Exceptionalism

Exceptionalism, wikipedia’s excellent definition tells us, is “is the perception or belief that a species, country, society, institution, movement, individual, or time period is "exceptional" (i.e., unusual or extraordinary). The term carries the implication, whether or not specified, that the referent is superior in some way.”

India chased an improbable 115 in the last 60 balls against Pakistan yesterday at the MCG. It was a thrilling, enjoyable match with an unexpectedly happy ending. As stories go, those are hard to beat. On the Sunday at the beginning of the Diwali holiday season, what could be more pleasurable? That was one reaction - the jubilation of heaping misery over the old enemy, winning after, at one point, being down and nearly out of the contest, is in many ways even more fun than hammering them by 10 wickets with 20 balls to spare.

Here, we encounter a paradox. From a competitive standpoint, if the question is, how much better are we than the old enemy, then the 10 wicket hammering with 20 balls to spare provides a much surer signal of superiority than manic result from the last ball. And yet, it is often the manic innings which are remembered, are considered memorable, and here is the problem, are considered better.

Alongside the pleasure, we’ve had a second strain of commentary - about quality. Virat Kohli is supposed to have played the best innings of his life (highly unlikely, whatever he may feel in the immediate glow of the moment in front of 90,000 adoring spectators), he’s supposed to have hit an exceptional six.

If two batters play the same shot against the same bowler off the same line and length, and one of them is Kohli, then the one Kohli hit is automatically more difficult, better, harder to pull off - in a word, exceptional.

The exceptionalist theory is embellished by turning the opposing bowlers into monsters. They’re impossible to score from. The conditions are hostile. The air is heavier at the ground than elsewhere. Everything that could be adverse, and more, is dialled up to maximum for this story.

I was reminded of another great run chase - New Zealand’s World Cup semi final against England in Abu Dhabi in less than 12 months ago. They needed 57 from the final 4 overs. They won with an over to spare. The last three overs in that game were delivered by Chris Woakes, Adil Rashid and Chris Jordan. Their overs went for 20, 14 and 23 respectively against Darryll Mitchell and Jimmy Neesham. That was a knock-out match. This is a fact which normally matters to exceptionalists.

I can hear the objections. That Woakes, Rashid and Neesham are ordinary compared to Afridi, Rauf, Naseem and Nawaz. This claim is not the consequence of study or inquiry. Rather, it is a claim which has to be true if one is an exceptionalist.

The three English bowlers play most of their T20 cricket in the high scoring English domestic competition - played on smallish grounds. The Pakistani trio play most of their T20 cricket in Pakistan or the UAE. The fastest scoring in T20 occurs in England and New Zealand. They play a lot of matches and as the table below shows, are highly experienced in bowling at the death, defending totals. Naseem Shah is still very young and is the least experienced bowler on show. The ground at Abu Dhabi is marginally higher scoring (average total 159) than the MCG (average total 158).

Record of the seven bowlers involved in bowling the last 4 overs of the chases by IND and NZ considered in this essay in overs 17,18,19 & 20 of the 2nd innings of a T20 fixture. “jogi_per_match” gives the runs conceded relative to the average expectation per match.

The same criteria as above, considering matches (2018-2022). “jogi_per_match” gives the runs conceded relative to the average expectation per match.

All things considered, the English trio are no pie chuckers compared to the Pakistani quartet. The Pakistani bowlers yesterday were not monstrously difficult to score against compared to the English bowlers faced by New Zealand in November 2021. You can watch the highlights of that fixture. It has everything - the six to the straight boundary off the back foot, the high full toss sent to the boundary, the early wickets against the new ball, the chase which falls behind the asking rate. International T20 fixtures resemble each other closely. This is what makes a sport a sport.

The fact that the exceptionalist account breaks down upon even elementary scrutiny should surprise no one. The notion that one T20 match or one shot is sui generis is obviously absurd. Such accounts tend to submerge the actual competition and its protagonists. It does cricket or its players no favors. For that matter, it does the game’s fans no favors either. With the greatest of respect to the excellent Freddie Wilde of CricViz, India v Pakistan at MCG on October 24, 2022 was not the The Greatest T20. Sid Monga’s review, despite its breathlessness, is excellent because it never strays from the competitive substance of the fixture.

Virat Kohli is a great player because of his cumulative record. Not because he once took a few chances on a Sunday which happened to come off (they haven’t been coming off for much of the 2020s, as the world never stopped reminding him). He inhabits the same physical and moral universe as the other 21 players in the matches he plays. He had a good day yesterday. He will had bad days (and good ones) in the future. That’s the nature of sport.

Perhaps it is inevitable that is an element of exceptionalism in the coverage of India beating Pakistan on a Sunday, on the eve of Diwali. The exceptionalism is, nevertheless, unsporting. Sport is an antidote to exceptionalism. It can only exist in a world in which nobody is inherently superior. That is what makes the idea of better and worse players meaningful.