all against the West Indies. Here's a summary of his performance in each of them.
| Average | |
|---|---|
| 1970/71 in West Indies | 154.8 |
| 1974/75 in India | 27 |
| 1975/76 in West Indies | 55.7 |
| 1978/79 in India | 91.5 |
| 1982/83 in West Indies | 30 |
| 1983/84 in India | 50.5 |
Very Impressive on first sight. But distinctly less impressive if someone actually bothers to visit the scorecards!
Let's briefly examine what Gavaskar had to contend with in each of these series.
1970/71 : This was Gavaskar's debut series. Probably the most outstanding series return for any batsman making his debut, in the history of Test cricket. The West Indian team he was up against was far from formidable. It was a team in transition captained by an ageing Sobers. The bowling attack was composed of Vanburn Holder (career bowling avg : 33.27), Shillingford (avg : 35.8), Noreiga (avg: 29.0) and Sobers himself (avg : 34.03).
The era of Roberts, Holding and Co was still 3-4 years away. I know it might sound a little churlish to grudge Gavaskar his accolades. Averaging 150+ over 4 games is an achievement in any form of the game, be it Tests or club cricket, especially for a 22 year old batsman. However, it is quite unlikely that Gavaskar on debut would've achieved similar results against the West Indian attack of the early eighties!
1974/75: Gavaskar only played in two of the five test matches owing to injury. And he wasn't particularly successful against an attack spearheaded by the great Andy Roberts in the two test matches that he did play in. Note : West Indies was still some distance away from their era of fast bowling glory. Roberts had already announced himself. But the rest of the quartet were yet to make their test debuts. Gavaskar's friend and brother-in-law GR Viswanath was a lot more successful against Roberts in this series winning two test matches almost single-handedly at Kolkata and Chennai.
1975/76 : Gavaskar did well in this series with two hundreds, including a match winning knock enabling India chase a 400+ target on the fifth day! Nevertheless, it is worth remembering that the record chase was achieved against an attack that was somewhat mediocre barring Michael Holding. The rest of the attack included B.Julien (avg: 37), AL Padmore (avg: 135), Imtiaz Ali (avg: 44.5) and R.Jumadeen(avg: 39.3). That's the kind of attack against which even a flat-track bully like Yuvraj Singh will fancy his chances.
1978/79 : Now, this was a rewarding home series for Sunny in which he harvested four hundreds! But, mind you, this was against a weakened West Indian touring party thanks to Kerry Packer! I grant that the great Malcolm Marshall was around. But hang on. This was his debut series!
The other bowlers whom Gavaskar flayed round the park were ST Clarke (avg: 28), N Philip (avg: 37) and Vanburn Holder (avg: 33). Hardly terrors on subcontinental pitches.
1982-83: Ah. Now, for the first time, Sunny Gavaskar was pitted against a full strength West Indian attack in the West Indies, with Holding, Roberts, Garner and Marshall operating simultaneously. Sunny averaged a paltry 30 over five tests.
1983/84: Here, I must give credit where it is due. He was up against some very formidable bowlers. Holding, Roberts and Marshall. Sunny acquitted himself well with a healthy average of 50, including an unbeaten 236* at Chennai in the final test. Nevertheless, the average of 50 looks flattering thanks to that unbeaten double century.
Sunil Gavaskar was one of the great Indian batsmen. Arguably the finest Indian bat of his generation. But his record against the WI is made to look more brilliant than it actually is thanks to some pretty easy pickings against weakened Carribean attacks on flat pitches.
His record against the full-strength West Indian attack of the early eighties is somewhat sketchy, not necessarily better than that of other great players of that generation against the same attack.
And yet, I invariably find pundits of all hues championing Gavaskar as one of the top 2-3 opening batsmen in the history of Test cricket! That may not be an altogether unreasonable claim, given that the guy scored over 10,000 Test runs and lasted nearly two decades at the highest level. But it is definitely not very easy to sustain that claim based solely on his record against the West Indies!
Labels: cricket
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Play back or Drive
The ongoing India-Australia Test series has marked my resumption of Test match viewing, after having practically lost all interest in the game over the past 4-5 years.
This post was prompted by Michael Clarke's soft dismissal by Harbhajan in the first innings of the Bangalore Test yesterday.
