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.
Ricky
Guest
Third priority - ODIs. Last priority - T20. Do away with it at international and junior level altogether.
Kevin Higginson
Guest
M1tch has a great idea for T20, 12 teams (2 conferences of 6) play home and away in conference (10 matches) and home/away against other conference (6 matches). I don't think it would work with the 4-day games due to the number of matches needed to make it a fair competition.
Ricky
Guest
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.
Rajesh Garg
Guest
To explain 1. Never allowing more than 4 players outside the circle will force batsmen to earn their singles. And it shall force teams to improve on their fielding. So both boring parts lacking enthusiasm from players shall be removed. 2. Having around 30 overs of effective powerplay, will bring more excitement with the batting and bowling. Bowlers will be forced to bowl more good deliveries with the fear of boundaries. And batsmen would be forced to play good cricketing shots to earn runs as easy singles won't be the option.
Rajesh Garg
Guest
I guess all we want is to remove the boring part out. No need to experiment too much for that. 1. Make it a 35 overs each side game instead of 50. No need to change the ball after 35 overs either :) 2. Gradually decrease the field restrictions. First 15 overs 2 players outside. Next 10 overs 3 players outside. Next 10 overs 4 players outside. The 2 changes should be more than enough to remove the boring part and bring more excitement!
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Greg, I have written before that the Ashes is the only genuine cricket rivalry left. The rivalry versus India is more due to the fact the money is there and India have had good batsmen since 1998. I also think the Ashes will be close and too hard to pick.
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
Vinay, one hesitates to read too much into one day of cricket between England and Pakistan, but this and a lot of other things point to Australia being likely to lose the upcoming Ashes series (not that there are any certainties in sport, I hasten to add). I am contemplating writing a Roar article on this ...
Brett McKay
Guest
wow, 1311 runs for 13 wickets in four days. I've got to get some ACT third grade games moved to Columbo.......
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Greg,Cricket without decent pitches is only an excuse to see Tendulkar score another ton. It is an indictment of the game if 1300 runs can be scored for the loss of 8 wickets in two innings. There was nothing in the Colombo wicket for the bowlers. The pitch was like a stern faced Mother in Law that refused to crack a smile. Unrelenting and stubborn. Trent Bridge,last night,looked another good batting surface. In overcast conditions Strauss had no hesitation in batting first. And both Morgan and Collingwood were untroubled when Aamer was out of the attack. I fear for this young bowler and possible burnout.
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
To Vinay and others: what this is all about: I recently pointed out at Kersi's article www.theroar.com.au/2010/02/26/tendulkar-stakes-his-claim-as-best-batsman-in-all-forms/ that "It has been evident to me for some time now that the aims for which Tendulkar continues to play are (1) to become the first player to score 50 test centuries (currently on 47), and (2) to become the first player to score 100 centuries in international cricket (currently on 93), ideally by having tallies of 50 in each form." Now Sachin has reached 48 test hundreds to go with this 46 ODI hundreds. He may not reach 100 first-class centuries, but I'm betting he will reach 100 centuries in international cricket. That will be a stupendous achievement, probably every bit as "immortal" (given that centuries are very rare in T20) as Murali's 800 test wickets.
Bayman
Guest
Gentlemen, Tendulkar's record is most impressive but what's interesting is that he has only scored 75 first class centuries of which 48 are Test hundreds. Clearly, Vinay, we go back to our previous discussion about the amount of first class cricket - below Test level - played by the top cricketers. Obviously, it's not enough thanks to the sheer volume of mind-numbing, meaningless ODIs and the like. Bradman scored 117 centuries in about the same time frame as Tendulkar has scored 75. Both Waugh brothers have scored more than Tendulkar - and Darren Lehmann has scored more than both Waugh brothers. What does this tell us about the makeup and scheduling of Indian domestic cricket. It's also reasonable to suggest, I think, that the modern Australian players will also fall a long way short of the Waughs and Lehmann, let alone Bradman. If ever a batsman was entitled to be included among the "100 fc centuries" group it is Sachin Tendulkar, but he has no chance of joining that illustrious list. I guess it's fair to say that if Tendulkar can't make it then no-one else will get there in this modern era. Of course, if we add ODI tons to the list then it's a different story but we've already discounted ODI hundreds are essentially meaningless - except to those Indian record keepers to which Greg was alluding.
