top of page

By:

Kiran D. Tare

21 August 2024 at 11:23:13 am

The Lady of Lord’s

Yastika Bhatia’s maiden Test century at Lord’s crowns the rise of an elegant wicketkeeper-batter who has quietly become indispensable to India’s new generation. Critics may say that there are flashier cricketers than Yastika Bhatia. She does not possess the raw power of a Smriti Mandhana or the aura of a Harmanpreet Kaur. She rarely dominates highlight reels or social media clips. Instead, she has built her reputation through reliability – a quality far more vital. At a time when white-ball...

The Lady of Lord’s

Yastika Bhatia’s maiden Test century at Lord’s crowns the rise of an elegant wicketkeeper-batter who has quietly become indispensable to India’s new generation. Critics may say that there are flashier cricketers than Yastika Bhatia. She does not possess the raw power of a Smriti Mandhana or the aura of a Harmanpreet Kaur. She rarely dominates highlight reels or social media clips. Instead, she has built her reputation through reliability – a quality far more vital. At a time when white-ball cricket prizes spectacle, the 24-year-old wicketkeeper-batter has become one of India’s finest practitioners of the understated virtues of timing, patience and composure. Bhatia’s 113 against England which powered the Indian women’s side to a historic win at Lord’s was not merely her maiden Test century but the first ever scored by a woman at cricket’s most celebrated venue. The innings helped India seal a comprehensive 270-run victory in the first women’s Test ever staged at Lord’s. Her hundred earned her a place on the Lord’s honours board, where generations of the game’s greatest names have been immortalised. Few entries have carried quite the same symbolism. Until now, no woman’s name had appeared there for a Test century because no women’s Test had ever been played at the ground. Bhatia’s career has mirrored the evolution of Indian women’s cricket itself. Born in Vadodara, she emerged through Gujarat’s domestic circuit at a time when opportunities for young women were expanding but remained far from abundant. A naturally gifted left-hander, she impressed selectors with a technique that appeared more classical than contemporary. Where modern batting often relies on innovation and improvisation, Bhatia’s game is rooted in balance. She plays late, favours placement over power and rarely appears rushed. Such attributes explain why coaches have long regarded her as especially suited to the demands of Test cricket, even though women are offered precious few opportunities to play the format. Modern wicketkeepers are expected to contribute almost as specialist batters while maintaining relentless concentration over long periods. Bhatia has embraced both responsibilities, becoming an important cog in an Indian side that has steadily shed its dependence on a handful of senior stars. That transformation has accelerated dramatically over the past year. India’s maiden Women’s ODI World Cup triumph marked a watershed for the sport, confirming that the country's women could finally translate promise into silverware. Although Bhatia missed that campaign after suffering an anterior cruciate ligament injury shortly before the tournament, her absence perhaps underscored her growing importance. Months of rehabilitation restored her confidence. If the World Cup represented the one that got away, Lord’s offered redemption. Returning to international cricket only recently, Bhatia produced an innings of remarkable maturity against England’s experienced attack. Her 113 came from 158 balls, balancing restraint with authority as India tightened their grip on the match. She admitted that six months earlier, while beginning rehabilitation, the idea of seeing her name on the Lord’s honours board would have seemed implausible. Those who know her were scarcely surprised. Former Indian wicketkeeper Kiran More, who has mentored Bhatia, has long spoken of her temperament rather than merely her talent. Scoring a century at Lord’s, he observed, is an ambition shared by virtually every cricketer. Achieving it after months away from the game simply reflected the resilience that had always underpinned her cricket. But hers was not a sentimental century assembled through fortune. It was a technically accomplished performance built on judgement outside off stump, crisp drives through the covers and the patience required by the longest format. It showcased precisely why Test cricket continues to matter. Unlike Twenty20, where brilliance can be compressed into a handful of overs, the five-day game rewards concentration accumulated over hours. For Indian women’s cricket, Bhatia’s century represents something larger than an individual milestone. It demonstrates the increasing depth of a side that is no longer defined solely by its biggest names. New heroes are emerging, backed by stronger domestic structures, better coaching and a professionalism unimaginable a decade ago. The honours board at Lord’s records statistics with characteristic restraint. It simply notes that Yastika Bhatia scored a century. Future generations may glance at the name without appreciating the path that led there. But Indian cricket will remember that the first woman to reach three figures at Lord’s was not merely making history. She was announcing that a new generation has arrived.

