An Expert's Take
Originally published on Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Just a couple of days ago did the ICC come up with its new recommendations for one day cricket and left the experts analyzing its after-effects. The Cricket Committee of ICC had suggested many ways to revamp the game, 2 of which were approved by the Chief Executives’ Committee of ICC. One day cricket did need some resurrections, particularly the slam bang stuff that is played in the subcontinent, with scores of 300+ not being secure. I, as a knowledgeable spectator, would have liked to see the battleground between bat and ball more flattened, rather than bowlers left in an open field to get bulleted by batsmen with no place to hide. I would have also liked to see it in a less predictable form, with teams needing to think at all stages of the match, rather than having big burley openers (read Adam Gilchrist) clatter their way through hapless and “boundary protection-less” bowlers (read Zahir Khan, or better Javagal Srinath, still better Venkatesh Prasad) during the 1st 15 overs, then swift runners (read Paul Collingwood) setting it up for the mighty sloggers (read Abdur Razzaq) to put their teeth deep into the flesh of the already bruised fielding side. But where do the new rules lead us?
The ICC has approved a rule for introduction of a substitute during the course of an ODI. Purists have dismissed the case saying it’s not cricket, but soccer. Revolutionists have welcomed it saying ODI cricket needed a change. But what the situation demands is an analysis of its effect on the experts front, while an ability to think dynamically and react to the situation to best exploit the rule on team management front. As I am leading the former, I will try to analyze it.
The rule says that a team can call upon a substitute during any stage of the match and the player substituted cannot take further part in the game. But it hasn’t made clear when the team has to be announced. There needs to be a clear guideline saying when you have to declare the final 12 men and the starting 11. As of now, the final 11 have to be named before the toss. Going by this theory, if a team has to announce their final 12 and starting 11 both before the toss, then the rule leads to nothing but a gamble. With this rule, the most obvious use case is to use an extra batsman while batting and replace him with a bowler while taking the field. But if they have to name their starting 11 before the toss, they will not know whether they are batting 1st or not. So they don’t know whether to include an extra batsman or bowler in the starting lineup. Suppose a team names 6 batsmen, a keeper and 4 bowlers in the starting lineup and has to field 1st, then the 1 bowler left on the bench is rendered ineffective. In case the team replaces the extra batsman with their bowler, to make up for the 5th bowler then the replaced batsman is gone for a toss. If the rule actually allows you to announce your starting 11 after the toss, then it undermines the whole purpose of the rule change that is to reduce the predictability of ODI. In most cases the substitutions will come at obvious stage of the match, the innings break.
The other regulation introduced is a good thing to have, as it will actually help make the game more unpredictable and has a scope for more shrewd tacticians. I don’t quite agree with the increase in number of overs for fielding restrictions from 15 to 20. The game is already loaded in favor of the bat and this probably will add to that. Probably the ICC has increased number of field restriction overs to maintain the effect of the current number. A 15 over fixed restriction will be as helpful to the batting side, as a 20 over restriction with only the 1st 10 being fixed, the other 10 coming at the fielding side’s discretion. 3 slots of 5 overs, with the 1st being mandatory at the start of the innings would have made it more favorable for the poor old bowlers. But then the rule will surely make the teams re-devise their strategies.
What I would have liked to see is a reduction in the effect of toss on the predictability factor. At many venues, particularly those hosting flood lit games with the dew factor coming in late at night and also those hosting it with the morning dew, the result is driven by the toss outcome. I liked a Sanjay Jha solution to this, where he proposed to split the 50 over innings into two 25 over slots. The 1st team bats their 25 overs, followed by the 2nd team’s first 25. Then the 1st team resumes its innings for the remaining 25 and then the 2nd team completes the rest. The idea was to have a single innings per team (not 2 different innings), split in 2 parts. This would have made both sides bat and bowl in all kinds of comparable surrounding conditions.
There is another good step that ICC has taken, that is to ask the MCC to review the restrictions on the size and material of a cricket bat. The last thing we want is heavyweight boxers hitting crafty spinners out of the ground after actually getting beaten in flight, yet using the edges of their mighty bat blades. Some limitations on the willow could do well to preserve the skill and art in batting in the long run.
Looking from the Indian perspective, the substitution rule could be a blessing in disguise. It’s a well known fact, that India’s best ODI all-rounder in the last 10 years has been Ajit Agarkar (if you don’t count Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid with wicket-keeping gloves on), which is a shame in itself. This rule could serve as their filler for an all-rounder, with the ability to use their 5th bowler only for bowling purposes (with the kind of bowling they have in ODIs, they will probably do well to have 391 of them). With a lucid thinker like Greg Chappell at the helm, we can relax a little, that the Indian camp is sound in terms of thinking caps. What we have to hope though that the rule change doesn’t do an Indian Hockey (remember what we got when they moved from grass to mat and then marred the dribbling skills by canceling the offside rule), although it took a K.P.S. Gill to complete that debacle and a Jagmohan Dalmiya is all the more acceptable.
Just a couple of days ago did the ICC come up with its new recommendations for one day cricket and left the experts analyzing its after-effects. The Cricket Committee of ICC had suggested many ways to revamp the game, 2 of which were approved by the Chief Executives’ Committee of ICC. One day cricket did need some resurrections, particularly the slam bang stuff that is played in the subcontinent, with scores of 300+ not being secure. I, as a knowledgeable spectator, would have liked to see the battleground between bat and ball more flattened, rather than bowlers left in an open field to get bulleted by batsmen with no place to hide. I would have also liked to see it in a less predictable form, with teams needing to think at all stages of the match, rather than having big burley openers (read Adam Gilchrist) clatter their way through hapless and “boundary protection-less” bowlers (read Zahir Khan, or better Javagal Srinath, still better Venkatesh Prasad) during the 1st 15 overs, then swift runners (read Paul Collingwood) setting it up for the mighty sloggers (read Abdur Razzaq) to put their teeth deep into the flesh of the already bruised fielding side. But where do the new rules lead us?
The ICC has approved a rule for introduction of a substitute during the course of an ODI. Purists have dismissed the case saying it’s not cricket, but soccer. Revolutionists have welcomed it saying ODI cricket needed a change. But what the situation demands is an analysis of its effect on the experts front, while an ability to think dynamically and react to the situation to best exploit the rule on team management front. As I am leading the former, I will try to analyze it.
The rule says that a team can call upon a substitute during any stage of the match and the player substituted cannot take further part in the game. But it hasn’t made clear when the team has to be announced. There needs to be a clear guideline saying when you have to declare the final 12 men and the starting 11. As of now, the final 11 have to be named before the toss. Going by this theory, if a team has to announce their final 12 and starting 11 both before the toss, then the rule leads to nothing but a gamble. With this rule, the most obvious use case is to use an extra batsman while batting and replace him with a bowler while taking the field. But if they have to name their starting 11 before the toss, they will not know whether they are batting 1st or not. So they don’t know whether to include an extra batsman or bowler in the starting lineup. Suppose a team names 6 batsmen, a keeper and 4 bowlers in the starting lineup and has to field 1st, then the 1 bowler left on the bench is rendered ineffective. In case the team replaces the extra batsman with their bowler, to make up for the 5th bowler then the replaced batsman is gone for a toss. If the rule actually allows you to announce your starting 11 after the toss, then it undermines the whole purpose of the rule change that is to reduce the predictability of ODI. In most cases the substitutions will come at obvious stage of the match, the innings break.
The other regulation introduced is a good thing to have, as it will actually help make the game more unpredictable and has a scope for more shrewd tacticians. I don’t quite agree with the increase in number of overs for fielding restrictions from 15 to 20. The game is already loaded in favor of the bat and this probably will add to that. Probably the ICC has increased number of field restriction overs to maintain the effect of the current number. A 15 over fixed restriction will be as helpful to the batting side, as a 20 over restriction with only the 1st 10 being fixed, the other 10 coming at the fielding side’s discretion. 3 slots of 5 overs, with the 1st being mandatory at the start of the innings would have made it more favorable for the poor old bowlers. But then the rule will surely make the teams re-devise their strategies.
What I would have liked to see is a reduction in the effect of toss on the predictability factor. At many venues, particularly those hosting flood lit games with the dew factor coming in late at night and also those hosting it with the morning dew, the result is driven by the toss outcome. I liked a Sanjay Jha solution to this, where he proposed to split the 50 over innings into two 25 over slots. The 1st team bats their 25 overs, followed by the 2nd team’s first 25. Then the 1st team resumes its innings for the remaining 25 and then the 2nd team completes the rest. The idea was to have a single innings per team (not 2 different innings), split in 2 parts. This would have made both sides bat and bowl in all kinds of comparable surrounding conditions.
There is another good step that ICC has taken, that is to ask the MCC to review the restrictions on the size and material of a cricket bat. The last thing we want is heavyweight boxers hitting crafty spinners out of the ground after actually getting beaten in flight, yet using the edges of their mighty bat blades. Some limitations on the willow could do well to preserve the skill and art in batting in the long run.
Looking from the Indian perspective, the substitution rule could be a blessing in disguise. It’s a well known fact, that India’s best ODI all-rounder in the last 10 years has been Ajit Agarkar (if you don’t count Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid with wicket-keeping gloves on), which is a shame in itself. This rule could serve as their filler for an all-rounder, with the ability to use their 5th bowler only for bowling purposes (with the kind of bowling they have in ODIs, they will probably do well to have 391 of them). With a lucid thinker like Greg Chappell at the helm, we can relax a little, that the Indian camp is sound in terms of thinking caps. What we have to hope though that the rule change doesn’t do an Indian Hockey (remember what we got when they moved from grass to mat and then marred the dribbling skills by canceling the offside rule), although it took a K.P.S. Gill to complete that debacle and a Jagmohan Dalmiya is all the more acceptable.
posted by w_o @ 2:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home