Players dressed in white playing under floodlights, a pink ball instead of the conventional red cherry, dinner breaks in a Test match ‒ it’s been a week of major innovation in cricket. The first day-night Test between Australia and New Zealand in Adelaide was hailed as major success after the fans turned up in huge numbers. But when the idea of a day-night Test was first proposed, it had plenty of naysayers who were afraid that Test cricket’s traditions would be damaged. However, a successful debut suggests that cricket with a pink ball has a bright future.
But what about some of the other innovations proposed to liven up the game? Let’s run a critical eye over them.
Split innings
A suggestion that keeps cropping up is to radically change the two-innings format. Instead of two innings of 50 overs each in One Day Internationals, the idea is to split each innings into four quarters of 25 overs each (or 20 in the case of an 80-over game). Proponents of this move claim that it would revolutionise ODI cricket. Sachin Tendulkar is one of the backers of this innovation and played an exhibition game in this format in New Zealand in 2002. He said that the format would remove the dependency on winning the toss. Australia sampled this concept in domestic cricket in 2010 but subsequently shelved it.
The success of the 2011 and 2015 World Cups relegated this idea to the backburner. Splitting an ODI match into four quarters of 25 overs each makes the format a hybrid mishmash of Test and Twenty20 cricket. It would combine the worst aspects of the two formats. While bowlers will never get the sort of freedom they enjoy in Test cricket in this warped format, batsmen will neither be able to swing their bats freely nor have enough time to construct an innings.
Four-day Tests
Five-day Test matches that end in boring draws are an anachronism in the modern game. One possible solution is to reduce the game by a day and play more than the current 90 overs currently allotted for a single day.
In 2009, then International Cricket Council president David Morgan first mooted having four-day Test matches and the idea has gained some popularity. Before the day-night Test match in Adelaide last week, former Australian cricketers Shane Warne and Mark Taylor backed the introduction of four-day Test matches, which would ideally start on Thursday and end on a Sunday to attract crowds on the weekend. According to Taylor and Warne, the solution is simple: play 100 overs a day and reduce the duration of the intervals.
Considering the number of Tests that have ended in three days recently, this innovation seems to be happening even without official prompting. On a serious note though, this comes across as a purely cosmetic change. Apart from the monetary benefits, there does not seem to be much of a difference between four-day and five-day matches. It would also be difficult to bowl 100 overs in one day in venues such as those in the subcontinent, where the light fades earlier and quicker.
The better solution would be to ensure that the game is played swiftly with fast over rates and strict penalties for infringement. That way, the game would be played at a proper pace and spectators will not feel short-changed.
Scrap over restrictions for bowlers in limited-overs matches
Bowlers are currently allowed a maximum of ten overs in a limited overs match and four each in a Twenty20 match. But there have been calls to scrap this restriction by those who believe that it gives the batting side an unfair advantage.
There has been divided opinion on this issue. Some like Shane Warne want to do away with over restrictions altogether – in his words, bowlers should be allowed to bowl as many overs as they want. A more watered-down version was tested in the Indian domestic circuit in the 2012-13 season, where one bowler could bowl 12 overs while the rest could only bowl a maximum of 10 each. The logic behind this move would be to give more options to the fielding captain – if one of their bowlers is doing particularly well on that day, the skipper would be able to make the best use of him without being restricted by an over limit.
This idea may be worth a try. It has become a tactic in limited-overs cricket for batting sides to play out the one or two good bowlers in the opposition and then target the weaker ones. Fielding captains are often forced to use weaker bowlers at critical stages of the game, just to conserve their better bowlers. While allowing bowlers as many overs as they want may not be the best idea, some variation on this train of thought could give fielding captains a new weapon in their arsenal.
Give the spinners more freedom
Sunil Narine of the West Indies is the latest player on the receiving end of cricket’s renewed attempts to stamp out bowlers with suspect actions. Pakistan’s Saeed Ajmal is perhaps the most tragic case. From being one of Pakistan’s most successful bowlers, Ajmal was reported and banned from international cricket for chucking in September 2014. Though he remodelled his action and tried to make a comeback, it was clear that the magic of old had vanished.
