In sport, there’s a fine line between tweaking rules to slightly improve the game and destroying the fabric of what is known.
This week, Cricket Australia introduced three “revolutionary” new rules that will come into immediate play for the tenth edition of the Big Bash League.
The ‘x-factor player’ is a substitute who can be brought into a match to replace a player who has failed to deliver in one over of bowling or hasn’t featured with the bat.
One would assume this would be used almost exclusively in the second innings for any team which posts a large total without the loss of many wickets, substituting an unused middle-order batsman for a bowler.
It’s yet to be determined how much of an x-factor a player would be if they are not selected in the best XI to start the match.
‘Bash boost’ rewards the more attacking teams who enjoy getting off to a quick start, awarding a bonus standings point to the chasing team if they are above the equivalent ten-over score.
Along with an increase of three points for a victory in the BBL this season, four overall points are now available to teams, replacing the two points that had been on offer over the first nine tournaments.
Finally, and perhaps most interestingly, is the ‘power surge’, which has split the powerplay into four mandatory overs at the start of the innings and then a block of two overs that the batting team can choose to use at any point in the second half of their innings.
Strategically, this is the most logical of the new rules, as teams will need to ensure they make the most of their set batsmen while considering game situation and perhaps the heightened risk that an attacking burst could cause an immense failure.
Photo by Stefan Gosatti/Getty Images
While the substitute rule had been earmarked in advance, making three massive changes unexpectedly just three weeks before the commencement of the tournament has caught many off-guard.
However, the validity of each rule isn’t necessarily the overarching issue.
A key problem across a number of codes in recent years has been balancing the integrity of the game with the desire to establish respective sports within the entertainment industry.
Headlines are almost always dominated by the AFL, but huge changes aren’t exclusive to the competition, with Super Netball, the NRL and now the BBL all taking a considerable slice of the cake.
The ‘six again’ rule was clearly the most successful alteration made and the NRL was clearly pleased with how it played out, but that was an outlier. Moreso, this rule was more of an extension, or a re-classification within an existing structure of rules and penalties, rather than any sort of novelty.
The AFL’s weekly tinkering of adjudication is frustrating, as is the constant talk of rotations and positions, but even the most popular competition in the country wouldn’t bring in nine-point supergoals in the professional home-and-away season.
Super Netball’s ‘super shot’ was met with enormous resistance at the time of its implementation and felt forced watching throughout the season. It is perhaps the most gimmicky change brought into professional sport in Australia.
In bringing in these three new rules, it feels as though the BBL is creating its own street, extending beyond the narrow path netball ventured down.
The reasoning behind new rules in any sport are almost identical – each code wants to create a more entertaining spectacle that is free-flowing and energetic.
Whether it’s opening up space, adding bonus points or rewarding attacking teams, it has become clear that Australian sport believes the way to reach the hearts of more people is to constantly create change, ignoring the majority who love the nuances of each sport.
Codes are now trying to manufacture entertainment, rather than allowing its skilled participants to put on a show.
There is a clear intention to focus on drawing external audiences, rather than pleasing those who love the sport all the same.
Now Cricket Australia is guilty of using the BBL as its guinea pig.
T20 cricket in itself was revolutionary, but the seismic shift was introduced as a completely different format and an absolute alternative to the traditional form of the game.
Even those who were most resistant to the format could accept T20 cricket as a separate entity to Test and one-day cricket.
Subsequently, we have seen T10 take place and plans for a completely new 100-ball format, creatively called ‘The Hundred’, were delayed until 2021 given the state of the world.
But in each of these cases, separate entities have been created rather than an adjustment to an ongoing and burgeoning institution.
The world’s most popular T20 tournament, the Indian Premier League, continues to make small adjustments but in terms of the fabric of the actual game, it remains relatively unchanged.
Perhaps the most outlandish rule change made by the IPL has been the introduction of timeouts. While controversial, they have actually been driven by strategic desire rather than the entertainment focus Australian sport has adopted.
The BBL has had its issues, which has mainly stemmed from the length of the tournament, which has never been nailed, and also international availability.
With the announcement of a third international spot in each team’s XI, as well as more recruits for each team, the league took a step forward.
The concussion substitute has been implemented globally and is vital for the wellbeing of players and has been a positive change.
These adjustments act as signs of maturity, which allow the sport to further evolve.
Photo by Michael Dodge/Getty Images
BBL10 will see novelties brought into the league that will make many question whether we can truly classify matches as genuine, T20 games.
We are yet to see drastic rule changes in cricket in this standalone manner in which Cricket Australia has chosen.
Perhaps other competitions will look at the BBL as a case study. Or, more likely, these novelties will confuse and one or two will not last long in any meaningful manner.
Cricket Australia has gone too far in its attempts to draw fans and manufacture magic.
Sport is the most organic form of entertainment there is.
Despite all its flaws, the BBL is arguably the most popular competition during the summer months in Australia, having a presence on an almost nightly basis to a large audience.
Maintaining a strong viewership and fan interest could have been achieved with the existing international player changes and a tightening of the schedule.
But in introducing these new rule changes, Cricket Australia has pushed the BBL right to the edge of that fine line.
Time will tell whether these changes are a success, but history is against gimmicks working.
Cricket Australia are still trying to establish the Big Bash League, but have taken the existing audience and fabric of the format for granted.
The beauty is in its simplicity, and the bells and whistles should be kept off the field, for the sake of game.
Lance Boil
Roar Rookie
My head hurts!
Paul
Roar Guru
I'm very much like your friend, Dexter. I've never seen a game of BBL and consider it to be an entertainment only, but if it supports the Shield, junior & other cricket, I've no issues with this continuing.
Dexter The Hamster
Roar Rookie
I tend to agree with this sentiment Paul. A very good friend of mine hates T20 to the core, and thats always my rebuttal, if they sink the cash into maintaining Shield cricket, then its OK by me. Mind you, they then went ahead and sold off the ODI's to the highest bidder, so feels like everything is for sale at the moment.
Dexter The Hamster
Roar Rookie
Thanks for the outline one these changes Dem. Personally I am not a great lover of T20, will watch it if I'm flicking around on the channels, but not rushing home to watch it. So I really don't mind a few new gimmicks here and there. However, the substitute rule is a shocker, that tears at the fabric of the game. The struggle to pick a playing XI that can score enough runs, but can also bowl the full quota of overs is half the battle in limited overs cricket. Has been since the 1970's. Its the reason all-rounders are gold. Now we are allowing the selection of 6 batters, 5 bowlers and a wicketkeeper. Not happy with that at all.
Dexter The Hamster
Roar Rookie
The Boost Juice bash boost is a real tongue twister. :laughing: You're right, it will prove to be a massive pain listening to the commentators rattle on about it.
Paul
Roar Guru
I wonder about last year though. It was a dead ordinary summer to do anything outside, being so hot on the east coast. Then there were the horrendous bushfires. It's a wonder many made it to games at all. I think CA's hoping more will go to games this year, simply because so many have been starved of watching live sporting events. Throw in some top quality English T20 players as you mentioned and maybe CA might do okay.
AREH
Roar Guru
Yeah agree, those tests and almost always the Ashes and Indian visits only, bring financial benefit. Really not sure CA can afford the cash cow to sour - if that hasn't started already. Not confident the product is now sustainable in it's current form, sadly. Dwindling audiences over the last couple of seasons and growing public malaise over factors like the duration, reduced star power, and quirky gimmicks such as these - cause my worry. Yet in the last 12-18 months, I wondered if a corner had been turned. While the number of matches was left unchanged, the total time frame of BBL09 was (slightly) shorter than BBL08. There was an increase to the number of imports allowed and some serious English headline acts arriving for this season. Yet baffling decisions like these make you think again.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
I'd go 25 dec to 25 jan. That way a round of shield games could finish around 22-23 dec and the Melbourne and Sydney tests would not be infected with players in T20 mode.
Rabbitz
Roar Guru
I think CA have been painted into a bit of a corner, albeit they helped buy the paint. The changes to the sporting landscape due to the pandemic has severely impacted the product they have to sell and has put a strain on the relationship with their broadcast partner, Seven. Seven want a reduction is payments because they don't believe they are going to get value for money. Added to that is the fact that ratings and bums on seats for the Big Bash have been in a bit of a decline. These changes look for all the world that they have given up trying to attract traditional cricket supporters back into the T20 fold. These changes are simply about trying to arrest the decline so that they have a case to push Seven to pay the disputed monies. Making these changes is to pander to the "we want to see a six every ball" mob who are the last remaining supporters watching. The changes are at the expense of the contest between bat and ball and will result in further alienation of the most readily available 'new' viewers - traditional cricket followers.
Paul
Roar Guru
I think there's a place for it, as long as it makes money for CA, that they can invest in cricket across the country. Right now, it and the MCG & Sydney Tests are the only cash cows we have ( outside Ashes tours), so unless another way to turn a profit comes along, we're stuck with it sadly.
Paul
Roar Guru
I think you've identified too separate but important elements that are making the BBL such a tough sell to many. There's no doubt the tournament is at least 2 weeks too long, but CA is bound by a contract to produce so much cricket for its broadcast partners, so CA & we are stuck with it, at least for now. IMO, that's the biggest killer of T20 cricket. Thee other issue is about how the BBL is perceived and right now, it's seen as a form of cricket as you say. Given this tournament is only 9 years old, it's not surprising thats the case, especially given it only draws it's players from the same sources who are involved in first class cricket. I'd suggest further down the track, assuming it stays as a popular sports entertainment in summer Australia, more players will come directly into T20 only, which then allows the sorts of narratives, etc to develop. It also makes sense for the sorts of changes to the actual games, that CA are making now.
TJ
Guest
CA can add all the different rules they want but the BBL will never be as successful as it was until the top Aussie players are playing more than 2-3 games each season. Bumping up the international players to 3 is a good start to improve the quality across the competition. If CA can re-do the schedule in a way that allows the guys in the Aussie squads to play even half the season, I think there would suddenly be a lot more interest in the BBL again.
Marty
Roar Rookie
I think that CA have received the memo, they’ve just chosen to ignore the parts of it which are commercially difficult. Whether they think it would be of benefit to shorten the season or not there’s no way they will do it because of contractural arrangements with the networks and sponsors. They’ve no doubt sold the ‘product’ based on a formula of so many games = so many hours = so many advertising dollars. In doing so they have put themselves in a position where they can’t implement changes such as shortening the season even through it may be in the best interest of the comp for fear of alienating current/future networks/sponsors. Instead they are forced to introduce ridiculous rule changes in an attempt to please the pay masters. It’s an absolute embarrassment but I don’t really care tbh as long as they leave the international players out of this farce so they can concentrate on playing the tests and ODIs.
Phil
Guest
If any of it was innovative or new, it might be worth a crack, but its really just just re-hashing ideas that have already been tried, and moved on from. Super subs, and the floating powerplay failed in the international game, not sure why the BBL are looking backwards to move forwards. That said, i find the bonus point for the "half time" leader interesting, just to see how much value teams place on it. Other than that, "Automatic Wicki", "one-hand one-bounce", and "can't get out 1st ball" might have been better developments.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
That all sounds about right, if the juggler isn't keeping the crowd amused in the right side ring, may as well bring the clown car into the centre ring to see if they can distract for a coupla minutes to justify the price of entry! When a Melbourne & Sydney team couldn't generate more than 15,000 at a final in January at the 'G' it summed up the whole debacle of a cash cow with mad cow disease! It hasn't looked like cricket from the start so who cares what the ADHD administrators do to try and resus it.
JGK
Roar Guru
I’ve been saying so ages that the natural evolution for T20 is a two innings game of 20 overs each. That way there is a way back from a disastrous batting spell.
JGK
Roar Guru
Disagree with that. It makes for nice summer time filler in the absence of anything else on tv at that time of year. 20 Dec to 20 Jan is perfect.
John
Guest
Big Bash should start mid January after test series has finished so all the test players can play in the competition.
Rellum
Roar Guru
All this shows is CA have no faith in the game itself.
Dem Panopoulos
Expert
The issue I have with the comparison is that professional wrestling and amateur wrestling are two separate entities, whereas T20 exists under the umbrella of cricket, as do Test and One Dayers. WWE and its competitors are billed as sports entertainment, built on the narratives, storylines and engaging audiences as per dramas or soap operas, when focused on television, which justifies the need for being revolutionary and extravagant given the creative freedom involved. CA has gone one-out here and is treating T20 as pure entertainment, separating it from what the format is around the world. It just feels too gimmicky, particularly given the directive seems to be creating a more engaging and free-flowing product, rather than to completely drag away from what we know about cricket. The infatuation with making big changes just doesn't sit well and is often misguided. CA making a lot of money out of these changes would be tough, as I simply don't see all three being overly engaging - the extra international players would have done that. I love the BBL but it drags on and I see that as being the biggest obstacle - creating a more concentrated and involved competition with a larger variety of players should be enough to make some sort of difference. That should be done before anything outrageous.