Whenever Sachin scores a century India loses - Myth or reality? It was an epiphany of a moment. India were playing Sri Lanka in Hambantota in July 2012 and had piled up 314 in their innings, buoyed by Virat Kohli’s 106. In response, Kumar Sangakkara had waged a single handed battle against the Indian bowlers, racing to 133 and keeping the hosts in the race. And then he missed a scoop off Umesh Yadav and had his leg-stump flattened. As Sri Lanka lost by 21 runs, I could not resist tweeting: “Shudder to think what would have happened if Tendulkar scored a hundred and India failed to chase down the total.” There was a reason for the tweet. I had already carried out several studies to prove that the moronic myth about India losing when Sachin Tendulkar scores a century was, well, moronic. Yet, the cognitive fallacy was so deep rooted in the psyche of the arm-chair fans that it seemed that it would take nothing less than a nuclear explosion to dispel it. And soon, I received the reply to my tweet. “This has happened so often that we are used to it. Shudder is #drama.” If this had come from the normal fan-space that surrounds the Indian cricket arena, it would not really amount to anything other than mild irritation and an exasperated shrug. However, the words had been keyed in and sent into cyber space by one of the more educated people among my contacts. It was quite revealing to see that even he had fallen to the popular illusions. In some ways it was eye opening. Not in relation to Tendulkar’s record, which is generally always in front of me in several spreadsheets. It actually spoke volumes about the susceptibility of even the supposed intelligentsia for the umpteen myths and fallacies that do rounds in the cricket world. And again, it hinted at another cognitive quirk I myself had almost fallen prey to. It is called ‘Authority Bias’. There was no reason why I should have expected a balanced and knowledgeable response on cricket from this individual. As far as the game was concerned, he was just another fan. But, since I knew of his educational background and professional accomplishments, I had been erroneously led to believe that his response would contain more reason and logic rather than ignorant fanspeak. Authority Bias is one of the important Cognitive Heuristics that we do come across in the domain of cricket opinions. But before that, there are several other biases that run amok in the perceptions that people carry about the game. And the critics of Sachin Tendulkar provide a ringside view of a plethora of these. Does only Tendulkar face unfair criticism because of cognitive errors? No, he does not. Other cricketers benefit or suffer from the positives and the negatives of this phenomenon the same way. At the same time, since Tendulkar has been by far the most popular name in the media — and the media happens to be one of the major reasons for all these biases — much of the misconceptions are directed at him. Someone who comes close today is MS Dhoni. However, let us look at the cognitive biases. And before that let me explain why the tweet I received in response was way off the mark. Again, this is what I had tweeted. “Shudder to think what would have happened if Tendulkar scored a hundred and India failed to chase down the total.” And this was the reply that I received: “This has happened so often that we are used to it. Shuddering is #drama.” Now let us look at the facts behind the statements. • Tendulkar scoring a hundred and the team failing to chase down a total has happened on three occasions. • This is in contrast to a record 14 centuries scored in victorious chases. Incidentally, the next number of centuries in victorious chases is 11 by Virat Kohli. At the time of the exchange of tweets, the second highest was Sanath Jayasuriya with nine. • While Tendulkar does stand alone at the top of the century list in victorious chases, he does not do so in failed chases. Shivnarine Chanderpaul, Chris Gayle and Aravinda de Silva each have scored three hundreds in failed chases, although their respective numbers of hundreds in victorious pursuits are three, eight and three respectively. • So, “this has happened so often we are used to it” was an off-the-cuff remark with nothing near to a statistical basis. If anything, hundreds in chases show Tendulkar in excellent light. If we look at the individual centuries scored in defeats it will be clear why: These are the hundreds scored by Sachin Tendulkar in failed chases. One look at them and we will realise how unfair the remark is. His hundreds are as follows: • 143 against Australia in Sharjah 1998 — the first desert storm single-handedly helping India to qualify for the finals and the second highest score of Indian inning was 35. • Sachin scored 141 runs while chasing a mammoth total of 330, India made 317/10 (48.4 overs) and the second highest score of Indian inning was 37 (it was by extras, not by any batsman), when Sachin got out Indias score was 245/4 (38.4 overs), now 85 run in 11.2 overs with 6 wickets in hand its was not impossible to chase this target?? • Sachin scored 175 while chasing another mammoth total of 351, India made 347/10 (49.4 overs) and the second highest score of Indian inning was 59(not enough to chase such a huge total) and few say that India lost because of him...pathetic! And now, contrast it with the words: “This has happened so often that we are used to it.” What is alarming is that this ridiculous statement is not only the opinion of the gentleman who sent me this tweet, but plenty of others. Such is the far reaching effect of the cognitive biases that plague the cricket media and fan-space. What are the cognitive illusions these people suffer from? Here are some [not exhaustive] examples of the heuristics and biases that are found specifically around the little champion: Clustering Illusion/False Causality: “The tendency to erroneously perceive small samples from random distributions to have significant streaks or clusters”. Tendulkar’s three hundreds in lost causes while chasing — which is not even a record — was taken as proof of this ‘phenomenon’, while his record 14 hundreds in winning chases had been blissfully ignored. A lot of this stems from the media, which places an amplifier on the failures, aided by the reluctance to check the records. Base rate neglect: “When given generic and specific information, the mind tends to ignore the former and focus on the latter.” We can talk about the entire career of 17 hundreds in chases, 14 of which ended in victories. However, the mind, already swayed by what it wants to believe, will zero in on three hundreds scored in chases that ended in defeats. Social Proof/Groupthink: “If thousands of people say something it has to be true.” Unfortunately, it does not work that way. Especially in a space hugely influenced by media reports and headlines. Most people lack the patience and time to even go beyond the headlines and delve into the articles. So, while “Tendulkar scores a hundred in failed chases” may be repeated by plenty of people, it does not make it any less false than the statistics indicate. Courtesy: Arunabha Sengupta
Posted on: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 18:54:46 +0000