A History of The Cricket Statistician—Part I

Richard Streeton on the ACS's flagship journal

To be asked to review the first 99 issues of The Cricket Statistician was both an honour and a further confirmation that editors tend to have the last word. Philip Bailey, our erstwhile editor, used constantly to reproach me for never having written anything for the journal. In some ways, perhaps, he was justified. The odd administrative notice relating to new rules, or something equally boring, and an occasional obituary of a distinguished colleague such as Derek Lodge, did not count against his accusation.

There were several reasons, though, why I never contributed substantially to his pages. Among them were numerous professional commitments, involving frequent and lengthy absences away from home—many weeks at a time. More significantly, I was most conscious that I could never begin to match the research, the historical knowledge and the statistical expertise of the contributors he was already using.

This admission leads me to the first and most important thing to be said about our journal: It really is a marvellous publication. From almost every article and tabulation it comes through—shines, in fact, like the proverbial beacon—that this is a printed product emanating from cricket experts and enthusiasts for others of similar ilk. This is a rare attribute, not shared by all such publications. It is a tribute to both the ACS’s contributors, and doubtless, too, to those responsible in the backroom for sub-editing and production.

Improvements to the journal are ongoing. Like our policy on corrections, they are never shirked. It has always been possible to find faults: inaccuracies, errors of judgement and sundry other shortcomings. But a fair generalisation is that we have maintained an extremely high standard, balancing information, entertainment, and above all interest—all prime requisites for a specialist readership.

In fact, let us ditch false modesty; this is neither the time nor the place for it. One is taught in journalism to be wary of the word “unique,” but I truly believe that in cricket publishing The Cricket Statistician has laid claim to that description. It is to be regretted that its merit, arguably, has failed to gain so far the widespread recognition it has earned.

The value of its pages was underlined for me when I re-read every issue—all right, just skimmed in places. Apart from some topical articles and lists, which have obviously dated, there is a surprising amount that still strikes me as fresh and stimulating—an academic joy. Try it for yourselves this summer: Tackle several million words and figures from 400+ authors, covering several hundred different subjects dealing with every aspect of the game, together with about one thousand book reviews from Robert Brooke, of whom plenty more anon. It is a really worthwhile undertaking.

This article is adapted from the version which first appeared in the hundredth edition of The Cricket Statistician, published in Winter 1997. To join the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians, and subscribe to the journal, please visit our website: