Oh boy, 5ives cricket sounds a dumb idea to me
Columnist By Kersi Meher-Homji, 21 Oct 2011 Kersi Meher-Homji is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Clive Radley, Cricket, Mark Alleyne, Peter Roebuck, Sunil Gavaskar
Forget what old pros like Clive Radley and Mark Alleyne and the MCC universities captain Robert Wooley think about it. Forget what Cricket Australia thinks about it. Forget what my hero Sunil Gavaskar and my favourite cricket writer Peter Roebuck think about it.
They may like the idea of 5ives Cricket, but I reckon it’s a dumb idea.
But firstly, what is 5ives Cricket?
It is a radical proposal supposed to revamp 50-over cricket. Experts think that Fifty50 cricket has lost its spectator appeal after the Twenty20 revolution. It has fallen in a no man’s land between Test tussles and Twenty20 razzmatazz.
Cricket statistician Dick Wood from South Africa has suggested a radical change by introducing 5ives Cricket.
To him, a team batting for around four hours and the opponents coming on the pitch later to bat for another four hours is boring for spectators.
This is not so in other sports like boxing, football, rugby and tennis among others, he explains. In these sports, participants exchange blow by blow, goal by goal, try by try, serve by serve within a short time.
But then why should cricket imitate other sports? Cricket is unique and let it be that way.
Here is Wood’s woolly solution.
To quote Roebuck from the Sydney Morning Herald: “Wood’s solution is simple and audacious. Without tinkering with the laws of the game in any way, he advocates letting teams play in shorter bursts so tension is sustained.”
5ives cricket has a simple format, we are told.
Simple? Here is the idea in a nutshell. Yes, I have used the word ‘nut’ deliberately:
Team A bats for 5 overs then team B bats for 10 overs. Then Team A bats for another 10 overs and Team B for 5 overs. The circus goes on in bursts of 5 and 10 overs till 50 overs are completed for each team. There is a bonus point at the end of each 5 or 10 overs burst.
And the match is decided. Hurray!
But wait a moment. Will there be few minutes’ wait every time an innings is changed as batsmen from Team B wear pads and gloves not to mention helmet, chest pads, abdominal pads and wicket-keeper from Team A dons his gloves and pads and other protections?
Wood has thought of this and has recommended having 12th and 13th men to field as the batsmen / wicket-keeper are padded and gloved up.
By my calculation there will be approximately 12 to 14 turnarounds or interruptions in a match. What a waste of time between every 5 to 10 overs.
Who will want to be a scorer, a scoreboard operator, or an umpire? Who will count 10 overs per bowler in an innings when there will be so many interruptions? There will be chaos.
Currently MCC is trying out this format in Abu Dhabi. But have they given it a serious thought before this trial?
Apart from the MCC, the 5ives Cricket will be trialled by South African universities this summer.
Just as well this preposterous idea will not be introduced in the 2015 World Cup. But after that?
My fundamental question to Dick Wood: why should cricket imitate tennis?
What do you say, Roarers?
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- Clive Radley, Cricket, Mark Alleyne, Peter Roebuck, Sunil Gavaskar
October 21st 2011 @ 5:57am
Mark Roth said | October 21st 2011 @ 5:57am | Report comment
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm……Why? Just Why?
October 21st 2011 @ 7:31am
Rabbitz said | October 21st 2011 @ 7:31am | Report comment
Well how about this?
50 Over cricket, outside of the sub-continent, is bleeding to death.
Twenty-20 cricket is a bubble that will burst due to the fact that luck more than skill determines a lot of matches.
The world is changing and those who do not change go the way of the trilobites.
So why no give it a go and see what happens?
I mean we can’t all be stuck unable to scan and send a document, can we now?
November 2nd 2011 @ 6:08pm
buck said | November 2nd 2011 @ 6:08pm | Report comment
who are the trilobites?!
October 21st 2011 @ 8:26am
Kersi Meher-Homji said | October 21st 2011 @ 8:26am | Report comment
Rabbitz,
You are referring to my Heckler piece, aren’t you?
Fifty50 needs changes, I agree. It should quicken its tempo and NOT slow it down by teams A and B going in and coming out like in a revolving door, going nowhere but round and round.
Are you happy to sit around and watch 15 interruptions in a match as team A goes in and Team B comes out and so on and so boring forth?
Cricket is unique and different from all other sports. Why should it imitate tennis or other sports like rugby and football?
I like changes but not stupidities.
How can intelligent thinkers of the game like Roebuck and Gavaskar even consider such atrocities?
Am I the only one who has the courage to say, “The King has no clothes on”?
