As part of this disccussion, our resident cricket experts discuss the issues that are important to our summer game. Cricket seems to be perpetually at the crossroads. Dwindling Test crowds and the supposed monotony of the middle overs in a 50 over game occupy the minds of our administrators.
The success and the proliferation of the Twenty over format has traditionalists up in arms. The younger generation will not be denied. They are voting unanimously in favour of the shortest format.
The success of the IPL and the KFC Big Bash has prompted an expansion of these competitions.
TV Broadcasters are showering money on the shortest format.
Cricket Australia, who are the hosts of the 2015 World Cup have outlined proposals they hope will makeover the 50 over game more watchable. Over the next month the blueprint for split-innings fixtures, played over four 20-over segments, will be finalised with a view to trialing in next summer’s Ford Ranger Cup.
Cricket Australia is also considering allowing two bouncers an over (between head and shoulder) and allowing one batsman to bat twice. In effect, they are proposing an 80 overs match split into four quarters.
For example, Australia bats first for twenty overs and ends at 7 down for 150. The opposition then bats for 20 overs and ends at 6 for 130. Australia then bats the third quarter starting at 7 for 150 but with the allowance that David Warner, who was dismissed for 10 in the first quarter, can bat again.
Sound confusing?
We have Vinay Verma and Brett McKay unravelling it for you:
THE OVERALL PROPOSAL
VV: I think it is driven by TV Broadcasters and the starting premise is wrong. Rather than look at maximizing revenue, the starting point should be the improvement of the viewing package – both for spectators at the ground and at home. The CA survey suggests fans are bored with the middle overs.
I question the survey and would like to know the demographics of those surveyed. If you question someone that has never seen Test cricket and only ever seen Twenty20 the answer is going to be predictable. To me, this seems to be an underhand attempt to foist two Twenty20 games on the viewing public.
Ian Chappell calls this “stealth.” Personally, I like the predictability of the middle overs. It gives me a chance to catch up with last week’s list of undone chores.
In any case, I am not excited by batsmen slogging every ball. I can appreciate the quick singles and the building of an innings. In a perverse way, I like watching the grass grow.
Does anyone still remember Bevan and Dean Jones?
BM: No doubt it’s been driven by the TV execs, who are petrified that viewers will choose to skip the middle overs and instead switch over to re-runs of The Simpsons.
But they’re going too far in their quest to manufacture a game for prime time.
Also, I think this is something of a panic from the cricket administrators, because the ‘powerplay’ concept didn’t work anything like they had hoped, simply because it gave captains too much leeway on when to use them.
That said, I appreciate the motivation behind the push to tweak the one-day game, and I particularly like the move to 40 overs a side. 100 overs in a day is a long day for anyone; players, supporters, viewers, media, etc.
Cutting that back by twenty percent brings with it an element of ‘less is more’, and this on its own might be enough to keep everyone interested.
SPLIT INNINGS AND OTHER INNOVATIONS
VV: Michael Hussey has expressed reservations about this format. Especially allowing a dismissed batsman to bat again in the second part of the innings. This is being proposed so fans can see someone like Gayle or Warner bat twice.
Personally, I don’t wish to watch Gayle even once.
What does this say about the narrative of cricket? The attack and the counter attack. The period of consolidation.
The regrouping and changing tack. If we want cricket to become baseball then by all means just have a studio and a bowling machine bowling to Chris Gayle. It can be another episode of Big Brother.
Allowing two bouncers an over is good and the relaxation on legside wides is sensible. Another reason for the split innings, in the eyes of CA, is that it would spread the conditions over four innings so that no side would be disadvantaged.
This, in my view, is making the fare bland. A sameness and no one to be disadvantaged. This will take away the uncertainty that is so much a part of cricket.
The glorious uncertainty will become as predictable as the trains being late.
BM: I think the split innings has merit and trialing it at domestic level makes more sense than just bulldozing it into the International game. Forty overs a side split into two segments/phases/slices, or whatever they’ll be called, could bring in an element of strategy.
If a team loses its fourth wicket in the 18th over, do they play it safe with No.6, or do they promote a lower-order dasher?
Two bouncers and more leniency on the leg-side wides is long overdue. None of these deliveries generally deny the batsman a shot, so let’s make them show their wares.
