Sons of the Sun (Pt 2)

Ever since the gladiatorial days of Ancient Rome, men have posed the eternal question: Who is the best; who is the greatest?

The idea of contest has always been at the very heart of sport. From the blood-soaked arena of Rome's Coliseum; to the sweat-drenched canvas of Madison Square Garden; to the teenaged tears on Wimbledon's Center Court; to the tension of that first morning of a Sabina Test, the contest has always been about 'mano y mano' in combat.

The image of the cricketer as gladiator, be he bowler or batsman, is implanted in the human imagination. Who can forget the sight of Marshall with his fractured hand, laying waste the English; or the fearsome assault of Greenidge, hobbling, grimacing in pain; or Walsh, the Tireless One, returning for yet one more spell?

It is the warrior spirit of these gladiator sportsmen that ignites their desire to be the best; it is this desire that fuels their unwillingness to yield; and it is the performance within this unwillingness that excites us, spectators. Like Maximus Decimus, the gladiator sportsman needs his audience. To win his battle, he must win the crowd. It is here we meet the divided world; it is here, the crowd faces its challenge as spectator and as judge.

To judge the obvious is easy. Rowe was a superior batsman to Gibbs; no problem there. Ambrose was a better bowler than Gomes; no problem there. But what of two warriors of near equal capabilities and output? It is the difficult comparison that becomes the important comparison. The real thrill lies in separating the best from the best. We consider the exercise neither futile nor boring.

In the heart of every man there lies preferences. Notwithstanding our collaboration, we too, had our individual preferences. We suppressed these preferences in favor of analytical reasoning and popular opinion (Popular opinion is oftentimes downright dangerous; perhaps, it is an ideological thing, perhaps, it could be a generational thing, but we discovered a lot of volatile folks out there).

The comparison between Richards and Lara is best conducted along two parallel lines - quantitative factors and qualitative terms. Some quantitative facts are well known; others are not. We extracted from the huge pool of statistical data the significant batting indices of the two men. The selected indices are by no means exhaustive. We are aware that the informed reader may wish to include additional indicators. However, we wish to point out that these indicators must pass the test of measurability.

The deepest and most profound truths lie beneath the surface of the odd and difficult questions. Creatively reassembling the pattern of data left behind often results in new and surprising insights. The achievement of John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton is instructive. Before them, physicists had convinced the world that the atom was indivisible.

Cockcroth and Walton's invention of the particle separator, used to split to the atom, was the result of methodical and painstaking application of data. Knowing what to measure and how to measure reduces the complicatedness and seeming futility of separating the ?unseparable?.

The separation of Richards as the best, from Lara as the best, is therefore an exercise in the innovative manipulation of data, be it quantitative or qualitative. Indeed, we discovered that beyond the boundary of all those runs scored (quantitative); that there lay a body of elements (qualitative) that conventional statistical presentations did not highlight. (We were tempted to call the discovery the 'swimsuit effect?, in that what the traditional statistics revealed was important, but what they concealed was vital!).

A final note on rationalization. Ultimately, everything is measurable, and although the standard methods of performance assessment employ traditional statistical indices such as: number of matches, number of innings, number of runs scored, average per innings, centuries and half centuries scored, these traditional indices are insufficient in settling arguments of comparison, prompting the need for new 'separators? such as: the Reliability Factor, the Home-Away Ratio, the Contributory Factor, the Domination Effect, the Run-Spread Factor and the Captaincy Effect.

We applied a weighting factor to the qualitative elements. The adoption of a value-weighted approach to qualitative factors is not novel. Scientific analyses have, in the past, examined such performance elements as the Halo Effect; the Peer Rating; and Personality Characteristics Distinctions. From the body of data available to us, we assembled additional blocks of qualitative constructs. These included: the Presence/Aura Effect, the Turnstile Factor, Style Comparison, Media Perception, Home Appeal, International Appeal, Pressure Handling Rating.

Arriving at our data terminus, we encountered some well-trodden fundamental facts:

Table 1- Standard Comparison

Richards Lara

Proceeding to less familiar territory we found ourselves confronted by our own constructs.