One of the most ungainly features of modern batsmanship is the almost instinctive lunge forward while defending a slow bowler. To my mind, it seems like a nothing shot. The forward lurch does not necessarily get you to the pitch of the ball. Also, it deprives you of the extra instant of time to judge the delivery.
The key to playing spin bowling well is to use your feet to reduce the element of uncertainty. There are two ways in which one can meet that objective -
By lurching forward, you're only making an offer of a bat-pad dismissal every ball!
And yet, this most ungainly of strokes has been inexplicably popular across the world for as long as I can remember. I wonder if there was ever a time in cricket history when the forward defensive was not in fashion!
And yes. It is particularly disappointing when batsmen of the calibre of Ponting and Clarke commit batting suicide by lurching forward.
These thoughts made me scour the net for similar polemics against the "forward defensive". Here's a video clipping of Don Bradman's defensive play in one of the 1938 Ashes tests. Check out the section from 1:45mins to 2:05 mins. What struck me was that the guy does not show any inclination to lunge forward. Instead, he plays back as a rule even if the delivery is not exactly short in length. No wonder he seldom got out caught at forward short-leg or silly point.
I thought it was a very good demonstration of how to defend against slow bowlers.
|
The ongoing India-Australia Test series has marked my resumption of Test match viewing, after having practically lost all interest in the game over the past 4-5 years.
This post was prompted by Michael Clarke's soft dismissal by Harbhajan in the first innings of the Bangalore Test yesterday.
One of the most ungainly features of modern batsmanship is the almost instinctive lunge forward while defending a slow bowler. To my mind, it seems like a nothing shot. The forward lurch does not necessarily get you to the pitch of the ball. Also, it deprives you of the extra instant of time to judge the delivery.
The key to playing spin bowling well is to use your feet to reduce the element of uncertainty. There are two ways in which one can meet that objective -
By getting to the pitch of the ball
In which case it does not really matter how much spin the bowler has imparted to it.
By playing back!
When in doubt, one must always play back. If it isn't possible to get to the pitch of the ball, the batsman must always play late which helps him buy an extra second to examine the extent of deviation off the pitch.
By lurching forward, you're only making an offer of a bat-pad dismissal every ball!
And yet, this most ungainly of strokes has been inexplicably popular across the world for as long as I can remember. I wonder if there was ever a time in cricket history when the forward defensive was not in fashion!
And yes. It is particularly disappointing when batsmen of the calibre of Ponting and Clarke commit batting suicide by lurching forward.
These thoughts made me scour the net for similar polemics against the "forward defensive". Here's a video clipping of Don Bradman's defensive play in one of the 1938 Ashes tests. Check out the section from 1:45mins to 2:05 mins. What struck me was that the guy does not show any inclination to lunge forward. Instead, he plays back as a rule even if the delivery is not exactly short in length. No wonder he seldom got out caught at forward short-leg or silly point.
I thought it was a very good demonstration of how to defend against slow bowlers.
Labels: cricket
Saturday, November 15, 2008
On Ganguly's Legacy and the "Great Man" theory of Leadership
Saurav Ganguly's retirement from international cricket spawned many finely written tributes, most of which emphasized his role as a Lutheran figure who transformed Indian cricketers from a bunch of designer track bullies to the world's second best team. Apparently it was he more than anybody else who made the Indian team believe that it could win abroad on a regular basis.
These claims are backed by facts that are very impressive on the surface. 15 of India's 31 overseas test triumphs have been in this decade. Writers who subscribe to the "Great Man" theory of Leadership believe that great leaders arise when there is a great need. The emergence of the leader in Ganguly happened at a time when Indian cricket was at its lowest ebb what with the 3-0 loss to Steve Waugh's Australia and the implication of certain players in the match fixing controversy. Since Ganguly's appointment as captain coincided with the reversal of India's abysmal cricketing fortunes, the "Great Man" theory dictates that he be hailed as a "great" captain. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
A closer examination of Indian cricket history reveals that the "Great Man" theory exaggerates Ganguly's legacy a great deal. It was just over two decades ago that the Indian cricket team was a fairly formidable force both at home and abroad. In a span of 10 months in 1985-86, India won three overseas test series against SriLanka, Australia and England rather comfortably. At that point India was probably the second best team in the world after West Indies. The key to their success was balance. A great opener in Sunil Gavaskar, a strong middle order with Vengsarkar, Amarnath and Azharuddin, a hard hitting allrounder in Kapil Dev and a very well balanced bowling attack led by Kapil again. Things began to fall apart in the late eighties with the retirements of most of the stalwarts in this team. By the early nineties, only Azhar remained and the batting replacements for the rest simply weren't good enough, with the sole glorious exception of Tendulkar.
