Equalizers in cricket
Bad weather has just denied England victory in the Lords test today. This is a good example of the way that random factors - such as rain and light - act in cricket (especially test match cricket, over five days) to equalize teams, and create a falsely narrow gap between their performances.
Cricket has many such equalizers which give unpredictable advantage.
The first is the toss, which can give the weaker side significant assistance (of course the toss is equally likely to help the stronger side, but that would only increase the margin of a result, not the direction).
The pitch is another equalizer, since its condition changes somewhat unpredictably throughout the course of a match.
Injuries during a match also tend to equalize for the same reason as the toss - injuries to the better side may enable the worse side to win against the odds.
Poor quality pitches are well-known equalizers, since low scoring matches are intrinsically closer, leaving a bigger role for chance to operate.
Some other restrictive practices are also anti-competitive - such as the old limitations on players moving between first class county teams, which kept good players in poor clubs, and prevented the best clubs building up superstar squads by transfers.
The condition of the ball is another somewhat random factor, since all cricket balls differ slightly and each one ages and wears in a distinctive manner.
If it was desired that cricket become a 'fairer' game it would be relatively easy to reduce the effect of some of these random factors. For example, artificial cricket pitches could be used to minimize change in conditions throughout the match; and balls could be changed as soon as they show any signs of wear (as happens in baseball - where dozens of balls are used in a game).
The fact that these things are not done seems to indicate a preference for more competitive and entertaining games, even when the competitiveness is artificially constructed.
All games are a mixture of skill and luck - but the element of luck is contrived to be higher than it needs to be; suggesting that skill in sports is neither valued nor rewarded as much as might superficially be expected.
Cricket has many such equalizers which give unpredictable advantage.
The first is the toss, which can give the weaker side significant assistance (of course the toss is equally likely to help the stronger side, but that would only increase the margin of a result, not the direction).
The pitch is another equalizer, since its condition changes somewhat unpredictably throughout the course of a match.
Injuries during a match also tend to equalize for the same reason as the toss - injuries to the better side may enable the worse side to win against the odds.
Poor quality pitches are well-known equalizers, since low scoring matches are intrinsically closer, leaving a bigger role for chance to operate.
Some other restrictive practices are also anti-competitive - such as the old limitations on players moving between first class county teams, which kept good players in poor clubs, and prevented the best clubs building up superstar squads by transfers.
The condition of the ball is another somewhat random factor, since all cricket balls differ slightly and each one ages and wears in a distinctive manner.
If it was desired that cricket become a 'fairer' game it would be relatively easy to reduce the effect of some of these random factors. For example, artificial cricket pitches could be used to minimize change in conditions throughout the match; and balls could be changed as soon as they show any signs of wear (as happens in baseball - where dozens of balls are used in a game).
The fact that these things are not done seems to indicate a preference for more competitive and entertaining games, even when the competitiveness is artificially constructed.
All games are a mixture of skill and luck - but the element of luck is contrived to be higher than it needs to be; suggesting that skill in sports is neither valued nor rewarded as much as might superficially be expected.
posted by Bruce Charlton at 2:02 PM
<< Home