With a little encouragement from Vinay Verma and needing a new proposal to add to my recently mentioned application for a job at the ICC, I decided to take a second look at the issue of the batting Powerplay, and what tweaking this new feature could use.
My initial piece on the topic was related to the current tactical mindset and the use of batting Powerplays in game situations, but Vinay came up with an alternative hypothesis in the comments section, which is certainly worthy of debate. Here is a summary:
An interesting spin on things indeed.
I think that the Powerplays have added a new dimension to the game, but I’m not sure that they are perfect as of yet.
However, credit must go to the administrators for bringing in initiatives to promote attacking cricket, as well as trying this in the ODI format and leaving the sacred Test Match cricket intact.
Firstly regarding Vinay’s proposal.
The “Powerplay”, that is the fielding restriction of two outside the circle must remain in place for the first five overs of both innings. Both innings should get off on the same foot for at least the initial five overs.
The idea of making teams take the Powerplays (both batting and bowling) between overs 5-40 is certainly appealing to me.
As Vinay put it, “the last ten in any case are always interesting.” So why captains feel the need, after three decades of successfully hitting out the final ten to bring the field up in the final ten is beyond me. If anything it is a disadvantage as any miscued shots at the death are more likely to fall safe with the field on the ropes than in the circle.
I certainly think this method has some good aspects but some more food for thought; here is my spin on Vinay’s hypothesis:
For mine, this would pose more dilemmas for both captains. If a side is off to a flyer, should the bowling captain use his powerplays at the start of the innings or should he wait until the middle overs and try and tie them down then?
Should the batting side use the last 15 overs rather than the customary ten to go all out, or perhaps a ten over period once the ball has stopped swinging but is still hard to pile on a quick 80-100 runs?
I think both proposals have their merits. Vinay’s limits the disadvantage to the bowling team by imposing fielding restrictions for only 20 overs and keeps the last 10 overs for “natural” ODI cricket.
My hypothesis totals 25 overs of fielding restrictions but ten overs where three men are allowed outside the circle as to not totally destroy the bowling innings and only the last five for “natural” ODI cricket.
Either way, keeping at least the last five overs, if not ten open and making captains use their powerplays before this period should be a catalyst for more attacking cricket, from both the batting and fielding sides.
Another proposal that I’d like to put forward here is a “free hit on any extra” rule.
Currently, the free hit only comes into effect with a foot-fault no-ball, the rule has been extremely successful in my opinion and eradicated a large number of these needless extra deliveries but an unwanted consequence would be the seemingly inflated number of wides.
Personally, I get very annoyed watching international cricketers bowling wides. Perhaps as an off-spin bowler with relatively good control I’m not the best judge, but surely players of this calibre should be able to place the ball where they want – or pretty close to it – on a regular basis.
So award every no-ball and wide with a free hit. It will encourage control from the bowlers, which in turn should hopefully speed up the slow over rates.
The last proposal: bring back the Mankad.
Encourage batsmen to take risky singles at the death, let them leave their crease early if they want to try but then let the bowler Mankad them. It is a great intricacy of cricket, unique like the LBW rule, and it deserves its place in cricket. I find it sad that this has left the game in recent years and it should be re-instated.
Now let the debate begin.
davido
Guest
Get political on their ass? Good idea. Maybe a couple of hundred of emails a day might work.
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Davido..Have to keep the rage going..they will listen but sometimes it is too late,so we have to keep the noise levels up. They say there is no game without the players..I would go further there is no game without the spectators...so dont you worry about anybody listening..just make sure you get heard. The normal reaction is that we cant do anything..yes you can..Write to CA,write to the newspapers,write to the ICC. Write to your local member..we need to play day/night Shield and Tests..the balls are there..just no will..and a lot of superstition.
davido
Guest
Bouncers - I agree totally with you. Unlimited but give unplayables a wide. This is the perfect solution. Protection - also agree. 'As Spectators and cricket lovers we have every right to debate and influence the direction we want cricket to take.' - are you sure about that? Debate - yes. But it doesnt seem like anyone is listening...
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Davido..I agree the bowlers only have refugee status in cricket. We should go back to the unlimited bouncer rule. To stop bowlers hurling down unplayable trampoline balls the Umpires should call it a wide if it is above head height. Bring back throwing the Christians to the lions. I am in favour of keeping the helmets to minimise injury to young kids starting out.And then you get used to it. So keep the helmets. Allow the bowlers a leeway of 5 cms on no balls.It is ridiculous that a bowler is no balled for having his back heel on the line. It makes no difference the 5 cms. Just veering off ODI's for Tests ban fielders.except wicketkeepers,from wearing helmets. Let shortleg and silly point field there if they want to..but no helmets; and no shin guards. Allow them a protector because we dont want shrill,high pitched appeals. As Spectators and cricket lovers we have every right to debate and influence the direction we want cricket to take.