So, between 1989 and 1996, the Indian side was a very indifferent one, heavily reliant on one man Sachin Tendulkar to put the runs on the board everytime it toured abroad. No wonder we won zilch outside the subcontinent during that period. 1996 was a transformational year. Three very good batsmen debuted for India that year - Dravid, Ganguly and Laxman. They filled a gap that had remained ever since the retirements of the batting bulwarks in the eighties. Indian performances outside the subcontinent improved remarkably from that year onwards.
Now, the natural question would be - why did the Indian team win so little abroad between 1996 and 1999 despite the much improved batting order? Why didn't we start winning until Ganguly took over captaincy? I attribute that mainly to chance more than anything else. We should have won in England in 1996 when we were clearly the better side after the first test loss (Dravid and Ganguly did not play in the first test). We were up against a very strong SA side in 1996 (possibly the best eleven South Africa ever assembled since its return post apartheid) and yet we nearly managed to win the third test at Johannesburg. We were very unlucky with the umpiring decisions in Australia in 1999. The series was nowhere near as one-sided as the 3-0 scorecard suggests.
Now, let's examine Indian overseas results after Ganguly took over captaincy. 7 of the 15 wins overseas since 2000 have been against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. The Indian team of the mid/late nineties didn't get to play that many games against these teams. 2 more wins have been versus Pakistan, a country we didn't visit during the nineties. The series draw in Australia in 2003-04 was against an Australian team in transition, with McGrath and Warne injured. And we lost series in West Indies, Srilanka and South Africa with Ganguly at the helm.
So, it's quite clear that the "Great Man" theorists have got it wrong here. Yes, we are performing better overseas than we used to. But the seed of this improvement was planted in 1996 and not in 2000.
Moving away from cricket, we find "Great Man" theorists at work everywhere. Alan Greenspan is often hailed as the greatest of all central bankers on the basis of the remarkable performance of the American economy during the eighties and nineties. What's often overlooked is that Greenspan's period at the helm was also marked by the personal computer revolution and the internet which drastically improved the productivity of the American economy and helped rein in inflation. Funnily, Greenspan gets the credit for what was largely the handiwork of the impersonal force of technology.
|
Saurav Ganguly's retirement from international cricket spawned many finely written tributes, most of which emphasized his role as a Lutheran figure who transformed Indian cricketers from a bunch of designer track bullies to the world's second best team. Apparently it was he more than anybody else who made the Indian team believe that it could win abroad on a regular basis.
These claims are backed by facts that are very impressive on the surface. 15 of India's 31 overseas test triumphs have been in this decade. Writers who subscribe to the "Great Man" theory of Leadership believe that great leaders arise when there is a great need. The emergence of the leader in Ganguly happened at a time when Indian cricket was at its lowest ebb what with the 3-0 loss to Steve Waugh's Australia and the implication of certain players in the match fixing controversy. Since Ganguly's appointment as captain coincided with the reversal of India's abysmal cricketing fortunes, the "Great Man" theory dictates that he be hailed as a "great" captain. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
A closer examination of Indian cricket history reveals that the "Great Man" theory exaggerates Ganguly's legacy a great deal. It was just over two decades ago that the Indian cricket team was a fairly formidable force both at home and abroad. In a span of 10 months in 1985-86, India won three overseas test series against SriLanka, Australia and England rather comfortably. At that point India was probably the second best team in the world after West Indies. The key to their success was balance. A great opener in Sunil Gavaskar, a strong middle order with Vengsarkar, Amarnath and Azharuddin, a hard hitting allrounder in Kapil Dev and a very well balanced bowling attack led by Kapil again. Things began to fall apart in the late eighties with the retirements of most of the stalwarts in this team. By the early nineties, only Azhar remained and the batting replacements for the rest simply weren't good enough, with the sole glorious exception of Tendulkar.
