Bits and pieces

Sometimes you end up doing things for more than one reason, and that can be sub-optimal because neither of those reasons is compelling.

It was possibly sometime in the mid-90s that this whole concept of bits and pieces players came into ODI cricket. It started with England in some Sharjah tournament under the captaincy of Adam Hollioake. They selected this whole number of so-called all-rounders who could bat a bit, bowl a bit, but not be particularly good at both. Hollioake and his brother, Ben (RIP), were among these.

The concept remained popular for a while. For example, once Australia got Adam Gilchrist, they could afford a bits and pieces guy at 7. Somebody who could bat a bit, bowl a bit. Somebody like a Shane Lee or an Ian Harvey. The concept became hot. Everybody wanted to have bits and pieces players.

And then inevitably the backlash started. People started talking about “genuine all-rounders” - people who could get into the team either on the strength of their batting or their bowling alone, but also had a second suit. This was somebody like a Mark Waugh or a Steve Waugh for example, who could get in purely on the basis of their batting. Or for example somebody like Kapil Dev who could get in purely on the basis of his bowling.

The debate still continues in cricket. For example, India recently under Gambhir has had this concept of having several bits and pieces players, while Australia has been bossing the ongoing Ashes by just selecting six proper batters and four proper bowlers.

Thinking about this, this concept extends beyond cricket as well. For example, I’ve come across this concept that if you want to buy a product for two reasons, then neither of those reasons is particularly good enough, and so you would rather not buy the product.

In other words, there should be one compelling reason as to why you want to buy something. If not, you are trying to just convince yourself that you need this rather than it actually being a good fit for you.

Thinking about this morning, last night I had gone to a friend’s party where I think I ended up drinking heavily and also ended up having a lot of desserts. But this morning I woke up without any kind of hangover or headache or whatever. Thinking about it, that’s primarily because I stuck to proper drinks - no cocktails, and then I had desserts.

Cocktails are the bits and pieces players here. The thing with cocktails is that they are usually loaded with loads of sugar syrups - either natively or in the form of “fruit juices”. The idea here is that if you are having sugar along with your alcohol, the alcohol is going to hit you harder and it’s going to give you a buzz while consuming much lesser alcohol. This means that you protect your health seemingly but still get your buzz.

Then, as I’ve got older, I found that every time I have cocktails, I immediately wake up in anger. I don’t know what the biological reason for this is. And so, pretty much given up on cocktails. Though in the past, I’ve ended up having cocktails and already drunk on normal liquor, and then regretted it the next day.

With full benefit of hindsight, what I did yesterday was optimal. I wanted the buzz of alcohol, so I had alcohol (neat whisky and wine). I wanted to have some sweets, so I had some excellent desserts (my friend had arranged for some beautiful plum cakes and tarts and stuff).

We make this mistake sometimes, especially when it comes to food. We try to optimize for too many things. For example, we want something to be both tasty and healthy, but in the bargain, we end up with something that’s neither very tasty nor very healthy.

Instead, I think it’s best if we can form our own portfolio by having healthy things, tasty things, and things that are good or bad for us in several different ways. Rather than taking pre-built portfolios made by others which try to combine health and taste and all that, it’s best to make it for us by ourselves.

It’s already past that time of the year when I make my resolutions (which is my birthday on December 6th). But I think this should probably be my resolution - whenever I want to do something, I need to be very clear on why I am doing this. There needs to be one compelling reason for me to do it, rather than having a portfolio of small reasons to do it.

I mean, prebuilt portfolios and mutual funds and stuff exist for a reason. Products that combine health, safety, taste, and enjoyment also exist for a reason. But could we be sort of just succumbing to others’ combinations here rather than making our own? I guess this is an experiment worth doing!

PS: this is the first time I have used Wispr Flow to dictate a blog post. Tell me how this goes compared to the stuff that I usually type.