If you are part of the Indian middle class, you need no introduction to the concept of insecurity. If you are among the select few who have worked your way to the next level, even to a point where money is no longer an issue, you're never really too far away from the 'this won't last' feeling.
Not to say that North Zone's batting approach in their second innings against West Zone in the Duleep Trophy quarter-final was borne out of insecurity. We can't know that unless they say it themselves. But watching them play was a bit like watching someone in the highest tax bracket moonlighting to pay their next water bill.
They had secured a 64-run lead despite making a middling first-innings total of 251. Yet, there were slog sweeps, reverse sweeps, dancing down the track in the first ten overs of their second innings. Sometimes, like Ayush Badoni's cut that flew over gully for four, risk brought reward; other times, like when Qamran Iqbal holed out slog-sweeping to long-on, risk gifted reward to the opposition.
As per Cricinfo's logs, North Zone attacked every third ball in their first ten overs and scored 36 while losing Iqbal's wicket. Their total: 54 for 3. It's worth questioning if the runs were worth the wickets of the top-three batters. It's also worth noting that 20 wickets had fallen in five sessions, that Abid Mushtaq's five-for was aided by the ball turning even at faster speeds, and that the chances of the pitch deteriorating further had to be factored in. In conditions like these, you have to take risks as a batter. The tricky part is taking the right kind of risk; one that, at least in theory, keeps the odds in your favour.
North Zone managed to reach 222 and set West Zone a target of 287.
West Zone played out two maidens and a one-run over in their first ten. They attempted ten attacking shots and scored 19. One of the shots was a six off the fifth ball Musheer Khan faced. It was a cross-batted heave against Arshdeep Singh's hard-length ball from around the wicket that sailed over long-on.
He tried a few more of those. Were they decided upon seeing the ball out of the hand, or were they premeditated? After the day's play, Musheer confirmed it was the latter, "I was anticipating that the bowler had just bowled here, so he would go there next. So I anticipate and try to play those shots.
"It's a turning track, so it was tougher to score against spinners because they were getting more assistance. But we can attack fast bowlers nicely, their balls weren't misbehaving as much as they were in the first innings. My mindset was to take chances here and there with the shots I have. Even if I stepped out, swung and missed, I know they are my shots. I won't call it a release shot, it's my favourite shot."
So Musheer's advances weren't random. Listening to him after the day's play, you can even say they were rational.
While his dancing down and nailing a flat-batted six with his side 4 for 1 is more risky than reward-y, not every shot can be judged from this prism. Players make hundreds of decisions while batting. If there are patterns to those decisions, they generally, if not ideally, come from a team's strategy or 'brand of cricket' as it's often called. Competitive sport requires these strategies to target the desired result, whether it comes off or not. And at the end of the third day, this game could go either way.
Given North Zone had taken a first-innings lead, West needed to go for the target and Musheer felt their best bet was to take risks. The approach paid off as Musheer went on to score 96 off 126 balls. And it put West into the ascendancy at 195 for 3.
A wobble followed, though, with four wickets falling for 25 runs, leaving them needing 67 on the final day with three wickets in hand. West Zone have shown a willingness to take risks with the game on the line. Is reward waiting for them? Or is it something else?