Should declarations be allowed in ODIs?
Columnist
By Kersi Meher-Homji, 16 Feb 2010 Kersi Meher-Homji is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Cricket, Dwayne Bravo, International Cricket, Kemar Roach, ODIs
Australia captain Ricky Ponting swings out at the ball. AP Photo/Matt Dunham
Last Friday’s ODI in Sydney made me think. At first, I felt Chris Gayle’s decision to send Australia in to bat after winning the toss was unwise, as the pitch appeared easy to bat on. But as the match progressed, I saw method in his “madness”.
Obviously he had read the weather forecast.
He had anticipated that the Australians will play their full 50 overs and his team will barely get 10 to 20 overs before the storm. It was his only chance of not getting defeated.
It was a negative attitude, no doubt, but a realistic one. Apart from the home team being stronger, he lacked Dwayne Bravo, Kemar Roach, Chanderpaul, Sarwan …
Gayle’s plan worked as the drawn match kept the series alive.
What should Ricky Ponting have done to outfox Gayle?
As declarations are not allowed in ODIs, he should have asked his batsmen to throw caution to the wind (in this case, gale!) and attacked, batting like in a Twenty20 match. Although the pitch was not as easy as it first appeared, Australia could have aimed for 200 runs for 10 wickets in 30 overs, sacrificing wickets in chase for runs.
The run-rate would have been 4.00 per over (200 in 50 overs) and not 6.7 (200 in 40 overs). Of course, there was a risk that it would not have rained as heavily as forecast.
But as the rains came in buckets after 7 pm, followed by thunder and lightning, the Windies would have had about 25 overs to chase or survive with the Duckworth/Lewis method giving us different par scores every over.
What an enthralling finish the spectators would have had rather than walking back to the car park, Central railway station or home drenched after a no-match.
That brings me to the point: why are declarations not allowed in ODIs?
It would add an extra dimension in strategy – especially when storms are predicted.
Especially with Fifty50s losing their previous crowd appeal, a new innovation with a declaration thrown in could add to spectator interest. Think about it.
I asked the ABC radio team regarding the legitimacy of declaring an innings in ODIs. After consultation, the answer was that declarations were banned a few decades ago when Somerset captain Brian Close had declared an innings closed during a county one-day match to protect the run-rate.
This was quite logical. My counter suggestion is this: If a team declares at, say, 220 in 40 overs, the run-rate should be calculated as 220 in 50 overs, that is, a run-rate of 4.4 and not 5.5, if you get my drift.
If a captain is desperate to win, he might take a gamble.
This will add to the excitement of paying customers who will return to watch Fifty50 games in droves even when a storm is brewing.
As today’s Hall of Fame inductee Bill Lawry would say, “It’s all happening!”
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
The Crowd Says (8) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Cricket articles
- What we do and don’t know about our Baggy Greens (112)
- Success of Twenty20 spells trouble for ODI cricket (106)
- Channel 9 commentators an annoyance this summer (102)
- One Day Cricket is suffering from Middle Child Syndrome (89)
- Cricket Australia must take a stand against racist spectators (89)
- Dave’s Warner-ful switch-hit panned by precious critics (84)
- Khawaja shouldn’t have been Shaun from the Test side (71)
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (197)
- Hall of Fame for Indian legend Gavaskar
- Sri Lanka to target ‘weak’ Aussie bowlers
- India backing Rohit Sharma to find form
- Game-by-game preview of round 19
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (6)
- Like father, like son: Alister McDermott on a fast track to the Test team (30)
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (197)
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (6)
- Pakistan’s win over England a triumph of character (21)
- Steve Waugh is right about cricket’s succession plan (5)
- India vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (180)
- Let’s talk about selection, Test fans (28)
- Pakistan win shows what’s beautiful about the game (13)
- Explore:
- Cricket, Dwayne Bravo, International Cricket, Kemar Roach, ODIs
sheek said | February 16th 2010 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
Kersi,
Must be a slow day at the office….. ?
However, a legitimate question, in all seriousness. Short answer – TV.
Channel 9, or whoever, simply wouldn’t cop having their program scheduling thrown into disarray by early declarations!
