(In)coherent Ramblings

On cricket, cooking, and focusing on the inconsequential. -- "Catches win matches." India dropped what felt like a dozen catches against England at Leeds. They then proceeded to lose from an unlikely position. Cue the cliche. "Can't win matches if you don't take catches". On the surface, it makes complete sense. If you take your catches, you get more wickets. Simple, no?  Sounds great, except, there is no evidence for this. On reasonably large sample sizes, higher catching efficiency barely makes a dent on the winning outcomes of the team.   So why do people keep harping on about this? Because it's a "basic" skill everyone is expected to be able to execute. Or at least it seems that way. It is essential to understand that catching is, at least somewhat, inherently random. Players must react to a ball that deviated sharply and instantly, in milliseconds, and ensure their hands are soft enough to palm the ball. Myriad things can happen on the way...

The other day I saw that my favourite football team was playing a "postseason match". These guys, who just played 60 gruelling games this season, were now flown out to another part of the world to play in random, meaningless games. Do these players ever get a rest? The response one usually gets when trying to highlight the players' ordeal is, "Oh, it's a dream job for anyone" or "They are paid millions for running around a field". Sure, you get to live your childhood dream, playing a sport you've always loved as a profession, having a lavish lifestyle and a lot of fame, but a high-paying job can still be associated with fatigue and burnout. Never mind the fact that it's something you never stop working on. When you have a desk job and come back home, you can (usually) completely switch off and unwind, but you don't have that luxury when you are an elite athlete. You have to watch what you eat, be in shape, and take care of your mental h...