An interesting question posted by Shamus Robertson to the LinkedIn Cricket Coaches Worldwide group on LinkedIn – can we quantify the intangible contributions that do not normally not show up in the averages?
…if our top 6 all averaged 50+ would the hundreds matter?
Averages can only tell part of the story. Is a score of 350+ (6×50+, plus a few runs from the tail) going to be enough? Can you score the runs quickly enough to bowl the opposition out, twice?
More important than absolute numbers must be the context – runs scored to win (or save) a game are (should be) worth more than runs scored in a draw.
Supporting a team mate through a long innings, and backing up in the field – not recorded in the score-book, and rarely acknowledged in match reports. But these are the contributions that are missing from a less successful team.
Off-the-field contributions count for a lot, too, especially away from the professional game. Turning up on time makes a big difference on match day, and being available every week saves the skipper from wasting his week filling up the team sheet for Saturday.
We should be recognising the overall contribution of our players, and not just the runs scored and wickets taken (important as these are). But how to devise a contribution scale that combines the quantitative (averages, aggregates, results) with the qualitative? Does it even need an objective component? (more…)