Stumbling and Mumbling

Freddie in context

As a dog to his vomit, I return to the theme that this Ashes series hasn’t been very good. Take these figures on Freddie Flintoff’s averages in this series:

Batting: 40.25. Bowling: 30.36.

Compare them to the career record of Tony Greig:

Batting: 40.43. Bowling: 32.20.

Pretty much identical. Sure, Freddie’s had the better strike rate (a wicket every 50.5 balls against Greig’s 69.4), but at a worse economy rate; 3.6 against 2.77. But these probably reflect changes in the game generally rather than differences in the men’s skills.

And Greig was, remember, an even better slip fielder, taking 87 catches in his 58 matches.

So, the two records are, give or take, the same. England’s glory, superstar, Freeman of Preston has achieved in this series what Tony “humiliated by the Windies” Greig achieved over a whole career. And no-one’s accusing Freddie of under-performing this summer.

I’m not denigrating Freddie at all here. Merely pointing out that there might just be a teeny element of hype around.

A caveat: one member of the England team who’s risen in my esteem is Michael Vaughan. The Sunday Times reports that he’s got two cats.

This corroborates (or at least doesn’t disconfirm) one of my priors. Most of the great men in history have loved cats: Churchill, Newton (inventor of the cat-flap), Dickens, Abe Lincoln, P,G.Wodehouse. By contrast, many of the villains have hated cats, or preferred dogs: Hitler, Napoleon, Mussolini, Stalin.

I refuse to believe this is a coincidence.

Sunny Delight cricket

Want a contrarian view? Here’s one – this Ashes series hasn’t been very good, has it?

Sure, it’s been exciting. But it’s been exciting in the way that some premiership football games are – because (or despite) of a lack of quality.

I’m thinking of three things.

1. The batting. It’s been hit out or get stuff. There are two measures of this. First, as Tim de Lisle pointed out, there were only 18 individual innings in the first three tests that lasted two hours or more; there were nine more in the fourth. That makes 27 innings out of 152 completed ones.

Second, of the 25 innings of 50 or more, there have only been three centuries. That’s a conversion rate of less than one in seven. By contrast, the highest-scoring batsmen in history on average converted more than one in three 50s into 100s.

These two statistics suggest batsmen have lacked the application to stick in. Even the captains have been guilty of this. Vaughan’s dismissal by Ponting in the last test and by Katich after his 166 in the third, and Ponting’s run-out in the last, were not the dismissals of proper test cricketers.

This record is especially bad considering that the wickets have been good for batting, and considering that…

2. The catching has been atrocious by both sides. Can you remember a series in which more catches were dropped? Or in which – Andrew Strauss’s effort in the last test being a rare exception – there have been fewer great ones taken? The best slip cordon has been in the commentary box – Atherton, Slater and the great Greig – not on the field.

And don’t get me started on Kevin “couldn’t catch a bus at the clock tower” Pieterson, whose fielding is as bad as some of his other efforts (thank you Peter).

3. Wicket-keeping. Sure, Jones took a fantastic catch off Warne in the third test. But otherwise he’s looked like the Ancient Mariner – he stoppeth one in three. His keeping off Ashley Giles has been especially bad; for a long time I wondered if he knew it was possible to get a batsman stumped out. Gilchrist has been better – but not overly much.

There’s a common theme in these failings –a lack of concentration. This has been cricket for the sunny delight generation.

Another thing. You might think this is a Jim Swanton moment. After a boring morning in one test in the 60s, his TV commentary went: “the average spectator might have found it uninteresting, but to the connoisseur it was a fascinating session.” It’s not. I might be an old git. But I’m an old git from Leicester. “Steve Harmison? Couldn’t bowl a hoop down hill. Now Les Taylor, there was a bowler…”

is talent over-rated?

As everyone knows, cricket gives us an insight into the human condition. A comparison of the English and Australian teams raises the question: do the English over-estimate the importance of natural talent?
Look at England's batting line-up: Trescothick, Bell, Pieterson, Flintoff. Naturally talented players. But where's the cussed little sod with limited natural ability but great hard work - the Boycott, Hussain, Atherton?
He's in the Australian team - Langer and Katich, to name but two.
Indeed, one distinctive but under-rated feature of the Aussies is just how hard they've worked at their games. Glenn McGrath's greatness as a bowler is due largely to his amazing accuaracy - which comes with countless hours of practice. Ditto Shane Warne. And just look at the batting records of McGrath and Gillespie. Neither has any natural talent, but both have improved over time with hard work. Show me a current England player of whom one can say the same.
At rick of sounding like Freddie "I just do not understand" Trueman, English cricket seems to under-rate hard work. One effect of central contracts is that players spend little time honing their skills at county level. As a result, several (for example James Anderson?) have not made as much progress as they might have.
My point here is not confined to cricket. Could it be that many of us generally over-rate the importance of talent relative to practice, or to proper structures to harness ability. Consider three factoids:
1. In football, three of the most apparently gifted players in England in recent years - Zola, Cantona, Bergkamp - were all notorious for their dedication to training.
2.  My guitar teacher  likes to quote Segovia (who himself quoted someone else): "genius is 1 per cent inspiration and 99 per cent perspiration."
3. This paper argues that natural talent is over-rated:

Differences in early experiences, preferences. opportunities, habits, training and practice are the real determinants of excellence...No case has been encountered of anyone reaching the highest levels of achievement in chess-playing, mathematics, music or sports without devoting thousands of hours to serious training.

The bias to over-rating talent relative to practice is not just damaging to English cricket. Less importantly, it's damaging the economy too. Malcolm Gladwell has argued that companies look too hard for talented bosses, who in fact can do real harm: The key quote: "They believe in stars, because they don't believe in systems."
More seriously, could it be that vast amounts of human potential is wasted, because teachers and parents think "natural talent" matters more than it really does?

Pub quiz answer

Today is the 99th anniversary of the birth of the only first-class cricketer ever to win a Nobel prize. Sam Beckett played two games for Dublin University against Northamptonshire in 1925 and 1926. A left-arm seamer, he took none for 64 in the two games, and scored 35 runs at an average of 8.75.
Apparently, he went on to write some stuff.

 

Anorak's corner

Michael Vaughan is a useless tosser – literally. He’s won just 6 tosses in the 22 tests he’s been captain.

This is very improbable. I reckon (though I might be wrong - this isn't my strong suit) that the chances of being this unlucky are just 2.6 per cent; it’s a binominal distribution.

Weirder still is that this continues a long losing streak by England captains. Hussain, Atherton and Stewart all lost the majority of their tosses; complete statistics in all their glory are here. Since 1993 England’s test captains have won only 54 of 138 tosses. There’s only a 0.7 per cent chance of being that unlucky.

By contrast, England’s more upper-class captains often won the toss. Taken together, Peter May, Colin Cowdrey and Ted Dexter won 57 of 98 tosses, with May and Cowdrey being especially successful.

If we are applying conventional tests of statistical significance, this means we cannot reject the hypothesis that the coins now used in England test matches are bent. Nor can we reject the hypothesis that it’s better for English cricket for teams to be captained by Establishment figures.

Maybe this just goes to show how silly tests of statistical significance are, as Deirdre McCloskey points out.

You’re right – I don’t have a girlfriend.