October 21st 2011 @ 9:53am
Rabbitz said | October 21st 2011 @ 9:53am | Report comment
Kersi,
Yes it was dig about the heckler piece…
By 50Fifty I assume you mean the fifty over one day games (I hadn’t seen it referred to as 50Fifty before). And yes I agree it that the 50 over format needs to be looked at.
So rather than poo-pooing the idea straight off the bat, why not wait until we see it in practice? Then, if as you say it is full of interruptions or is just not good enough, then bag it unmercifully.
Change is needed for that form to survive. So why not give it a go, there is nothing to lose.
October 21st 2011 @ 8:45am
Tristan Rayner said | October 21st 2011 @ 8:45am | Report comment
Kersi, interesting piece. 5ives appears to have a distinctly baseball feel, multiple innings and the like. I wonder if that’s the motivation behind it.
October 21st 2011 @ 1:14pm
sheek said | October 21st 2011 @ 1:14pm | Report comment
Tristan,
Yes, what happens in baseball is certainly partly behind the thinking of 5ives – innings for innings, or part-innings for part-innings.
Kersi,
I must admit the idea appealed to me initially. Splitting 50 overs into 2 x 25 overs didn’t seem to work, but this might. I think it is certainly worth giving a go.
Us old-timers would like to see the rear-end of T20 & for test cricket & 50 overs cricket to survive. To do so might require some tinkering to both the trafditional forms. Moving tests to day/night for example.
I think like any new idea, it might require some tinkering before the best vfinal product is found. But it does seem worth a try to me.
I had developed a habit of sitting on a lounge half-watching, half-listeing to the cricket on one hand, & flicking through a paper or mag on the other. However, with this new format, I might have to concentrate on the action a bit more.
And that can’t be a bad thing!
October 21st 2011 @ 1:42pm
Russ said | October 21st 2011 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
Sheek, I’m curious why you think the 25/25 split didn’t work, and why by contrast, more splits would?
My understanding of the player’s complaints was that it affected momentum, but this will too, even with the batsmen off the field. (Mind you, stopping momentum is not necessarily a bad thing). I didn’t see enough of the 25/25 split to decide, as a fan, whether it was a success.
October 21st 2011 @ 2:38pm
sheek said | October 21st 2011 @ 2:38pm | Report comment
Russ,
Personally I thought the 25/25 split was a good idea. But it seems the majority of punters didn’t.
With respect to losing momentum, perhaps the players didn’t give it long enough a trial, since it also required a change of thinking to their mindset.
5ives splits the innings into even smaller “bites”, which might actually work better with the short attention-span brigade of today!
They won’t have to concentrate for as long with each part-innings…..
October 21st 2011 @ 3:40pm
Russ said | October 21st 2011 @ 3:40pm | Report comment
Perhaps I should ask the majority of punters. Personally I’d like to see a split innings, but in T20, since I can no longer stand F50.
On this format… Most likely it will carry a similar rhythm to basketball, each side scoring in tandem, one perhaps slowly moving away. I don’t see how it will be more exciting than now. Neither side will take risks unless conditions (bowlers/power-plays) are in their favour, and it won’t get tense until the last dozen overs when one or both sides need to “roll the dice” to gain an advantage.
The 5ives website makes great play on the idea that people want to know “who is in front”, but I’ve never had any trouble telling that. There are at least 5 things I’d rather see ODI (and T20) cricket try before embarking on a plan like this:
1) Get rid of bowling restrictions. Increase the tactical interest in selection policy AND allow spectators see the best play the best throughout the game AND increase the scope for tactical change by the bowling captain.
2) Get rid of power-plays. They reduce the scope of tactical innovation. If we must cripple the bowlers, reduce the number of outfielders to four for the entire game.
3) A single (or double) split innings (yes, T20 too), because I think it is nice to get a gauge of how close a side is to parity. A 30-20 (or 20-20-10) or 12-8 split is probably better too, as the smaller the time available to come back, the more aggressively a side must approach the first half. Test cricket has a second innings, after all.
4) Substitutions of (some) players who haven’t batted at a split. The number 1 problem with ODIs is that a team can find itself in a hole and the game drifts to inevitability. The 12th man concept trialed a few years back was basically a designated hitter rule, which favoured the side in front and the one that bowled first. By contrast, offering subs for players who haven’t batted, it becomes possible for a team to change their tactical approach by introducing either alternative bowlers, or extra batsmen (at the expense of their bowling) if they’ve lost wickets.
5) Merge T20 and F50 into a single 30 over concept (20-10 split). Thirty overs offers just that little bit longer to build an innings, without the middle overs of the ODI. Though I’d be just as happy to see the back of 50 over games altogether.
I’m all in favour of (2 or 3) substitutions in test-f/c cricket between the 2nd and 3rd innings too. Would do wonders for spinners and reduce the load on the fast bowlers.
