England’s Stuart Broad, centre, celebrates with teammates the wicket of Australia’s Brad Haddin on the second day of the fifth cricket test match between England and Australia at The Oval cricket ground in London, Friday, Aug.21, 2009. AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth
We continue the second part of cricket rules with contributions from Sheek, the auditor general for cricket; Brett McKay the voice of reason; Kersi, The Roar’s Nostradamus and Geoff Lemon The Roar’s Che Guevara. I am sure my colleagues will not begrudge my so anointing them.
Sheek: Allow me to begin with an observation – the ability of test cricket to survive will depend on the determination of administrators and the players themselves to ensure its perpetuity.
However, as each decade passes, the emotional tug of test cricket is diminishing as newer generations find it easier to make money in the shortened form of T20 cricket.
Anyway, here are some suggestions from me.
1. Day/night test matches. Not a new concept, nor even a law change, but a habit change, for want of a better word. WSC played supertests in 1978/79 and I cannot recall any serious problems with (early) evening dew or the ball (the colour of which I can’t recall). I would substitute 5 x 6 hour days (30 hours) for 4 x 7 hour day/nights (28 hours). A net loss of just two hours (or 30 overs), but overall a reduction by one day. Better suited to present lifestyles. In Australia, tests would run from approximately as follows: first session – 1300 to 1530 (then half an hour for tea); second session – 1600 to1800 (then half an hour for dinner); third session – 1830 to 2100. For the non-military minded, 1300 hours is 1pm (start) while 2100 hours is 9pm (end).
2. Bring back the “fear factor” to batting. Okay, this is a tricky one. I appreciate the dominance of bat over ball is cyclical, but today the batsmen enjoy so many natural advantages over bowlers – batting friendly pitches designed to ensure a test lasts five days; covered pitches, well manicured outfields & use of excellent rollers; the latest hi-tech body and head protection. I find the helmet grills to be an abomination to look at. I say – “remove them”. The batsman’s temple is still protected, but it opens his face – nose, mouth, jaw and cheek – to potential damage.
That’ll bring back the fear factor! Of course, it won’t get past the increasingly choking occupational health and safety rules and corporate duty of care.
3. Enforce compliance with “4 minutes per test over” convention. Reduce time wasting, such as batsmen ‘farming’ between deliveries and captains vacillating over field changes. Costs of purchasing tickets to live events is now exorbitant. Patrons are entitled to expect more quality for their money, and more action packed drama.
Just briefly, other suggestions. Bring back the ‘one local umpire and one foreign umpire’ convention. Local umpires are now being denied the opportunity to stand in home tests, unless they’re on the official test umpires roster.
They also have an intuitively better understanding of home grounds, conditions, players, crowds, customs and protocol. Use the technology. Media uses it ad nauseam to embarrass umpires, so give the umpires the same advantage to double-check their rulings.
Brett McKay: Two obvious changes need to be put in place now, and both will have instant effect on how Test Matches are played and viewed. Both changes, coincidently, have been soapbox topics of mine for a little while now, so I figure if I repeat myself enough, one day I will be heard!
The ICC brought the UDRS into use in Test cricket, but then left its implementation up to hosting nations and for local broadcasters to foot the bill. Instantly that means some countries can afford it others can’t, and some countries will use it and others won’t.
It gets worse; the countries that can afford it won’t use it!
If the ICC is serious about improving decision making by umpires – which was already hovering around 93-94 per cent without the technology anyway – then they need to enforce its use across the board AND pick up the tab. There can be no ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ with this, it has to be consistent or not at all.
I’ve said this before about slow over rates and I’ll say it again. The problem will not go away until the teams are punished the only way they’ll feel it directly: on the scoreboard.
The instant match referees start docking x number of runs per over not bowled by the scheduled close of play, the teams will very quickly smarten up and most certainly hurry up.
This practice of ‘field setting by committee’, where the captain, vice-captain bowler, and all affected fielders discuss field changes is, as Vinay rightly points out, short changing the paying public.
Fines aren’t working, clearly, so the only source of actual pain is the scoreboard.
And heaven help the first captain who loses a Test series because of slow over rate penalties.
Geoff Lemon: The crucial thing is the contest between bat and ball. Runs have bloated. Once an average above 50 was the mark of true greats, now its par. It would be fascinating to see which contemporary batsmen could handle facing the great West Indies pace quartets without a helmet, or Larwood and Voce on juicy green pitches (let alone which tailenders).
What were once twos or outfield catches have become fours and sixes. Boundary ropes should be a standard distance from the fence (just enough to reduce the risk of sliding injuries). Adapting to different grounds is part of the challenge. Abandoning play for bad light should only happen in extreme circumstances (though batsmen should still be able to choose to continue if they wish).