So, between 1989 and 1996, the Indian side was a very indifferent one, heavily reliant on one man Sachin Tendulkar to put the runs on the board everytime it toured abroad. No wonder we won zilch outside the subcontinent during that period. 1996 was a transformational year. Three very good batsmen debuted for India that year - Dravid, Ganguly and Laxman. They filled a gap that had remained ever since the retirements of the batting bulwarks in the eighties. Indian performances outside the subcontinent improved remarkably from that year onwards.
Now, the natural question would be - why did the Indian team win so little abroad between 1996 and 1999 despite the much improved batting order? Why didn't we start winning until Ganguly took over captaincy? I attribute that mainly to chance more than anything else. We should have won in England in 1996 when we were clearly the better side after the first test loss (Dravid and Ganguly did not play in the first test). We were up against a very strong SA side in 1996 (possibly the best eleven South Africa ever assembled since its return post apartheid) and yet we nearly managed to win the third test at Johannesburg. We were very unlucky with the umpiring decisions in Australia in 1999. The series was nowhere near as one-sided as the 3-0 scorecard suggests.
Now, let's examine Indian overseas results after Ganguly took over captaincy. 7 of the 15 wins overseas since 2000 have been against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. The Indian team of the mid/late nineties didn't get to play that many games against these teams. 2 more wins have been versus Pakistan, a country we didn't visit during the nineties. The series draw in Australia in 2003-04 was against an Australian team in transition, with McGrath and Warne injured. And we lost series in West Indies, Srilanka and South Africa with Ganguly at the helm.
So, it's quite clear that the "Great Man" theorists have got it wrong here. Yes, we are performing better overseas than we used to. But the seed of this improvement was planted in 1996 and not in 2000.
Moving away from cricket, we find "Great Man" theorists at work everywhere. Alan Greenspan is often hailed as the greatest of all central bankers on the basis of the remarkable performance of the American economy during the eighties and nineties. What's often overlooked is that Greenspan's period at the helm was also marked by the personal computer revolution and the internet which drastically improved the productivity of the American economy and helped rein in inflation. Funnily, Greenspan gets the credit for what was largely the handiwork of the impersonal force of technology.
Monday, April 02, 2007
Cricket's East-West Divide
A provocative take on Sunil Gavaskar's prejudices ;)
|
A provocative take on Sunil Gavaskar's prejudices ;)
how much do "coloured" cricket societies do to keep the stereotypes alive? It is easy to admonish Australian aggression as overdone, but name the cricket journalist in India who has not written long essays bemoaning India's lack of Aussie-style steel. As Indian coach, Greg Chappell has been asked by a dozen interviewers as to how he plans to inculcate "Australian aggro" into the Indian team. To be fair to him, he has not taken the question seriously.The fact that it is asked, however, does point to the obverse side of excessive sensitivity to racism - that it sometimes betrays an inferiority complex. That's another pitch, to be tackled another day.
Read the rest of it here
Labels: cricket
Monday, May 29, 2006
Brian Lara : Sydney :: Micheal Clarke :: --------??
Brian Lara named his daughter Sydney, after the ground where he scored his first test century, a memorable 277 against Aus at the SCG.
If Michael Clarke were to follow Lara's mode of nomenclature, his son would be christened..................Chinnaswamy
Hehe.
|
Brian Lara named his daughter Sydney, after the ground where he scored his first test century, a memorable 277 against Aus at the SCG.
If Michael Clarke were to follow Lara's mode of nomenclature, his son would be christened..................Chinnaswamy
Hehe.
Labels: cricket
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
An Update...
I was way too gullible in the previous post. Got carried away by the good Professor's number crunching. Micheal Higgins has demystified the statistical quirk since then.
Can somebody point out why it is much more likely for a batsman to have a round figure strike rate of 50 or 100 than 49.88 or 99.74?
Post your answers without reading Higgins' elementary explanation.
Read the article here to know what I'm talking about.
Current Mood - Embarassed.
|
I was way too gullible in the previous post. Got carried away by the good Professor's number crunching. Micheal Higgins has demystified the statistical quirk since then.
Can somebody point out why it is much more likely for a batsman to have a round figure strike rate of 50 or 100 than 49.88 or 99.74?
Post your answers without reading Higgins' elementary explanation.
Read the article here to know what I'm talking about.
Current Mood - Embarassed.
Labels: cricket, statistics
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
|
