Editorial: Cricket more than stats, whatever Aussies think

Jesse Ryder. File photo / Sarah Ivey

As a New Zealand cricket tour of Australia starts, the Australianisation of New Zealand cricket is also gathering pace.

Having dispensed with the traditional selection panel, NZ Cricket's director of cricket, John Buchanan, and national selection manager Kim Littlejohn have devised an evidence-based method for picking the national side.

Gone, it seems, could be the days when a little-known player could suddenly find himself playing international cricket.

The two Australians have come up with a set of criteria for selection. The most important of these is significant performance (35 per cent), followed by consistency (25 per cent), contribution to the team (15 per cent), fitness (10 per cent) and fielding (10 per cent). Selectors' intuition is valued at just 5 per cent.

In theory, this seems sound, especially in a strong cricketing environment like Australia. In practice, it may be a little challenging in New Zealand.

The depth of talent is much shallower here, so much so that selectors' hunches have often been something of a necessity. The first-class scene has also not been of a standard that necessarily offers an accurate gauge of a player's international prospects. It is reasonable to think that, under the new criteria, Mathew Sinclair would now be in Australia and Jesse Ryder would not.

Certainly, Jeremy Coney would never have been selected for New Zealand. In practice, not too much will probably change. Just as hunches should always be informed by supporting statistics, so statistics can never be the end of the matter.