The ACS is seeking members’ thoughts on some statistical issues arising from the introduction of The Hundred competition later this year. Specific issues raised at the meeting – and one extra – were as follows:
1. The Hundred is a game comprising 20 overs, albeit of five balls, so should its statistics be grouped with T20 records? We don’t have separate records for Test matches which comprised 4-ball, 5-ball, 6-ball or 8-ball overs, so is it reasonable to group the 100-ball games with those spanning 120 balls?
2. How should team totals be described in The Hundred? Would it be better to say that Team X scored 200 from 100 balls, rather than 200 from 20 overs?
3. What is the most appropriate way of presenting bowling figures? Should they show Balls, Dot Balls, Runs and Wickets, rather than Overs, Maidens, Runs and Wickets? (Wisden is adopting this approach for T20 matches from the 2021 edition.)
4. How should summative and aggregate statistics be prepared and presented for the new competition? Would it be more appropriate to list batters and bowlers by strike-rate, rather than by batting / bowling average as in first-class, Test and List A cricket?
5. Should we introduce different statistical methods to describe the prowess of a batter or a bowler in The Hundred, rather than traditional averages? For example, what about dot-ball percentage? The lowest for batters and the highest for bowlers?
6. Regardless of your thoughts on Question 1, should the principles in Questions 3, 4 and 5 also be applied to all ‘conventional’ T20 cricket?
Members’ comments should be sent to email@example.com as soon as possible. Thank you.