- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Cricket is an ever-changing game, and the growing popularity of the various T20 competitions around the world is proof that the game is capable of moving with the times, albeit with that being a distasteful example.
But with change in mind, surely it’s time to rid the game of antiquated rules.
Firstly, we can all agree that breaking for lunch at the appointed hour before there’s been a full session of play is nonsensical.
Whatever the rain delay has been, that’s also how long lunch should be postponed for. If more than forty minutes has been lost, then the players have had plenty of rest and time for food anyway.
The show must go on.
Paying customers and television fans, often the same thing, deserve to see as much play as possible. Therefore, it’s also time for ‘drinks’ to go the way of aluminium bats and buckle-up pads.
Bowlers, the most in need of refreshment, rest at fine-leg and get treated so well the only thing missing are exotic fruits hand-fed to them by bikini-clad women. But then again, I don’t watch the BBL, so maybe that happens already.
If fielders can’t make do, they can take a stint on the boundary to have a bottle of Gatorade. In any case, whenever a wicket falls, it’s always accompanied by an army of servants rushing onto the field with all manner of beverages.
For the batsmen, umpires can keep a bottle or two of water handy, although most can’t seem to get through a session without being attended to between overs anyway. Perhaps, in fairness, if there hasn’t been a wicket in the session, there can be a quick drink for the batsmen.
If we were inventing cricket from scratch, it’s hard to believe we’d allow the chance of a coin toss to have the influence it currently does, especially between two evenly matched teams.
Matches can be won or lost because of it. Series have been decided by the right captain getting the lucky run.
Not to get weighed down too much by a specific example, but can it be purely a coincidence that in the seven Ashes tests to have taken place so far in 2013, the side winning the toss has a 5-0 record? If not for rain, this would likely be a clean sweep of 7-0.
In each of these matches, the toss-winning captain has chosen to bat and, even with modest first innings totals, the pressure of batting against runs on the board has proven too much for these fragile line-ups.
Of course, Australia won all four tosses in India earlier this year and couldn’t compete, but that squad was a train wreck of epic proportions. Clarke’s men could have batted five times in each Test and still lost comfortably.
We want our sport to be played on the most level playing field possible, and having a toss before each test isn’t allowing us this. How often do we hear the phrase “this will be an important toss to win”?
How ridiculous that we leave the shape of entire five day tests to a series of 50/50 chances.
Obviously we have to decide who bats and bowls, but this can be done at the start of the series. Have a toss before the first Test. The winning captain can make his choice, but the decision then alternates for every subsequent test.
Another option is to eliminate the toss altogether and have the visiting captain make the choice before the first Test, alternating thereafter.
This would give visiting teams a leg-up in a hostile environment, and hopefully lead to better cricket, but such an action would open up a more controlled reason to doctor pitches.
While on the toss, and the importance it can have over a match and series, why, if we keep it the way it is, must we persist in naming the teams beforehand?
Don’t we want the most even contest between bat and ball as possible? Each side to be given the utmost chance at winning? Let’s encourage sides to play an extra bowler, or go with two spinners.
None of these proposed changes would ruin the dynamic of the game or desecrate almost 140 years of Test match tradition.
What they would do is ensure more play and provide more balance and fairness to even out what can be just plain good or bad luck. Let’s let the game be decided by the competitors – and let’s see more of them.