They may like the idea of 5ives Cricket, but I reckon it’s a dumb idea.
But firstly, what is 5ives Cricket?
It is a radical proposal supposed to revamp 50-over cricket. Experts think that Fifty50 cricket has lost its spectator appeal after the Twenty20 revolution. It has fallen in a no man’s land between Test tussles and Twenty20 razzmatazz.
Cricket statistician Dick Wood from South Africa has suggested a radical change by introducing 5ives Cricket.
To him, a team batting for around four hours and the opponents coming on the pitch later to bat for another four hours is boring for spectators.
This is not so in other sports like boxing, football, rugby and tennis among others, he explains. In these sports, participants exchange blow by blow, goal by goal, try by try, serve by serve within a short time.
But then why should cricket imitate other sports? Cricket is unique and let it be that way.
Here is Wood’s woolly solution.
To quote Roebuck from the Sydney Morning Herald: “Wood’s solution is simple and audacious. Without tinkering with the laws of the game in any way, he advocates letting teams play in shorter bursts so tension is sustained.”
5ives cricket has a simple format, we are told.
Simple? Here is the idea in a nutshell. Yes, I have used the word ‘nut’ deliberately:
Team A bats for 5 overs then team B bats for 10 overs. Then Team A bats for another 10 overs and Team B for 5 overs. The circus goes on in bursts of 5 and 10 overs till 50 overs are completed for each team. There is a bonus point at the end of each 5 or 10 overs burst.
And the match is decided. Hurray!
But wait a moment. Will there be few minutes’ wait every time an innings is changed as batsmen from Team B wear pads and gloves not to mention helmet, chest pads, abdominal pads and wicket-keeper from Team A dons his gloves and pads and other protections?
Wood has thought of this and has recommended having 12th and 13th men to field as the batsmen / wicket-keeper are padded and gloved up.
By my calculation there will be approximately 12 to 14 turnarounds or interruptions in a match. What a waste of time between every 5 to 10 overs.
Who will want to be a scorer, a scoreboard operator, or an umpire? Who will count 10 overs per bowler in an innings when there will be so many interruptions? There will be chaos.
Currently MCC is trying out this format in Abu Dhabi. But have they given it a serious thought before this trial?
Apart from the MCC, the 5ives Cricket will be trialled by South African universities this summer.
Just as well this preposterous idea will not be introduced in the 2015 World Cup. But after that?
My fundamental question to Dick Wood: why should cricket imitate tennis?
What do you say, Roarers?
buck
Guest
who are the trilobites?!
Kersi Meher-Homji
Guest
Or is it Cribase, DKR?
nathan
Guest
this a stupid idea because it will very quickly lose crowds with all the interuptions. no-one will know weather they are playing or not! I will wait until i have seen it in action but still.......
DKR
Guest
David, Why must you complicate things....its just not cricket!!! Wait on are we talking Baseballket???
David Heidelberg
Guest
You lost me at Roebuck.
Brendon
Guest
Baseball doesn't rate that highly in the USA. Normal rounds of NFL outrates the the world series. Some games get only 13-15million viewers.
Brendon
Guest
No way in hell and especially not considering you still pay a lot more to go see test cricket which is also on free to air. In England virtually every day in the series against India was sold out.
Hugo Verne
Guest
KERSI - re the baseball analogy suggested by other Roarers. Right now the World Series has started, an event watched by millions, of course. But what drives sponsors crazy is that they can only run their spots at the end of an inning. Early in a game, with a pitcher who can throw heat, an inning can last just nine pitches. Or, it can go on and on if the batting team keeps getting men on, scoring, fouling the ball off etc. The advantage of a "turnover" in baseball is that it brings new blood to the plate and that packs a lot of interest for the fans. But then, the powers haven't had to tinker with baseball because its dimensions still work after all these years. Traditional cricket, on the other hand, is often too slow for today's action junkie audience.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Brendon, I think you're deceiving yourself about the popularity of Test cricket. My guess is that association football will have better total and average crowds than Test cricket in Australia in the next several years.
boes
Roar Pro
the half covered duct tape ball, with no pads, no we're talking.
Lolly
Guest
Could just get rid of 50 over cricket. I really like it but three formats is daft and asking for fans to turn off one of them maybe even two. Cricket ovals are big and won't we get bored watching players run on and off the field, especially if the skipper doesn't work exactly where he wants his fielders during their batting innings? Baseballs as a game with frequent changes of innings works because if you are the third baseman, you are the third baseman and you just get on the field and stand there. It's only the outfielders who have to run any distance.
sheek
Guest
Kersi/Russ/Others, I think the concept interesting enough to be given some oxygen. Only then perhaps, can we make a definitive judgement.....
