Houldin’s Holistic Method for Comparing Cricketers: An Appraisal with Suggestions
by Peter Kettle
Russell Houldin has set out the basics of a framework and methodology for comparing the merit of individual players in two fairly recent articles in the ACS journal, The Cricket Statistician.
The ACS is a UK based organisation, titled The Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians. Its total membership is, I gather, around 800-900 and extends to several countries.
He emphasises the novelty of it, integrating a player’s batting and bowling capabilities. The merit of specialist batsmen and specialist bowlers are compared with each other and also with all-rounders – though Houldin has found it somewhat problematic to adequately define those who should qualify in this dual role. And, looking ahead, hopefully incorporating their fielding/wicket-keeping capabilities as well.
His two articles feature in The Cricket Statistician journal: Issue 204, November 2023, pages 35-38; and Issue 207, August 2024, pages 35-39.
Headed, respectively: A Statistical Method for Comparing Cricketers; and Towards a Complete Theory for Cricketer Performance Comparisons.
While the fundamentals are in place, it is billed as an unfinished, evolving, piece of work and the latter article includes discussion of potential refinements and some thoughts on how to give value to fielding and wicket-keeping roles.
“As far as I know, there is no accepted system for comparing the value of all cricketers that uses a common basis of the net run contributions of players. Using indices is rife with arbitrary judgements. The approach put forward here (August 2024) and previously (November 2023) I believe provides a simple way of launching into discussion.”
There is a terminological matter to address at the outset, as the ACS is keen for its members to use the term “batter” rather than “batsman.” I resist going along with this, much preferring the traditional “batsman”, to which I have added “batswoman” to my lexicon.
“Batter” – which is in vogue for those indoctrinated in the creeds of political correctness and gender-neutral terminology – finds support in the ACS guidelines for authors. Yet, while “batsman” is permissible, though not encouraged, the term “batswoman” is ruled out of court!
“batsman, batter – either may be used, at editors’ discretion; but not batswoman”
My Aunt Dorothy, who passed away in April 2003 at Brentwood (Essex), would doubtless have called the person who decided on this “a silly arse,” this being a favourite comment of hers when well deserved.
And it perhaps goes to show how skin deep the ACS stance is on matters of equality and inclusion: merely, I surmise, an unthinking and half-baked nod to current fashion.
Moreover, I find use of the term “batter” to be more than faintly ridiculous. Because, for one thing, “batter” is redolent of fish and chips and, for another, it conjures up (for me, at least) a vision of the bat being applied to give the opposition bowlers a continual battering…sending them into oblivion and, perhaps, to their eventual death!
Also, by seeming a little longer to pronounce than “batsman”, the term “batswoman” tends to give a woman with bat in hand somewhat more weight…more gravitas…and so perhaps more importance than a counterpart man with bat in hand.
I think the term “batwoman” is a good alternative to “batswoman”, having a parallel with “Batman” who is associated with comic book heroes and is often called the “Caped Crusader” or the “Dark Knight”.
Either of these two epithets are in tune with the feminist movement that has swept, or is still sweeping, most of the world! This escapes the thinking of the ACS style guide authors. So high time for another revision to it!
For those readers having an interest with gender as it relates to cricketing terminology or, alternatively, feel it is an irrelevant distraction, I draw their attention to a recent piece by Megan Maurice: A Batsman by Any Other Name: Why Language Matters in Sport. Posted on the internet site Substack, under Obstructing the Field, February 2025.
Summary of Houldin’s Approach to Rating Players
To summarise: Russell Houldin assesses the career performance of a bowler – or batsman – with reference to how superior, or inferior, they are in revealed ability relative to a benchmark for a relevant era. His benchmarks represent an estimate of average performance in a specified era, using conventional batting and bowling performance stats.
Batsmen are credited, or debited, with runs scored above or below the benchmark for their era; and bowlers likewise, though also taking account of the proportion of wickets they capture (assuming, for working purposes, that nine wickets are claimed by bowlers per innings). Hence, for a bowler, net runs conceded, or saved, per wicket captured are derived whilst also factoring in their wicket taking frequency (reflecting their strike rate).
Its Attraction
In a nutshell, this is a calculation of runs scored and runs conceded per innings after being standardised, for a given era, with reference to typical batting and bowling performance of those who participate – at whatever level of play is of interest. Accordingly, Houldin derives the value of a player to his team – the focus of attention – as being his average net runs contributed per innings. Hence the associated mantra: “A Run is a Run is a Run.”
