Since the recently concluded World Cup Down Under, I have started to feel a little bored by 50-over cricket.
I know that many love explosive batting, high scores and loads of runs. But I would prefer to see 500 runs over both innings and an exciting battle between the bat and ball, followed by a tight last-over finish, rather than have 700 runs where bowlers are just shattered.
We know that 250 is the new 300, but isn’t having 300 as the new 400 boring?
The trends below compare data before and during the 2015 World Cup (the source of the data is cricinfo.com).
Before the World Cup the average first innings score was around 228 and during the World Cup it was 282. If we consider the average for teams who have batted until the end of first innings, the average comparison would be 250 and 300. The fielding restrictions and the rule of two new balls have been a greater help to batsmen than the bowlers
Before the World Cup, the average over at which the score doubled was exactly at the 30 over mark. Post World Cup it has moved to 33.4 overs. This means what you score in two-thirds of your innings gets replicated in the final one-third.
The average runs scored and wickets lost in the first 10 overs remains almost static at 43 and 47.
Innings where 300 or more runs were scored has increased from a mere 12 per cent to almost 40 per cent. Wow, that’s a steep increase!
Runs scored in boundaries were approximately 38 per cent before the World Cup and 48 per cent in the World Cup
There were an average of 6.1per cent maiden overs came before the World Cup, but this came down to a mere 4 per cent during the World Cup
The scoring rate, which has been well below 5.0 in all the ODIs and World Cup matches up to 2007, jumped by about 10 per cent to 5.03 in the 2011 World Cup. That was understandable. But there is another jump by over 10 per cent in this World Cup. It is clear that this is a combination of the new rules, fearless batting methods, and the changes in pitches in Australian and New Zealand.
The above points tell us two things: the dominance of batsmen in the game has increased, and the change in rules somehow end up favouring the batsmen.
ODI cricket needs a radical overhaul in rules and playing conditions. Here are my suggestions:
1. Allow the bowlers to change bowling side
As batsmen are allowed switch hits, movement around the crease, the bowlers too must be allowed to switch sides once or twice in an over without informing the umpire or the batsman. That would be some fun!
2. Have some restriction over switch hits and movement around the crease
These innovative steps by the batsmen should be limited. Limit the switch hit to one or two and the movement around the crease can be limited by some relaxation on such deliveries being called wides.
3. Height of the stumps
Most cricketing gear has evolved. Bat size and shapes have changed, the ball’s material and colour has been experimented with. But nothing has happened to the stumps. With most rules being batsmen friendly, increasing the height of the stumps helps the bowlers.
4. Field restrictions
This has been the most debated rule. There should be no field restrictions after the first 10 overs. The batting powerplay should be taken between 11th and 40th over. The field restrictions should apply to the powerplays only. The powerplays have been good for both batting and bowling – they leak more runs but teams also lose many wickets.
5. Two new balls should not be used in an innings
The ball can be replaced with a similar aged ball if it loses colour.
6. Player substitution should be allowed
With limitations on the type of player (basis skill), count of substitutions and the timing of substitutes.
This would help utilisation of the entire squad, better bench strength and would make the game more exciting. I know that the sub rule was there for a while but that was very boring. For substitution we look to football’s methods.
7. Limitation on the number of overs that a bowler can bowl
If the top batsmen can bat throughout the innings, why is the top bowler capped on 20 per cent of the innings? At least one bowler should be given the freedom to bowl more overs.
E.g. If one bowler is allowed to bowl one-third of an innings (say 16 overs), it would still be less than half of the deliveries that the top-order batsmen might face and would be a fair contest. It would also give a breather to captains whose fifth and sixth bowlers are taking a pounding. It gives the fielding side some chance of maintaining control through the late overs when boundaries are raining down on the spectators.