About 8 hours is set aside for a day-night 50 overs aside limited overs match. This is made up of 15 minutes pre-match preamble; 3.5 hours batting time for one side; a cross to the evening news while both teams take a 30 minutes dinner break; 3.5 hours batting time for the other side; then a 15 minutes post-match wrap-up.
I could even have the pre-match & post-match allocation times wrong – it could be 30 minutes each. I haven’t watched a full LO match this summer!!!
I kind of like another suggestion, break the match up into quarters – Team A first 25 overs; Team B first 25 overs; Team A final 25 overs; Team B final 25 overs.
Brings an entirely new dynamism into play. Keeps both teams on their toes for longer, not to mention the fans. Keeps the likely result “hidden” for a bit longer. Would require each team to reappraise their approach more regularly throughout the match.
vinay verma said | February 16th 2010 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
Sheek,great minds think alike and both Sachin T and Wasim Akram are proponents of what you espouse.
yeebarr said | February 16th 2010 @ 12:44pm | Report comment
Didn’t they try and breaking up 50 over matches into 2×25 over stints in some experiment a while back? (My memories hazy but it may have been a state experiment)
I do remember that unfortunately seeing a game where one team were so dominant after the 25 overs, that the next 25 were almost pointless – actually made the game even more boring to watch!
Brett McKay said | February 16th 2010 @ 2:22pm | Report comment
yeebarr, you’re right, it did get tried at state level (maybe ten years ago?), but I think it was in one of those testimonial type games, rather than an actual limited overs match.
I like the quarters idea, in fact, I think it’s the only way you could split the 50 over format. I don’t like the idea of two 20 over innings as some have suggested, but I do think the quarters element would bring about a whole new level of strategy. Clever use of fielding restrictions could make this format very, very watchable. It would bring all the elements of Test cricket that we love into a single day.
Great work Sheek, go to the top of the class…
Kersi Meher-Homji said | February 16th 2010 @ 5:30pm | Report comment
Perhaps I did not make my point clear. The declaration I suggested would be when storms are predicted. For example, last Friday’s SCG non-match.
As it turned out, only about 51 overs were bowled. With a declaration thrown in, we could have witnessed a thrilling finish, with one team winning with D-L method. In any case, no one watched TV that Friday night after 7.30PM!
The idea of 25 overs for team A and 25 for team B, then 25 for A and for B would not have solved the problem last Friday, as first innings lead would have been meaningless.
I try to be original in suggesting NEW (and not recycled) ideas although commercially it may not be viable every time. The idea of two innings of 25 overs each has been suggested before and experimented with as well.
Before condemning a new idea, serious thought should be given to it.
sheek said | February 16th 2010 @ 5:50pm | Report comment
Kersi,
I did understand precisely where you were coming from, but the same reply applies – the TV broadcasters simply wouldn’t accept it, I think, due their programming schedules.
As a stand alone comment, I should say I see merit in your suggestion. Certainly, in rain affected matches, the possibility of declarations ought to be considered.
Back in the old days of uncovered wickets for test matches, there were some stunning declarations, like 9-65, so the team batting could get the fielding side to experience the same horrible batting conditions. Not so long ago (about 17-18 years) Roar contributor & ex-test cricketer Geoff Lawson declared NSW’s innings against South Australia at 0-0 in a Shield game.
That remains a first I think……..
However, here’s some more food for thought – instead of 25/25 overs quarters, we might consider 20/30 overs splits, or even 15/35 splits.
Does anyone have an opinion on this?
Kersi Meher-Homji said | February 16th 2010 @ 8:22pm | Report comment
Your idea is worth considering, Sheek. Fifty50s do need sprucing up.
sheek said | February 17th 2010 @ 8:24am | Report comment
Kersi,
The split innings is not my idea, it was floated long before I became aware of it. I just thought when you mentioned your declarations, that split innings might be more appealing to those who control the game – broadcasters!!!
But I think your idea has merit where rain-affected games are certain to occur.
But we also know how unreliable weather forecasters are, even with all their gizmo-gadgetry….. !