“It is better to leave the scene when people ask why, and not why not?”

“While retiring from the game, it is better to leave two matches earlier than later.”

From Vijay Merchant to Ian Chappell to Sunil Gavaskar to pretty much every modern-day commentator of the game, who was a professional cricketer before, has variations of the above advice to offer any cricketer contemplating retirement. However, the basic idea of a player retiring before his game has necessarily dropped, is rather befuddling.

The recent high-profile group retirements of Damien Martyn, Glen McGrath, Shane Warne and Justin Langer at the end of the Ashes series that dominated the cricket media all around the world, exemplified this. By all accounts, all four appeared to have some cricket still left in them. Martyn was Australia’s most successful batsman in the triumphant Champions Trophy campaign in November 2006. McGrath and Warne kept winning matches for Australia, and Langer seemed to have had just a temporary dip of form (after scoring 82 and 100* in the first Ashes test).

Australian cricket has always had an unsentimental approach to team selection, no doubt an exemplary attitude, but the whole business of leaving the game before you have ceased to be meaningful to the team, seems a bit bizarre. Isn’t that giving an individual slant in a team game? If a national team still picks you on pure merit, and finds your absence disconcerting (certainly the case with Warne and McGrath), then what exactly is being achieved by quitting before your game has begun to deteriorate?

What role does chronological age have in this mix, if you’re still a match-winner? Is it fatigue and the feeling of having little “fuel” left inside to keep at it, a lack of motivation and desire? If so, why don’t the performances show it? Is it because the cricketer in question is straining every sinew to end with a bang or is it just a current tiredness of mind casting a shadow on long-term prospects?

Bottomline – is it not best for a cricket nation to have its primary performers play on till their performances drop to an extent where their future selection is somewhat in doubt? Does that not serve the team more? Why does the personal pride factor of “going out on a high” take precedence over optimum utilization of personnel skills available to a team?

It is interesting, in this context, to take a look at the last 5 Test innings of the greatest players of the game (we could look at bowlers too, but statistically, it is much easier to get a feel from batting scores).

Some go out, guns adequately blazing – like Viv Richards (63, 80, 22, 73* and 60). Or Greg Chappell (150*, 6, 4, 5 and 182). Some save a special knock for their last – Steve Waugh (30, 42, 19, 40 and 80 – the last being a series-saving innings against India). Or Sunil Gavaskar (0, 24, 63, 21 and 96 – the last against Pakistan rated by many as among the best 5 innings of his career; a fifth day masterpiece on a treacherous turning pitch).

Sometimes, even the giants look mortal – Len Hutton (5, 6, 11, 3 and 53) or George Headley (29, 7*, 2, 16 and 1) or Frank Worrell (1, 0, 25, 0 and 9) or Denis Compton (19, 42, 1, 0 and 5). Or the superhuman look human – Don Bradman (7, 30*, 33, 173* and 0), Garfield Sobers (23, 57, 0, 0 and 20).

Many Australians may seem to favour retirement before the mojo has completely gone– Alan Border (34, 14, 45, 17 and 42*), Ian Chappell (9, 2, 4, 75 and 26*), Dean Jones (57, 77, 100*, 11 and 21), Doug Walters (67, 20, 33*, 78 and 18*), Mark Waugh (30, 55, 0, 2 and 23), David Boon (6, 13, 110, 43 and 35).

In India and Pakistan, the story is a little different. Javed Miandad (70, 12, 20, 10 and 31), Zaheer Abbas (6, 12, 6, 0 and 4), Gundappa Vishwanath (53, 9, 0, 37 and 10), Mohinder Amarnath (1, 8, 43, 3 and 1), Dilip Vengsarkar (54, 13, 4, 1 and 4) suggest they were all past their prime.

These famous Kiwis also appeared spent at the end – Martin Crowe (16, 14, 11, 24 and 15), Glenn Turner (4, 23, 32, 10 and 29), Chris Cairns (14, 41, 10, 12 and 1), Bev Congdon (36, 27, 4, 2 and 3).

