One Day Internationals – Split!

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!