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Greg,Kersi,Tendulkar is a tremendous batsman and I could watch him bat all day. But I certainly don't hero worship him. Muhammad Ali was the only one I put on a pedestal,apart from my wife! What does Tendulkar's 48 th signify? That after him and Dravid India will struggle. Unless they find a way to preserve Tendulkar for another 10 years India has to confront a life without the fab four. The BCCI will struggle to attract longterm sponsors and hence their rush to conclude 10 year TV deals. Greg, I think Chris Doig will be a good choice. Obviously there is no suitable or available candidate in Australia. I say let the Doig loose!
Kersi Meher-Homji
Guest
Yes, I tend to agree with you regarding hero-worship prevalent in India. And I must admit I am a hero-worshipper too! Sachin is just wonderful and not by stats alone. Imagine the pressure put on him by Indians. When he failed in the 2007 World Cup, he was treated shamefully by his fans. So fickle are they. Regarding Vinay's tongue-in-cheek comment on my becoming ICC vice-president. But I won't last one day with the all-powerful BCCI when I'll ban IPL!
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
On the other hand, Kersi, the pitch in Colombo has now brought Tendulkar just two centuries away from the amazing achievement of a half century of test centuries. We have discussed this before. Tendulkar is not selfish (the accusation you thought I was making), but many, many Indian people are selfish for him. For many people in the world, the purpose of test cricket is not to have entertaining cricket, but to set records. So a test is worthwhile if Tendulkar scores a century, or if Sehwag hits the fastest ever triple century, or something like that - it does not matter if otherwise it is just a run festival of a draw. I am not saying I am like this, but many people are, and this test in Sri Lanka will therefore satisfy them. This is the sort of attitude you will have to contend with if Vinay gets you voted in as ICC president! On this point, let's give credit to the Australian selectors over the years, who have always put the team well above end-of-career milestones. BTW, what do people think of Chris Doig for ICC president? Apparently he's at the top of NZ's thinking. He would be very interesting, and would quite possibly leave Indian powerbrokers wishing they hadn't knifed John Howard in the back. What's the old phrase about "better the devil you know than the devil you don't know?" No-one notices what happens in NZ because it's such a small country. Doig was an excellent CEO of NZ Cricket in the late 90s and was extremely progressive ... and he had no hesitation in kicking heads to get what he perceived to be necessary action ... just ask Glenn Turner!
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Jay, I don't think it is the curators. Parker prepared a good sporting pitch for the last Test. Maybe the way ahead is 4 day Test matches with sporting pitches and a minimum of 110 overs in a day.
Jay
Guest
Totally agree on the point about the pitches... why are cruators so worried to see a moving ball? The SCG test and the Headingly test were great test matches... more of that please!
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Kersi, I nominate you as Australia's candidate for the vice presidency of the ICC. There will be no opposition.
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
M1tch,now that is worth doing. At least then we have two countries on the same page.
Kersi Meher-Homji
Guest
The current Colombo Test between Sri Lanka and India (737 runs for 4 wickets in the first two days) confirms my viewpoint that pitches which are batsmen's paradise are killing Test cricket. Why do batsmen get all the advantages? That's why the recent Test in Leeds provided interest when the seamers moved the ball around and tested the skill of batsmen. Make pitches bowler friendly and we won't have to look at alternatives (50 overs, 20 overs, 20x4... ODIs) for fun. Have 3 day first-class matches and 4-day Test matches. Yes, 100 overs a day, as Spiro and others have suggested. No saccharine, little sugar, lots of spice and class. First priority: Test cricket. Second priority: First-class inter-state / province matches. Last priority: ODIs.
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Brett, finally we have a mild disagreement. I happent to think that CA have rushed in and even if something tangible comes of it there is no guarantee the rest of the countries will go along. We have just been through the fiasco of a nomination and increasingly the boards seem to be looking at their own backyards. The World Cup till 2015 has been sold on the basis of 50 overs and I cannot see broadcasters (ESPN) sacrificing 10 overs of air time.