It is difficult to get a perfect solution but the ICC should think about restoring the balance of the game, or else the batting display will become too monotonous.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
There are some interesting suggestions above, and the 50 over game has to differentiate itself from the 20 version if it is to keep a place as a format (whether three formats are needed is another argument). If reducing the big scores is an aim, substitutes could easily back fire. Being able to bring in extra batsmen surely just means being able to take extra risk, knowing there are more reserves to follow. Subs also don't seem to work too well in a sport where teams are doing different things. In the various footballs both teams are doing the same thing, trying to get the ball into the oppositions goal, or over a certain line, etc. In cricket the teams are generally using different skills until a change of innings. This affects the use of subs, and rules would need to be devised carefully. It is a similar thing with lifting the over limits for bowlers. It does mean a higher quality of bowling for longer in the innings. It may also see teams select an extra batsman, which somewhat negates the lower scoring aim. It could, however, see a higher skilled contest with less part-time bowling. I do like lifting the limit for one main reason, to encourage the selection of spinners as they are more likely to be able to bowl more overs without tiring as much. The field restrictions do not need to be looked at, and the ICC are doing so. I like the staggered arrangement, but would require catching men for longer. Perhaps the first 10 require two catches and only two outside the circle. The next ten one catcher and up to four outside, then no catchers and up to four until the 30 over mark, then five until 40 overs, then a free for all with no restrictions beyond the two men maximum behind square on the leg side. That might be too many steps in the process though, but a staggered approach of some sort would (I think) be a good idea. Two balls didn't work as intended. The idea was for the ball to swing and seam throughout the innings, and get rid of the ball change. It didn't really work that way as the harder ball just came off the bat faster. Going back to one ball is a good move. Limiting bat thickness will, if adopted, be the most likely to cause a big change. T20 has, however, shown batsmen what can be done so I think higher scoring will remain with us. That, in itself, is not a bad thing. It is still a contest between bat and ball; its just that the score at which the contest is won and lost has moved. And it seems to have moved a lot over the last 3 years or so.
Pankaj Singh
Roar Rookie
Haha..yes. I just miss those reverse swinging yorkers that we used to see in the earlier days of ODIs - especially from the Pakistani legends. I think that an old ball just makes the game more interesting towards the end :)
Pankaj Singh
Roar Rookie
Agree that the rule book mentions limitation on the length and width of the cricket bat. And nothing on the size of edges/thickness is mentioned. Because of which poor shots or mis-hits are going for sixes very frequently. And of course the bats are so good these days that the sweet spot is much larger than it would have been 10-15 years ago. In fact a report commissioned by the MCC, cricket's official law makers, has found the bat thickness to have increased up to 22 mm over the past century and the size of the 'sweet spot' on the face of the bat is almost two-and-a-half times larger. The thickness of edges in modern bats has also increased by almost 300 per cent which, combined with greater stiffness to limit vibrations, means mis-hits can travel much further. I am sure ICC must be noticing this. I know that stump heights are defined by the laws of the game. But, every can be re-looked for good. Actually, both are independent suggestions. I am not trying to say that because of the changes in bat size, height of the stumps should change. I am suggesting that a change in height of the stumps may have some advantages for the bowler similar to what the variation in type of bats have had for the batsmen. It might just make the game more exciting :)
CW
Guest
Good points Pankaj. I agree with substitutes. Changing size of stumps. Unlimited overs plus fielding restrictions. I do not agree with changing the two new balls. That is one innovation that has clearly assisted the bowlers or at least the fielding team. Having said that . It has also taken away the super fast,exciting first 15 overs of yesteryear that put bums on seats. The changing of stump size. Is a good idea.. How the ICC could not come up with something so elementary to help bowlers is beyond me. Instead they opt to do away with the batting power plays. With the huge bazooka bats of today fielding restrictions make little difference in a power play. Even a miss- hit sails over most boundaries.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Bat sizes haven't changed in any of the ways regulated. ie They haven't allowed them to make bats wider or anything. There are certain dimensions that are specified in the laws of cricket for bats, and other dimensions that aren't mentioned and can be made as big as you want. The main thing that's changed is the thickness of the edges and using less compressed wood, so that a thicker bat is lighter, more prone to break, but a bigger portion of the bat is sweet spot meaning mis-hits travel further. Stump height is defined in the laws of the game, where thickness of the edge of a bat isn't. So they aren't really comparable changes in dimensions.
