As a long standing sports commentator I have always tried to leave the statistical analysis to others. I am much more interested in the technical and mental techniques involved as well as any scurrilous gossip! It’s always bothered me that statistics are so open to manipulation anyway, that they need to be taken with a hefty pouring of Saxa. Listening to the excellent “More or Less” programme on Radio 4 on Wednesday confirmed this suspicion. It seems that Scotland’s claim that there have been no Covid related deaths for over thirty days is misleading. North of Hadrian’s Wall it’s only a Covid related death if: a. you’ve tested positive for the virus and b. you die within twenty eight days of the test. Mmmm? That would seem to exclude a lot of deaths potentially directly caused by coronavirus. If you apply the English rules to Scotland the actual figure would apparently be thirty two. Mind you, in England, once it’s confirmed you’ve got or had Covid, your demise will be recorded as a Covid related death, even if you depart this mortal coil six months later having been hit by a bus! It does rather make you wonder why we bother with stats at all.
When it comes to misleading, how about this for a headline in The Times this week: “Poll predicts SNP landslide as most Scots back independence”. From which you would surmise that, what, eighty to ninety percent would vote for an independent Scotland if given the chance in another Referendum? The relevant part of the story reads (capitals mine): “Research by YouGov found that 57 per cent of voters in Scotland planned to back the Nationalists at the Scottish parliamentary election next May, an increase of three percentage points on the last survey in April. THE POLL PUT SUPPORT FOR INDEPENDENCE AT 53 PER CENT, UP TWO POINTS FROM JANUARY”. The Thunderer should be ashamed of itself for such inaccurate reporting. Just over half is not “most” in my book.
The statistics available to modern sportsmen now are extraordinary and sometimes even interesting. Modern golfers pour over the detailed minutiae of their rounds to see where they can improve. I wonder if Seve Ballesteros needed a computer full of gobbledegook to tell him his driving was awful, his recovery play extraordinary and his short game majestic; worthy of deification? I think not. When I worked for BBC TV at Wimbledon it was at the time when IBM were dramatically “enhancing” their facts and figures and mainly for commercial reasons our producers insisted that the commentators used the information as much as possible. We had a tv screen in front us showing the picture that viewers saw at home and beside it a large computer screen that recorded everything from the simple “Aces” to the number of times John McEnroe hurled his racket and abused a line judge or Rafa Nadal tweaked his shirt and scratched his bottom. To satisfy our bosses you would spend more time looking at the computer trying to work out what it all meant at the expense of missing a vital play in front of you. Dan Maskell, the much loved BBC Voice of Tennis in the latter half of the 20th Century made his name with “Oh I say” followed by long periods of atmospheric silence. His expertise was in knowing the players, explaining what they might be thinking and their tactics. He would instinctively know that Borg had served the majority of first serves to McEnroe’s forehand, without having to delve into a database to report that it was in fact 79.31% of first serves. There’s a place for statistics; in the rubbish bin.
Ok, I exaggerate for effect. The detail that the Sky cricket commentators come up with is absolutely fascinating, courtesy of their Virtual Eye pitch maps, showing where bowlers bowl and how batsmen react. It would be intriguing to see how the great John Arlott would perform nowadays. His distinctive Hampshire burr enlivened my childhood and on the rare occasions you hear the old recordings it instantly brings back vivid images of youthful summers spent glued to the wireless, with Wes Hall and Charlie Griffiths pummelling the likes of Peter May and Colin Cowdrey. Arlott was a poet and a genius with descriptive words, as well as an encyclopaedic knowledge of the game he so loved. I suspect even now he would leave the statistical analysis to someone else. I hope so anyway.
As an afterthought, it’s intriguing to me why we remember cricketers by their initials. P.B.H. May, M.C. Cowdrey, F.S Truman, D.I. Gower, I.T.Botham etc etc. I guess it’s because that’s the way they always appeared on scorecards. This is J.R.Tutt signing off with 67% battery life left on my laptop, 6,355 photos on my phone and a 93.777% chance that I will catch Covid once the schools go back. Interesting.
ADayInTheStrifeOf 