davido
Guest
But really... the advantage of the powerplay is it attempts to break up and unsettle the uneasy truce that often develops in the middle overs. The predictable middle overs merely result from both teams attempting to manage their risk/return ratios in an optimal fashion. For any set of rules an optimal system or approach can be developed. That is what has happened to ODI over time. The only real way to 'break' the systems developed by teams is to introduce a random element. Allowing teams to choose powerplays goes somewhat towards helping make a match less predictable. However, the trouble with powerplays is they really only affect one dimension of the game - field settings. There are many other dimensions the ICC could play with but I am for giving something back to the bowlers. Right now every rule favours the batsman. At this rate, there will come a time when we just replace bowlers with bowling machines. What about rewarding a maiden over with an over where the batsman has to run on every ball?
davido
Guest
It all sounds a little complex to me. Although I think the free-hit has become about as exciting as watching Boycott block his way to a draw, it is WEIRD that you get a free hit for a no-ball but not for a wide. What bias! I mean a no-ball hardly alters the difficulty of the delivery for a batsman while a wide can be impossible to hit! Why not be revolutionary... If you want to make ODI more interesting go the Viv Richards route. No helmet. And allow 3 bouncers per over. While your at it you could remove all protective clothing. That should make for a few less LBW decisions.
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Not so,Freud.. The readers at the Roar are pretty discerning. Issues such as the Power Play do need a grasp of the technical aspects and this is not everyone's cup of tea. Sure,there are good responses when the personalities of the game are concerned and specific matches. There are times when the reader does not want to be challenged and then there are times when the reader wants to be challenged. The technical aspects of Rugby and Football are given a good once over. Heres one for you to consider...The administrators say that they dont have a suitable ball to play day night test cricket. Well, I say they have two suitable balls. The red one to play during daylight hours and the white one to play under lights. This is for Test Cricket,mind you. There are issues to work through like change of balls. Spinners dont necessarily like a soft old ball. They prefer a bit of shine and some seam to get the bounce. Knowing you only have 50 overs with a ball will encourage spinners coming on early. Around the twenty over mark is ideal for a spinner. This then leads to four day Tests and a maximum of 100 overs for the batting side. This will not please traditionalists but I would rather have a game today's society watches than no game at all.
Freud of Football
Roar Guru
Thanks Vinay, not sure Mr Lorgat would particularly like having me on board as I'm not exactly a "yes man" which it seems is a pre-requisite for a job in Dubai. It is a bit sad though that the genuine issues of sport don't seem to interest the roar crowd a great deal, I've seen some fine pieces both on cricket and AFL in particular that have gone more-or-less unread while the results of this-or-that game get a few hundred comments or a totally impossible hypothetical (if Union and League merged) gets almost 1000. A hard crowd to judge or perhaps both you and I are in the minority who are interested in the aspects other than just those revolving around players playing the game?
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Freud..Dont worry about the limited response here. This usually happens when readers are challenged. I would refine this and send it on to Harron Lorgat,along with your resume.
Dave1
Guest
Phillip Hughes batting depends on his "good eye". Therefore it would be best to play him while he’s young, to take full advantage of his skills. When he gets older and his “eye” starts to go, he might not have the technique to compensate for the loss in his reflexes.
Brian
Guest
I think the PP have been good and I like the idea that they can be taken at any time. This is because it is not only the PP that are interesting but the threat of use. Why limit them to overs 5-40. I think a guy like A Morkel shouldnt be restricted to batting at a certain time. I would go further and not restrict the batting captain at all. Give him 15 overs of PP whenever he likes. If the bowling captain wants to start the first over with his paceman tearing in and 5 men out so be it. Anything that is fair to both sides (unlike the use of substitutes) and increases unpredictabality is generally good. Let SL open with a spinner and 5 men out, the less we know exactly whats going to happen the better!
Freud of Football
Roar Guru
Brett, with no disrespect to grade cricket I think the sport is one where the international level is one that will never represent the grassroots. Football probably will remain football, by and large the same game the world over at most levels but cricket, already with the 3rd umpire, with the massive difference in ground conditions etc we see the huge discrepancies between grassroots and elite levels where your sunday team might play on a concrete pitch with some worn out felt the first-class players play on a specially prepared turf wicket. As such, I don't mind if grade cricket sticks to the more traditional rules and ignores advents such as the PP, the sport at that level isn't about TV audiences and captivating matches, its about cricket and the newer "intricacies" are aimed at the highest level and should stay that way.
Freud of Football
Roar Guru
Couldn't agree more. Many people regard the career of Mark Waugh as one huge dud as he never tore teams apart but I'm glad someone didn't coach him to be mentally tough to the detriment of his natural game, just think of all those wonderful summer afternoons we, the cricketing public, would have missed out on if he got his body behind every ball and put away the cover drive. Coaching should be about tweaking and perfecting, not rebuilding.
