Over-analysing sport kills the joy it gives
Beyond the display of skills and temperament on a cricket field, there is much else that goes into cricketing performances – individually as well as collectively as a team. Behind closed doors in team meetings, on laptops of team statisticians and video analysts, teams do something considered crucial to success in sport – they strategize.
The role of strategy in cricket is an enigma, since it is both undermined and overestimated, often simultaneously. Very often, we fail to realize that a lot of planning goes into what we see players executing on the field. Batsmen must have spent hours analyzing Saeed Ajmal’s doosra, bowlers must have watched a million videos to identify one chink in Kohli’s formidable armour. Batting orders are often determined by pitch conditions, opposition bowling line-ups, chance of rain, how someone’s hitting them in the nets. There are simply too many variables in this beautiful game, and all teams have a Plan A even before they walk out onto the cricket ground.
However, as much as strategy is important, it’s a word that is much abused by commentators, analysts and viewers these days. Beyond a point, sport is a lottery. It is not just inevitable, but also undesirable that uncertainties are not mitigated by strategy, since that is what makes things exciting and watchable.
In cricket, this is particularly true of the shortest format, which is marketed as one where ‘things can change in an over’. As an example, when Dale Steyn was saved by du Plessis for the final over in the Super 10 match against New Zealand, it turned out to be a masterstroke.
However, against India in the semis, it backfired. Badly. Was it a case of bad strategy by the captain? Or was it just bad luck? Had Wayne Parnell bowled a gem of a 17th over, would the strategy have been vindicated then? And, what if Steyn had bowled a wretched last over against New Zealand?
Isn’t this supposed to be a game of “glorious uncertainties”?
There is of course no denying that Steyn is more experienced, and certainly more skilled than Parnell. But that still doesn’t settle the issue of whether he should be bowling the 19th or the 20th over. Or the 16th or the 17th. The criticism of du Plessis is, in my view, entirely unjustified. Maybe it was partly because South Africa’s record in knockout matches of ICC tournaments has been miserable. But to over-scrutinize is to kill the beauty of sport.
It is also unfortunate that strategic mistakes, if there were any, are always glossed over when it comes to the winning team. Could Dhoni have asked Jadeja to bowl at the death, in place of Mohit Sharma or Bhuvaneshwar Kumar? Didn’t Jadeja bowl a brilliant 1st over to Duminy?
Perhaps the problem is that we live in the age of analysis, where everything has to have a reason and an explanation. In sport however, the imponderables are many. Particularly in cricket, and more particularly in T20 cricket. Rather than obsessing over strategy, statistics and “keys to success”, how about appreciating sport for what it is? Won’t that make for a better viewing experience?