The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

What does the future of cricket look like?

26th July, 2010
42
4516 Reads

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?

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement
close