ODI to become HDI (Half Day International)
Cricket Australia has taken a bold step in revamping Ford Ranger cup (Domestic limited overs cricket tournament) by deciding to make them as split-innings one dayers. I like it. I hope they still maintain 50 overs per innings, rather than making it 2 games of T20 each. Obviously there are arguments for and against this. Those against it are worried that batsmen will struggle to restart their innings after fielding for 25 overs; spectators may shun first "innings" (20 or 25 overs from each side) and watch only the second "innings", etc. Ricky Ponting is reportedly not totally impressed with CA's announcement before any kind of consultation with the Australian players. In today's Sydney Morning Herald, Channel Nine is quoted to be seeking all ten wickets in the second part of the split innings, making effectively a separate game altogether. The article also quotes English second division's trial in split innings games. Apparently it has not received plus marks because "Coaches in that competition have expressed frustration over matches essentially decided in the first innings when a batting line-up folds". Channel Nine's Brad McNamara claims the patent on ODIs saying "...We would really like the batting order to start again, if you take that away then we've got a few concerns about how that might pan out.'' Basically Commercial TV networks are merely aiming at the entertainment value of the game, in the name of improvement. While Channel Nine's claim to the inventions of ODIs are undisputed, the quote "'Not everyone is going to get a bat, but it's about getting the best batters to bat twice. Last summer we saw Chris Gayle dismissed in the first over and the game was over"; is a joke! If CA follow that advise, even when the team will comprise of 11 players, some may be just spectators on the ground! In the greed for the cash, commercial channels seem to be forgetting that the game's developmental aspect comes first and for that, opportunity to budding cricketers rather than marquee players must dictate the path to improvement.
I am sure we all have experienced the thrill of emergence of a new star when the established stars have failed to deliver. While the huge amount of money in the game is definitely due to television rights, they need to remember that ultimately it is the spectators who will determine the fate of the game and the value of their TV rights. And at present spectators are not greatly enamored by what they see in 50 overs cricket, in spite of what Ricky Ponting may feel. The game does need a bit of revamping and I am convinced at least trialling split innings is a way to go.
I am also not convinced about some objections to this innovation, especially those about the players needing to refocus on their innings after fielding for 25 overs. As the game has grown, there has been a constant demand on the skill level of players. A run rate of 4 per over that counted as fast in 70s has become almost normal today. In transition from test cricket to limited overs ODI to T20, the demand has always been upon the batsman to start scoring runs straight away. The luxury of getting "your eye in" is a thing of the past. Majority of the players coming through the system anywhere in the world with competitive domestic cricket set up, are now used to the demand to maintain a run rate of more than 4 runs per over. Factors like covered wickets, consistent wicket preparation standards and better equipment have helped but the major change has been to the mind-set of the players. Thus current international player is already adjusted to the requirement of readjusting their focus. Playing competitive cricket at night was unthinkable in my time, but today's players are able to tune their biological rhythm to give their best even at the time when our bodies struggle to stay in peak performance mode.
While the changes may have been forced upon due to 50 overs inning becoming very predictable and sudden huge popularity of T20, I believe the real reason for improving should be the empowerment of bowlers. What has happened with the advent of slam-bang cricket is an almost annihilation of bowlers due to feather-bed wickets, shorter boundaries, better equipment and some stupid, batsmen friendly rules (like one bouncer and leg side wide). I believe we need to restore the balance in the game by giving something back to the bowlers.
In huge number of ODIs, often side winning the toss ends up gaining significant advantage; sometimes so much that the second side is always playing catch up. This is especially true in day-night games where external factors like dew play havoc with the bowlers. Split-innings will reduce the impact of this to some extent. If on the other hand the wicket does a bit, the side batting first will have some opportunity to exploit that as well.
Even though a side batting first does so only for maximum 3.5 hours in the current format of the ODI, often the nature of the wicket changes significantly for the side batting second to have the same condition while chasing. Splitting the innings will provide side batting second some foothold.
This innovation will also demand some new tactics from captains and coaches on how to utilize their resources, over the full game. May be some more work for the dynamic duo of Messrs Duckworth and Lewis, MBE to come up with split formula (congratulations to the duo on their achievement); gives them an opportunity to earn a full Knighthood!!
I am sure we all have experienced the thrill of emergence of a new star when the established stars have failed to deliver. While the huge amount of money in the game is definitely due to television rights, they need to remember that ultimately it is the spectators who will determine the fate of the game and the value of their TV rights. And at present spectators are not greatly enamored by what they see in 50 overs cricket, in spite of what Ricky Ponting may feel. The game does need a bit of revamping and I am convinced at least trialling split innings is a way to go.
I am also not convinced about some objections to this innovation, especially those about the players needing to refocus on their innings after fielding for 25 overs. As the game has grown, there has been a constant demand on the skill level of players. A run rate of 4 per over that counted as fast in 70s has become almost normal today. In transition from test cricket to limited overs ODI to T20, the demand has always been upon the batsman to start scoring runs straight away. The luxury of getting "your eye in" is a thing of the past. Majority of the players coming through the system anywhere in the world with competitive domestic cricket set up, are now used to the demand to maintain a run rate of more than 4 runs per over. Factors like covered wickets, consistent wicket preparation standards and better equipment have helped but the major change has been to the mind-set of the players. Thus current international player is already adjusted to the requirement of readjusting their focus. Playing competitive cricket at night was unthinkable in my time, but today's players are able to tune their biological rhythm to give their best even at the time when our bodies struggle to stay in peak performance mode.
While the changes may have been forced upon due to 50 overs inning becoming very predictable and sudden huge popularity of T20, I believe the real reason for improving should be the empowerment of bowlers. What has happened with the advent of slam-bang cricket is an almost annihilation of bowlers due to feather-bed wickets, shorter boundaries, better equipment and some stupid, batsmen friendly rules (like one bouncer and leg side wide). I believe we need to restore the balance in the game by giving something back to the bowlers.
In huge number of ODIs, often side winning the toss ends up gaining significant advantage; sometimes so much that the second side is always playing catch up. This is especially true in day-night games where external factors like dew play havoc with the bowlers. Split-innings will reduce the impact of this to some extent. If on the other hand the wicket does a bit, the side batting first will have some opportunity to exploit that as well.
Even though a side batting first does so only for maximum 3.5 hours in the current format of the ODI, often the nature of the wicket changes significantly for the side batting second to have the same condition while chasing. Splitting the innings will provide side batting second some foothold.
This innovation will also demand some new tactics from captains and coaches on how to utilize their resources, over the full game. May be some more work for the dynamic duo of Messrs Duckworth and Lewis, MBE to come up with split formula (congratulations to the duo on their achievement); gives them an opportunity to earn a full Knighthood!!
Comments
Post a Comment