Plans to rejuvenate one day cricket have raised the alluring possibility that a game mired in formula might once again become an arena for inspiration.
But they have also thrown in a baseball-esque gimmick that is a wanton departure from the game’s fundamentals.
When Cricket Australia unveiled a possible new limited overs format to be trialled in domestic cricket, they presented playing conditions in tune with the spirit of a Test match.
Reduced restrictions for bowlers – no maximum amount of overs, only the requirement that four bowlers must be called on – are counterbalanced by increased fielding restrictions to ensure that wickets are vital to the containment of a batting side.
There is also the provision for two bouncers an over instead of one, and the promise of greater leniency on legside wides.
All these measures allow bowlers a greater range of attacking options than they have been accustomed to in coloured clothing.
Combined with the split-innings stratagem, which forces players to think more readily on their feet while also reducing the danger of an “auto-pilot” phase in the middle overs, they offer the possibility of limited overs matches with strategy, tactical variety and excitement.
Most promisingly, they make it possible to imagine the kind of match that will stretch the players in directions they have so far only experienced in Tests and first-class matches, something they can only look forward to.
However the prospect of one nominated “super striker” getting the chance to bat in the second bracket of overs having been dismissed in the first is as cheap and nasty as it is unnecessary.
Batting is based upon the harsh but fair concept that one mistake can mean the end of the road for a batsman.
So for one player to get twice as much opportunity as the rest is a scenario that clearly defies this most basic tenet.
Among the numerous arguments against the idea is that it will unfairly reward teams with insufficient depth – Chris Gayle’s West Indies, for one – while there is also the matter of what would be done with scoreboards and records.
Mainly, though, the ruse is redundant when the same effect could be had by a simple act of rebalancing.
Why not allow a greater number of overs with maximum fielding restrictions in the second bracket of overs than in the first, therefore compelling a batting team to keep something in reserve?
This would allay the fears of spectators and broadcasters about what would happen in the event of a collapse in the first batting bracket.
It would also avoid the introduction of a rule that plainly isn’t cricket, other than in the minds of those trying to build a game based entirely upon market research.
Build your own fantasy cricket team and put it to the test with Draftstars daily fantasy competitions. Pick your match, pick your team and watch the points roll in to take out cash prizes on each match. What are you really gambling with? Set a deposit limit.
Not sure he knew exactly who he was speaking to!
Australia vs England is always a big game in cricket, regardless of the format. This weekend's game could be the highest level we see…
A nightmare moment for Brandon McMullen at the T20 World Cup!
USA wicketkeeper Monank Patel's throw back to the bowler was wayward, allowing Pakistan to pinch two extra runs - but the ball would be…
Mohammad Amir lost the plot in the Super Over, sending down seven wides to all but gift the USA victory.
Everything is bigger in Texas, including the sporting shocks. In a Dallas suburb that had never staged a cricket match until last year debutants…
