On The Nature Of All Rounders

All rounders are crickets most valuable players. Arguments over them rage longer than plain batsmen and bowlers.

One of the reasons is that all rounders are hard to pidgeon-hole into buckets. After all, every cricketer is an all rounder to some extent. Everyone can bat and bowl, that's how we learn cricket growing up. We've all played in school cricket teams where half the team bats in the top order and bowls all the overs while the other half can't bat or bowl at all.

Another reason is that all rounders are so vital to team composition. Generalising across formats, a team usually needs at least five guys who can bowl, one guy to keep wicket, and as many guys as possible who can bat. How you optimise team composition given those constraints and the varying skills of the players available is a key problem facing coaches and captains.

I've had this post parked in draft for years, not quite able to put my thoughts into words without sounding like a rambling reddit fanboi as I categorised the different types of all rounders and then speculated on the nature of team composition.

Luckily Jarrod Kimber has laid this all out way better than I could. Enjoy:

On Statistics And This Blog

As I type the rain is falling in Cape Town and there's only one team that can win the deciding Test from here. Clarke and his top order have picked the right game to get their act together. I don't expect many more interruptions of play, so a result is entirely possible. We'll need to see what the next nine sessions bring, but a post on whatever those events are will have to wait a little longer.

While we all wait for the start of play at Newlands (10am tomorrow folks), it's time to deploy one of my designated backup pieces: the place of statistics in this project of mine.

Along with a love of cricket I'm equally unashamed to admit a love for statistics. It was my second major at university. While that isn't much of a claim to fame, it is enough to know my correlation from my causation.

Statistics and cricket are usually thick as thieves. The nature of the game leaves much (but not enough) that can be quantified and lots of time (in hindsight) to analyse the data. It's almost an unwritten convention that no cricketing opinion should offered but that it is backed up by some or other statistical snippet.

Despite all this, you will not find many numbers quoted or stats expounded here. This might seem a strange choice and so here, for the record, are my reasons:

Time. Did I mention that I don't have much free time? Compiling accurate and enlightening stats to back up my points takes time - time that I don't have. Where I feel it matters I will usually fact check my statements. Please to go over to Statsguru and check up on me.

Redundancy. The truth is that there's nothing much that I can add to the field. Well, there may be - I have some interesting ideas for cricket stats that I'd like to see - but not without a significant investment of my time. The pages of cricket writing both online and offline already include greater volumes of commentary on and creation of cricket statistics than, frankly, is sensible or decent. I especially direct those looking for a fix of cricket statistics to the excellent writings of Kartikeya Date and Anantha Narayanan.

Lies. And damn lies, and statistics. I may not be the sharpest tool in the statistical shed, but I know enough to understand how the numbers can be shaped to support the most subjective arguments. I would rather not be part of that.

Subjectivity. Because at the end of the day these are opinion pieces. I don't want it to feel like this is a lecture hall where assertions are carefully laid out on a chalk board, explained and proven. No sir, coming here should feel like getting trapped with me against the bar of a busy pub and having to listen while I bend your ear over a couple of pints about the game that we both love.