Time to crunch more numbers

To paraphrase Pete Townshend, meet the new prejudices - same as the old prejudices. As expected, the ICC World Twenty20 has succeeded in polarising aficionados in much the same way as the advent of the limited-overs format did in 1963 and, when the international version emerged, in 1971.

To say it is strictly a generational thing would be far too simplistic, as the support of the likes of Ian Chappell and Scyld Berry confirms: the debate has pitted those realistic enough to be concerned for the game’s future against those who would rather it had never stooped to alleged bastardisation in the first place.

The most intriguing aspect of events in South Africa has been the adoption of new measurements of effectiveness. For the best part of a century, statisticians had it easy: averages were all they thought fit to consider. This bred a laziness that their baseball counterparts – ever mindful of the need for fresh definitions of quality and effectiveness – have always fought against.

Not before time, the introduction of the abbreviated, faster format gave the Bearded Wonder and his pals more work to do. Over the past decade or so, happily, new ground has been tilled and ploughed. Economy and strike rates have emerged as crucial arbiters, indicative of a changing landscape, not to mention one-on-one details, such as how Sachin Tendulkar, say, has fared against Shane Warne. All of which has rendered conventional averages – which are anti-contextual, taking no account of the quality of the opposition or the state of the match – less insightful or relevant.

Now, thanks primarily to the broadcasters’ thirst for the telling stat, we have a whole new ball game: longest six, most dot-balls, even speed off the bat.

The last of these has been the most revealing. Hoary old cliché has it that the faster the delivery, the faster it leaves the bat. Bugger that. Even when Matthew Hayden was blitzing and bullying the Indian bowlers on Saturday the pace at which the ball was leaving that beefy blade never exceeded 130kph. Sreesanth and RP Singh, though, were consistently bowling at 140kph-plus.

What has been neglected, however, has been a statistic that continues, inexplicably, to be ignored, namely bat speed. Granted, the logistics may well be too tricky for those cameras to measure, although it is hard to see why. The importance of such figures cannot be underestimated. After all, a batsman’s ability to respond to length, line and deviation is intrinsic, surely, to his success – or otherwise.

The ability to play late, to choose one’s shot at the last possible instant, has long been acknowledged as a barometer of batsmanship. The genius of Brian Lara was not so much his repertoire of strokes, command of angles and delicacy of touch, but that he could adjust his stroke according to the ball’s behaviour through the air or off the pitch.

Is it asking too much for the broadcasters and number-crunchers to join forces and find a way of assessing this? Come on, chaps, get your fingers out.