October 21st 2011 @ 3:34pm
Kersi Meher-Homji said | October 21st 2011 @ 3:34pm | Report comment
Sheek,
We normally agree on most points. But at the moment I see no benefit in thid 5/10 over splits. Except if I was a TV owner and get more ad breaks!
Imagine yourself to be a batsman. You are 13 not out at the split and seeing the ball well. Then comes the intermission. You have to start all over again after 25 or 45 minutes. Then again, if you are still unbeaten at the next split. Can anyway envisage the utter confusion?
And what’s the advantage? Zilch! Perhaps, as a new toy. But a darned complicated toy. The novelty will wear off soon.
October 21st 2011 @ 6:16pm
sheek said | October 21st 2011 @ 6:16pm | Report comment
Kersi/Russ/Others,
I think the concept interesting enough to be given some oxygen. Only then perhaps, can we make a definitive judgement…..
October 21st 2011 @ 8:48am
Bay35Pablo said | October 21st 2011 @ 8:48am | Report comment
I currently couldn’t care less about ODI, after loving them 20 years ago.
To me it sounds like a good idea, and worth trying.
October 21st 2011 @ 9:14am
Ian Whitchurch said | October 21st 2011 @ 9:14am | Report comment
Its 50 over cricket. I dont care.
October 21st 2011 @ 9:15am
Chris said | October 21st 2011 @ 9:15am | Report comment
They tried this (with two innings of 25 overs) in the Domestic comp last year.
Even that was impossible to follow for most fans. It was a disaster and they have reverted to the normal format for this season.
My idea for making ODI’s a bit more free flowing:
Any batsman who (having faced at least 12 balls) has a strike-rate of less than 50 per hundred balls is out. This would definetly discourage batsmen from going into their shell during the middle 30 overs.
October 21st 2011 @ 9:22am
The Bush said | October 21st 2011 @ 9:22am | Report comment
Each time they alter Cricket, I care about the sport less and less.
If they change One Day Cricket, I won’t care, because I won’t be watching.
The moment they alter Test Cricket will be the moment I cease watching all together (and I’m in my twenties).
October 21st 2011 @ 9:28am
Brett McKay said | October 21st 2011 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Kersi, some mates and I discussed and discected Peter Roebuck’s article the other day, and though our understanding of how the “bursts” would work was slightly different to whay you’ve outlined here (and we might be wrong), we all concluded that it seems interesting enough to see it tried before handing down our verdicts.
Our biggest concern was that like the 20/25 over split innings format of last summer momentum might halted within a batting innings, but these bursts might not be long long enough to actually build up much momentum. And with not out batsmen not fielding (and theoretically heading straight out the back to hit balls in the nets during the break), the innings may well pick up straight where it left off.
I’m open to the idea at the moment. Let’s see it trialled…
October 21st 2011 @ 2:08pm
David of Canberra said | October 21st 2011 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
sure, why not … and you can add the concept of electric wickets, ‘one bounce, one hand’ catches, using a tennis ball with one half covered in duct tape, not out first ball and your best mate’s 16 year-old sister is allowed as many goes as she likes plus the ultimate test, six and out!
October 21st 2011 @ 2:13pm
Brett McKay said | October 21st 2011 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
so, just to confirm David, you’re not a fan?!?
October 21st 2011 @ 2:16pm
David of Canberra said | October 21st 2011 @ 2:16pm | Report comment
no – it’s just not cricket
October 21st 2011 @ 9:30pm
boes said | October 21st 2011 @ 9:30pm | Report comment
the half covered duct tape ball, with no pads, no we’re talking.
October 24th 2011 @ 4:27pm
DKR said | October 24th 2011 @ 4:27pm | Report comment
David, Why must you complicate things….its just not cricket!!! Wait on are we talking Baseballket???
October 24th 2011 @ 8:49pm
Kersi Meher-Homji said | October 24th 2011 @ 8:49pm | Report comment
Or is it Cribase, DKR?
October 21st 2011 @ 9:34am
Australian Rules said | October 21st 2011 @ 9:34am | Report comment
It’s not imitating tennis…maybe closer to baseball.
I like it. Though I think 10ens would be better than 5ives, because partnerships could become slightly more meaningful. That said, Roebuck IS right…it would maintain the tension throughout the game, leave the rules alone and merely alter the structure of how a game unfolds.
Yes it’s a bit like baseball, but honestly, cricket is lagging behind other sports at the moment and ODI’s are quickly becoming a basketcase (outside of India).
I personally don’t really care anymore about any form of cricket other than Test Matches (I loathe Twenty20)…but there are too few purists out there who agree. Also, the Ashes is on Australian shores only once every 4 years, so interest against the lowly nations is difficult to maintain…especially for the younger generation.
ODI is stale…give 5ives a go.