The aesthetic v the numbers

One of my favourite debates in cricket centres on this age old discussion of value, does being attractive make a good player or numbers make a good player?

Strictly speaking this divides the stats gurus and the romantics who love a graceful innings and also splits players in terms of opinion.

Is Steve Waugh better than his brother simply because his average was higher? Does Viv stand head and shoulders above Lara because of his reputation? Was Gower the pinnacle of batsmanship over Geoff Boycott?

We’ll compare the first two as an example. Steve and Mark were mainstays of the Australian batting order through the 90’s, generally batting at 5 and 4 respectively. Steve finished his test career with 10,927 runs at 51.06, truly great numbers.

Mark, however, finished with 8,029 runs at 41.81. Most observers would agree that these numbers do not reflect greatness. However, those who ever saw the pair bat would not hesitate to call Mark the superior batsman; such was his style and technique.

This gave rise to the popular theory that you’d get Mark to bat for your enjoyment but Steve to bat for your life. And it is a much repeated case even today. Michael Clarke is one of the most stylish stroke makers in the current Australian side, but most people would pick Michael Hussey in their test side, for his immense numbers.

There is no substitute for substance. Bradman by all accounts was one of the most mechanical and uninteresting batsmen to ever play test cricket. Didn’t stop him from averaging 99.94 with 29 centuries in 80 innings.

By comparison again, Alan Kippax was immensely stylish and polished as a batsman. Despite his terrific first class record, his test average was a mere 36.12, with only two centuries for his country.

The argument can remain that people would rather watch a Mark than a Steve, but in the end, if you want to win a match, it’s the numbers that count.