November 11, 2009

Posted by Cricinfo at in Twenty20

Restructure the game around Twenty20

From Geoff Willetts, United Kingdom

	Club cricket could well be the wave of the future © Global Cricket Ventures-BCCI

Much has been made in recent weeks of the need to rejuvenate the traditional forms of cricket. In the case of Test cricket, there have been suggestions of Test championships, night-time games with coloured balls, and reducing the number of days from five to four. In the one- day arena, there have been an even greater number of “innovative” ideas, such as split-innings of 25 overs each, reducing innings to 40 overs a side, more Powerplays, less Powerplays, and removal of bowling and fielding restrictions.

To get to the heart of the matter, the force behind this drive for change - as so often is the way - is money. Every sport needs to grow to survive. The ICC’s route to growth has been to significantly increase the overall number of international matches played, particularly in recent times with seven-match one day series becoming more common.

It is a continuation of a trend, however. In the last ten years there have been on average around 140 games of one-day cricket played per year, an almost 50% increase in matches per year when compared to the ten years from 1989-99. Unfortunately for the ICC, the size of the traditional supporter’s wallet has not grown at the same rate, and perhaps neither has their enthusiasm. Hence, to fill the stadium twice as often, and retain the same number of TV viewers per game, probably requires a market comprising twice as many cricket enthusiasts.

So, how to broaden the appeal of cricket? The rejuvenation suggestions mooted above have all been made in the name of increasing the interest of the game to the masses. The goal has been to try and introduce more excitement into what has always been a purist’s sport - one complete with its own set of complicated rules, statistics, and jargon.

Looking at other sporting codes, some have done it well, others not so well. Baseball is an example where teams can now play more than 160 games per year, any night of the week. Matches are typically played in packed stadiums even though games can be long, boring, the outcomes predictable, and with a number of dead rubbers.

Football is the same. In the UK, the big premiership clubs play 60-odd games per season, and every year the same teams inevitably dominate. Still each game is passionately supported by thousands of fans. A third example, rugby league, also prospered in Australia well beyond its original “working class” fan base.

The formats and rules for these sports have not changed significantly in recent history, yet the crowds still show up, every week. The three examples above all have one major thing in common: simplicity. You can explain the sport and its basic rules to someone who knows next to nothing about it in around 60 seconds.

Cricket is not simple - say the words “dead ball”, “reverse-sweep”, “LBW”, “silly mid-on” and “batting Powerplay” to the average American and their eyes glaze over. That’s before you tell them games can last five days and be declared a draw at the end.

In its present form rugby union is not simple either. Like cricket, it has been dogged by dwindling support in recent years. Both codes have made repeated attempts to improve their respective spectacles, and whenever this has resulted in increasing the complexity of the game, they have failed. An easy lesson for cricket’s administrators is therefore if you must do anything, then simpler is better.

Realistically, simplification of one-day cricket and “commercialising” Test cricket (a euphemism for day-night excursions) will not be enough to allow cricket to grow to meet the escalating financial demands of the game’s administrators. Stadiums need to be filled, and games that last a minimum of seven hours simply won’t cut it - even in the most simplified form imaginable.

This is where Twenty20 comes in. Twenty20 is the only true vehicle to grow the appeal of the game beyond the niche market that is one-day and Test cricket. Administrators have made no secret of their efforts to be “careful” to not saturate the market with Twenty20 matches. Too much Twenty20, they believe, will result in a failure to preserve the sanctity of the traditional forms of the game.

I would argue that limiting Twenty20 puts unsustainable pressure on the traditional formats to meet growth targets. The only option available is to tamper with the traditional form of the game, pushing it further away from its roots. How do you cater to the marked demand?

Increase the number of Twenty20 matches. This is the money spinner that will effectively fund Test and one-day cricket for the purists.

Play less “meaningless” one-day cricket, with shorter bilateral series and points systems that contribute to tournament seedings.

Continue to play Test cricket as it is today, but ensure a spread of games where the top teams don’t only play each other as often, and the likes of Sri Lanka, West Indies and New Zealand play more games.

