CRICKET: Jon Swift
WE ARE two days into the scheduled five of the pivotal Test in the series against England. All the frustration of the rained-out opening confrontation at Centurion Park, matched only by the vexation of the South African bowlers, thwarted by Mike Atherton and Jack Russell in the interminably long fifth day at the Wanderers are behind us.
South African coach Bob Woolmer put it succinctly. “It’s history. It’s gone. It’s finished,” was the way he put it. Not quite so. History has an uncomfortable way of rearing up and biting even the most phlegmatic painfully in the rump. In this respect, Eddie Barlow, that most pugnacious of opening batsmen and change bowlers, holds a respect which verges on reverence for what has gone before.
Averages, avers Barlow, are the only true indicator of a cricketer’s intrinsic worth.
It is a good point, but a highly debatable one, made even more so by a simple comparison of the career Test figures of the England tourists against those achieved on tour before they stepped onto the turf at Kingsmead.
The comparison gives some weight to the Barlow theory on one hand and on the other knocks rather large holes in the hypothesis.
For the object of this exercise, the figures employed are those of the England players in Test matches leading up to the start of the tour of this country and are contrasted with the overall performance of the players up to the Durban Test. Logic would tell you that in most cases, this would weigh the figures in favour of the tourists as all games have been
This though is patently not the case and, while comparisons may very well be odious, the use of Barlow’s theory makes these individual averages worth listing.
It is interesting that some of the players England manager Ray Illingworth has kept faith with have performed below their numerical expectations in this country. There are some notable exceptions, Jack Russell being the prime example with a tour batting average of 94,20, and while there can be no mistaking the contribution the Gloucester wicketkeeper has made with the bat, it would be unfair — using only the averages as a guide — to compare him in stature as a batsman to either his captain Mike Atherton or Alec Stewart.
The number of tests played up to the start of the tour appear in brackets after the individual’s name. The number of Test and tour wickets appear before the current bowling
Batsmen Career………Tour
Mike Atherton (51) 40,12 59,86
Alec Stewart (51) 39,12 59,33
Mark Ramprakash (17) 17,93 22,88
John Crawley (9) 22,00 67,20
Graham Thorpe (21) 43,63 43,00
Robin Smith (56) 44,24 23,83
Graeme Hick (37) 37,08 34,89
Jack Russell (39) 28,51 94,20
Bowlers Career Tour
Dominic Cork (5) 26/25,42 19/16,00
Devon Malcolm (34) 116/36,60 9/42,44
Angus Fraser (29) 115/28,89 7/42,43
Darren Gough (10) 43/28,99 9/31,44
Mark Ilott (3) 8/51,50 12/17,33
Richard Illingworth (6) 10/39,70 12/22,67
Peter Martin (3) 5/47,60 4/39,00
>From these somewhat arbitrary —and one might argue even unfair —comparisons a number of issues emerge. Among the batsmen, Atherton, Stewart and Thorpe have all played to their historic potential, even if some of the bowling they have faced has been of less than Test standard.
In contrast, Smith and Hick —despite a fine 141 in the first Test —have under-achieved. This is also very much the case with Ramprakash, who, while his tour average outstrips his statistical Test career, has looked nothing like the batsman who was capable of scoring three double centuries for
Russell’s staggering figures as well as those Crawley has posted on tour tell a completely different story.
Among the bowlers, Cork, Ilott, Illingworth and Martin stand out as bowlers who have done their job. Cork has looked far and away the best of the England attack and the Derbyshire man has consistently troubled the batters in this country as one would expect with the experience of an England A tour here two seasons ago.
The under-performers, according to the figures, are Malcolm, Fraser and Gough, all of whom have had their problems with injuries, loss of rhythm or South African wickets.
While all of this probably only goes to prove that figures can be made to show anything the analyst requires of them, it is as Barlow points out a good indicator of just which members of the touring party the South Africans should pay most attention to.
But as is invariably the way with statistics, all this could just be nonsense at the end of the current confrontation on the fringe of the Indian Ocean.
One would suspect though that the statistics will hold good … just the way Barlow contends they always should.
l We are indebted to Andrew Samson and the United Cricket Board of South Africa for providing the tour averages.