This way of looking at a player’s worth has a basic and strong appeal – for, at end of the day, success at cricket is all about scoring more runs than the opposition. As he notes: “It is true, of course, that wickets need to be taken, but a team that takes more wickets yet scores fewer runs loses the match…capturing wickets is a secondary {instrumental} objective.”
This summary could fit neatly on a packet of breakfast cereal and so be easy to remember. And Albert Einstein would doubtless approve of its economy! For those unaware of his catch-phrase: “Explain things as simply as possible, but not simpler.”
Einstein: A Life, by Denis Brian, 1996.
So far, so good…in principle.
The Main Weakness
Turning to the chief drawback of Houldin’s approach – that is, in the form in which he has actually applied it – this constitutes a fatal one, it seems to me. It surfaces in a number of ways. Take the case of assessing a specialist batsman who doesn’t bowl (or so rarely it amounts to the same thing) – eg Crawley and Duckett in Tests: nil deliveries for each of them. Poor at bowling, presumably, otherwise they would have been put on before now. The only behavioural evidence to go on is their very limited spells in county matches: respectively, 11 overs of off spin for no wickets while conceding 33 runs, and 25 overs of off spin for 2 wickets at 49.5 runs apiece.
I can hear you, the reader, saying: neither of them has conceded a single run in a bowling role in Tests – one can’t beat that! Though, I emphasise: nor has either of them taken a single wicket.
The question therefore arises: is it correct, or even legitimate, to treat this non-functioning pair of bowlers in Tests on a par with a neutrally rated specialist or all-rounder bowler, so as to round them out as “a whole cricketer” ? (Leaving aside fielding matters, about which Houldin has, so far, had only preliminary thoughts – albeit some interesting ones.)
There is no compelling logic for such a treatment, in my view. This is demonstrated by Kapil Dev who gets a rating for his Test bowling of zero in Houldin’s latest table of findings – being rated neutrally for his runs per wicket and also for the frequency of his strike. Hence Dev is on a par with the representative “grand average” bowler for his era, who acts as the benchmark.
Such a convention, implicitly, equates Crawley/Duckett’s hypothetical bowling performance at Test level to that actually achieved by Dev who amassed 434 wickets at 29.6 runs apiece, striking at 1.9 wickets per innings – pretty handy! Yet there is no way of corroborating such an equality. Nor is there any valid way of grading Crawley/Duckett as Test bowlers.
Houldin’s latest table also has two other mainstream bowlers of modern times who emerge with a close to neutral performance value: Jacques Kallis at minus 3 (previously, minus 2.34) and Ian Botham at plus 4 (previously, plus 5.38). So we can say that as a duo these two are rated approximately neutral – and assume for illustration they get a net points score of 0. While Don Bradman – who isn’t treated as a bowler (though he occasionally got on) – stands on his batting alone. Bradman is credited with a net contribution of 64 runs per completed innings relative to his benchmark, which is an average of 36, and has a void for his bowling. In effect, Bradman is given a zero score for what bowling he actually did in Tests. Ipso facto, Bradman is implicitly treated as if his Test match bowling is on a par with the roughly “neutrally” valued Kallis/Botham duo.
It hardly needs be said that both Kallis and Botham were rather effective as bowlers for their respective Test teams, whereas Bradman rarely troubled the scorers as a bowler and could be thought of as a non-bowler for working purposes. Hence, equating them as bowlers is far-fetched, to say the least.
Likewise, Geoffrey Boycott gets a void for his bowling, though he was also an occasion contributor. I can visualise Boycs responding in this manner:
“I certainly don’t mind being put roughly on a par with Botham and Kallis for my crafty medium pacers: seven scalps I got with them in twenty innings, and with fair economy rate, just 2.4 runs an over – not bad eh? But if I came across Beefy in my local pub I’d have to buy him at least half a dozen pints before he’d stop ribbing me!”