We should encourage green pitches, cracking pitches, dustbowls, anything that provides a challenge and therefore a spectacle. Let pitches go uncovered in the lead-up to matches. Low-scoring Tests are often the most interesting.
Grounds that don’t produce competitive pitches should be barred from hosting internationals for a certain number of seasons.
90 overs in a day used not be any problem at all. I’m not convinced about abolishing the dead-ball rule, but bowlers shouldn’t have to wait for batsmen. If the batsman wants to garden, he’d better be quick.
Bowlers should be warned for dawdling, and fielding conferences between deliveries shouldn’t be allowed. If a team takes too long between deliveries, penalty runs could be awarded.
The third umpire should monitor no-balls. But I would take this further, and have the third umpire double-check all dismissals and appeals immediately with Hot Spot, Snickometer, and replays.
This would not slow down play significantly if replays were provided quickly. The third umpire would not be making a new decision, just checking to see there was anything obviously wrong with the original one.
Thus if a not-out is given, play continues while the third umpire verifies it. If it proves clearly incorrect, that batsman is out, and any runs scored or balls faced after the appeal are struck from the record. Runs scored or wickets lost by his batting partner stand. Most decisions could be made within a couple of deliveries.
For dismissals, use the red and green lights to confirm or overturn a dismissal. A batsman who knows he’s out (edge behind, etc) must leave the field immediately. One who could justifiably suspect the decision was wrong can meet the new batsman halfway off and wait with him for confirmation. The answer dictates which one goes to the middle and which goes off. This would take very little time out of the day’s play, and ensure almost absolute accuracy in decision making.
Kersi Meher Homji: There should be at least 100 overs bowled per day in a Test. In the years gone by, bowlers finished 100 overs a day, no problems! That too 8-ball overs when Australia was involved before 1978.
Here are more suggestions:
Replace the slim sight screen with a much wider one. So much time is wasted in moving the sight screen to the left and to the right whenever a right-hander and a left-hander are batting.
Limit the distance allowed to a bowler for the run-up.
A no-ball or a wide should count as two runs instead of one run. But no extra ball should be given. At times it becomes an 8 or 9-ball over. We can fit in a few extra overs if this rule change is brought in operation.
Bowlers like Mitchell Johnson and Zaheer Khan bowl too many balls outside the off stump. This slows down the game. The breadth of the side crease should be reduced to enable such off-beam out-swingers to.
This is over to you now, Roarers, and we all look forward to your studied responses.
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Lolly, nothing lasts for ever and Australia is a lot better than the number five suggests. But the time for excuses is over and they need to reclaim their status. Lots of hard work here because those in front are not going to rollover and die. How well the next generation like Smith,Khawaja and Ferguson stand up will determine where Australian cricket goes from here. Australia have not suddenly become a bad cricket team. The others have raised the bar and don't fear Australia anymore. There is still respect there but also a determination on the part of India and South Africa to prove they are worthy. Elite sport is all about winning the next game. Yesterday's results are history.
Lolly
Guest
Got to agree there. Now that the Aussies lose a lot more they/we are going to be as bad as the Brits for over-emphasizing it. It really annoyed me when Mike Hussey said that for a cricketer there can be no higher series to play in. He could have said for an Aus+ English cricketer. It just sounds stupid otherwise.
Will
Guest
The Ashe is a two horse race; however, some fans may be forgiven for thinking the Ashes signifies who is number 1 considering the hype around it. The Ashes will go back and forth for the next 100 years, however, as you suggest, over time you'd imagine Australia will increase their healthy lead off 33 test wins against England in the Ashes. As a cricket fan, it disappoints me greatly that the Ashes, a contest between two teams ranked 4 and 5 respectively, will overshadow the contest between South Africa and India. The two best teams in international cricket. Aside from Ricky Ponting, there are no great cricketers on show in the Ashes. For a contest that is played every 2 years, the Ashes is over-hyped.
Kersi Meher-Homji
Guest
Sheek, I am also sure that it is 80 overs but Wisden 2010 quoting Laws of Cricket gave me second thoughts. Now that we two have agreed, who cares about Wisden?!!! Ha!
sheek
Guest
Kersi, 80 overs I believe it is (I'm inclined to have the odd senior moment!).....