Seiran
Roar Guru
Sounds pretty silly to me. Perhaps they should just go for a 40 over game. What happens if one team bats slowly but keeps their wickets, but the other goes out swinging making lots of runs very quickly but blows all their wickets in 25overs? Do they revert to just bowling the last 25 over at the team with wickets left until they use up their wickets or win?
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Here's a radical, but less silly idea: if one day cricket is all about seeing runs scored, what about simply only having 10 fielders?
Ben Carter
Roar Guru
Considered this the other day Brendon - both union and cricket have huge popularity potential, if only the administrators in the IRB/ICC can see past the stale rotation of Test-playing nations and competition formats... Neither needs to mean a wholesale alteration to the game itself as played by the players, you know! :-)
Ben Carter
Roar Guru
Hi Kersi - Read the article on 5ives. Seriously? Utterly daft idea. We might as well have a Super Over and then all go home and be done with it... As a cricket fan brought up on two decades' worth of World Series summers, I still love ODIs. Perhaps they shouldn't be as prevalent around the world, but I still prefer them as a contest overall to Twenty20 games (which are, I'll freely admit, preferable for TV viewing times). Couldn't stand the split innings Ryobi Cup last season. My only change (aside from the seemingly sane ones the ICC has recently brought in regarding Powerplay, runners, etc would be this. Make the ODI 40 overs a side. End of discussion. Long enough for a team to get back into the match, not short enough to be meaningless.
Russ
Guest
Perhaps I should ask the majority of punters. Personally I'd like to see a split innings, but in T20, since I can no longer stand F50. On this format... Most likely it will carry a similar rhythm to basketball, each side scoring in tandem, one perhaps slowly moving away. I don't see how it will be more exciting than now. Neither side will take risks unless conditions (bowlers/power-plays) are in their favour, and it won't get tense until the last dozen overs when one or both sides need to "roll the dice" to gain an advantage. The 5ives website makes great play on the idea that people want to know "who is in front", but I've never had any trouble telling that. There are at least 5 things I'd rather see ODI (and T20) cricket try before embarking on a plan like this: 1) Get rid of bowling restrictions. Increase the tactical interest in selection policy AND allow spectators see the best play the best throughout the game AND increase the scope for tactical change by the bowling captain. 2) Get rid of power-plays. They reduce the scope of tactical innovation. If we must cripple the bowlers, reduce the number of outfielders to four for the entire game. 3) A single (or double) split innings (yes, T20 too), because I think it is nice to get a gauge of how close a side is to parity. A 30-20 (or 20-20-10) or 12-8 split is probably better too, as the smaller the time available to come back, the more aggressively a side must approach the first half. Test cricket has a second innings, after all. 4) Substitutions of (some) players who haven't batted at a split. The number 1 problem with ODIs is that a team can find itself in a hole and the game drifts to inevitability. The 12th man concept trialed a few years back was basically a designated hitter rule, which favoured the side in front and the one that bowled first. By contrast, offering subs for players who haven't batted, it becomes possible for a team to change their tactical approach by introducing either alternative bowlers, or extra batsmen (at the expense of their bowling) if they've lost wickets. 5) Merge T20 and F50 into a single 30 over concept (20-10 split). Thirty overs offers just that little bit longer to build an innings, without the middle overs of the ODI. Though I'd be just as happy to see the back of 50 over games altogether. I'm all in favour of (2 or 3) substitutions in test-f/c cricket between the 2nd and 3rd innings too. Would do wonders for spinners and reduce the load on the fast bowlers.
Brendon
Guest
The world cup was a success. The IPL which followed the world cup was not. As for the recently completed "ChampionsLeague" ... no one cared People are getting sick of T20 already. One day and test cricket are only faltering due to everyone deciding they're sick because of T20. Its become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Cricket (and rugby) must have the bitchiest, whingiest turds of fans of any sport in the world.
Kersi Meher-Homji
Guest
Sheek, We normally agree on most points. But at the moment I see no benefit in thid 5/10 over splits. Except if I was a TV owner and get more ad breaks! Imagine yourself to be a batsman. You are 13 not out at the split and seeing the ball well. Then comes the intermission. You have to start all over again after 25 or 45 minutes. Then again, if you are still unbeaten at the next split. Can anyway envisage the utter confusion? And what's the advantage? Zilch! Perhaps, as a new toy. But a darned complicated toy. The novelty will wear off soon.
sheek
Guest
Russ, Personally I thought the 25/25 split was a good idea. But it seems the majority of punters didn't. With respect to losing momentum, perhaps the players didn't give it long enough a trial, since it also required a change of thinking to their mindset. 5ives splits the innings into even smaller "bites", which might actually work better with the short attention-span brigade of today! They won't have to concentrate for as long with each part-innings.....