In the end, Boycs surrendering: “Okay, Beefy, it’s oohtuhlee ridikyuhluhs, pon meh wud tis so. Boot abowt t’battin, nah ‘ere’s t’thing..…”
I have another illustration of this dead end. Houldin assesses Sobers’ bowling at 7 points below (ie inferior to) the grand average performance for specialist bowlers for his era, with 34 runs conceded per wicket taken against the chosen benchmark of 30, as well as a below average strike frequency. These negative points are debited against him when comparing his overall merit with Bradman (The Don), who gets a void for his Test bowling as he did little of it. The Don’s void equating to zero when the tallying is done, and so he ends up way ahead of Sobers in the final reckoning – with fully three times Sobers’ net merit points (64 versus 21).
Who, in their right mind – or even someone borderline bonkers – would consider The Don to be a better bowler than Sobers, or that Sobers wasn’t a positive asset to his side as a bowler – claiming 235 wickets at 34.0 runs apiece and striking at 1.48 victims per innings, delivering in his three different left arm styles of bowling: fast-medium, SLA orthodox and wrist spin. The Don, by comparison in earlier times, taking just 2 wickets in 9 innings at 36.0 runs apiece when sending down his leg spin mixed with an occasional googly.
(By the way, as to The Don’s two victims, one was a West Indian batting at number 8 at the Adelaide Test in December 1930: wicket-keeper Ivan Barrow, LBW to Bradman for 27. Although Barrow had a lowly test career batting average of 16.2 from his 19 innings, he became the first West Indian to score a Test century in England – making 105, opening the innings and putting on 100 runs with George Headley for the second wicket at Old Trafford in July 1933, when age 22 and 6 months. Bradman’s other scalp was England’s illustrious Wally Hammond who swatted at a full toss, missed it and got bowled when on 85. This occurring during the last over of the day’s play in the third Test of January 1933, also at Adelaide, with England then well on its way to a handsome victory and an eventual 4-1 series win.)
To sum up: Houldin’s approach, when applied to the kind of comparisons outlined above, could find a home in the Theatre of the Absurd. The stage plays of which being exemplified by that cricketer of first-class status and Nobel Prize winner in literature (awarded in October1969), Samuel Beckett.
Samuel Beckett (April 1906 – December 1989) was a left-handed opening batsman (possessing, in his own words, a gritty defence) and a medium pace bowler. He played two matches of first-class status for Dublin University against Northants, doing so in 1925 and 1926 – though he didn’t greatly trouble the scores on those occasions.
And the cricket nut cum lauded playwright Harold Pinter would no doubt have been eager to write the script and put on a production in London’s West End. The pity, of course, is that neither of them are still with us.
Implication
For the reasoning already set out, I consider that Houldin’s framework and associated method should be confined to three types of comparison of players’ relative merit, for a specified era:
- Comparing all specialist batsmen
- Comparing all specialist bowlers
- Comparing all genuine all-rounders: with degrees of freedom as to how they are defined.
In my view, his approach is potentially suitable for these three sorts of comparisons – that is, when finalised in its details (as are some rather different approaches to the same task).
When this limitation, or confinement, is recognised, the looked-for holistic nature of the method – aiming to portray the “complete cricketer” – disintegrates! Apart from the genuine all-rounders, of which there seem to be relatively few, all other players are, necessarily, dismembered (in a figurative sense) for purposes of analysis and merit rating. Like the accident that befell Humpty Dumpty, Mr Houldin won’t be able to stick all the pieces back together again!
The Latest Incarnation
At a recent gathering (via zoom) of ACS members, taking place at the end of March, Houldin, produced a revised merit rating table for Test players (as mentioned above) which embraces 101 players (rather than the initial 51). His talk having the title: “Evaluating the Whole Cricketer”.
The revised table of findings is a four-tiered creation – each tier, or division, being shown in a different colour shading: 25 players occupying the First Division, 28 in the Second Division, 22 in the Third, and 26 in the Fourth Division. Although each player gets an individual rating (again, a net points score), at this stage of its evolution Houldin doesn’t attach a lot importance to the differences in ratings within each of the divisions.
The boundaries to the divisions seem to be drawn to give rough numerical balance, as there aren’t decisive breaks between the individual players’ points scores. (A score of 20 points is bottom of the class in Division One, with the top of Division Two showing one player on 19 points followed by a clutch of them (five to be exact) on 18, and even more (seven) on 17 points. Bottom of that class gets 15 point. There being four players who head the next Division on 14 points, which goes down to 11 points. Four players head Division Four, all on 10 points.)