Russ
Roar Rookie
Lots of interesting ideas here, many of which I've written about myself. I tried to post this yesterday but it went missing, so I'll remove the links to my blog articles and try again. On the UDRS: technology is here to stay, but the referral system is clunky and unnecessary. There is no reason why the information presented by hawkeye (and an equivalent for no-balls) couldn't be presented to the umpire before he made the decision (via a hand-held smart-phone). Faster, easier, and more likely to build trust in the umpiring and confidence in the umpire. On night tests: the problem with lighting is that it sits above the ball, whereas the fielders lie below and therefore only see the dark side. Brighter lights don't solve (and can even exacerbate) that problem because it is related to ambient light levels. I'd like to see an attempt to light the ball from its underside, by reflecting lower intensity red light from the boundary edge. On faster play: I agree with penalizing the fielding side for every over not played at the end of a session (5 runs each, the standard penalty seems appropriate) but for two things: 1) it leaves open the chance for gamesmanship on the part of the batsmen unless they are censured for wasting time (on appeal from the fielding side); 2) there are various legitimate reasons why the over-rate might be slow (an injured batsman, multiple wickets, etc.). To get around both I'd introduce a formal time clock (~105 minutes per session that must be played out, and the overs (35) must be bowled within. The batting side can have four 90 second timeouts glove changes, extra drinks, etc. On packed stadiums and popularity: I don't think it is as endangered as made out. A lot of people follow the play (cricinfo broke down in the concluding moments of the recent Mohali test), even if they aren't always watching it on tv, or attending the game. If the ground is empty, lower the ticket price, particularly on weekdays, and don't reserve seats. If the price was lower I'd probably go to the ground for parts of most days of a test match. On good matches: test cricket has few problems selling its marquee series between closely matched sides, but you can't limit test cricket to four teams. There is great enthusiasm for playing test matches amongst associate nations but both they and the minor test teams need to play matches that mean something to them: a competition that allows them to progress up to a level befitting their talent, with short series between unevenly matched teams, and longer series between well matched sides. The proposed test championship adds nothing in that sense, given games are only decisive if a team is on the verge of qualification (4th or 5th).
Brett McKay
Guest
Greg, Alex Keath is young Victorian allrounder you're thinking of. He was in the Aust U19s World Cup winning side which Mitch Marsh captained, but at the time was already listed as an AFL rookie by the new Gold Coast side. On return from the U19WC, Victoria got on the front foot and offered him an unprecedented three-year senior contract, forgoing the traditional year-to-year rookie contract route. Keath was a late call-up to the PMs XI side last summer, and promptly took four West Indian wickets to cap a pretty big summer for a young bloke....
sheek
Guest
Darwin Stubby, Where did I say that you need to radically change test cricket to snare the likes of David Warner? What I m suggesting, along with the other authors of this post, is that you need to tweak the game in order for it to remain relevant to every current generation. I agree Warner is far from the best cricketer in the game. But he is in the vanguard of current & future players whose skills will be better served in other forms of the game. They don't need the skills for test cricket, money is too easy to make elsewhere. But we need to tweak test cricket in order to make it relevant to quality cricketers, or we will surely lose them. And test cricket will consequently wither on the vine. Test cricket in 2010 is not the same as test cricket in 1880. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Had the founders of test cricket delegated that the laws never be changed, then test cricket would have disappeared 50 or 60 years ago, perhaps earlier. The fact we can still have a discussion on the future of test cricket today, is precisely because the game has undergone changes over 100 years. Day/night test cricket, my major contribution to the discussion, is far from radical. It was successfully trialled during WSC in 1978/79. I would have also thought many of the other suggestions weren't radical, but a tightening, or better interpretation, of current laws & practices.
Kersi Meher-Homji
Guest
Sheek, I thought the minimum is 80 overs before a new ball is allowed in Test cricket. But I am confused after reading Laws of Cricket in Wisden 2010. It states on page 1509: "The governing bodyfor cricket in the country concerned shall decide the number of overs applicable in that country, which shall not be less than 75 overs." Vague, isn't it?
darwin stubby
Guest
all I'm saying if you're really looking at radically changing the game of test cricket to capture the likes of a Warner - who frankly can't cobble together a decent 50 over innings - then we're throwing the game down the toilet ...
sheek
Guest
Thanks Kersi. I think it's 85, isn't it? 90 overs is the max to be bowled per day. Too many numbers running around the head, thanks again.
