Return to http://www.prasanna.org/

RETHINKING ONE DAY CRICKET

Here's an article written a few months before ICC's newest tinkering with one-day rules (a substitute per game, and flexible slots to bowl overs with fielding restrictions) were announced. It was heartening to note that the new rules followed the same themes that I had suggested in my article below, but I'm afraid the rule changes were far too conservative to be truly meaningful, and the lack of conviction leaves the changes open to ridicule. Here go the original arguments once again, with the hope that they will invite a little debate about them.

The blog version of the article is available here.

Rethinking the one day game

Two simple ways to reinvigorate the game

By Prasanna Lal Das

 Twenty20 may well be the rage these days but two simple changes to the existing laws of cricket hold tremendous potential to bring pizzazz back into one day internationals and re-energize a format that has become a victim of its own success. The proposed changes are –

1. Expand the playing roster to 16 with the proviso that only 11 players may bat or bowl in an innings (the batting and bowling ‘sides’ of a team thus need not be the same, as is currently the case)
2. Change the way the 15 over fielding restrictions apply – stipulate that fielding restrictions will apply during the first three overs of each bowler’s quota, rather than during the first 15 overs of an innings, as is the case now

The changes may appear radical at first glance and there may be a few concerns about their feasibility. The rest of the article describes the rationale behind the suggestions, the positive manner in which they can affect the game, and how they can be implemented.

Before we start, a look at the two main arguments that are commonly trotted out to make the case against the long-term prospects of one-day internationals. The format has been strategized to death, say the first camp of naysayers, and is becoming increasingly predictable – slam bang in the first 15 overs, singles and consolidation in the middle overs (when fielding captains oblige by setting fields deep and routinely give easy runs away), and then another flurry in the end. Everybody in the system knows their roles pat – aggressive batsmen at the top of the order, bloody-minded accumulators in the middle, bashers down the order. The bowlers follow a similar formula – wicket-taking bowlers at the start (at least from one end), the bits and pieces men who most often fill the 4 th and 5 th bowling slots in the middle (with the odd burst from a front-line bowler), and then the specialist death-men in the end. Most games follow the same pattern, and as indistinguishable games follow each other, diehard fans have begun to switch off – the only thing interesting about one day games now is the result. Everything else may well be played out on a computer, or perhaps not be played at all. The Twenty20 format follows the last dictum – why not do away with the middle overs and just focus on the slogfest (allegedly the only exciting part about cricket)?

The other, and perhaps more pertinent, quibble against one day cricket is the diminution in the average level of skills and the unabated proliferation of bits and pieces cricketers. The trend has affected bowlers more than batsmen and it is quite common to see top bowlers cooling their heels in the pavilion while ‘batting allrounders’ fill bowling slots, ostensibly in the interest of the balance of the team. Thus, the middle overs become even more excruciating to watch than they would otherwise have been, as quality batsmen keep the board ticking over against bowling devoid of any guile or venom. The game has become less a contest between bat and ball and more a game of attrition in which bowlers of limited ability follow ultra defensive tactics to minimize damage, rather than inflict it (which is how attack minded followers of the game wish they would bowl).

So what is the solution to revitalize cricket? Cricket commentators have suggested many – let batting sides choose when the 15 over restrictions can be applied, split the fielding restrictions evenly across an innings, play two innings per side in one day, let batsmen hit ‘eights’ after 15 overs, allow one bowler to bowl 15 overs, or well, dump the whole mess and play Twenty20 (till people tire of it!). Most of these suggestions are however piecemeal in nature and are designed to make the game even more batsman-friendly, or are too complex for the average fan. What the game needs instead is a set of proposals that can make a fundamental difference to the game without hurting its essential character – a result-oriented, attack-minded version of ‘proper cricket’ which tests the skills of its participants to the utmost.

The two proposals outlined above, taken in tandem, have the potential to address all these requirements – they will bring specialists back in the game to ensure that there are no easy runs or cheap wickets, they will break the monotonous three-act structure of the one day game and allow fielding captains more options, and most of all, they are simple to follow so that fans shan’t need their rule books to appreciate tactical decisions. Here is how they will work.

EXPAND THE PLAYING ROSTER TO 16

The only real value that a playing 11 serves is that it limits an innings to 10 wickets. It may seem heretical at first to say so, but it is my contention that the 11-person limitation imposes far too many artificial restrictions during selection and serves to enfeeble a side rather than allow it to parade the best talent available (which is what people come to see). Most team selection is a game of compromise in which one or more talented players are left out of a game to ‘balance a side’ or because of ‘conditions’. Selection is thus often a gamble based on subjective reasons (weather forecast, pitch prediction, etc.) and cannot be rolled back after a game starts. Teams thus frequently lose matches they could have won because they discover, after a match starts, that the right player for the conditions is carrying the drinks (‘Hey, the ball’s turning square and we’ve got four seamers!!). You win because your selectors are better or luckier than your opponents!

