It’s not even the silly season but sport’s pre-occupation with the production of lists, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing, has produced a couple of pearlers over the last month
Lynn McConnell16-Aug-2001It’s not even the silly season but sport’s pre-occupation with the production of lists, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing, has produced a couple of pearlers over the last month.The Sir Donald Bradman Memorial XI announced as part of the latest book on the recently-deceased legend of cricket has taken pride of place. It was only one man’s opinion, but what a man. It is no wonder he didn’t want it named until after his death.Suffice to say that it was an interesting selection.More intriguing has been the release of the Wisden 100 lists for batting and bowling.Wisden, the name, carries an inordinate amount of weight on these matters. It is an institution in the game.But it has left itself wide open to criticism for the manner of its choices in this exercise. Every country in the world will take exception to some of the selections.New Zealand is but one example of this. Each country will no doubt have several efforts not listed that meant more to people in those countries than can be represented by bald statistics. That is why cricket holds its local appeal.By making its choice as long as 100 in both sections, it is also leaving itself open to more criticism.Before getting down to specifics it is worth noting that the 12 factors Wisden has used in making its assessment are: Batting base points, pitch index, bowling quality, percentage of score, point of entry, after point of entry, wickets falling during innings, support, shepherding the tail, highest score, match status, result contribution.Then for bowling the eight factors considered vital are: Bowling base points, pitch index, batting quality, dismissed batsman quality, bowling accuracy, most wickets, match status, result contribution.All worthy aspects of any list.However, many of the factors are capable of differences in assessment, after all what is one umpire’s leg before wicket decision is not always that of another. What is one man’s assessment of the quality of a side is not automatically that of another.And therein lies the risk in compiling such lists.Everyone sees things differently. Memorable shots or deliveries are remembered by people in different ways.There is also the prospect when dealing with nations whose teams have fluttered around the middle to lower order of cricketing ranks that assessment is based on figures alone without regard for the facts and emotions of battle.One of the great appeals of cricket is that victory is not always the vehicle of achievement. Numerous are the examples of an honourable draw being achieved by outstanding effort.The emphasis on results being achieved rather than draws, points are awarded in favour of result matches on the ratio of 10:3, is flawed.From a New Zealand perspective it is interesting that the only batsman from this country to be included in the top 100 innings is Bryan Young for his 267 against Sri Lanka at Carisbrook. It was a memorable innings, but the best by a New Zealander?Not on your life.New Zealand’s bowlers are better represented by Richard Hadlee (5th), Simon Doull (64th), John Bracewell (89th) and Chris Cairns (91st).An immediate point of contention concerns the difference between Hadlee’s 9-52 against Australia at Brisbane in 1985, a match won by an innings and 41 runs and the batting in the match.If Hadlee’s nine wickets are worthy of fifth place on the order, why is Martin Crowe’s 188 in New Zealand’s innings not a feature of the batting list?The fact that Crowe’s 299 or Andrew Jones’ 186 during their world record stand of 467 against Sri Lanka at the Basin Reserve in 1991 is not included is a reflection of the emphasis on winning results rather than match-saving innings in drawn circumstances.Similarly, why no place for one of the great defensive innings of all-time played by Mark Greatbatch at Perth in 1989 when he scored 146 not out to deny Australia victory? His working with the lower order on that occasion was a textbook demonstration of the craft. It came after a lengthy performance in the first innings of the game.What also of Bevan Congdon’s 176 in New Zealand’s fourth innings total of 440 in its quest for 479 to beat England at Trent Bridge in 1973?Again, what of Glenn Turner’s century in each innings on the occasion of New Zealand’s first Test victory over Australia at Lancaster Park in 1974?It is this overlooking of lesser-ranked nations’ achievements by outside-based assessors that upsets the rationale of these sorts of lists.For sheer drama and guts, the effort of Bert Sutcliffe at Ellis Park, Johannesburg on Boxing Day in 1954 might, again, have helped ensure a draw, but what an innings, what a draw.What of wicket-keeper Ian Smith’s brilliant dismemberment of a rampant Indian attack at Eden Park in 1990 when his 173 off 136 balls faced helped New Zealand recover from 131/7 to reach 391? Sure the Test was drawn, but what an innings!Then there is Nathan Astle’s 102 not out during his memorable 106-run unbeaten last wicket stand with Danny Morrison at Eden Park in 1997 to deny England victory.Emotion still has a role to play in assessment, both for the player concerned and for the spectator or interested fan. There is no room for this quality in the guidelines listed.Similar complaints could be made of the bowling assessments.What of a 21-year-old left-arm spinner in Daniel Vettori taking 12-149, including his 100th Test wicket, against the undoubted world champions in a losing match?And what of Bruce Taylor’s 7-74 against the strong West Indian batting line-up at Bridgetown in 1972 in another drawn match?Hadlee’s six wicket bag in New Zealand’s first victory over, admittedly, a weakened England team in 1978 would still mean far more to many local people than, with all due respect, some of the other New Zealand performances listed.What is one man’s drama is definitely not that for another.The manner of Wisden Cricketers’ Almanack choice of the players of the century, when involving an electoral panel drawn from around the world, seems a far more appropriate format.If, as seems likely, it is the Wisden intention to develop a rating formula before every Test match played, it should seriously reconsider aspects of its analysis.