Cricket’s tradition to celebrate style over value – Why consistent performers ought to be upset

Ken Barrington

Ever heard of Ken Barrington? Unless you are a fanatical statistician or a die-hard fan of English batting born in the 50s, you probably haven’t!

His Wikipedia entry describes him as someone who was well-known for ‘batting with bulldog determination and awesome concentration.’

Batting with bulldog determination, he did. He scored successive centuries in four consecutive Tests twice. He was one of those special players whose ‘away’ average was way higher than his ‘home’ average. A look at the table below confirms his contributions. Over 13 years, he scored priceless runs in hostile conditions of Australia, South Africa and the West Indies among others. Surprisingly, he got better as the level of cricket became more difficult. In first-class cricket, he averaged only 45.63 and yet like a true ‘Ashes’ hero, he averaged a whopping 63.96 against the Aussies.

The icing on the cake? An overall test average of 58.67, bettered only by Herbert Sutcliffe, Kumar Sangakkara and you know who.

Yes, he ‘out-averaged’ Gary Sobers too, his contemporary and someone whom every cricket fan has heard about. Sure Sobers was a multi-talented bowler, but it is not his bowling exploits that make him a household name.

		Matches	Runs	Average	100s	50s
Ken Barrington	Overall	82	6806	58.67	20	35
	Away	36	3459	69.18	14	14
Gary Sobers	Overall	93	8032	57.78	26	30
	Away	49	3957	50.73	12	18

But if anything, Barrington is remembered for ‘boring’ batting.

Cricket’s tradition of applauding eye-pleasing talent ‘more’ has a long history. It is impossible to pin-point the exact causes but probably the influence of commentary and newspaper reports in shaping public opinion, especially in the good old days before the live TV broadcasts, has something to do with it.

Even in the current media glare, a massive achievement in batsmanship went under the radar a few days back. Kumar Sangakkara scored the tenth (that’s right) double century of his Test career in the first Test against Pakistan. In doing so, he became only the second batsman ever to reach double figures for double centuries. The only person above him is, well, Sir Don Bradman.

Now the Lankans seem to know a thing or two about scoring double hundreds. Apart from Sangakkara, Mahela Jayawardene (5th on the list with 7 doubles) and Marvan Atapattu (6th, 6 doubles) make the all-time list of top ten batsmen with the most double centuries.

The achievement aside, Sangakkara packs a mean set of numbers. He has scored close to 12000 Test runs at an average of 58.94, the best in modern-day cricket. He has dominated the ICC Test batsman rankings; occupying the top position four times (2007, 2010, 2011, 2014). 48 times, he has played as a wicket-keeper. Not only did he take most of his 176 catches there but he also allowed his team the luxury to play an extra batsman or bowler to win matches.

A fine all-rounder then who has probably delivered more value for his team than even his more acclaimed next door neighbour, Sachin Tendulkar.

		Matches	Innings	Runs	Average	100s	50s
Kumar Sangakkara	Overall	128	221	11988	58.76	37	51
Sachin Tendulkar	Overall	200	329	15921	53.78	51	68

But the lucrative contracts do not rain on him, the media do not stick ‘best ever’ labels on him and fans rarely discuss his ‘greatness’. Would he not be a bigger ‘legend’ had he been born in the country a few hundred miles north of Sri Lanka? If I were a gambler, I did put good money on it!

All-rounders perennially seem to suffer from under-valuation. Take Jacques Kallis for instance. The greatest all-rounder of this era has put up mouth-watering numbers over a career spanning 166 Tests and 17 years.

To put his record into context, consider this: He has scored runs at a higher average in similar number of Tests than Rahul Dravid and he has taken similar number of wickets by bowling approximately the similar number of overs as Zaheer Khan! So effectively for South Africa, he has been an equivalent of Dravid, arguably the best Indian test batsman ever (a topic for another day!) and Zaheer, one of the top three fast bowlers India has ever produced. Imagine having a player in your ranks who delivers their combined value.

Batting		Matches	Innings	Runs	Average	100s	50s
Jacques Kallis	Overall	166	280	13289	55.37	45	58
Rahul Dravid	Overall	164	286	13288	52.31	36	63

Bowling		Matches	Overs	Wickets	Average	Strike Rate	10 wickets in a match	5 wickets in an innings
Jacques Kallis	Overall	166	3372	292	32.65	69.2	0	5
Zaheer Khan	Overall	92	3130.5	311	32.94	60.4	1	11

With these numbers, he should be a shoe-in for any All-Time World XI right? Well, not quite. The all-rounder spot frequently goes to someone from the golden quartet of Imran Khan, Sit Ian Botham, Sir Richard Hadlee or Kapil Dev. The permanence of Sobers in all these World XIs ensures there is no place for Kallis.

Jacques Kallis

Make no mistake, he is a recognized master of the game but even in his country but AB de Villiers, Graeme Smith and Allan Donald have enjoyed greater stardom and popularity. He certainly has not reaped the true worth of his numbers. The legend retired from ODI cricket this August (he had retired from Tests earlier) with zero fanfare.

The point is the value and worth of a stodgy Shivnarine Chanderpaul in the team is almost as much as (if not more in certain situations) that of a stylish Brian Lara. In Test matches won or drawn by West Indies, Chanderpaul has a marginally higher average than his more renowned compatriot.

It is time that fans woke up. In recent years, the situation has probably worsened as ‘marketability’ of the player entered the picture.

Endorsement contracts tend to follow the players whom the fans aspire to be like. Television viewing, by its very nature, puts great premium on what ‘looks’ good. You are more likely to want to bat like Lara rather than Chanderpaul. Hence, you are more likely to buy a bat (or chewing gum) that Lara asks you to buy rather than the one Chanderpaul endorses. That is advertising for you; it will look to reward the ‘stars’. Not much is wrong with that.

But the media (read commentators, journalists, former sportsmen) assume greater responsibility. The onus is on them as they are the ones who create these ‘stars’.

The tradition to talk and hype up style and elegance needs to change. Because, the tentative nudge which gets a boundary is just as valuable as an elegant cover drive. While flamboyance and finesse have their place in the game, cricket matches are won by runs scored from the bat and wickets taken with the ball. All else is pure wind!