The Sri Lankans perhaps see things more like Australians – Arjuna Ranatunga (13, 54, 88, 14 and 28*), Aravinda De Silva (10, 47, 18, 40 and 206- though admittedly the last innings was a one-off against Bangladesh), Hashan Tillakaratne (25, 16, 7, 74* and 17), Asanka Gurusinha (143, 17, 2, 52 and 88).

The figures of the premier all-rounders are interesting. Imran Khan (17, 58*, 93*, 22 and 0) clearly was a pure batsman by then, and his abilities did seem to outshine his other notable peers at the end of their careers - Ian Botham (22, 15, 1, 2 and 6), Kapil Dev (27, 42, 53*, 4 and 18) and Richard Hadlee (18, 0, 86, 8 and 13).

The following English notables seemed to have a little something in reserve when they signed off – Geoff Boycott (50, 105, 34*, 18 and 6), David Gower (73, 18*, 31*, 27 and 1), Mike Gatting (0, 117, 0, 0 and 8), Graham Gooch (29, 47, 34, 37 and 4), Ken Barrington (0, 75, 0, 49 and 46*).

These modern-era South Africans at the end seemed inconsistent but still capable of quality batting. Gary Kirsten (34*, 1, 1, 1 and 76), Daryl Cullinan (82, 4, 28, 6 and 18), Kepler Wessels (28, 25, 7, 45 and 28).

And these West Indian greats still looked good for a few more – Clive Lloyd (6, 19, 34*, 33 and 72), Gordon Greenidge (12, 10, 226, 6 and 43), Desmond Haynes (63, 38, 19, 35 and 15), Richie Richardson (69, 2, 22, 40 and 93), Clyde Walcott (47, 62, 9, 53 and 22), Everton Weekes (39, 41, 16*, 51 and 9).

Two contrastingly premature ends to careers – Barry Richards’ in his only test series (140, 65, 35, 81 and 126) cut short by Apartheid in South Africa. And Mohammed Azharuddin’s (20, 87, 15, 9 and 102), terminated by match-fixing disgrace.

And two interesting ones. Jason Gillespie’s last Test innings was 201 not out, but it was against Bangladesh and of course, he’s Australian and he was in the side as a bowler. Vijay Merchant, who made the famous “why and not why not” remark, certainly practiced what he preached (27, 78, 0, 128 and 154 – all against England). Certainly looks like a highly eccentric retirement, especially when you consider that the last two innings constituted his highest scores in Test cricket!

So, ultimately, what does all this really mean? Five innings may not be a great sample to determine form, and the number of cricketers here may not constitute a big enough number to come to a pointed conclusion. Also, motivation and desire clearly have a lot to do with the decision to leave. But whether it has to do with the mind more than the body is not always easy to figure out. Perhaps a player changes his mind after he has given in to his impulse of retiring and then cannot make it back as his ego may not allow it or the team has moved on. Of course, it may also be that the player is dropped for more than cricketing reasons. These things cannot be spotted from these examples, but still, some things do emerge.

By and large, it does seem that in the subcontinent (India and Pakistan), cricketers tend to play right till the end of their powers (with notable exceptions like Gavaskar and Merchant), till the team actually carries them as extra baggage. The reverence to the individual is borne out through many examples.

In Australia, that reverence seems to be usually superseded by the team’s requirement and Australians seem remarkably unsentimental about saying goodbye, even to icons. They may give them a warm send-off, but won’t flinch from pressing for their exclusion if they feel the team is being compromised.

The English seem to balance reverence and this unsentimental approach. Perhaps some of them still seem to have something in reserve because they started later than the others – the mind is willing but the flesh is weak?

The South Africans and New Zealanders play longer perhaps because their replacements take longer to find, given the smaller number of people playing serious cricket in their countries.

West Indians and Sri Lankans seem fine about saying goodbye even when the player has something more to offer. Or maybe the players here buckle up and focus harder to make their farewell memorable. Could it be the islanders’ instinct for parties that makes even farewells worthwhile occasions? Whatever it is, it’s an interesting grouping, this.

There is no doubt that the individual’s approach matters the most when the end of a playing career is nigh, and the circumstances under which he is operating. But, the culture he has grown up in plays no insignificant part – that is the interesting, if not altogether surprising, point perhaps being illuminated here.