Wilde S: Statisticians take issue with Wisden (01 Apr 95)

Statisticians take issue with Wisden - Simon Wilde

Simon Wilde discovers that earlier editions of ` cricket`s bible` may not be completely reliable

It is not only the citizens of the Chinese and former Soviet republics who are finding that the past did not always happen as it is written in the history books. So, too, are devotees of cricket`s bible, Wisden Cricketers` Almanack, the most famous work of sporting reference in the world, who will be surprised to learn that 70 per cent of the scorecards found between its famous yellow covers in editions before 1970 are wrong.

The errors came to light as members of the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians, involved in the mammoth task of entering the scorecards of all first-class matches played in Britain since 1946 onto computer, compared details from the official scorebooks with those given in Wisden. They found discrepancies in most cases, from variations in batsmen`s scores to bowling analyses, from scores at the fall of wickets to the number of wides and no-balls.

``The early indications from several county scorebooks are that the pre-1970 Wisdens contained mistakes in at least 70 per cent of their scorecards,`` Peter Wynne-Thomas, the association`s honorary secretary, said. The association has already published scores of all first-class matches played up to 1900, a process that highlighted hundreds of numerical errors in Wisden.

Graeme Wright, a former editor of the almanack, the 132nd edition of which is published next Thursday, says that before he joined Wisden in 1978 it appeared to have been standard practice to

``The scores came in for each county from local reporters who had simply filled in the blank scorecards sold on the ground,`` he said. ``These scorecards were not checked in Wisden`s offices and errors usually only came to light when the printers noticed that they did not tally.`` Indeed, it is said of Norman Preston, who edited Wisden from 1952 until his death in 1980, that when a schoolboy once wrote to him pointing out an error in the Derbyshire averages, he simply threw the letter in the bin.

Wisden has for years maintained its reputation for accuracy by publishing an imressively small list of errata from previous editions. Now it would be impossible for it to catalogue all the errors the researchers are finding. One outcome, though, will be that the career records of many past players will need overhauling.

In recent years meticulous care has gone into the checking of all the information that appears in what is popularly known as the send them to the counties for checking against the official scorebooks. These are then double-checked by Wisden`s staff. ``I believe that we come closer each year to getting our scores and data 100 per cent accurate,`` Wright, who is now a member of Wisden`s management committee, said.

``The fact is that a complete set of Wisdens forms the only continuous record of the game we`ve got. It may not be perfect but it is the best thing there is. In any case, many of our readers do not buy the almanack simply for the statistics.``

Matthew Engel, editor of the almanack since 1993, yesterday defended Wisden`s integrity. ``The historical discrepancy between Wisden and the official scores was the discrepancy between the local reporters` version and the official scores. The local reporters often worked for the Press Association and the PA`s scores were regarded as semi-official.``

Engel feels that the figure of 70 per cent is misleading and over-dramatises the situation. ``A scorecard has been deemed inaccurate even though all that might be wrong is one bye being given as a leg-bye,`` he said. ``The science of cricket statistics was not always at the level of sophistication it is now. It was simply not that important.``

Source :: The Times