Pankaj Singh
Roar Rookie
I am sure AB won't :) I am not sure what the height of stumps should be. But, if the size of bats have been changing why cant the stumps. Why not if they might the bowlers a better chance to get bowled outs and also increase the chances for leg before.
ajay dandriyal
Roar Rookie
'Have some restriction over switch hits and movement around the crease' Ab wouldn't like this idea . "increasing the height of the stumps helps the bowlers" so What Do You Want height of the stumps must cross height of the bat?
Pankaj Singh
Roar Rookie
Good bowlers will do well and good bastmen will always work wonders. The point is that the game will continue to be exciting if all the teams had 5 best bowlers and 6 best batmen. That's an ideal world scenario. If you look at the stats of CWC'15 you will see that the top 10 bowlers in the tournament had an economy in the range of 4.5 and 5.0 (Starc was just exceptional with 3.5). Just look at the way the balance of the game is slowly shifting towards the batsmen. Not all teams will have all great bowlers. There will also always be a mix of good and average in the real world (like it has always been). Let me compare a few stats of all the world cups (WC 2015 data does not include the scores of the final) to justify the points raised (assume that the mix of a cricket team has ideally remained almost the same) Average first innings scroe Innings Runs Score All ODIs upto WC 2647 653900 247 WCs 1975-2007 231 57785 250 WC-2011 matches 27 7770 288 WC-2015 matches 26 8403 323 The average first-innings score, which remained at around 250 through all matches and the first-nine World Cups, registered a good increase to 288 in 2011. Now this average suddenly jumps to 322, a 10% increase. Point at which scores have doubled Innings Overs All ODIs upto WC 1266 29.5 WCs 1975-2007 101 29.5 WC-2011 matches 27 31 WC-2015 matches 26 33.2 It is almost exactly at 30 overs. The 2011 tournament saw a slight move up to 31.0 over. But 2015 has seen a significant jump to 33.4 overs. This is almost exactly the two-thirds stage. That means the score is doubled in half the number of overs. Frightening thought indeed for the bowlers. Avge runs scored & wkts captured in first ten overs (where data is available) Innings Runs Wickets All ODIs upto WC 3688 44.6 1.37 WCs 1975-2007 280 42.7 1.46 WC-2011 matches 98 46.8 1.37 WC-2015 matches 70 47.7 1.54 This has remained almost constant. Well, nothing much has changed in this phase. Overs in which 10 or more runs were scored Overs Runs Average All ODIs upto WC 1844 16720 9.1 WCs 1975-2007 140 1148 8.2 WC-2011 matches 49 450 9.2 WC-2015 matches 35 476 13.6 This figure surely cant be such due to the quality of bowlers. We cant say that the skills of batsmen have improved drastically and the bowlers have lost shine. Anyways, the point of here was that the gruesome battle between bat and ball which we all love has lowered drastically over the years. This has to do with the attitude of the batsmen and the changes in the rules as well. Bowlers also have the freedom to do variations but they would also need an equal say from if any variation in the game is brought about. For e.g. Most of the off spinners who used to be so effective are not be able to bowl the doosra or the wrong one now - mostly because of the rule of 15 degree. I don't say that they should be allowed to bend more. But can it be relaxed? I don't know the answer. The spinners are getting slaughtered due to the fielding restrictions - even the good ones. Bowlers like Corey anderson have gone 6.5+ in the WC. Batting side is free to choose a powerplay (which gives away runs but also takes wickets anyway). Why cant the bowling side have their powerplay. The game should be balanced and fair for both skills and so should be the changes. Our opinions might differ but I guess the intent remians the same. Cheers to cricket :) P.S. It's in the news today that ICC might scrap the batting powerplay altogether.