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
Many years ago when I was a young fella I met a similarly aged Pom in the youth hostel at Padua. We started talking cricket. He made a comment something like "What, do kids at normal schools actually play cricket in Australia? In England it's a game that everyone has a bit of an interest in, but no-one actually plays it, except for rich kids at private schools". In a nutshell this is what Peter Roebuck's excellent book "In It to Win It" is about. I would recommend it as compulsory reading for the Viscount. In England the "unique selling point" of cricket is indeed "sheer elitism", but in Australia the "USP" of the sport is its egalitarianism. This is why - and I am not being jingoistic here - the broad future of England-Australia battles is for Australia to triumph. Of course there will be perturbations of this order, as there are at present, with England holding the Ashes and likely to retain them this summer. Put this down to two things: (1) The southern African influx into English cricket (in which category I also include the excellent coaching of Andy Flower), and (2) Cricket Australia taking its eye off the ball and allowing AFL a period of recruiting dominance. Luke Hodge is emblematic of the latter: a champion schoolboy cricketer who instead opted to become a champion AFL player (All-Australian captain in 2010). He is exactly the age of Midfielder's sons and their friends, who have little interest in cricket. Ten years earlier the Waughs, Ponting and Warne all opted for cricket over the other sports they were excellent at. These are exactly the athletes missing from the current Australian side, making it weaker than usual. There is evidence that Cricket Australia has turned this around. Amidst much hullabaloo, Mitchell Marsh has opted for cricket over AFL, at which he also excels. There was a similar example in Victoria recently (the name escapes me). The number of young and enormously promising fast bowlers in Australia at the moment is frightening (Hazlewood, McDermott, Starc, Pattinson, George, etc.). A big factor in this turnaround has undoubtedly been the money washing into the game from T20, so let us not be too dismissive of the IPL. I just wanted to make these comments because I feel it is important to set the record straight on the nature of cricket in Australia. Whatever it is that attracts Australians to the sport, it is certainly not elitism, old worldliness and and eccentricity.
Kersi Meher-Homji
Guest
Sheek, you have presented your case regarding the necessity of rule changes very well. May I point out one error? The number of overs before the new ball is allowed is currently not 90.
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
junior,of all the posts yours got me thinking about your ,mostly studied,response to the rule changes. In essence what these changes are trying to achieve is to give YOU,and the lovers of Tests, BACK ,the game as people like Sheek and I knew it. Where the game was in the words of Gideon Haigh a "competition" and not just free and mindless "content" in the form of meaningless ODI's and T20's. There was a time when the air you and I breathed was free. Now we have bottled water at $3 a pop. I still drink tap water in Sydney but not in Adelaide or Kolkata. Lets look at some of the rule changes: Boundaries have become shorter at the dictates of broadcasters. This effectively is the death of the spinner. The strategically placed fielder at long on is reduntant. We are proposing the boundaries go back. Not so much change as a reclaiming of lost ground. Ditto bowling 100 overs. Having a runner was allowed in the "spirit of the game". I question the "spirit". As they say the spirit may be willing but the flesh is weak..cue the sums of money for glorified baseball pinch hitters. Actually there is now a grading of salaries for Indian domestic players in the IPL that will be governed by their proficiency and representation in the longer versions of First Class Crciket. That is a player who has performed in Ranji or Tests will be graded to a higher contract. The wheel is turning. There was no night cricket prior to Packer. Now the best attended games are those at night. No reason why Tests should not be played at night. Afterall the day is for working and the night for playing. No balls have been tinkered with since cricket started..remember the drag of Rorke? We are actually suggesting that no balls distract an umpire from his primary job of adjudicating nicks and lbws. Nothing dramatic in change here. In fact we are freeing the umpire from a distraction. I agree with you that Test cricket's beauty lies in its unfolding narrative. The boring bits interspersed in the exciting "contest" We are suggesting Test cricket does not meander too much. Captains must be more leaders than just traffic policemen. Benaud,Worrell, Chappell, all bowled 90 EIGHT ball overs in a day. My argument with you in the end is not an argument at all. I want what you want but I am willing to change for the greater good. I hope I have been able to give you some background to our proposed changes. Which really, in the end is restoring cricket to an even contest and not just a fill in for broadcasters with free content.
sheek
Guest
I wasn't aware I needed a specific number of examples to be convincing..... Well, rugby league isn't anything like the game it was in 1908, or when I first saw it about 1968, but it's still going okay despite massive tinkering. I would have thought tinkering is relevant as new ideas crop up in accordance with changing times. Our lives are very different from our parents, which again were different from our grandparents. Even cricket has undergone changes, even subtle, in its history. Tests were originally 4 ball (England), or 8 ball (Australia), now 6 ball. Tests were either 3 days (England), or unlimited (Australia), now 5. You could enforce the follow-on with a lead of 150, now its 200. The number of overs before the new ball has changed, at different times, being 65 overs, then 75 overs, also 85 overs, now 90 overs. The no-ball rule has gone from back foot to front foot. You now have covered wickets, whereby previously you were at the behest of the elements. Shall I continue to trawl through history to find every bit of tinkering that has occurred to the game these past 132 years.....? If test cricket will be no longer available to attract the best talent because they prefer other forms of cricket, then that will definitely be its death knell. Any sport needs quality athletes.
darwin stubby
Guest
if Warner is your best example then I'm afraid you've got a very weak argument - Jnr is 100% correct
Brett McKay
Expert
Sheek, you might be interested to hear that Bollinger and Hussey are both on their way home from India, Bollinger due to prolonged soreness which ruled him out of the second Test, and which falred up again after the 2nd ODI, and Hussey to allow him a few days off before the Shield game between WA & SA....