But a second crack for a previously dismissed Gayle or a Warner is, well, just not cricket. If they failed first time around, they hardly deserve a second go.
Stats and records have already been sullied by over-scheduling and meaningless games, so we don’t need gimmicks like this.
There’s already a format where batsmen bat twice, it’s called Test Cricket.
THE WAY FORWARD
VV: The way forward would require administrators to forsake greed for the greater good. Less of Twenty20 and less of 50 overs cricket. Less of meaningless and lopsided Test Matches. As far as the makeover of the 50 overs game is concerned I do not believe two Twenty20’s is the answer.
The real answers lie in making the contests count for something. Maybe points to count for subsequent seeding in World Cups. Two bouncers, relaxing wides, longer boundaries and more sporting pitches will go a long way to spicing up the action.
Why not have the first bowling powerplay of 10 overs for the bowling side and then one more 5 over powerplay for the bowling side and three lots of 5 over batting powerplays. All these powerplays to be taken before the 40 overs. So in effect, you have 30 overs of powerplays (15 for the bowling side and 15 for the batting side).
The last 10 overs can have five fielders outside the circle.
BM: The way forward has to include smarter scheduling for all parties; players, viewers, fans at the ground, and even broadcasters. Stand-alone seven game ODI series must not be tolerated any longer.
I would suggest five games as an absolute maximum, and ideally only three. The international T20 format can be dispensed with completely, and leave it to the domain of the domestic leagues with the IPL and CLT20 at the pinnacle.
For the one-day format, I’d drop the powerplays as they’ve added nothing to the game since being introduced, and aren’t being used as was intended. Back before the powerplay concept came about, what is now the Ford Ranger Cup used fielding restrictions that I maintain are still the best format.
Overs 1-15 had the standard two fielders outside the circle, as was the style in ODIs at the time. The difference came in overs 16-30, where only three fielders could tend to the autograph hunters.
It meant that teams that had momentum could keep cracking on, and likewise teams that lost early wickets could still rebuild an innings.
I’d think this could easily be reintroduced to one-day cricket, in either 50- or 40-over formats, and it would work well. With a bit of tweaking, it could even be squeezed in around the split innings.
If we learn from history, it’s possible the answers we seek have been under our noses the whole time.
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.
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)
- Clarke stars as Australia beat Sri Lanka
- 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)
- 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, Cricket Australia, International Cricket, Tesst cricket, Twenty20
OhMyGodTheChips said | July 27th 2010 @ 3:01am | Report comment
The issue isn’t the format. Its each countries administering body and the ICC. The Future Tour Program is terrible and there are dead rubbers played every series, particularly the ODI’s. Give the formats long term meaning. You don’t see CA trying to revamp the Sheffield Shield when it’s crowd numbers have been terrible for 20 years now.
The ICC minnow nations have a better set-up than the actual test nations in their OD formats and their goal to be promoted to the top level.
formeropenside said | July 27th 2010 @ 7:27am | Report comment
Also, forget every game being on a “good” one day wicket, which is essentially a flat track. One of the best games I remember watching was actually (I think) Pak v WI about 15 years ago on a wet wicket, when a total of 126 was successfully defended.
sheek said | July 27th 2010 @ 7:40am | Report comment
T20s is here to stay, & we can 3 formats provided they’re well managed. But will we get good management from ICC? Waiting……….
There is always this push to attempt to occupy every minute, even every second, of a sporting contest. Life’s not like this, so why try it with sport. As Spiro Zavos once famously said, words to the effect that, “we need the slow passages in a game so that we can savour some wonderful piece of action that has just occurred”.
In this regard I have to endorse almost everything Vinay has said (sorry Brett – you did miss lunch after all!). Also like Vinay, I also like to go & do other things when the action is quiet on the screen. It might be a toilet break, or another beer from the fridge, or a quick glance of the papers. I don’t need every minute, or every second, of a game to occupy me.
With LOs, while I’m agreeable to splitting innings, I’m not agreeable to a batsmen having two digs – save that for test cricket as Brett suggested. However, I can support a situation whereby you might have a 12-13 man squad, whereby one-two specialists bowlers never bat, or one-two specialist batters don’t take the field.