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Are you comparing all stats in the history of ODI cricket prior to the world cup with stats at the world cup? That's what it looks like. Of course you are going to get dramatic increases if done that way. But it's not as dramatic an increase as that because it's been increasing all the time. If you include stats from the '70s and '80s and compare them with this single world cup, then yes, it's going to give massive increases. But it's not like that's just a super sudden thing, it's been increasing gradually over the years. The fielding restriction changes made a big difference in the last couple of years, and yes, returning to 2 new balls (like they had in the '80s) has turned out to favour the batsmen at the end of the innings, having a harder ball to hit, though it does mean the bowlers at the start of the innings who can swing the ball have got more benefit. Look at all the stats from the World Cup and you'll see that we weren't missing a genuine battle of bat and ball, but rather the demise of the average bowler. In the past you could afford to pack your team with mediocre bowlers who could bowl reasonably tightly. You can't afford that anymore. The really good bowlers actually had a really good World Cup, the average bowlers got spanked all over the place. So it's just shown up who the really good bowlers actually are. I actually think that's a good thing! Starc got 22 wickets at an average of 10 and an economy rate of 3.5! And he wasn't the only bowler to do really well, but if you look at the stats for the top bowlers it doesn't look anything like a batting friendly game. So you can't just bowl medium pace on a good line and length and keep it tight any more. Great! Lets see teams replacing those boring bowlers with actual quanlity pace bowlers and spinners who are attacking bowlers. This world cup showed that those teams with attacking bowlers who set attacking fields and tried to take wickets, rather than just minimize the carnage, were those who succeeded. I heard rubbish from some people (often those with the pop-gun attacks getting smashed everywhere) that they need to do something because at the moment you may as well just replace the bowlers with bowling machines. But that is so far off the mark. The four semi-finalists were the four teams with the best bowling attacks, the two finalists were the top two bowling attacks, and the team who's bowling attack bowled best in the final won. You see massive scores, fine, but you miss the fact that through all that it's the team with the best bowling attack that generally wins. That suggests the idea that it's no longer a contest between bat and ball and needs to be shifted to give bowlers more chance is actually missing the point.
Helen
Guest
I like your idea about the height of the stumps - food for thought.
Pankaj Singh
Roar Rookie
Yes, there needs to be an overhaul in the format to bring back the lost colors. May be something drastic, if not the points mentioned in the post. Cheers!
Pankaj Singh
Roar Rookie
Agree to the point about the pitches. I thought about it but then didn't know how can the quality of pitches can be controlled. The only way might be to have some qualifying criteria for the season. But I guess that the iternary these days are fixed much in advance. Or may be there can be a point system/card system like football for the pitches. If they get say, two or three red cards, they won't be allowed the next match until they earn it again. Also, on the fielding restrictions they need to be a bit in the favor of bowling side as well. These restriction definitely need to loosen up if not left open. May be there could be a bowling power play of a defined period which gives the fielding side that advantage to have the field setting the way they want (without restriction) just like the batting power play.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
The bats give the batsmen too much of an advantage. The bat does most of the work these days.
The Prize_Man
Roar Pro
I agree with the concept but disagree with most if not all of your recommendations. i think fielding restrictions should be relaxed but not abolished but the main thing for mine is they need to start making bowlers wickets. T20 and ODI are dominated by the bat because almost every pitch is an absolute road. Especially the tripe that australia offered up for the summer and WC. We need more pitches like the first test in south africa, after the last ashes, before they realised aus fast bowlers were better and then turned out 2 pitches flat as a tack after that.
Harvey Wilson
Roar Rookie
I don't watch T20 because it is too batting biased. ODIs are like that now