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
sheek,a large part of Test Cricket's problems through the years has been this elitist concept that Test cricket is for connosieurs and the shorter format is for bogans. In fact cricket in the 50's was largely pedestrian. There were some great players but as a contest it had nothing on the Bodyline series. It took Benaud and Worrell to drag cricket out of its elitism and into the arms of the populace. 90,000 at the MCG and a motorcade through the main street with tens of thousands cheering. Worrell was to cricket what Martin Luther King was to equality. There are still vestiges of the Old Boy's club floating around and cricket is better off when ability is rewarded instead of the school you went to. It has taken a few South Africans in the England team to shake the old enemy out of its lethargy. And how the English have lapped it all up. In fact it was Nasser Hussain,a Madras boy, who gave England a bit of a spine. Vaughn got lucky in 2005 but it is Strauss now who is looking like a real leader. The secret to England's success is that the England team is less English now. And there is a lesson in that. As you say if you don't embrace change where it is warranted it shows an unwillingness to grow. I have absolutely nothing against the shorter forms. In fact if it was not for 50 overs cricket the Test scene would be dead by now. Cricket has never been more watchable..and we need to keep tweaking it... Cricket has over the years shown it is receptive to change. Now is not the time to to sit back and say everything will be alright. Test Cricket needs to evolve and be relevant to more than just the well to do and the unemployed.
Junior
Guest
sheek i'm fully aware of the scenario you paint above. i agree that generation warner and his apostles will more than likely strive for excellence in t20 or the equivalent at the time and not test cricket. nothing new there. the point is these people will go to t20 or the like regardless of whether the lbw law changes or whether someone in the clouds is semaphoring red and green flashes to the heaving masses. it will be no different to a kid deciding to play rugby league instead of cricket when he turn 16. he has a choice as a kid to play what he wants (t20 or first class cricket) and he pursues whichever he chooses based on whatever he thinks is important to him (prestige, enjoyment, cash...). he plays t20 (or league) he's lost to first class cricket. good luck with it son. it's no secret that most will follow the money and those sports that can't compete will struggle to get the numbers and become fringe. bastardising the laws of test cricket to the point that it becomes an unrecognisable novelty won't change anything and probably accelerate any demise. nothing short of banning t20 is likely to revere the trend. best to accept that money talks, sit back in the members and watch as the layers of the test match are peeled away. if somebody wants to make wholesale changes (and a lot of tinkering by many people equates to wholesale change), that's fine. go ahead. just don't kid yourselves that it's test cricket anymore cos it ain't. people will drift away from the game as each rule change ruins the game for them. i suspect i'll drift away before you.
sheek
Guest
Junior, There's a guy called David Warner, who is one of the biggest rages in both Australian & international cricket. "He must be a test cricketer then," you ask. No, he isn't. "Well, he must be a Sheffield Shield player, then." Barely, he's played just 4 first class matches. "So why is he all the rage, you ask"? Because he's one of the most destructive & exciting, probably THE most destructive & exciting batsman in T20 cricket. Warner is the first man in 132 years to earn a major reputation from neither test cricket nor first class cricket. Nor even one day internationals for that matter. He has played T20 cricket for NSW, Delhi Daredevils, Durham & has now signed with Northern Districts (NZ). Warner has professed a desire to play test cricket, but since he is making a packet from T20 cricket, the desire to attain regular test & Sheffield Shield status is not strong, indeed he might view it unnecessary. Before too long, it may not matter to him if he never plays test cricket - he doesn't need it. The younger generations following Warner may not even bother to pretend that test cricket is still on their radar. They'll simply follow the money, & importantly, develop the skills that will bring them greatest success in T20 or whatever other form of cricket is popular at the time. CA recently instructed both Michael Hussey & Dean Bollinger to fulfill their T20 obligations in India rather than prepare for the two test series in India. If none of this sends alarm bells ringing in your head that the future of test cricket is under threat from changing perceptions, priorities & lifestyles, then it is truly doomed. Forewarned is forearmed..........