You can’t legislate for the test nations to play each other over a 4-5 year period. As is being demonstrated, it’s simply not practical.
To be brutally honest, I am happy if Australia only plays Bangladesh or Zimbabwe once every 7-8 years. But I want to see Australia play England, South Africa, India & West Indies every 2-4 years. If honesty is a crime, so be it.
If Bangladesh want to play a country like Australia more often, then they must lift themselves over time, & earn the right for more regular contests.
Ricky said | May 10th 2011 @ 10:07am | Report comment
Bangladesh wasn’t ready for Test cricket and still aren’t – Kenya plays as well and Ireland plays better. Zimbabwe are fielding what is essentially a third-tier side at present and should be stripped of Test status for the same reason that South Africa was in the 70s.
Test and ODI cricket aren’t broke, so don’t fix them. The only change I would make to the Power Play concept is that I would make it mandatory for the final batting Power Play to be taken before the loss of the sixth wicket – if it has not been taken before the sixth wicket falls, it is forfeited.
T20 is here to stay, but international T20s are pointless and should be done away with. And juniors should NOT play it. I’m an umpire – I see kids making too many elementary mistakes going for the slog in 2-day and 40-over matches, they should be learning the basic skills instead of being encouraged to try to hit every ball out of the park. And it discourages youngsters from taking up spin bowling – slow bowlers are a liability in T20 unless you’re a freak like Warne. Australia doesn’t have a world-class spinner at present, so we have to bring one up from the junior ranks and that is not going to happen while kids are playing T20.
mds1970 said | July 27th 2010 @ 7:59am | Report comment
One-day cricket in Australia lost its way when the tri-series was dispensed with in favour of best of 5 or best of 7 series.
The neutral games were never money-spinners, and Cricket Australia lost out on the rare occasions when Australia didn’t make the finals. But the fact that the series saw the teams playing off for a finals berth saw far less dead rubbers than we’ve been seeing in the last couple of seasons.
I’m not a big fan of splitting the innings, but even less a fan of allowing a player to bat twice in an innings. What may be a better alternative would be to bring back the super-sub system they had a few years ago; and name 12 players, with 11 allowed to bat and 11 allowed to bowl. But I wouldn’t require teams to nominate in advance who the non-batting and non-bowling players are, that can be allowed to evolve as the match progresses.
Brett McKay said | July 27th 2010 @ 8:45am | Report comment
MDS, I held back from saying this in the forum piece above, but I had the same thought, that perhaps the old tri-series format was a good thing after all. You raise a valid point, and a tri-series where everyone plays each team twice or three times, plus a best-of-three (if req.) finals series would look to hold more context and meaning than two standalone five-game series.
The “playing 12″ scenario is still alive and well in grade cricket (and I think even the Futures League and state age champs too), so it could certianly return. Sheek’s idea of 13 even has merit, too…
sheek said | July 27th 2010 @ 9:03am | Report comment
Funny,
I thought the tri-series format was highly contrived, but it’s better than the alternatives. At least having 3 teams playing 12 matches plus best of 3 finals, provides more variety than just two teams playing best of 5 or 7.
There’s an old argument here of not throwing the baby out with the dirty bath water. Let’s keep the things that do work, but change the things that need changing.
And the wisdom to know the difference………. !
Vinay Verma said | July 27th 2010 @ 8:52am | Report comment
ohmygodthechips..absolutely essential we concentrate on the Sheffield Shield..and on the minnows maybe two leagues with promotion and relegation
formeropenside..you are right ..a sporting pitch leads to exciting cricket…I have suggested something similar to a Stimpmeter that they use in Golf to regulate the pace of greens..perhaps someone out there knows a bit more about horticulture
sheek..Sangakkara has been complaining they do not play enough Tests..administrators need to adjust the sightscreen so they have better vision..
mds1970,,yes,context is so important..you have to wonder about the contextuality of our administrators ..a lot of neuter genders.
Spiro Zavos said | July 27th 2010 @ 9:45am | Report comment
Part of the ‘problem’ is that the players, especially in the longer version of cricket, tend to take things too slowly. in Bradman’s day and up to the 1950s there used to be the equivalent of 120 six-ball overs a day bowled. Something was happening, rather than the longeurs we have now. I’d stop batsmen having a chat between overs which is the greatest time-waster and enforce the regulation that the bowloer bowls when he is ready, not when the batsman is ready. All this twitching around at the crease, adjusting gloves etc wastes time.