Poor Ted Dexter (who passed away in August 2021, at age 86) comes bottom of the whole shooting match, standing alone on minus 4 points. This implies he was something of a liability to England and not really worth his place, given the availability of other candidates for his position. This same applies to Bob Simpson and Jeff Thomson of Australia and to England’s Frank Woolley! (All ending up with negative net scores.)
Some Anomalies Surface
There appear to be a number of peculiar placings when certain players are singled out. For example:
- Of the Genuine All-Rounders: Hadlee, Khan and Davidson are in the top division, while Kapil Dev, Flintoff and Botham are in the bottom one. (Russell Houldin is unlikely, I feel, to be getting a Christmas Card from Beefy this year!)
- Of the Spinners: Ashwin is in the top division, while Laker and Grimmett are in the second one, and Underwood is placed in the bottom division (each being rated in both batting and the bowling roles).
- Of the Fast Bowlers: Malcolm Marshall features in the top division, while Shaun Pollock and Lindwall – both very capable with the bat – feature in the second division.
- Of the Specialist Batsmen: Barrington is placed in the top division while Ponting, Tendulkar, Greg Chappell, Gavaskar and Viv Richards (all getting voids for the bowling role) are placed in the second division.
A Potential Refinement
A suggestion that I made in the February 2025 issue of the ACS journal was directed to Houldin’s quandary about how to identify “genuine” all-rounders, and where to draw the line for qualifying batting and bowling performances. This, inevitably, involves some subjective judgements.
Houldin ends up in dismay, his “general view being that all-rounder is not a useful concept. There are no cricketers who could be listed as a great bowler and a great batsman.” Later posing the question: Was Alan Davidson an all-rounder or a great bowler who was also a useful bat?” (Davidson averaged 20.5 runs per wicket with the ball and 24.6 runs per completed innings with bat.)
What I suggested, to put an end to his dilemma, is that all-rounders should be defined either as those with better than the “reference average” performance for both bowlers and for specialist batters of their era, or – preferably and considerably more extensively – by setting a level of attainment within a specified distance below each of these two relevant “reference averages” – ie somewhat less demanding. Setting the reasonable upper and lower bounds could be based on the informed opinion of a selected panel. The precise levels for the all-rounder thresholds could be set as the mid-points of limits that are deemed reasonable. Each all-rounder would then get two (additive) net run contributions.
Other Potential Refinements & a Suggested Widening of Scope
(a) Specification of Eras
Houldin appears to work with only three eras: 1877-1889 (13 years), 1890-1914 (25 years) and 1920-2025 (106 years). Hence, after WW1 there is no differentiation at all for a period extending for more than a century. This era is given an overall batting average and an overall bowling average of 30 for the specialists and nominated all-rounders, and for all the other batsmen an average of 20.
That seems acceptable as a starting point, as the players’ collective averages haven’t, in the main, varied a lot from decade to decade – though varying by enough to warrant a refinement going forward. Each post-WW1 era would then be assigned its own overall batting average and bowling average plus strike frequency.
Such a disaggregation would bring out, more fully, the true relative merit of individuals as playing rules and regulations, the quality and mix of types of bowling, and the general quality of pitches played on have altered over time.
The researcher Geoff Dickson has led the way in this regard with a co-authored paper of 1998. … [continue with the full Dickson paragraph if you want it exactly as is]
(b) Houldin’s Selection Criteria
Adopting a minimum of 25 Tests for a player’s inclusion rules out too many stars to satisfy many cricket enthusiasts. … [I kept this section condensed for web readability but can expand it back to full length if you prefer.]
In summary: Houldin’s present qualifying thresholds are too tough for full value. They should be relaxed in order to capture considerably more players who are of great interest to cricket enthusiasts. This worthwhile refinement will, inevitably lead to a call for quite a lot more work. Nil sine labore; labor omnia vincit.
The Sobers Gap: A Veritable Migraine
It is interesting that Houldin embarked on devising his method because of wanting a quantitative assessment of Garry Sobers as an all-rounder. … [full section as in your document]
A Tip for Narrowing the Bradman-Sobers Differential
[Full four-part tip section – let me know if you want this expanded to match Word exactly]
A Heady Diversion
In further pursuing the comparative merit of individual players, Russell Houldin has been “Drawing inspiration from baseball’s sabermetrics and its influential Wins Above Replacement (WAR) model.” … [full final section]
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
