Why did Laxman get so angry?

Srinivas Bhogle ponders over a very, very special batsman’s contribution and shares insight on why the batting average is not the be-all and end-all in measuring success.

It appears that some of us felt quite good that VVS Laxman got angry with Pragyan Ojha for creating a situation that might have jeopardized India’s chances of winning that first Test against Australia at Mohali.

So Laxman is human after all; he too can get angry sometimes … and that is mighty reassuring!

The truth is that it could have been a case of so near and yet so far for India, and, for players like Laxman, who shun personal glory for the team’s glory, this would have been the unkindest cut of all.

A lot has been written about Laxman’s Test batting average of 45 or 46, which is about 8 to 10 points below that of Dravid or Tendulkar. Many have used this lower average to infer that Laxman is not really up there, and many others seethe with rage at such an inference.

The truth may be something simpler. The batting average is not as hallowed or sacrosanct as it is made out to be. Sure, it is a good indicator of a batsman’s ability or prowess, but it is not the only indicator. The big mistake we make is that we refuse to see beyond this number.

How, then, could we look beyond? I know that a lot of analysts have argued that we should also look at a batsman’s standard deviation (which measures a batsman’s consistency or reliability or predictability, depending on which word resonates better with you), but I have found that the standard deviation does not really deliver the information that it promises.

While writing my first blog for this series (http://goo.gl/fjzr) I spent two full hours comparing the standard deviation of the Test scores of Gavaskar and Viswanath. I was hoping to discover that Gavaskar had a significantly lower standard deviation than Viswanath (which would’ve proved the popular hypothesis that Gavaskar was more consistent). I didn’t see that!

Perhaps Viswanath was a lot more consistent than we thought him to be, or perhaps Gavaskar, being an opening batsman facing Marshall, Imran or Thomson in full fury, was always going to be more vulnerable. Whatever the reason, the standard deviation failed to throw any real light.

That’s why I find the underlying idea in Jaideep Varma’s impact index (II) (http://goo.gl/RzSq) extremely interesting. II rates the performance of every player, and in every match, on a 5-point scale. This rating is based on widely accepted cricketing criteria such as: state of the match, state of the pitch, quality of the opposition, relative performance of other players etc., and made by a group of cricket experts.

For example, VVS Laxman’s innings in the 2010 Mohali Test against Australia would rate a full 5 out of 5. Sachin Tendulkar who scored 98 and 38 in the same match would get 4 out of 5, chiefly because he didn’t finish off the match himself. Gautam Gambhir, who contributed nothing, would get 0 out of 5.

These ‘marks on the five-point scale’ are then totaled over every match and averaged. The method also has a bonus marking system to reward player performances that eventually leads to his team winning a series or a tournament.

I would personally quibble a little about the bonus marking system (I consider it to be too skewed against even above-average performances), but there’s no doubt that the II is information-rich and throws up results that, at first sight, surprise; but, upon further reflection, appear valid and deeply revealing.

For example, I was surprised when I realized how impactful Imran Khan had been both in Test and ODI cricket. I am now waiting for Jaideep to make the II comparison between Tendulkar, Dravid and Laxman in Test cricket. I’m expecting to see their Test match average ordering being completely reversed.