The year 2001. Month March. The event - 2nd Test Match of the series being played between India and Australia. With a winning streak of 16 test matches, Australia was on roll. The all conquering Australian squad had demolished the strong Indian batting line up in their first innings. To keep the momentum going Steve Waugh, the Australian Captain, invited the Saurav Ganguly led Indian team to bat again or follow on, in cricketing parlance. He stood vindicated as the India lost 4 wickets into the innings still short by 40-50 runs of Australia's first inning total. Till then everything seemed to be going Australia's way. But, VVS Laxman and Rahul Dravid, the men at the crease had something else in mind. Well the rest, as they say is history. India went on to win the match and the series bringing a halt to Australia's unbeaten reign. Steve Waugh went on to become only the third captain (and only the third match) in the history of test cricket to loose a match after inviting the opposition to follow on.
Critics and detractors, later, pointed out that Steve Waugh
had erred in giving India the follow on. They said, on the contrary, he
should have rested his bowlers and opted to bat instead. Thus keeping the fresh to have a go at the Indian batsmen and build the pressure. To which, Steve
Waugh rightfully retorted saying anyone who thought so, should have
told him so before he took the decision of giving a follow on. Years
later he would go on to reiterate that he did not have any regret about
his decision. All that mattered was the way the match was played with
both teams giving it their best shot.
For the critics and
detractors it was easy to point out the flaws of Steve Waugh in post
match analysis. They felt, he lost the match at the instance he gave
follow on. Till then there were only two instances in the century old
history of test cricket where a team had won after following on. Statistically speaking not even a less than fraction of a chance. The
critics case appeared to be a classic example of Hindsight Bias. Hindsight bias, also known as the knew-it-all-along effect or creeping determinism,
is the inclination, after an event has occurred, to see the event as
having been predictable, despite there having been little or no
objective basis for predicting it. If you have a keen follower of the
game you would not have agreed more.
It
becomes pertinent to note therefore, all decisions look picture perfect
once they have met success. Eulogies get written about how the situation
was analyzed, decoded and evaluated so success was guaranteed. But most
of the times it rarely is the case. Probably the person or the
institution itself is not sure which way the decision would go. Think of
this the other way round, which person the planet would opt for
decision that is likely to harm him or destroy the value which the
institution has created. Hardly any.
So
when New Coke flops, it is easier to find out the gaps and the flaws
which for some reason may been out of context to be taken into
consideration. They probably proved to be nemesis.
What
if the iPhone had not been a run away success? What if it was a
debacle? I am sure Steve Jobs, who has been rightfully hailed as legend,
would have been ripped apart. Some might have gone to the extent of
saying, getting thrown out once did not do it's bit. But because of the
success the same decision is looked upon as how well he understood the
pulse of what people wanted.
Look
around and we are bound to find 'n' number of decisions which could
have gone either way, for better or worse. These same decisions, post the
outcomes, are easy to decipher, decode and embed into models, and be
eulogized. Of what was right and what was not. Would these same people
have been able to predict the outcome when the decision was being taken?
Well, my guess is good as yours.
Comments
Post a Comment