I suggest too that the 40 minute break for lunch is Edwardian and an impediment to the flow of flow. Two breaks of 20 minutes a day should be the norm.
There should be a minimum of 105 or so overs a day. The slow over rate was brought in by Len Hutton when he had Frank Tyson with a run-up somewhere near the scoreboard, and played without spinners. A requirement for over 100 overs a day with stringent punishments for not carrying them out will bring back spinners, which the game needs.
As for the shorter versions of the game, I am with Vinay. The artificial notion of two innings etc reduces 50 over matches to two T20 matches.
I’d experiment have two shorter versions, T20 and T40, with the T40 game having laws that are pared down from the 50 over game. There is also a possibility of developing a T60 game, along similar lines.
There is nothing wrong with cricket in all its various forms, as such. But the ‘professionalism’ of the players has tended to be take the edge and sport out of the contests. This notion of sport as a ‘day at the office’ is what killing the passion and intensity we want in the game.
This means fewer contests but more intense and meaningful ones, in my view. And there should be a system, like the IRB rugby ranking system, sponsored by a big company that would love the exposure, to pay the leading teams at the end of each cricket year a huge bonus for being the top-ranked teams. This would give a meaning – albeit financial – to all every contest.
Vinay Verma said | July 27th 2010 @ 10:46am | Report comment
Spiro,you are right in that our current”professional” cricketers are slow coaches. If they could be made to bowl 110 a day then we could have 4 day Tests and start them on a Thursday and get the last two days on a weekend. Less cost and more revenue. Especially if the pitches were spiced up there would be a result in 4 days.
There is a Mace and I believe 1 Million Dollars to the No 1 ranked Test Team and a similar bonus for the ODI side. But the idea of a Major sponsor for the Rankings only exists in India with the Ceat (tyre company) ratings.
Brett McKay said | July 27th 2010 @ 2:48pm | Report comment
I’m sorry Spiro, but the batsman in me can’t let you off here. A quick pat on the back and ‘keep going’ between overs between batsmen, or even adjusting a pad or glove or box or all three while the bowler walks back to his mark doesn’t take near the time Ricky Ponting or plenty of other captains take to set fields these days.
By the time the captain calls in the bowler, the leadership group, and the fielders affected by the potential field changes, the man on strike (or indeed woman) has time to fully de- and re-pad up…
With that out of the way, I do agree that time-wasting needs to be eradicated, and I’ve said in the past that once run penalties start being applied against slow over rates, the problem will disappear overnight. Imagine losing a Test (or worse, a series) by less than five runs, after a slow over rate penalty was applied.
Players earn so much now that “hitting them where it hurts” doesn’t actually hurt that much. The scoreboard, therefore, is the real source of pain…
Jay said | July 27th 2010 @ 9:46am | Report comment
Less is definatley more for cricket. We have too much of it presently.
Look at rugby, the wallabies play the tri-nations, tour europe and play the occasion test against northern hemisphere sides touring down under… About 14 tests a year, and thats about right for them. They build to the world cup and every test become like a marquee event for each city. Their other format, rugby 7s is a touring event and countries play little tornaments in developing rugby markets.
Albeit, cricket has one more format, the same logic should be applied. The three changes I would make are:
1. Introduce a two-tier test system, which leads to a championship game at Lords (or which other city ‘buys’ the event, like the champopns league final in football) every 4 years. The top side in tier two would then play a series against the bottom side in teir one for a promotion, every 4 years also – i.e. promotion would only be guranteed if you beat the last placed top tier side.
2. Reduce ODIs to 40 overs. Enough said, its probably strikes the right balance for me. ODI have gone from 60 overs to 50 overs to address player wear-out. The new move to 40 over is to address the entertainment value of the format.
3. Schedulling! Retain marquee test series (i.e. Ashes, Aus v SA/Ind)… But work within the proposed test championship to ensure countries typically only play 3 tests, 3 ODIs and 3 T20s every 2 years.
