Why we are so fascinated with lists...

I have often wondered why we are so fascinated with lists- the top 10 cities, the top 5 players, the top 5 actors- the latest- Shane Warne's top 50 cricketers has created as much excitement and debate in cricketing circles as any I have seen.

Using Shane's list as an example, I think there are three reasons why our fascination with "lists" will always continue.
First- lists provide an linear, "objective" lens on things that are almost always subjective. They give us an anchor to debate around, they show us a line drawn in the sand when there was none, they make us take a stand and while that is always fun, it can be tough to defend. Warne put Tendulkar at No. 1 on his list with Lara is No. 2 based on mental toughness and the fact that Sachin carries on his shoulders (and has done so since the age of 16) the burden of expectations of a billion Indians! While his technique is impeccable, it is his ability to adapt and score against every opposition against any type of opposition is what separates him from others. Some might argue that Sachin has not scored in crunch games in recent past, a fair comment in the last three years for sure, but that is what makes lists so interesting.

Second- lists are inherently controversial. In fact, while making a list, I think the list maker necessarily throws in a couple of curved balls! In Warne's case, having Steve Waugh, Australia's toughest captain and someone who built Australia into one of the most invincible cricketing nations in the world at No. 26 is a shocker! I think he intended this to generate debate and clearly he has succeeded. If mental toughness is the criterion used to have Sachin at 1, having Waugh anything below 10 is an injustice to the man. In my view, the fact that Waugh captained Australia for as long as he did and in a way "prevented" Warne from having the captaincy has got in a little bit here. Personal bias, always, a good thing for controversy and list- making.

Third- lists pander to our sense of achievement. Everything, whether objective or subjective, has to be highest, best, second highest, second best etc. It creates a sense of competition, which is what brings out the best in human spirit.

I suppose even as Warne has rekindled the debate about whether it is Sachin or Lara who is a greatest cricketer of the modern era, it has also justified why we are so fascinated with lists- its all about a strong point of view which, if controversial, makes for better press than any "objective" fact, where there is nothing to argue or talk about. We know that Everest is the highest mountain in the world but ask any mountaineer which one is the toughest to climb and you have a debate going... long live the lists!!