The Reliability Factor

Table 2(a) - Year-by-Year Performance

RICHARDS

LARA

Table 2(b) - Success-Failure Ratio

RICHARDS

LARA

Table 3 - The Convertibility Factor

RICHARDS

LARA

Table 4 - Batting Contribution to Team Result

RICHARDS

LARA

Table 5 - Series Domination Regularity

RICHARDS

LARA

Table 6 - The Adaptability Factor

RICHARDS

LARA

Table 7 - Run Spread Factor

RICHARDS

LARA

Table 8 - Away-Home Balance Ratio

RICHARDS

LARA

Table 9 - The Captaincy Effect

RICHARDS

LARA

Rationalization & Results

Table 2(a) - Reliability Factor - Year-by-Year Performance

We have used as our benchmark a minimum aggregate of 500 runs per year. Table 2(a) shows Lara achieving this standard 66% of the years he has played, whereas Richards achieves the minimum milestone 39% of the years he played. Further, Lara's performance troughs are not as deep as Richards?, suggesting a greater year-to-year reliability.

Table 2(b) - Reliability Factor - Success /Failure Ratio

Table 2(b) depicts the frequency of batting successes and failures. Elsewhere, we have shown the rate of successful innings conversions called the Convertibility Factor (Table 3). Table 2(b), however is intended to measure the frequency of batting failures on which the two batsmen are also being judged. In this respect, Richards? failure of (62.1%) is marginally less than Lara's (63.1%).

Table 3 - Convertibility Factor

Table 3 presents data that are used to determine the rate at which the two batsmen converted an innings into a score of 50 and over. This follows logically from the results of Table 2(b) that measured the rate of failure. The distinction however is not redundant, in that it is possible for one batsman to achieve a higher success aggregate by virtue of bigger scores. Lara's scores of 100 and over were larger and more consistent than Richards?, but Richards? intermediate scores of 50 to 99 were more frequent.

Table 4 - Batting Contribution to team

Table 4 highlights the relative contributions to the team's match and series results. The emphasis is on batting averages of course, in that aggregate runs is simply a reflection of total matches played, whether they be victories, draws or losses. While Richards would have played in nearly twice as many victorious matches and series than Lara, Lara averages more per innings than Richards in his matches and series with victorious results. By the same token Lara averages more per innings in match and series than Richards.

Table 5 - Series Domination Regularity

For the purposes of this comparison, a series is defined by the number of matches played by the two batsmen, e.g.: Richards in 1976 played *four out of the five tests in the tour to . Similarly, on 's 2005 tour to the , Lara played in *three of the four tests. The numbers indicate that Lara's domination of various series he has played, being heavier than Richards?.

Table 6 - Adaptability Factor

It would not be harmful to the comparison exercise if we were to select a cluster of those batting positions that the two batsmen occupied most often. These positions would naturally be 3, 4 and 5. Overall, Richards? performances in these positions demonstrate a somewhat higher degree of adaptability.

Table 7 - Run Spread Factor

The benchmark here is the attainment of a minimum career average of 50 against the opposing country. The numbers show Lara prevailing with a batting average of over 50 against six out of the nine test countries he has played against. Richards played against fewer countries- five- and achieved the minimum against two of those countries.

Table 8 - Away-Home Balance Ratio

Presents data on the away-home balance ratio. The away-home balance ratio is the percentage differential between the runs scored overseas (expressed as a percentage of overall career runs scored) and runs scored at home (also expressed as a percentage of overall career runs scored). A higher weighting is given to away performances. Richards, with a positive away differential of 28%, surpasses Lara's negative away differential (-) 12%.

Table 9 - The Captaincy Effect

The statistical level reveals a higher level of performance as captain by Lara: a higher percentage contribution to team; a higher batting average; and although he batted two innings less as captain than Richards, his batting aggregate is nearly a 1000 runs more.

Results

The foregone quantitative analysis places Lara ahead. In Part 3 we will examine, with judicious reference to James, the qualitative factors. Our findings with will be tempered by a sampling of popular opinion, before arriving at the final verdict.

(To be continued).