Cricket has evolved dramatically through technology and analytics, but the traditional scorecard still does not always tell the complete story of a bowler's performance.

This is especially important in youth cricket, where statistics are used by coaches, academies, selectors, parents, and players to evaluate development and identify future talent.

We request that cricket governing bodies, leagues, and scoring platforms consider three simple improvements to bowling statistics.

1. Add "Chances Created" to Bowling Statistics
Wickets alone do not always show how well a bowler performed.

Imagine a bowler creates three excellent wicket-taking opportunities:

• One catch is taken, 
• One catch is dropped.
• One stumping is missed.

The traditional scorecard shows only 1 wicket.

The bowler, however, created 3 genuine wicket opportunities.

We propose adding a simple statistic for Chances Created (CC).

A bowling scorecard could evolve from:

Bowling | O | M | R | W | ECON | WD | NB

to:

Bowling | O | M | R | W | ECON | WD | NB | CC

This would give coaches and selectors a much better understanding of a bowler's ability to create wicket-taking opportunities.

In modern cricket, bowlers are naturally going to concede runs, particularly in limited-overs formats. Therefore, identifying the right bowler based only on wickets and economy rate can sometimes be misleading.

Identifying the right bowlers for the future is an important task. Adding Chances Created to bowling analytics could help coaches and selectors recognize genuine bowling talent that traditional statistics may overlook.

This can be particularly valuable in youth cricket, where one dropped catch or missed stumping can significantly change a young bowler's statistics.

2. Separate Bowler No-Balls from Team No-Balls
Not every No-ball is caused by the bowler.

For example, a No-ball may result from an infringement by the wicketkeeper or another fielder. Yet under traditional scoring, the No-ball penalty can still negatively affect the bowler's figures.

We propose distinguishing:

Bowler NB — No-balls caused by the bowler, such as overstepping/foot faults, illegal high full tosses, or other bowling infringements.

Team NB — No-balls caused by the wicketkeeper, fielder, or another fielding-side infringement outside the bowler's control.

The batting team's score and penalty should remain unchanged. The improvement is simply to provide more accurate individual statistical attribution.

If a Team No-Ball results in a Free Hit, scoring systems could also identify that the Free Hit originated from a Team NB, allowing coaches and analysts to understand the context of the following delivery.

3. Separate Wides from Additional Wide Extras
Consider this common situation:

A bowler delivers a Wide.

The wicketkeeper misses the ball.

The ball reaches the boundary.

The scorecard can record the result as 5 Wides, all affecting the bowler's figures.

But from a player-performance perspective, there is an important difference between:

1 run — the Wide delivered by the bowler

and

4 additional runs — after the ball passed the batter

We propose preserving that distinction in detailed statistics.

Instead of only:

5 Wd

the scorecard could record:

1 Wd + 4 WEx

where WEx = additional Wide Extras.

The batting team would still receive the full 5 runs. The purpose is not to change the match score, but to provide better information about how those runs occurred.

A bowler who delivers five separate Wides should not look statistically identical to a bowler who delivers one Wide that subsequently results in five total runs.

Why This Matters
Modern cricket is increasingly a high-scoring game.Bowlers are naturally going to concede runs, particularly in limited-overs cricket. As a result, simply looking at runs conceded, economy rate, and wickets may not always identify the bowler who actually bowled well.

A young bowler may have an expensive-looking spell because of a dropped catch, a missed stumping, a wicketkeeper allowing additional runs after a Wide, or a fielding-side infringement that results in a No-ball.

Better analytics can help separate what the bowler actually controlled from what happened around the bowler.

Young players' statistics increasingly follow them across seasons, academies, leagues, tournaments, and age groups. Those statistics should provide coaches and selectors with the clearest possible picture of their actual performance and potential.

A young bowler's statistics should help answer:

How accurately did they bowl?

How many wicket-taking opportunities did they create?

How many No-balls were actually caused by the bowler?

How many Wide runs resulted directly from the delivery versus additional events afterward?

Modern scoring technology makes it possible to capture these details without changing the fundamental simplicity of cricket.

The official match score can remain exactly the same while providing a better analytical layer for evaluating individual performance.

Our Request
We respectfully ask the MCC, ICC, national cricket governing bodies, youth cricket organizations, leagues, tournament organizers, and cricket scoring platforms to consider introducing these additional statistical distinctions:

1. Chances Created (CC)

2. Bowler No-Ball vs. Team No-Ball

3. Wide (Wd) vs. Additional Wide Extras (WEx)

These are small additions to a scorecard, but they could provide a much more accurate picture of bowling performance.

For professional cricket, this means better analytics.

For youth cricket, it could mean something even more important:

better identification and development of the next generation of cricketers.