Like many Indians, I am ruing the loss to Australia in this year’s Cricket World Cup finals. It displayed a tactical blueprint and execution from Australia. Interestingly, the Aussies had tasted this medicine in the past.
We have many lessons to learn as leaders, strategizers, and innovators. Let’s dive in!
Thanks for reading Innovation and Insights! Join 1000+ leaders who subscribe to this newsletter.
Subscribe
The 1996 Cricket World Cup final featured a surprising move by Arjuna Ranatunga, the Sri Lankan captain, in shooing away tradition and ensuring a dramatic victory.
The venue was Lahore and the Aussies were the favorites with a very strong team. The unlikely Sri Lankan team had surprised everyone in the tournament. Even if they lost in the ultimate game, it would be a tremendous achievement. Like every cricket match, this too began with the toss of a coin. Ranatunga won it and in a jaw-dropping decision, he chose to field.
Here’s what he went against when making that call:
- Sri Lankans always preferred batting first. Their record in this world cup was particularly strong due to their openers Jayasuriya and Kaluwitharnana.
- There’s an element of history too – previous World Cup finals had featured the chasing team on the losing side.
- In a high-pressure game, you want to go with what works and follow tradition.
What led Arjuna to believe chasing i.e. batting second might be better?
Day-night ODI matches start late afternoon and end in night. The team batting first usually has plenty of natural sunlight. The chasing team has to bat under floodlights. By that time, the dew sets in and the ground could be soaking wet. In those conditions, it is hard to grip the ball making the job extremely difficult for bowlers.
That’s where Sri Lanka scored over Australia.
In the days before the final, Sri Lanka practiced under the lights. They saw plenty of dew on the field. In comparison, the Aussie team never practiced in those conditions in Lahore.
This was a game-changing factor that Sri Lankans knew. Yet, it was not a sure-shot decision for Arjuna.
No matter what data indicates, sometimes emotions and traditions lord over our decisions.
That’s what Ranatunga faced. He believed in his strategy and selected chasing. The Australian team struggled, understandably, in bowling with the wet ball and Sri Lanka won the ultimate game in cricket.
Emotions have a place but don’t let them overrule hard data.
So, how should we take decisions under emotional influence?
I recommend two approaches.
- Decision Frameworks
- Six hats approach
Decision Frameworks are based on pre-defined metrics. You can use a Risk:Reward ratio. Some stock traders I know prefer to take positions only when they get a 1:3 or better ratios. Other approaches are based on firm-specific metrics that cover business impact, differentiation, moat size, and others.
A Six Hat thinking approach works best with a team. Each hat forces you to evaluate the situation from different perspectives including factual, negative impact, emotional, and optimistic viewpoints. Because you acknowledge emotions, it helps bring everyone on the same page.
The six thinking hats approach needs time and everyone to participate over a few iterations.
Decision Frameworks are better for real-time situations and more frequently used.
It’s important to acknowledge that this is a process approach.
It doesn’t and cannot guarantee results. The Sri Lankan team could have lost in the 1996 Finals and they still would have be respected an excellent team. Like the 2023 Indian team 🙂
They lost to a team that executed well on plans in real-time. That’s how I am at peace with the outcome 🙂
As a bonus, you should listen from Ranatunga himself.