The addition of “free-hits”, bowling and batting
power-plays and for some time the “super sub” rule, all have been tried and
some still in existence in limited overs cricket (one day internationals, ODI).
Why were these required? The answer is very obvious, to spice up the (mundane)
game! Look at football, 90 minutes of non-stop entertainment. The game is short
and keeps the adrenaline always pumping. Clearly people today are extremely
busy, and then going to watch an ODI, which turns out to be one, sided or a
complete flop show, may ruin one’s entire day. Probably that is why 20-20 took
off so well. Now that 20-20 is a smash hit and is here to stay, what about
limited overs cricket?
The answer might probably lie in
changing the ODI format a bit. Looking at the success of 20-20, ICC should take
some cues from it, which would not only revive ODI cricket, but also probably boost
the dwindling ticket sales around the world. The changed format is about having
split innings, which has been experimented by Australia in its domestic
seasons. In fact even the maestro Sachin Tendulkar has also talked about having
a 4 innings split ODI. Though the ICC dismissed his idea but has allowed
cricket boards to experiment this idea in their domestic tournaments. Well what
I propose is two types of splits:
·
Test
Match Style
·
Continued
Style
Lets see
what are they and their advantages.
In test match style, say side ‘A’ would bat for
maximum 25 overs, followed by the side ‘B’. And then similar to a test match
this would be repeated. Thus in each innings the teams start with a “no loss”
situation, that is the batting starts right from the first wicket again. The
logic for this that when you see a side batting, you want to see their
“batsmen” bat and not tail-enders! Bowlers should be allowed to bowl maximum 5
overs in each innings. So an equal opportunity to perform is given to batsmen
(bat in two innings) and bowlers (bowl in two innings) in all 4 innings. It
could be termed as a “mini-test match”. The other advantage of this format
would be spectator delight. Think about an Indo-Pak encounter and Sachin gets
out cheaply. Many fans just come to watch probably him! Likewise players like
Sehwag, Gayle, Jayawardene, Peterson, Amla Watson, Yuvraj attract likewise crowds.
With this kind of “batting reset” chance of the game becoming one sided or a
flop show are less. To spice up the game, the follow on rule (of test match
cricket) may also be implemented. If the team batting in the second innings is
dwindled cheaply, (conceding a lead of say 50 or 100 run lead)they could be asked
to follow on! Thus making the game more exciting to watch.
While the continued style would be to continue the
third and fourth innings (of the two sides) from they left in their prior
batting outings (first and second innings respectively). This format too has
its advantages. Batting becomes much more strategic in nature. Batsmen might
want to protect their wickets according to the situation/criticality or the
pitch condition. Like if the pitch is an absolute turner, players like
Jayawardene and Sachin might play more cautiously so that their experience
might come useful in the third or fourth innings. The captaincy too would be
more strategic in this format with respect to the batting order. Decisions
about sending a destructive batsmen like Pollard or Yusuf Pathan might have to
be contemplated, to gain a competitive advantage over the opposition.
The other change could be (in both formats) to have 12
players in a side while only 11 take the field while batting or bowling (tried
in Australian domestic cricket), or to fine-tune and use the erstwhile
“super-sub” rule. After the first and second innings is over, teams could
replace one player for their choice with another player in the squad, may be a
batsmen or bowler. The problem with the earlier super sub rule was that the
“sub” had to be announced before the toss. So if the toss did not go in the
team’s“favour” the sub could get wasted. The super sub rule could add a lot
spiceto the game, diversity to a team and avoid the earlier super sub issues.
With the split innings the power-plays could also be
utilized more effectively. There can be multiple ways to split up power-plays.
For example each of the four innings could have two 5 over power-plays decided
by the batting and fielding side or have first six overs mandatory power-play
and then 2 overs decided by each batting and bowling team in all innings. Thus with the spilt format, the power-plays
may be more crucial and provide “entertainment”in all innings of the format.
The biggest other advantage of having the split format
(either style) is that it kills the luck advantage a team may have because of
winning the toss. Why should toss decide the fate of games? There have been
instances when the team bowling second has a tough time because of the dew
factor. Even though they may have batted splendidly in their innings, the side
batting second could have an extra batsmen called “due”. Another favouring factor for ICC could be
ticket sales. The empty stands are quite visible these days. So the ICC in unison with local cricket
boards could come up with 2 possible tickets styles. Watch all four innings or
the last two. So the spectator gets the chance to see only the final innings if
he wishes so!
More importantly ICC, should try the spilt formats in
domestic tournaments to fine-tune the rules, but should also try out a few
international exhibition matches to gauge the spectators and audiences
reaction. Who knows like how 20-20 talk cricket by surprise, Split ODI’s might
too!
