In Cricket, Veterans Past Their Prime Continue to Outperform Younger Players

If there is a country for old men, right now it is South Africa and they are playing cricket there. The Champions League Twenty20 cricket competition currently being played in the Rainbow nation showcases many of the world’s top international performers from yesteryear; Herschelle Gibbs, Brett Lee, Brad Hogg and other old men have found a lucrative way in to retirement by playing the shortest format of the cricket game.
Usually in sports the sight of legends past their prime is associated with lower quality –Pele playing in an American soccer league, Björn Borg in the early 1990’ies, any boxing comeback you can think of- but in cricket the legendary names still perform at the top of their game and continue to keep younger players out of the starting line-up.
The only notable absence from the tournament is 43-year old legendary Australian leg-spinner, Shane Warne. After retiring from international cricket in 2007 he has continued to play in the shortest format and in 2008 he coached and captained his Indian side, Rajasthan Royals, to the Indian Premier League Twenty20 title. Recently he has played in the Australian Big Bash league for The Melbourne Stars who failed to qualify for the Champions League Twenty20 competition.

The traditional explanation why most sportsmen fail to compete in their late 30’ies is rooted in the fact that the body deteriorates. While it is true that reaction time gets slower and physical capabilities deteriorate no theory has been able to convincingly explain the connection between physical deterioration and changes in the decision making process. What can be observed, though, is that while the body may deteriorate the decisions get better. Retired NFL-player and Hall of Fame inductee, Jerry Rice, explained it best when he said “as you get older and slower, you have to get smarter to stay in the game.” He backed up his words by playing until he was 44 years old.

The veterans may not have the fitness levels or reaction time of their peak years but their cricketing knowledge and decisions are so good they remain elite performers. Batsmen survive longer in the game by changing their decision making process and limit themselves from playing the high-risk shots, while bowlers stick to the more basic low-risk deliveries.
The reason why veterans continue to outshine the younger players in the shortest format of the game has to do with the difference between aerobic (low-intensity) and anaerobic (high-intensity) workload. When crossing the anaerobic threshold, lactic acid begins to build in the body, which makes muscles start to burn and causes fine-motor skills to deteriorate. Older players with lower fitness levels cross in to the anaerobic zone faster than younger players. This is why the older players lose their places in starting lineups in the long formats of the game.
In the shortest format the player rarely moves into the anaerobic zone making veterans able to replicate performances of their prime in the short bursts allowed in twenty20 cricket.
This is the reason why you can watch cricket stars past their prime still playing with the best in the world.

The Un-Luxuriousness of Luxury

In Economy 101 we learn that products can be sorted in to three different categories. Generally, when you make more money, you buy less of inferior goods (usually low quality products) and more of normal goods (which is why they are called “normal”). But those are absolute terms. There’s a third category called luxury goods. Luxury goods are the ones that make you change the percentage of funds you allocate to a particular type of product.
If you’re making $25,000 a year, you probably don’t need to own a Jaeger-leCoultre watch since a normal $10 will be just as good at telling you the time.  But if your annual bonus is $25,000 you have to own at least one luxury watch. So from spending 0% on luxury you allocate a certain percentage of your salary to luxury.
This is why the main driver in the luxury industry is related to general economic growth. At least that’s what we learned in Economy 101. If we follow that reasoning the luxury business should be in a sad state these days. The world economy is still punch drunk after being down twice, and it’s not sure if it wants to get up again or lay down a third time to let Europe join the party.

But in spite of these circumstances most luxury brands are actually massively outperforming the general market. Companies like PPR (Gucci, Brioni, Bottega Veneta et. al.), Richemont (Cartier, Dunhil & IWC) and LVMH (Louis Vuitton, Fendi, Berluti, Bulgari, TAG Heuer et. al.) have all produced double digit growth in 2012.
Does that mean that economic theory is wrong and that we have to re-write the economy books? Well, yes and no. Economic theory accurately describes the historical trends it is built upon, but it comes to terms when being forced upon events of the past fifty years.

Although income disparity has grown during the last century –the rich getting richer and the poor remaining poor- the general utility score of the average individual has risen. The utility score describes the possibilities an individual has. A hundred years ago only the rich were able to stay updated on current affairs (buying a newspaper), enjoy music (going to a concert) or be entertained by going to the theatre. Today, internet access will let you access all the news, music, movies and entertainment you want. For free.
This significantly alters the distribution of funds in the household budget. With all the entertainment you want available for the price of a decent web connection it frees up funds to buy stuff that you might not need, but that you want. Like luxury products. This is why the general economy might be worse than 5 years ago but the luxury business is bigger than ever before. Luxury items have not become cheaper but they have become more attainable by the general public. This makes luxury products more democratic, less exquisite, and as a result, a little less luxurious.