The other thing that a restricted playing 11 does is to keep good players out because ‘we need 7 batsmen’ or ‘his fielding isn’t good enough’. What you have instead are players with no special skills except that they are a variety act that can do a lot of things with no particular distinction. Spectators are thus forced to watch batsmen struggle to get balls off the square (but he can give you 4 overs for 25), or bowlers who whoop when they bowl a dot ball (but he’s good for 30 once in a while). And all this, while real batsmen and bowlers twiddle their thumbs in the pavilion because the team management decided they didn’t need another spinner or because a batsman needed to work on his fielding.

My proposal to expand the playing roster will take the guesswork out of selection and let events on the fields determine the fate of games. It will also ensure that a team is able to constantly readjust strategy during a game, and field its best batsmen to take on the opponent’s best bowlers backed by its best fielders. This is how it will pan out.

While batting, a side will be allowed to field the best 11 batsmen that are available to it. None of these batsmen will be obliged to either bowl or field and will be picked purely on their skills as batsmen. Similarly the bowling side will be allowed to pick any 5 or more bowlers from the playing roster of 16 with no obligation to bat them. Captains will thus be able to change strategy on the field of play and replace bowlers having off days or who may not be suitable for specific match conditions. They will also be able to make sure that rival batsmen always face a country’s top bowlers (and they are generally the attacking, exciting, wicket-taking type) rather than trundlers. The same logic will work for fielding as well and it will be left to captains to determine their best fielding 11 and use substitutes when necessary.

A few easy arguments can be made against the proposal. The most obvious one that the selection process is one of the ‘charms’ or ‘basic characteristics’ of the game and that expanding the roster will eliminate some of the game’s ‘glorious uncertainties’ is fuddy-duddy at best. The more valid objection is that the change may make the game even more batsmen-friendly – after all, what is to stop a team from packing 11 batsmen in a team apart from 5 specialist bowlers? The upside however is that even if teams do make such a choice, spectators will have an opportunity to watch 50 overs of non-stop high quality action, with the best bowlers pitted against the best batsmen all through.

FIELDING RESTRICTIONS DURING THE FIRST THREE OVERS OF EACH BOWLER’S QUOTA

The other problem with the one-day game is its regimented three-act structure described earlier, and fielding restrictions during the first 15 overs seem to be at the root of the problem. The restrictions were initially designed to promote run scoring in the early overs, which may otherwise have become too loaded in favor of bowlers with the new ball. And boy, were they successful? In fact the first 15 overs have now become the liveliest part of one-day internationals and often its decisive phase too. The only downside – the rest of the game pales in comparison, and games climax at the start of an innings rather than at its end.

The provision in its current shape is fairly inflexible, and strategic moves to exploit it to the fullest are easy to imitate. I propose therefore that the 15 restricted overs be spread across an entire innings (and that the number of such overs in an innings may increase if captains use additional bowlers). The manner of the spread will be two-level – fielding captain’s discretion, and the limiting rule that the first three overs of every bowler’s quota be bowled with the fielding restrictions in place. This will make sure that all innings flow a bit differently from others as the restricted overs occur at different points in the spectrum. The unpredictability will demand constant thinking on the feet – should a captain introduce a new bowler if a batsman is on the rampage, should a new batsman go after a newly introduced bowler, should a captain introduce a sixth bowler in the attack at the risk of increasing the number of overs with fielding restrictions? The number of possible scenarios is likely to be long and can add a new dimension to game strategy as we know it (and also open players’ tactical acumen to new levels of scrutiny). All of which can only mean only one thing – more excitement for spectators, and more challenges for the players.

A few other variations on the theme may be considered – perhaps bowlers introduced after the 30 th over can have three fielders outside the circle in their first three overs rather than the standard two, and perhaps the fielding restrictions should apply only to the first five bowlers who bowl three or more overs (just in case there’s a risk that the game will become too batsman-friendly otherwise). There’s definite merit in both the options and I reckon it may take a few games to prove which one works the best.

WHERE THAT LEAVES THE ONE-DAY GAME

The changes, if introduced, will substantially alter the one-day game as it is played today. The good news however is that the basic sprit of the game will remain the same – a test of skills against the best an opponent has to offer within a 100 over limit (against the 5 day delimiter in test matches). The only real change will be the fact that players will have to compete against the very best opposition for the entire game, rather than bide time against mediocre players making up the numbers and capitalize on ‘weak links’. The best against the best – won’t that be best for the game?

February, 2005

The Indo-Pak question

An alternative nature

At home everywhere

Article 370 forever