Who Should Manage Our Investments?

Easy access to markets has encouraged confidence, but sustained investing success still depends on discipline, process and emotional control.

Every market cycle revives a familiar question: should individuals manage their own investments, or should they entrust the task to professionals? The debate appears straightforward. Markets are open, information is widely available, and technology has put trading platforms into every pocket. If professional fund managers work with largely public data, why should investors not attempt to replicate the process themselves? The answer lies not in intelligence, but in temperament, process, and consistency.


Indian retail investors today are more engaged than ever. Demat accounts have crossed 19 crore. SIP inflows regularly exceed Rs.25,000 crore a month, and financial conversations have moved from boardrooms to tea stalls and smartphones. Confidence is high, participation is broad, and curiosity is genuine. Some enjoy early success, which reinforces confidence and creates the impression that professional management is optional. History, however, shows that markets eventually test conviction, often when confidence peaks.


Temperament Matters

A common misunderstanding is equating professional investing with stock picking or market timing. In reality, professional management focuses on risk control, capital preservation during downturns, and the ability to deliver steady, risk-adjusted returns across market cycles. Outperformance is a consequence of process, not prediction.


Professionals operate within structured frameworks. Investment ideas are researched, debated, documented, and reviewed. Portfolios are diversified deliberately, not defensively, because concentration can undo years of gains in a single adverse phase. Mistakes are analysed, not rationalised. Individual investors, by contrast, often invest alone, guided by instinct, headlines, and selective memory. Their decisions are shaped less by repeatable method than by recent experience, which markets are adept at distorting.


Consider the weekend cricketer who believes he could survive a full Test series. He may have talent and may even score a few runs, but consistency against international bowling demands training, systems, and stamina. Markets operate the same way. A handful of successful trades feel like skill; losses are blamed on timing or bad luck. This selective recall flatters confidence but weakens judgement.


Behavioural pressures compound the problem. Fear and greed affect all participants, but individual investors face them without institutional safeguards. Sharp corrections provoke panic selling, while prolonged rallies encourage overexposure. Professional investors experience the same emotions, but predefined processes impose discipline. For individuals, emotion often becomes an unrecognised cost.


Hidden Frictions

Time is another underestimated factor. Effective investing requires continuous research, earnings analysis, macro assessment, and portfolio review. This demands sustained attention. For salaried professionals and entrepreneurs, the opportunity cost of such engagement is substantial, though rarely acknowledged. A lawyer or doctor spending weekends tracking stock movements may be diverting time from the very skill that generates primary income. 


Then come the silent drags on performance. Transaction costs, taxes, and frequent portfolio churn quietly erode returns. Many investors remember headline gains but overlook the cumulative impact of small, repeated mistakes. Professional fund performance in India is reported after expenses, disclosures are regulated by SEBI, and portfolio changes are monitored. Individual investors often measure success before frictional costs intervene.


None of this implies that individual investing is misguided. A minority of investors possess the discipline, analytical skill, and emotional control to outperform consistently. However, the benchmark is long-term, risk-adjusted performance, not isolated wins. One successful stock does not constitute an investment strategy.


The more relevant question, therefore, is not whether one can invest independently, but whether one can do so better than trained professionals over many years. If the answer is demonstrably yes, self-management is justified. If the answer is uncertain, delegation is not a failure of competence but an exercise in judgement.


In most areas of life, professional expertise is accepted without hesitation. We trust pilots, doctors, and engineers because the cost of error is high. Financial decisions carry similar consequences. The objective of investing is not activity or excitement, but steady progress towards long-term financial goals.


Markets reward discipline more reliably than brilliance, and punish overconfidence more severely than ignorance. In that context, the most effective investors may not be those who act the most, but those who recognise the limits of their advantage.  Often, the smartest financial decision is recognising who is better equipped to make it.


(The writer is a retired banker and author of ‘Money Does Matter.’ Views personal.)

 


Comments

bottom of page