Cricketers can bat, bowl, field and run. But they can't hide from the emotional triggers that snag the attention of players and public alike.
So, as much as the game's stars will roll their eyes and protest with a stifled yawn that they could not care less about statistics and milestones or where they are in the pecking orders that litter the media, all we need to do to know different is to ask ourselves whether we would care if those numbers were about us. We would.
We want to know where we stand with our significant others, our bosses, our underlings, our elders and our juniors. Psychiatrists and psychologists would be out of business if we did not have a strange need to know what we think of ourselves. Moreover, we want to know these things truthfully, or as close to the truth as we can get. That is not often possible, as anyone who has been lied to by a lover will attest.
But cricketers have it easy. In these days of instant everything, when they want to know how good they are they get their Google on. Or they consult the statswallahs, who are in almost every dressing room. Players do so discreetly because they would not be comfortable with the rest of us knowing how seriously they search for the answers to their questions.
But they tend to betray themselves. For instance, South Africa's players spent a good deal of their tour to England in 2012 explaining away the significance of the fact that, if they won the series, they would be the top ranked Test team. However, in the magic moments after they won the third match at Lord's to secure that status, a beaming Graeme Smith held the mace with one hand and stuck the index finger of the other in the air like he just didn't care - as plain a "We're No. 1!" as we could hope to see.
Then, last November, Faf du Plessis, South Africa's T20 captain, went boldly where lesser men would not: "We've set a goal for ourselves to try and get to No. 1 by the time the (World T20) starts. I don't expect us to compete in a tournament if we're ranked No. 5 or 6. That means you are inconsistent. If you get to No. 1 it means there's a lot of consistency in your side." Du Plessis was too right for his team's own good. South Africa went to the WT20 in fourth place, and left after losing to India in the semi-finals.
Now, AB de Villiers has also reached for the inspiration provided by cold, hard numbers. The third and last one-day international against Zimbabwe in Bulawayo last Thursday held little relevance, what with South Africa having won the first two.
After explaining why it would be important to give the bench-warmers a game - South Africa stuck by that and all three played - De Villiers said, "Other than that there are still rankings at stake so as a team I'd like to win even though we might make a few changes."
South Africa were fourth on the ODI ladder going into the series. They emerged in third place and thus just in time to challenge top dogs Australia in the triangular series that started on Monday. India were second by a fraction of a point, but the way they are playing they could find a way to lose to themselves.
Hashim Amla, meanwhile, regained the No. 1 batting spot from De Villiers by dint of the 122 not out he scored in the first match in Bulawayo. De Villiers was just a point behind and had a bulletproof opportunity to ravage one of the weakest attacks in cricket in that third match to help him get back on top. But he and Amla were both rested on Thursday, all the better to keep their rivalry going.
However, with Virat Kohli marginally below De Villiers and George Bailey lurking with intent in fourth place, everything could change. Yes, the rankings are facile marketing and nothing more. Yes, they do not matter to those who prefer their cricket unsullied by such nonsense. No, that is not going to make them go away.
Besides, when more cricket is being played than anyone could ever care about, what are we to do to add relevance and context to matches and series and tournaments that are frequently devoid of such old-fashioned virtues? It figures, really.