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Freud..Captains have become lazy..you are right..This short changes the spectator,at home or at the ground. I was at North Sydney Oval yesterday and were it not for Steve Smiths' innings it would have been a forgetable afternoon. Hughes and Warner were playing for their spots and were subdued.Jacques was looking for match conditioning and Clarke was treating it as a fitness test. So too, Lee. Just an excecise in Match conditioning. No thought to the 3000 odd paying punters. Ed Cowans spectacular catch at long on was one for the ages. His run out too was exceptional.Apart from this the match was dull. I would go so far as to allow each team three PP's each of 5 overs. The first one for the fielding side and subsequent ones at the toss of a coin if both want it at the same time. This will make the Captains think and the tension will translate into attacking cricket. Steve Smith is the next big thing in Australian cricket..needs to work on his legspin..at the moment he is just putting it there..no work on the ball. And Philip Hughes..he was out LBW playing with a remodelled orthodox stance.left foot went straight back and out. He should go back to his unorthodox way and that works for him. Dont coach the class out of the kid.
Brett McKay
Guest
yep, completely agree, and there is no doubt the PPs have spiced things up. I didn't actually touch on your suggestions above, and I think they're all pretty solid, truth be known. Perhaps us not using PPs in the lower grades is prt of my not being sold on them. Could just be a personal thing too. I think I read last week the ICC are considering (yet more) tweaks to the PP system, and forcing their use before the 40th over was one of the suggested tweaks. As both you and Vinay have suggested, these brings back the true one-day game, the - dare I say "traditional" - "happy hour" in one-day matches...
Freud of Football
Roar Guru
My reason for liking the PowerPlays is simply because they bring that extra bit of thought to the game. The biggest criticism of ODI cricket over the past 12 months - apart from forcing too much of it on the public - is that games can become dull. I see the PowerPlay as the perfect way to spice up a game as there are no set times. If you force the captains to make decisions it provides a lot more entertainment than if you just force the fielding restrictions on them at certain times. This isn't grade cricket remember, these guys are captaining their country and should be tactically astute enough to plan and think about the best way to utilise fielding restrictions without having them enforced at pre-ordained intervals.
Brett McKay
Guest
Must agree on the wides, both leg- and off-side. Kersi, in Grade cricket, the danger zone marks (6" either side of the stump base) is commonly used for leg-side wides, but the off-side wides are still way too harsh - if a batsman misses a cut shot, but the ball passes half way up the bat, there's no way a shot has been deprived. Yet we see both the umpire's arms go out. Ridiculous. That said, I don't mind Freud's idea for free hits - that certainly would fix the problem. Just on the Mankad - it hasn't actually been removed from the game, it's just a lot harder now, because the bowler cannot abort his/her delivery action. That is, the bowler has to attempt the mankad/run out prior to entering the delivery stride, which essentially means the non-striker can start running well before the ball is delivered. Freud, I have to admit I'm still not sold on the powerplay. I still maintain that the best field resteriction system was used in Aust domestically, immediately prior to the intro of PPs, and it was simply and extension of the 1-15 over system, where from 16-30 overs, only three fielders were allowed outside the circle. It meant teams could recover from early wickets or maintain attack, and bowling teams could maintain the attacking fields when they had taken early wickets. The middle period overs no longer crawled, and the last 20 was were the fireworks came out..
Freud of Football
Roar Guru
When batsmen back away and the bowler bowls one that would have otherwise gone down the leg-side it is not considered a wide which is a little hypocritical when one considers that a bouncer that could be called wide is called according to the batsman in his batting stance, not when he is standing on his stumps or has charged the bowler or whatever. Just too many inconsistencies which have come about by constant rule-tweaking to make cricket for batsman-friendly.
Freud of Football
Roar Guru
Kersi, I would suggest no captain would need to be Einstein to figure out tactics for either my or Vinay's suggestions, however it would require them to think on their feet and adjust to the game situation which is something most captains avoid if they can. An excellent example came when SAF needed quick runs earlier this year in an ODI against England, Smith admitted post-match that the idea of a pinch-hitter had crossed their (SAF dressing room) minds but they'd remained with their normal lineup - they lost. Cricket is a game of tactics but with all of the planning that goes into the game, captains have become less thoughtful on the field and rely more on homework. I think the PowerPlay's could be an avenue to bring that tactical thinking back into the games themselves rather than the pre-match preparation. As for wides. I have to agree. If a batsman - for whom the rules of cricket have now become perfectly suited - cannot glance a ball that is 5cm outside leg stump then he is pretty ordinary and doesn't deserve an extra run. I guess the problem is, a yorker outside legstump is extremely difficult to play, India utilised yorkers wide outside off in the ODI series against Aus with some good results but if I had the option at the death, yorkers outside leg would be what I'd bowl and hence the current rule does make some sense. Perhaps we should bring in something like the bouncer rule - one down the leg each over? Obviously the current tramlines couldn't be used as that would be too far down leg but even still, the rules must provide an even playing field for both batsmen and bowlers and in the current climate, who would want to be a bowler? The free-hit rule we have seen has cut back the number of front-foot no balls but it has had the side-effect of "pushing" bowlers, I get the feeling many are uncomfortable with their runups and in an attempt to avoid free-hits lose some of their control.
Hazey the Bear
Roar Rookie
I'm with Kersi on the leg-side wide thing. Especially when the batsmen are walking across their stumps - I mean, how is *that* the bowler's fault?