Catches are the brunoise of the cricket world

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 ball may jag a bit, another slip catcher might put you off, your concentration might momentarily slip if it's been a while since a ball has come in your general direction.

 

The latter factor is kind of my whole point. In the midst of catching discourse, what gets lost is the simple fact that Test cricket is about picking wickets faster than the other team can. It's the currency of the format, and the single biggest determiner of success. If you want to win a Test, you must ensure that you keep generating chances, and the wickets, more often than not, will inevitably follow.

--

Too often, in our much more mundane lives, we too focus on the barely imperceptible stuff. The thing that'll maybe improve things by .1% at a cost significantly disproportionate to the benefit.

I've observed this often, especially when I started learning to cook. When I was looking for tutorials on cooking, the first thing classical chefs talked about was how to chop stuff. They talk about how you must learn the proper technique to chop quickly and uniformly, and how it makes a big difference in your cooking. There is just one problem here. Who the fuck am I chopping fast for? Home cooks usually cook for 1, 2, or maybe 4 people. The scale at which someone like me operates when cooking at home is incomparable to a chef at a fancy restaurant. There is simply no need to learn how to chop fast and get mathematically precise and equal sizes of your onion dice. 

What actually matters are the macros (geddittt?). Can you plan out a dish so it's nutritious and tasty? Can you tell when something is cooked? Do you know how to store your food so it doesn't go bad?

--

Catches are the brunoise of the cricket world. Sometimes, it'll come off, and you'll save 20 seconds. Other times, you might dive a millisecond too late and the ball slips out of your grasp.

However, if you wish to be successful long term, you need to focus on the skills that actually make a meaningful difference to the end product. Whether that means balancing your meals, or balancing your bowling attack.

 

 Moneyball (2011). A great movie to watch to understand how stats work in sports.

--

This might be the dumbest and random article I've written. In my head, it makes sense. If it sounds like a bunch of waffle to you, let me know!