Sports & Luck

What is difference between a T20, a fifty overs match and a Test match? Is there a hidden dissimilarity? The game essentially remains the same, the ball, the bat,the pitch, stump height, the rules (more or less) and the players (not always). Then why is it that some teams can consistently play well and win in one format but look pedestrian in another?

More interesting questions: Why do teams manage over 200 runs in a T20 while in fifty over game they struggle to reach 300? And why 400 runs in fourth innings (even on a good pitch) in nearly unlimited overs (100 to 120) are nigh impossible? How come Dale Styen is carted for over 20 runs in an over by average players but in test matches, they can’t lay bat to his deliveries?

Let’s begin with a ride. Why do we love to play Candy Crush? Maybe you play its avatars. It looks so silly at times to slide fingers over a smart phone, but let’s face it, everyone does it. Why? The answer I presume is not that we love sweets or chocolates (though it is a nudging factor) but is the nature of the game. It involves lots of luck and only a little bit of smartness. If you lose, you say it was luck, if you win, you can silently pat your ego for being smart. In a way it is a win-win situation bringing you fun overall. Will we play chess like this? I can’t imagine, because chess is essentially a game that diminishes the luck aspect totally. In chess, no one can ever benefit from random distribution, a lucky move (as in board games) or from a benevolent bounce of the delivery (cricket, tennis and others). If you win, it entirely proves that you are smarter than the opponent. Even in card games, when the experience of the players starts to converge, it is the lucky one who is dealt all the aces, wins. Sometimes even a novice beat a seasoned player (kids love beating the fathers in card games). But in chess, a novice never wins. If players are equal in ability, the one who is more alert on the day, may win but still, he can’t be called lucky.

Unlike most sports, chess begins on the same board with same pieces arranged in the same spots. There is no toss, wind, sunlight, a line call or injured players to induce luck. Some other games are similar like checkers, but chess’s possibilities make it vastly superior. In spite of an absolute lack of unpredictability, it is hugely popular as well.

So we have two extremes for sports, one is coin toss and the other an intense physical and mental battle. Both can be unspectacular unless some fun is injected by rule bending. If I can represent graphically, it would look like this.

The popular games will always be slightly high on luck factor because watching unpredictability is easier than facing. Uncertainty also keeps the underdogs interested and hopeful of toppling a giant team or a player. Sports which have no element of luck like Badminton struggle to penetrate for viewership. This is of course not to say that only sports with luck are popular. Olympic track and field events are hugely popular but they owe viewership to sense of event. Imagine watching 100 m or a wrestling match or a shot put event every month!

Soccer too has an element of luck which introduces unpredictability and hence reduces the dominance of perennial favorites. True, some teams dominate but others are never out of contention. Where else do we see a rank outsider Senegal beating France or Cameroon stunning Argentina?

Why Tennis and Test cricket are high on intensity while low on luck? Primarily because a lucky line call or a streaky boundary might give you a point or a run, they can’t win you the match. In T20 or even in an ODI though, a couple of lucky hits, wickets or even dot balls can make the difference. And remember, there are no second chances in limited over cricket.

This is not to say that players who excel in shorter format don’t have these attributes, but test cricket does require a lot of patience, perseverance and grit. To turn a test match is no joke; it needs a sustained high quality performance to tilt it, even more to turn it in your favor.

The length of a test match is much like life. It helps to avoid luck dominating the game. It helps to avoid the impact of streaky patches of chance and bolsters it with the requirement of fortitude. If it were not there, we would see a lot of inferior teams winning test matches and no one likes that. In life too, an odd bump doesn’t bother us if we know the path is the correct one. A man lacking depth will eventually be caught short in the long run. It is the depth.

In IPL, every year all the teams have chances of qualifying till the end. Usually they are separated by a run or a decimal. This is pure randomness. Who are the players who excel in this? Those who are not only brilliant players of shorter version but are masters of cashing on randomness. Dhoni is such a master. Using his influence as captain, he loves bringing every game to a state where a stroke or a wicket can decide the game. If a chase comes to a point where 120 runs are needed in 20 overs, instead of batting with sustained aggression, he would stretch it to make a game of chance. He would bring the equation to say, 75 in 10 and then 40 in 4 overs. At this state, the opposing captain will not have a choice but to gamble. He would forget ideas of field setting or wicket taking and would indulge in pure run stopping tactics. Before I proceed, let me clarify, there is nothing unethical in Dhoni’s methods. Many teams other teams have tried these as I would talk later.

Dhoni works hard to find himself in a 10 balls-22 runs situation. He loves it. This introduces randomness in the game. An edge can fly over third man, a catch might be dropped or the bowler may drift to leg side under pressure. All such things help the batting side. MoreoverDhoni, invariably the senior batsman in such a state,hits the ball out of the ground with his muscular swing and wins it. Dhoni becomes a hero while the audience and fans are left to bite the nails.

Australia is the team which has most narrow wins and losses. Curious? Especially when since 1987, they have been the most dominating team. An answer lies in these tactics. If they would lose wickets while chasing, they would let the match dawdle, aiming to bring down the equation to less than 25 runs in the last over. This would get them back in the game. Not only 15-25 runs can be scored by a few hits, under pressure misfields, overthrows too increase and help the batting. This is why Australia always lost matches by narrower margin. They have most single digit runs losses. Many a times players like Michael Bevan scored boundaries of the last or penultimate deliveries to win the games. I recall once Brett Lee scored 11 off three balls in a Sydney ODI to win it for Australia. Now that takes a lot of courage too and indeed is a great attribute to have. But this doesn’t work in test matches.

A test match can rarely be brought to a lottery state where it can be decided by a swing or two. A few fortunate happenings will even out in the day itself. This is where a quality player excels. He needs to bat or bowl session after session with the same intensity, aggression and most importantly, with the same caliber. This is indeed very tough. VVS Laxman did this for five sessions against the world’s best in Kolkata 2001! His effort produced possibly the greatest cricketing contest.

Five deliveries compared to five sessions. Which one do you prefer?

Batting in cricket depends a lot on horizon. Arguably, every delivery can be hit out of the park- even the ones delivered from stratosphere by Ambrose and Garner.But all deliveries cannot dismiss the batsman. In reality, the best deliveries are the ones that the batsmen manage to escape. Batting also depends on the match state and batsman’s mindset. So, if the horizon is an over, it is not at all a heroic act to hit sixes against Dale Styen, even two or three in the over. In fact, it is more like a gamble that might pay off. It does need however, a basic capability of hand eye coordination and a good swing. Further, in T20 situations, if a batsman fails, he has nothing to lose, especially if he has scored well in his previous innings. So with that knowledge, he can always swing with abandon. If the same state becomes surviving a whole day against Dale Styen bowling at his will, scoring even twenty runs becomes a challenge for most batsmen.

The more you shorten the game, the more it hinges on a few events- most of them can be pure luck. Try playing a one over game. The outcome of a match between international teams would not be far away from the randomness of a coin flip.