The 15-degree rule has been the bane of these off-spinners. The rule instituted by the game’s governing body allows bowlers to flex their elbows up to 15 degrees. If they exceed this limit, they are pulled up for chucking. Off-spinners who have bowled the “doosra” in recent times have been the worst affected as the delivery often involves flexing the bowling arm beyond the permissible limit.
A number of former cricketers including Rameez Raja and Geoffrey Boycott have called on the International Cricket Council to re-examine the regulations so that off-spinners can bowl the doosra. Their argument is that the doosra gives the bowler an additional weapon in a game where increasingly bigger bats and smaller boundaries have taken over.
The debate around bowling actions is a highly controversial topic. Many former cricketers contend that allowing bowlers to flex their arms amounts to blatant cheating. So any talk of giving leeway to spinners will immediately have a massive outcry.
However, cricket is admittedly much poorer for missing out on the innovation and trickery that Ajmal and Narine bring to the table. It is tricky territory and while the idea might sound good in theory, a lot of consensus building is required before any move to implement it.
Abolish the toss
Perhaps in no other sport does the toss of a coin hold so much importance. Winning a toss can be extremely advantageous, especially in day-night games in the subcontinent where dew is a factor in the evening. Every match in the recent ODI series between India and South Africa was won by the team winning the toss. The trend continued in the Test matches as India won the toss at Mohali and Nagpur and went on to win those games.
So it is not difficult to see why there have been calls to abolish the toss. A few days ago, the England and Wales Cricket Board bit the bullet and decided on an interesting experiment: in the 2016 County Championship, visiting teams will be given the opportunity of bowling first, without a toss being held. The toss will happen only if they decline to bowl first.
It is a radical move which could change cricket as we know it at the international stage. But is it really a move that needs to be implemented? That the toss of a coin has become intrinsic to the game is one of the “glorious uncertainties” that cricket likes to tom-tom about. The toss also adds to the spontaneity of the game – the captains have to alter their plans based on the outcome of the toss. This is one of those things that does not look like it is broken, so why rush to try and fix it?
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
But what about some of the other innovations proposed to liven up the game? Let’s run a critical eye over them.
Split innings
A suggestion that keeps cropping up is to radically change the two-innings format. Instead of two innings of 50 overs each in One Day Internationals, the idea is to split each innings into four quarters of 25 overs each (or 20 in the case of an 80-over game). Proponents of this move claim that it would revolutionise ODI cricket. Sachin Tendulkar is one of the backers of this innovation and played an exhibition game in this format in New Zealand in 2002. He said that the format would remove the dependency on winning the toss. Australia sampled this concept in domestic cricket in 2010 but subsequently shelved it.
The success of the 2011 and 2015 World Cups relegated this idea to the backburner. Splitting an ODI match into four quarters of 25 overs each makes the format a hybrid mishmash of Test and Twenty20 cricket. It would combine the worst aspects of the two formats. While bowlers will never get the sort of freedom they enjoy in Test cricket in this warped format, batsmen will neither be able to swing their bats freely nor have enough time to construct an innings.
Four-day Tests
Five-day Test matches that end in boring draws are an anachronism in the modern game. One possible solution is to reduce the game by a day and play more than the current 90 overs currently allotted for a single day.
In 2009, then International Cricket Council president David Morgan first mooted having four-day Test matches and the idea has gained some popularity. Before the day-night Test match in Adelaide last week, former Australian cricketers Shane Warne and Mark Taylor backed the introduction of four-day Test matches, which would ideally start on Thursday and end on a Sunday to attract crowds on the weekend. According to Taylor and Warne, the solution is simple: play 100 overs a day and reduce the duration of the intervals.
