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.
Nagesh Bharadwaj
Guest
Cameron You have brought up a very interesting issue regarding coin tosses. I agree with you that team winning coin toss has advantage and it is quantifiable. I have studied the stats of all cricketing nations since test cricket has been played. When analyzing the wins and losses it is important to isolate the wins or losses that would be a result of coin toss win. In order to do that one important thing to do is to select a sample size which is big enough. Then we have to start comparing apples to apples …as they say. So in order to do that, I have taken all the tests from beginning of tests i.e 1877. Then I have taken the Wins/Loss ratio. Out of 100 tests if you win 50, and lose 50 then Win/Loss ratio would be 1. So for all the tests played, almost all teams have a higher Win/loss ratio when they have won the toss. For example, most major nations has a Wins/loss ratio advantage of 0.3 when they have won the toss. This translates to around 15-20 percent advantage in a test match or if you want to put in other words team winning the toss plays with One Extra Player. In addition, if you study the choices made by captains major test playing nations chose to Bat (avoid 4th innings batting) about 80 percent of the time. If there is no advantage in winning the toss then why are test captains making this choice time and time again? There is an advantage that is quantifiable and the players know it tooo….. I have offered an alternative to coin toss. It is a simple method. Captains instead of coin toss will walk out to NB method (Nagesh Bharadwaj):). Captains will make a *closed* commitment (bid) of runs for the choice they want. For example Australia want to bat first, they can commit(bid) 40 runs. If England wants to bat first they can commit 50 runs. Then England wins the bid to bat first as their bid is higher and they get their choice but Australia gets the runs at the start of their batting innings, i,e they will start out at 50 for no loss. This evens out the advantage. Also teams are free to make any commitment they want, which could even be 0 runs if they think winning toss has no advantage. My method gives full control over the match to the captains instead of coin toss. There are more details on http://www.nbmethod.info, please have a look and provide your feedback. Best Regards Nagesh
Howzat
Guest
Meh you win the toss and bat alwayes been the way
AlanKC
Guest
Put your specks back on brayin, I'm Australian and not whinging about it.
AlanKC
Guest
I don't have a problem with it either Cam, just wondering, given the desire supposedly expressed by the England and Wales Cricket Board to remove the Gabba as a Test venue, and given that it seems to be working well.
Specks
Guest
+ Bryan it made me sick to see them continually going off for a shower for supposed injury breaks last series..
Michel
Guest
What's wrong with runners anyway?
Haradasun
Guest
I quite liked it in the Ryobi cup when they trailed splitting the innings in two, so opposing teams each batted twice. Maybe you could also apply the same logic to test matches with sides changing every 5 wickets. or is that getting too much like baseball? It's probably tampering too much with the fabric of test match cricket, but it's a good point that its completely imbalanced batting second in almost 100% of cases.
Cameron Rose
Expert
Good post Straight Ball. There's also nothing wrong with questioning the status quo. Getting rid of runners, for instance, was one of the best things ever changed. How ridiculous that concept was.
Cameron Rose
Expert
Played my first game of cricket at around 10 or 11 Steve, and played senior cricket from about the age of 16 to 30. Perhaps I'm just not as precious as others. Have never watched a ball of IPL or BBL.
Cameron Rose
Expert
A fair call SuperEel, nothing wrong with the keeper having a bottle of whatever, perhaps in the ground where the helmet goes, or behind him.
Cameron Rose
Expert
That could be the best comment I've ever seen posted on here Sandy. I'll vote for it!
Cameron Rose
Expert
Yeah Dan, I've played at local level, and we don't get drinks after every wicket, at fine leg etc. If they weren't getting these extra drinks, I'd be happy enough for a quick drink break, with emphasis on the quick.
Cameron Rose
Expert
An interesting point, but I call it a 'time-wasting' way...
Cameron Rose
Expert
I reckon getting rid of the runner was the best decision ever made. For a start, it looked simply ridiculous, and secondly, it was too easy to take advantage of. But my main problem with it was how stupid it looked.
Cameron Rose
Expert
Yeah, on an individual test basis, it gives the advantage to one team, but I like the evening it out over the course of a series, hence alternating. Agree that there is no perfect solution.
Simoc
Guest
If lunch isn't served at the right time the gentry that attend each lunch would have to put up with a less than perfect lunch and that just isn't cricket. After all that is why they turn up just before lunch and leave just after. The English players wouldn't be able to adhere adequately to their 82 page booklet on food and drink and heaven forbid, they may get worse. It's just not on. What about TV rights?
Retmock LHI
Guest
You don't think doctoring wkts is such an epidemic??? WTF?? The pommy pitches of the last series were deadest embarrassing. If that was not doctoring the pitches, I don't know what is. Don't get me started in Indian pitches....
Sandy
Guest
In the interest of maintaining momentum umps should be allowed to carry whips, anyone seen with astronaut food will be punished with a loss of 50% of their match fee.
cantab
Guest
Astronaut food in the pocket?
cantab
Guest
Heaps of other small changes need to be made to the rule and the way in which the rules are expected to be applied. Despite being a professional game cricket still tend to linger in armature ways masked under 'the spirit of the game'. For example - with run-outs - If there is a collision between a fielder and a batsmen it should not be up to the fielding captain to withdraw his appeal, there should be a clear rule for the umpire to follow. Same with batsmen wandering out of there crease whilst the ball is still live...you're out, plain and simple, there should be no expectation for the fielding captain to withdraw his appeal because the batsmen wasn't paying attention.