There is no denying anymore that, if ODI cricket is to survive, there is a desperate necessity for reinvention to regenerate public interest in the ailing format. At the same time, it must be accepted that the reason for the decline is not only the advent of T20 but also the crazy amount of ODIs being played at the moment, considering the inane number of meaningless and unnecessary bilaterals and triseries that fail to generate excitement even among diehard cricket lovers.
Firstly, the administrators must decide whether there really is sufficient reason to resuscitate a dying format, especially when most fans are happy with the dual enjoyment of the two extremes, T20 and tests, and are not really sure on which side of the fence lie ODIs. There remains just a single marquee event in the one-day format, the World Cup, and some sections of the audiences would not mind letting the format die a natural death. Yet, the unenviable decision the ICC and the national boards face currently is likely to be dictated more by the clout of the television channels and sponsors, for whom ODIs remain the prime cash cows.
Finally, having assumed that there is a definite need for the survival of the format, and having recognized that the only means of survival is reinvention, the split-innings variation seems to be the leading alternative. Now, all those who will undoubtedly claim that this is nothing more than 2 T20s need to realize that there could be 2 variations to what appears to be the same thing at first; the first, where a team has 10 wickets in hand in both innings, meaning that they bat in 2 independent innings like tests, and there is no denying that this is little more than playing 2 T20s one after the other. Another variation, and one not so easily apparent at that, is where the teams starts the second innings at the same point where they left off in the first. This would really be a "split-innings" ODI while the first will amount to 2 innings per team.
Now if increasing the strategic element of the contest is the objective to enlivening the game, the first version, or the 2-innings version has very little to offer. This would be T20 cricket redoubled, whether the innings contains 20 or 25 overs, and the only positive, if you may call it that, would be the truckload of runs. At the end of the day, in this variety, there would be 100 overs to be played and 40 wickets to work with. The total number of runs scored in the day, on the increasingly flat pitches of this era, would undoubtedly amount to the region of 800 to 900 runs. The only other advantage would be that fans would get to watch their favourite players bat twice on the same day.
Meanwhile, the split-innings version would add an entirely new dimension to the game in terms of strategy and player and team mindset. At the outset, teams might be clueless as to how exactly they must approach the first half of the innings, in the sense that whether the focus should be on quick runs or conserving wickets. Importantly, if the PowerPlays are redistributed to both the innings, the concept of slogging in the first and last 10 overs will get outdated. Also, teams might be better prepared to account of the weather conditions and the decision on how to pace the innings might undergo a transformation.
The most important change this format will bring out is a probable change in the batting lineup. Over the past century during which the various formats of cricket have been played, the basic structure of the batting lineup has stayed the same. In ODIs, the usual structure is one destructive opener, followed by a chain of stable batsmen, any of which may play the mainstay on the day, followed by a couple of explosive hitters lower down, and the tail. The only minute variations have been nightwatchmen in tests and the occasional use of a floater in ODIs to make use of the recent innovation, the batting PowerPlay.
The split-innings variety might just do away with this structure entirely. Since PowerPlay's will come at the start of both innings, and the batsmen at the crease at the conclusion of the first half will commence the second, the batting order may undergo a rethink. A lot of this also hinges on whether the same ball will be continued to be used in the second half, but since the ball changes around the 34th over in ODIs anyway, it makes much more sense to start the second half with a fresh ball. The most radical possible outcome of this innovation is the probable eradication of the "tail". It might make better sense to send in a couple of expendable bowlers in the first half and save the hitters for the second.
Finally, what I hope will emerge as the biggest trend from this variation is that teams might just evolve their own playing style. Other sports, like football for instance, are such, that the team is easily identifiable by their unique style. Some might have a naturally defensive tendency, some may favour breakaway attacks, some possession play, some aerial dominance, and the list is endless. Cricket badly lacks this multidimensional variety, as all teams have exactly the same strategy in ODIs, to make use of the first 15 overs for some quick runs, consolidate in the middle and explode once more at the end, with the recent introduction of the batting PowerPlay a minor change. What the split-innings variation might expose is a captain's, or team's mindset of when to go on the offensive and when to defend. For instance, some may, in the long run, prefer to play it safe in the first half and cover up in the second, while others may, more often than not, prefer the initial run-advantage, even if it is at a loss of a few extra wickets. If teams become easily identifiable by their style of play, cricket might just join sports like football as far as the diversity in strategy is concerned. At the moment, this diversity is restricted to the kind of bowling attack a team possess; whether the strength lies in the pace department, or spin is the stronger suit.
The possibilities are endless, and the only thing that remains to be done is experimentation. Unfortunately, the biggest change in this format would be the evolution of strategy, and the evolution of strategy takes time. T20s are a ready example of this, and even now, a good 5 years since the first T20 was played, teams are still experimenting and developing new tactics. Ideally, one could say a decade is more than sufficient time in today's world for teams to come up with what suits them best. Even that may not be enough, for if we look at the concept of slogging during the field restrictions, something that Mark Greatbach and more popularly Sanath Jayasuriya pioneered almost 25 years after the format took root. In the end, we must accept that sport is a work in progress, and the success of a format will become evident only when it is put to trial.
As far as the other minor additions are concerned, such as the use of a Super Striker, the purist in me refuses to accept this concept. Cricket has always been a team game, and the Super Striker idea pretty much does away with that. In any case, such innovations will remain gimmicks more than anything else, and are unlikely to make an impact in the long run, just like the Super Sub rule that was introduced and scrapped in quick succession. In fact, there might be some exciting ideas to be picked up from test cricket that may meet success when applied in limited overs. For instance, a second-half declaration, or a follow-on might make the game so much more exciting.
What remains to be seen is how long it takes for the various national boards to sit up and take note of the need of the hour. Cricket Australia is currently the frontrunner as far as actually applying the variation in domestic matches is concerned, and, if they have it their way, we might just see the format played at the international stage as early as World Cup 2014 which will be played Down Under.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment