The ICC never gets them right

A new invention by the ICC!! A change in front foot noball rule. I don't know who is the brain behind all this, but I bet it's more corporate than cricketing. I feel that right now they are utterly confused about what they want to do with the ODI game. Twenty20 is clearly a threat for ODIs and the ICC don't know whether they want to promote Twenty20 or preserve One-day cricket. What they lack, and this is not new for ICC, is a clear vision.

For a long time, they have been trying to promote the game outside the colonial world and it's quite clear that they want to grab the lucrative US market. Which is why they are trying to shorten the game and present it in the form of an entertainment package. No problems with that, Twenty20 will definitely bring in money which will help in sustaining test match cricket. Where they go completely wrong is in failing to differentiate between a more traditional form of the game (being around for more than 3 decades now, we can safely call ODI cricket that) and the new fast and furious whizkid.

They are obviously concerned that ODI cricket might just die a slow death. And I am sure they have discussed a need to bring about some changes to stop that from happening. But what ODI cricket needs is its own identity and not a gimmick that Twenty20 brings in. The vision of Twenty20 should be clear. Bring in the families who otherwise would have caught up on last Friday's release or a television soap, get some loud music, slam, bang and wallop and let them go home enterntained. ODI cricket doesn't need that. What it needs is what it used to have, a nice contest between bat and ball.

I guess I have talked about this earlier when they brought in that pathetic supersub rule. Some of the changes that would make ODI cricket last, will be the ones that give bowlers a better chance. It may not please the Americans, but then they have Twenty20 to chew onto. There is a huge generation, me being a part of it, that has grown up watching ODIs and they can form a large enough fanbase to sustain ODIs, if only it can return to what it was.

I have never been against rule changes, especially if they spice up the contest, rather than ones which are brought in just for the sake of doing something new. A nail on the head could be the one that has been suggested by a few others previously, splitting up an ODI innings into two halves. First batting side plays out their first 25 overs, followed by the other side with their first 25 overs and then the teams resume their respective innings. To think it through more, everything else remains the same. Powerplays could be mandatory for first 5 overs of both halves, maybe with a new ball for each half. The other 2 powerplays can then be used by the fielding captain as and when needed, i.e. he can choose to take both of them in the same half or one in each half. This is not a mindless gimmick. It serves a purpose, that of negating the effect of toss and conditions. Too often we see that the conditions experienced by one side are drastically different than those for the other. Many times it seams early in the day and flattens out in the afternoon in a day game. Or else it's easier to bowl in the afternoon and the ball gets soggy during evening due to the dew factor under the lights. So we see a lot of the times, the difference between two evenly matched sides is the right call at the toss of a coin. This change can go a long way at ensuring that both teams get an equal share of conditions.

Another change, on similar lines could be to allow both captains to choose something. The captain who wins the toss decides whether he wants to bowl or bat or have 3 fielders outside the circle during a powerplay. Whatever he picks, the other captain gets to choose the remaining. So if the toss winning captain chooses to bat (or bowl) he can have only 2 fielders outside the circle during powerplays and the other can have 3. Whereas if he decides that he needs 3 fielders outside circle for powerplays, the other captain can then choose to bat or bowl. This way we make the contest more even.

Spectators are generally of 2 types, people who understand the game(or at least claim that they do) and those who just love some aspects of it, like a certain team or a certain few players. Though none of the two categories will complain if cricket can provide them with a contest. During our college days, we used to take part in these drama competitions and there were some alumni of our school who used to come and give us feedback during practice. A common complaint about our drama script used to be that there wasn't enough conflict in it. Because that's what people want to watch, a fierce conflict. The recent Ireland-Netherlands game that went all the way down to wire provided more entertainment than large portions of last year's Ashes where it was just one way traffic. A front foot no ball rule just widens the gap between batters and bowlers and takes the fun away. It will bring some sort of excitement in the first couple of months, just because it's new, but soon people will realise its hollowness and, hopefully, it will go the supersub way. The rules I am advocating get the bowlers back in it a bit and make the captains think more. It introduces a human factor where captains can make or break their careers just on one intuitive decision.

And then there is Twenty20. The younger sibling looks all set to hog the limelight right now. But it's also given a confused vision. The powerplay rule is there in Twernty20 which is an absolute joke. There was a reason why the fielding restrictions were brought in ODI cricket. It spanned 50 overs, 60 when it first started in England since daylight held up longer there. It had a very predictable graph over the innings, keep wickets in hand and try to hit out towards the end. Moreover it did not have an identity different than test cricket with batsmen batting pretty much the same way they did in longer version. It had tea-times somewhere at a weird time during the second innings. These were all test cricket identities and ODIs had to have an existence of their own. The fielding restriction made people think out of the box and play attacking cricket at certain times. People were reluctant to hit at the beginning, and powerplays challenged their abilities to do that. With Twenty20, if you are going to get bowled out inside 20 overs regularly, then you might as well not play international cricket. So with that insurance of not getting bowled out, you can always go clatter, hammer and tong, right from the word go. So what's the objective of powerplays in Twenty20? You are trying to flash so hard that you hardly get caught in slips, so might as well allow only 9 men during powerplays. It's like saying you have 11 resources, but during this specific time, you can use only 9, which makes no sense. It's one of those needless legacies of ODI that are carried into Twenty20, just as ODIs initially borrowed tea-times from tests. It indicates a confused vision.

I pity the ICC really. They are in a situation where they can't deal with the harder issues, Zimbabwe cricket being a classic example (to cut them some slack, some of the issues are beyond even the UN, so no point blaming ICC for it). And then to create an impression that they are doing something they are botching up simple acts (again, refer to the supersub rule) and creating nuisance of themselves. A governing body in such situation is better served by being in cruise control mode rather than trying out mindless adventures.