Penalising a genius statistically

From Yogesh, India
Does anyone remember India's highest score abroad in a single day in recent memory or perhaps all-time? It was not when Sehwag pasted Pakistan at Multan or Aussies at MCG. It was when he made his debut at Bloemfontein.

India were 68 for 4 halfway through 20 overs into the first day of the first Test. Yet, India ended on 372/7 and still lost. The man who statistically bears the brunt of all this - Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar. The complaint - His centuries have not won enough matches for India. In the same match, there were only two centuries from South Africa (107 and 108) - the same as India (155 and 105). But South Africa still won by nine wickets. This says more about the team than the century makers.

If not for Sachin and Sehwag, India would have struggled to pass triple figures. Thanks to Cricinfo, you can check every one of the nine centuries scored by Tendulkar when India have lost. Perth, 1992. Edgbaston, 1996. Cape Town, 1997. Wellington, 1998. Bangalore, 1998. Chennai, 1999. MCG, 1999. Bloemfontein, 2001. Sydney, 2008.

To many, the very mention of these matches would evoke memories of some splendid innings by Tendulkar. See the scorecards, see the fall of wickets and you would struggle to chose the best among these centuries. In case you were fortunate enough to have watched these matches, most would make it to your list of Tendulkar's best. See the scorecards again, see the number of centuries in the 'India' column and the same in the opponent's column. Not much of a difference. Check the result. It was a convincing defeat. And now see the scorecards again. Erase the name Tendulkar and many of them would make for India's own version of the Sabina Park collapse.

India lost these matches mainly because the rest of the batsmen hardly made any runs or the bowlers were too profligate. And yet the only thing the only Indian to have lent dignity to these matches is reminded of is that they were not matchwinning centuries, simply because the other batsmen failed and India lost. What was Tendulkar's fault? He made runs when others did not. If so, then that was the bigger fault of his closest competitor in this era - Brian Charles Lara.

Only 31% of Sachin's 50-plus scores have come in winning causes. Perhaps if his team-mates had matched him in half these matches, the figure would have risen to 35%. And then he would have become the greatest Indian Test player. And oh, I forgot Tendulkar would have had six to seven Man-of-the-Match awards in victories and maybe a better average too. Apparently, these are important "logical" criteria for being a great player. Thus claim the authors of the Holding Willey report.

The authors are not the first and neither will they be the last to use this really bad statistic to quantify match-winning ability and believe they have presented a logical argument. I have heard such arguments being wrongly levelled against Tendulkar many times and every time I have seethed in anger. This time I decided to let it go against all those who throw a few convenient statistics and question his match-winning ability. Fact is, ability is not quantifiable. And I hope at least some of you concur with me.

If you think, this is just a ranting of a Tendulkar fanatic, let me dissect some of the other criteria the report talks about and lay them bare for all to see. Each of the criterion is actually more indicative of the team's ability to support their champions than the individual itself. Percentage of 50-plus scores in victories: Lara - 29%, Ponting - 70%, Hayden - 63%, S. Waugh - 60%, Richards - 50%, Gavaskar - 16%, Sehwag - 39%, Dravid - 37%.

Man-of-the-Match awards in victory : Lara - 4, Hayden - 8, Ponting - 10, S. Waugh - 13, Richards - 4, Gavaskar - 4, Sehwag - 4, Dravid - 5, (Richards and Gavaskar's Man-of-the-Match awards aren't accurate as they played in an earlier era.)

Average in matches won : Lara - 61, Hayden - 55, Ponting - 62, S. Waugh - 69, Richards - 52, Gavaskar - 44, Sehwag - 52, Dravid - 66.

Averages (Overall, Home, Away): Lara - 53, 59,48. Hayden - 50, 58, 42. Ponting - 54, 60, 50. Waugh - 51, 55, 47. Richards - 50, 50, 50. Gavaskar - 51, 50, 52. Sehwag - 51, 51, 51. Dravid - 52, 48, 56.

From these statistics, the ranking would read thus: Steve Waugh, Ponting, Dravid, Sehwag, Gavaskar, Richards, Lara and Hayden, barring one or two minor changes. Guess what, according to these numbers, Lara is way below Waugh, Ponting and Dravid. And how many of you agree with this?

In general most of the Australian greats would have pretty decent numbers when you compare any statistic related to matches won. The reason being that the team has rallied brilliantly behind them and helped them win matches. In effect, this statistic tells us more about a team's performance than about the player himself.

The final word shall not be mine but of Nirmal Shekhar's from Sportstar who had this to say when Wisden didn't deem it fit to include any knock of Sachin's in their list of 100 best innings in 2002: "Surely, you cannot penalise a genius for the mediocrity around him." And that's precisely what the statistics in the likes of the Holding Willey report do.