David said | July 27th 2010 @ 10:07am | Report comment
There is definitely too many pointless ODI series going on these days and 20/20 will face this conundrum in the future aswell. Do we really need a 5+ series with the same 2 teams playing every few years? They need to cut back or introduce some type of 3 match league series where the series winner actually gains something (ICC needs to set where and who play to help stop Sri Lanka and India playing each other over and over on sub continent pitches). The domestic 50 overs shouldn’t be changed, i quite like it, it has a context and it isn’t too long and doesn’t drag on with confusing schedules like the english county cricket does. To me this new format seems terrible, think of the players like Warner who are trying to break into the ODI squad for the world cup. how will they get a chance to show off their skills now? If a change needs to be made i’m more in favour of a 40 over game or even just a split innings of 50 overs (4 innings of 25 overs between the 2 teams) with NO “designated hitters” or stupid rule. This would help solve a couple of the issues i’ve seen raised with 50 over cricket (the pitch changing too much throughout the day, both teams bat under lights, both teams play an innings in prime time for TV), I’ll be disappointed if it changes as i loved watching the quick singles and seeing teams rebuild or collapse in the supposedly boring middle overs. Cricket isn’t just about boundarys and lower the amount of overs isn’t going to increase the quality or enjoyment of a good long battle between bat and ball.
Vinay Verma said | July 27th 2010 @ 12:29pm | Report comment
Last December Ashok Malik,one of the more astute writers in India had this to say in Cricinfo:
“Will there be adequate television support for the 50-over game beyond the 2011 World Cup? Will the direct contest between that tournament, co-hosted by India, and the fourth edition of the IPL that will follow immediately afterwards see television viewers and advertisers adjudicating on the destiny of cricket? Will the Test match exist only as an occasional indulgence, the one magnum of champagne in a cellar full of lesser wines, subsidised by the revenues from Twenty20? ”
Indian Companies now advertise on boundary hoardings from Lords to Melbourne and in between. The couch potato in India is the target. He will watch if there is an Indian presence,or if Australia is playing England. When over 70% of all revenue comes from India this is an important factor when determining the formats. A successful 50 over World Cup in India will leave the 50 over game as it is and in the end it may not matter what CA determines. Just something to think about.
Bayman said | July 27th 2010 @ 3:34pm | Report comment
Fellow Tragics, for me the problem is that while 50 and 20 over cricket briefly provide an interest on the telly, as opposed to all those other reality shows, the end result and the individual performances are soon forgotten. The fact is, nobody cares about these forms of the game except the accountants and the TV execs.
I can remember three ODI innings reasonably clearlyand they all occurred in a World Cup final. Clive Lloyd, Ricky Ponting and Adam Gilchrist. After that I struggle and the only bowling performance I remember was Gary Gilmour against England in the WC of 1975. In other words, for me there’s been about 35 years of nothing. Now I’m sure somebody remembers other stuff but I do not with any clarity. Nor do I care about 50/20 over aggregates or averages given the essentially artificial nature of these forms of the game. Do I watch it on the telly? Yep, but not all the time, and I’ve seen the Simpson repeats several times over.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s great that David Warner and Moises Henriques can represent Australia at cricket but, seriously, are either of them even in the first 15 for NSW at Shield level? What cricket really needs is less 50/20 over games and more first class matches where the Test players are involved. Perhaps if Mitchell Johnson was regularly playing Shield cricket his ridiculous problems with his action would be a thing of the past. The fact that Johnson can call himself (now) a Western Australian, or Shane Watson a New South Welshman, when neither of them has played any game, in any format, for their new state is a sad joke – and don’t start me on the skipper calling himself a Tasmanian when he’s lived in NSW for about a decade.
The fact that Ponting is allowed to get away with this anomaly is a clear reflection on the fact that administrators have long since stopped worrying about Shield cricket, let alone district cricket. Still, I think we can just accept the fact that as long as cricket is being run by people who take more credit in their business acumen than their cricket knowhow the game will continue to gradually decline in both its standards and its popularity.
Essentially, these people love a dollar more than they love the game – and this includes many of those who prefer to watch 20/20 than any other form. As Gideon Haigh famously said, “Twenty/20 cricket is for those people who don’t like cricket!” Still, I suppose jousting was popular once.