Dravid and Irfan Pathan walk out to initiate the Indian run-chase. Lara, soon to be replaced by supersub Collymore and playing in his last ODI tournament, steals a knowing glance at Sarwan as he is proven to be the one who got it right over the lunch table brainstorming. It was Virender Sehwag who accompanied a resurgent Mumbai veteran as opener in the India-South Africa match a few days back where they chased 350 and fell short by 23 runs mainly due to the end-over strikes of Andre Nel. Sarwan signals the number 'eight' to his fielders, indicating the plan to be adopted. (Reminds me of Javed Miandad intimidating English batsmen by shouting 'number 42' at a rampaging Qadir standing at the end of his run-up.)

By the way, Harbhajan was given this modified name in 2006 after the 'tight-fisted'ness of his bowling action extended to his economy rate, while the other stingy Singh is better known in cricket circles as Rudra 'Pigeon' Singh. And the Mumbai veteran is none other than Ajit Agarkar.

Welcome to the era of role based one-day cricket. Here in 2007 they also call it 'optimised' cricket . None of the above tactics are original; most are modified paragraphs from the 'brainwave' sections of dusty notebooks that numerous inventive one-day skippers had sparingly used to shock the cricket world out of dullness. Only recently in 2005 did one Mr. Greg Chappell start a process of compiling these ideas into a theory that, though yet to assume a concrete form, has already started yielding effective results around the world.

The theory is simple: instead of jotting down the order of playing (batting or bowling) before a ball is bowled and forcing the players to alter their natural styles to comply with the prevalent situation, it may be worthwhile to fix specific roles for the players and order them suitably, as the match script unfolds, wherever their natural styles are most suited.

The job of team management now requires an additional skill that can be roughly equated to selecting the cast for a play from a pool of actors, each of whom can carry off a few types of roles and has the capacity to excel in a particular type. Selection of an actor for a character in a particular play depends on his identified potential at fulfilling the requirements of that character. And his stage entry shall happen when the script requires that character to be brought on. For a different script, the entry point needs to be different.

Complex? Simply so. For most teams having 8 players who can bat and 7 who can bowl, this roughly works out to 28 opening batsmen combinations and 21 bowling combinations to choose from. That is why coaches of one-day teams today add a bit more to the team's fortunes than the '5%' that the eldest of the Chappells allowed for. And in case you are interested in tidbits, this issue is threatening to re-start the famed backyard arm-twisting war between the greying siblings.

Oh yes, before I log off the crystal ball I must mention that one-day cricket in 2007 is somewhat more interesting. For the renewed unpredictability, if not for anything else.

Really superb article....

Angshuman Hazra,
congrats for your great innovation in your imagination... This article brings out the various positive strategic thinking in Cricket...
Really good..

Very very good article. You have hit the nail bang-on. It would be difficult to find a more precise explanation than that, of GC's thinking.

Great imaginative article!
Hope to see this kind of cricket soon, where the oppposite team would always be kept guessing..

Very interesting piece. Joking apart, though, surely now is the right time for GC to experiment. If not now, when?

Very nice post. IMHO, 50-over cricket needs these innovations to survive.

One stray observation. Does one day (i.e. 50 overs a side) cricket really need to survive, what with the coming in of 20-20? Again IMHO, test cricket is for the purist, where you get to see classical cricket at its best. You see a mental game, with tactical battles between the bat and the ball, individual battles within (and adding up to compose) the war that is a Test match. On the other hand, 20-20 invokes the extreme opposite passion, that of pure thrill-a-minute and genuine adrenaline. What they call paisa-vasool. In between the two of these, where does 50-over-a-side cricket stand? It does not thrill consistently for all the 100 overs, and is not an advertisement for classical cricket the way Test cricket is. Do we need 50-overs-a-side cricket at all? Why? What does 50-overs-a-side cricket have to offer that either of Test cricket and 20-20 does not?

Dear Sin Pin,
Valid questions there. As of now the main plus for 50 over cricket is its ability to accomodate a quadrennial showpiece which is a nice compromise between thrill and substance. No one knows the true potential of 20-20 though. God save 50 over cricket if the sub-continent takes to its youngest sibling.

wonderful crafting of words stitched into a great peice.

good work angshu, cheers

Great piece of imaginative article, Mr.Angshuman. If the imaginative theory is extended further, there will be a hoard of Computer-savvy cricket analyst sitting by the side of the coach during matches to chalk out not only plans A,B.C etc but 49 plans (28 while bowling and 21 while batting) and more. It will keep the players and the fans not only guessing but also tearing apart their cloths.

Superb