By Spiro Zavos
January 19th 2009 @ 6:34am
All power to ODI’s new batting power play
My son and myself were chatting just before the ODI season started about how Twenty20 might make the one-day game obsolete. We agreed that there was a tameness and lack of sparkle about the ODI games.
This is especially so when teams went about slowly but surely accumulating runs rather than going out and chasing them as you have to do in Twenty20 cricket.
But after the first two Twenty20 internationals and the first two ODIs between Australia and South Africa, I’ve had a quick change of mind.
The ODIs have been much more interesting matches than in the past few years, and more intriguing and riveting than the Twenty20 matches when Dave Warner isn’t batting.
And the reason for this is the innovation of the batting power play. This innovation allows the batting side, after the first 10 overs when the field placings are automatically restricted to two outside the circle to call for a batting power play. During this 5-over spell the fielding side can only place three men outside the circle.
In theory, at least, the batting power play helps hitters to smash the ball to the boundary. There has been an interesting use of the batting power play by South Africa in the first two ODIs which seems to suggest that just when it is taken can have a decisive influence on the outcome of a match.
At Hobart in the second ODI Australia took its batting power play mid-way through its innings. With the field up because only three players were allowed outside the ropes, Ricky Ponting was immediately caught in the gully – where the over before there was no fieldsman.
Not long after this, the other high scorer in the Australian side, Shaun Marsh, was caught at mid-on, again by a fieldsman who was on the boundary in the overs before when there wasn’t a power play.
This raised the question in my mind that what would happen if a batting side didn’t call for its power play? Is this allowed? The fact is that it is sometimes easier for stroke-makers like Ponting who don’t generally hit in the air to score runs when there are plenty of gaps in the in-field.
The South Africans, on the other hand, have worked out a tactic of taking their batting batting power play after the 44th over. This tactic means that the fielding side must try to withstand a batting onslaught right at the end of the match, with only the last over allowing the fielding the respite of having five men out in the deep.
In Melbourne, South Africa took its power play with 61 runs needed and 36 balls to be bowled: in Hobart, the power play was taken with 60 runs needed off 36 balls.
The tactic worked for South Africa in Melbourne. It did not work at Hobart where 18 runs were needed off the last over.
To my mind, the tactic of taking the batting power play almost at the death was correct. What was wrong was a strategic mistake by South Africa in thinking that the smaller Hobart oval would be just as good at chasing runs ground as the vast MCG.
The Hobart oval seemed to be to be a ’slow’ ground as far as the outfield was concerned. The batsmen on both sides had difficulty hitting fours. And unlike on the MCG, the batsmen ran far fewer twos (tews as Richie Benaud might say) than at Melbourne. I don’t think the South African brains trust thought about this as they allowed their batsmen to plod their way to the final, frenetic overs.
Another consideration came into play, as well, when the batting power play was taken very late in the innings. Michael Slater rather perceptively pointed out that if you take the batting power play earlier the fielding captain is obliged to bowl his best bowlers then, for a few overs, to contain the batsmen.
This means that these bowlers don’t have many overs left at the end when a charge is invariably mounted, whether there is a batting power play in operation or not.
At Hobart, for instance, Ricky Ponting was able to hold back his best bowler Nathan Bracken so that he bowled 5 of the last 10 overs. While the South Africans got to Ben Hilfenhaus a bit, they couldn’t do much to Bracken and the charge had the same sort of futility about as the Charge of the Light Brigade at Balaclava.
It will be fascinating now to see for the rest of the series what the South African response is to the tactic of holding Bracken back and whether this will affect their tactic of taking their batting power play late.
This brings me to a sort of summary of the three major forms of the cricket game in terms of a literary analogy.
The Twenty20 game is an advertising slogan (written by Mojo or John Singleton).
The one-day game is a short story, often with a sort of Stephen King or O.Henry twist to it at the end.
The Test format is cricket’s novel, with dramatic set pieces (the opening over and so on), sprawling, driven by characters, seemingly timeless, often inconclusive but just as often nail-biting in the intensity of its concluding phases.
There is a time and place for all the formats, as long as they are not over-played, which might be happening with Twenty20 cricket in India.
Get Australia's best Cricket opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(6)
Forgetmenot said | January 19th 2009 @ 8:33am | Report comment
Spiros,
You make some very interesting points.
The power plays have made ODI a much more interesting game to watch. I for one found them as or more exciting than the twenty20’s. It has made it into a more tactical version of the game while still having more fours and sixes than test cricket.
Your literary analogy is also spot on.
Brett McKay said | January 19th 2009 @ 9:11am | Report comment
Spiro, on the money once again. I always thought the best fielding restriction rules were those used in the domestic one-dayers a few seasons back, before the power plays came into vogue. In a direct way of combatting the 16-40 over crawl that was happening in one day matches at the time, a new restriction was introduced, where from overs 16-30, only three men were allowed outside the circle. And it worked a treat, because while teams took a little longer to get going, they could sustain it longer. As a batsman, it was great to watch, but obviously not too well-liked by the bowling brethren.
Now that one of the power plays is in the hands of the batting team – which should always have been the case – that same unpredictability about the middle period has returned, and you can sense it among the players, crowd, and certainly the commentators. “When WILL they take the power play?” seems to be the new catch-cry of the Ch9 boys…
Greg Russell said | January 19th 2009 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
Spiro,
To answer your question “what would happen if a batting side didn’t call for its power play? Is this allowed?”: the batting team’s powerplay automatically applies for the last 5 overs if it has not already been taken. Ditto for the bowling team’s. If both have not been taken by the completion of 40 overs, then presumably they automatically apply for the final 10 overs (I don’t know which comes first).
Your point that “it is sometimes easier for stroke-makers like Ponting who don’t generally hit in the air to score runs when there are plenty of gaps in the in-field” is one that captains have been sadly reluctant to address. They are not compelled to have 5 men on the boundary, but most automatically do this.
Generally Australian captains, including Ponting, have been amongst those more prepared to risk not having 5 men on the boundary. However the idea seems not yet to have occurred to Ponting with regard to Duminy in this series.
Incidentally, I now agree with you that Duminy is an utter star. South Africa should just move him to 3 and base all their batting around him. Just watch him playing Tait: where others struggle with his pace, Duminy has time aplenty. And that of course is the clearest mark of greatness: having time where others do not.
Benjamin Conkey said | January 19th 2009 @ 3:51pm | Report comment
You’re right Spiro, the batting power play is the best thing to happen to One-Day cricket for a long time. So far I think South Africa and Australia have been guilty of making predetermined plans on when to use it. In future they’ll probably be a bit more flexible, in fact Ricky Ponting said he is going to back his instincts from now on, using it when the batsmen are set.
Thanks Greg for clearing up the rules. I had a look myself and it’s interesting that, in the advent of a conflict of powerplays the umpire has to decide who elected to take their’s first (the fielding team or batting team). I’d love to see a situation where a fielding team, having been smashed for 100 off the first 10 overs elects not to take their bowling power play straight away…and then immediately the batting team elects to take theirs to get the psychological edge. This batting power play certainly has added a whole new dimension.
Sluggy said | January 19th 2009 @ 5:25pm | Report comment
Used to be that after watching a lot of one day cricket (50 0vers) I would really enjoy a return to the ‘creams’ and the more technically cultured (if thats an intelligible phrase) longer battle of a test match… but after watching a lot of test cricket I also found the odi’s refreshing as well.
The 20/20s are a different style again and the bowlers are only perhaps learning now, after a season or two how to play it so they are not just cannon fodder. The emphasis on using slower bowlers so that the batsman can’t feed off the pace of the delivery is interesting, and it is no surprise that even at age 38 (or is it 39) SKW does OK in this form of cricket. So much for the death of spin.
After the two recent matches though, it was refreshing to see a return to the more leisurely pace of the 50 overs odi where batsmen have to value their wicket more than in the 20/20 and need to employ a bit more technique… a bit like going from odi to test matches…
20/20 looks here to stay, and all three versions of the game have a place – in fact 20/20 might in effect save the odi by pulling in some more spectators and money. As for overdoing it, it looks like the cricket authorities have been taking advice from the IRB and SANZAR, but we probably should all remember that even first class games in cricket do not attract huge crowds (in Australia at least, not talking about India here), despite the novelty value of the current inter state competition. The money is all in the international fixtures.
Satsi said | February 2nd 2009 @ 12:49am | Report comment
Hey Spiro,
Thats a lovely article by you and it contains a lot of interesting points. The batting powerplay has certainly made one day cricket more refreshing by bringing in the element of surprise, which i think had been missing in the last few years.
I have a question, if anyone can answer this it would be great.
Q: Supposingly the fielding captain brings about ‘X’ bowler into the attack, and the batting team decide to take the powerplay and the umpire signals the power play overs begin, is it possible for the fielding captain to take off ‘X’ from the attack and bring about any other bowler in his place? And whether if it is possible then can the batting team cancel its powerplay option for that particular moment?