Considering the number of Tests that have ended in three days recently, this innovation seems to be happening even without official prompting. On a serious note though, this comes across as a purely cosmetic change. Apart from the monetary benefits, there does not seem to be much of a difference between four-day and five-day matches. It would also be difficult to bowl 100 overs in one day in venues such as those in the subcontinent, where the light fades earlier and quicker.
The better solution would be to ensure that the game is played swiftly with fast over rates and strict penalties for infringement. That way, the game would be played at a proper pace and spectators will not feel short-changed.
Scrap over restrictions for bowlers in limited-overs matches
Bowlers are currently allowed a maximum of ten overs in a limited overs match and four each in a Twenty20 match. But there have been calls to scrap this restriction by those who believe that it gives the batting side an unfair advantage.
There has been divided opinion on this issue. Some like Shane Warne want to do away with over restrictions altogether – in his words, bowlers should be allowed to bowl as many overs as they want. A more watered-down version was tested in the Indian domestic circuit in the 2012-13 season, where one bowler could bowl 12 overs while the rest could only bowl a maximum of 10 each. The logic behind this move would be to give more options to the fielding captain – if one of their bowlers is doing particularly well on that day, the skipper would be able to make the best use of him without being restricted by an over limit.
This idea may be worth a try. It has become a tactic in limited-overs cricket for batting sides to play out the one or two good bowlers in the opposition and then target the weaker ones. Fielding captains are often forced to use weaker bowlers at critical stages of the game, just to conserve their better bowlers. While allowing bowlers as many overs as they want may not be the best idea, some variation on this train of thought could give fielding captains a new weapon in their arsenal.
Give the spinners more freedom
Sunil Narine of the West Indies is the latest player on the receiving end of cricket’s renewed attempts to stamp out bowlers with suspect actions. Pakistan’s Saeed Ajmal is perhaps the most tragic case. From being one of Pakistan’s most successful bowlers, Ajmal was reported and banned from international cricket for chucking in September 2014. Though he remodelled his action and tried to make a comeback, it was clear that the magic of old had vanished.
The 15-degree rule has been the bane of these off-spinners. The rule instituted by the game’s governing body allows bowlers to flex their elbows up to 15 degrees. If they exceed this limit, they are pulled up for chucking. Off-spinners who have bowled the “doosra” in recent times have been the worst affected as the delivery often involves flexing the bowling arm beyond the permissible limit.
A number of former cricketers including Rameez Raja and Geoffrey Boycott have called on the International Cricket Council to re-examine the regulations so that off-spinners can bowl the doosra. Their argument is that the doosra gives the bowler an additional weapon in a game where increasingly bigger bats and smaller boundaries have taken over.
The debate around bowling actions is a highly controversial topic. Many former cricketers contend that allowing bowlers to flex their arms amounts to blatant cheating. So any talk of giving leeway to spinners will immediately have a massive outcry.
However, cricket is admittedly much poorer for missing out on the innovation and trickery that Ajmal and Narine bring to the table. It is tricky territory and while the idea might sound good in theory, a lot of consensus building is required before any move to implement it.
Abolish the toss
Perhaps in no other sport does the toss of a coin hold so much importance. Winning a toss can be extremely advantageous, especially in day-night games in the subcontinent where dew is a factor in the evening. Every match in the recent ODI series between India and South Africa was won by the team winning the toss. The trend continued in the Test matches as India won the toss at Mohali and Nagpur and went on to win those games.
So it is not difficult to see why there have been calls to abolish the toss. A few days ago, the England and Wales Cricket Board bit the bullet and decided on an interesting experiment: in the 2016 County Championship, visiting teams will be given the opportunity of bowling first, without a toss being held. The toss will happen only if they decline to bowl first.
It is a radical move which could change cricket as we know it at the international stage. But is it really a move that needs to be implemented? That the toss of a coin has become intrinsic to the game is one of the “glorious uncertainties” that cricket likes to tom-tom about. The toss also adds to the spontaneity of the game – the captains have to alter their plans based on the outcome of the toss. This is one of those things that does not look like it is broken, so why rush to try and fix it?