Done this way, the masses would get to see the games they are interested in, and the purists can still enjoy the traditional formats the way they are.

Now here is where the radical ideas begin. I would propose that the way to rejuvenate the game is to completely restructure it around Twenty20, where games are played once or twice a week (like football) for six months across a nine to ten-month season every year. This would allow for specific windows for Test and one-day cricket to then be created, and there would be additional rest periods for players as seasons overlap. Tests would count towards a Test championship, with a final to be played perhaps every 2-3 years, and one-day matches would all count towards seedings for World Cup and Champions Trophy style events that alternate every two years.

The club-based format, that has worked for most other sports, including football, rugby league, rugby union, baseball, NFL, AFL, ice hockey and basketball, would be the logical platform to do this. Additionally, a club-based format will enhance the relevance of international fixtures between countries, again in the same way as it does in football. The increased number of short Twenty20 games, coupled with a lower number of ODIs and shorter Test series spread across the year will relieve pressure on players complaining of burnout (though again, the baseballers playing 160 games a year don’t tend to complain about burnout, neither do the midfielders playing premiership football who run up to 15km per game, 60 times a year. But that’s an issue to be dealt with another time).

A model for the new system might look something like this:

Three Twenty20 premier leagues operate across different seasons around the world. These might be in India, Australia, and England (as examples)

Players play primarily for their Twenty20 club, and there are clubs from each of the eight major nations in every league. (For instance, New Zealand has a few teams in the Australian competition; Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh have teams in the Indian competition; and the West Indies and South Africa teams in the English competition)

Each club has a number of feeder “first-class” teams who play local Twenty20, first-class and one-day cricket throughout the season in an attempt to earn a place in both the club’s premier Twenty20 team and their national one-day and Test team.

Matches will be scheduled such that the top players are not always playing Twenty20 and there is time for some domestic first-class cricket.

International windows lasting three to four weeks (enough time for two-three Tests and three ODIs), occur at four points in the year, perhaps December/January, March/April, July/August, and October/November - whatever suits the seasons of the most international teams best. In between, the club Twenty20 and feeder matches are played.

There would be no requirement for a player to represent a club from his country, in the same way Europeans and South Americans play in the English Football leagues. Granted, this is quite a radical idea, and it is hard to see the ICC agreeing to its format and implementation, let alone the cricket boards and players of each of the major nations. There would be multiple obstacles to work out, including how to share revenues, player allegiances, salary issues, club v country debates and all the other things that sports such as football deal with today. But in football there is evidence that the idea can work, and work well.

Comments (17)

November 6, 2009

Posted by Cricinfo at in Twenty20

A cricketing renaissance

From Ram Srinivasan, United States

	Tillakaratne Dilshan shows off his innovative scoop shot © AFP

A lot of ink and bits have been spent discussing the evil that is Twenty20 and the IPL. However these primarily identify the effects of Twenty20 cricket, good or bad, on the players and the business of cricket. The focus here is different; understand the effect of Twenty20s on the game of cricket. Not the business of cricket.

Batting The batting equation has changed considerably. Ten wickets and twenty overs, instead of fifty overs. This has encouraged, or even forced, batsmen to dance on the thin line that separates recklessness and aggression. The most famous addition to the cricketing manual in recent years has been the Dilscoop. While it was pioneered by Tillakaratne Dilshan, it is fast catching on. I have had to sit through Lendl Simmons try, and miserably fail, to play the shot at least five times during the Champions League Twenty20.

The reverse-sweep, which has been the pariah of cricketing shots, is now legit and has been endowed citizenship status. Even as late as 2007, a batsman getting out on the reverse-sweep was morally culpable for any subsequent defeat. Twenty20 cricket has simply increased the percentage in the shot. First, with a number of captains (foolishly, if I might add) deciding to do away with the third man in Twenty20, the reward has increased. This has motivated players to practice the shot in the nets, reducing the risk in the shot.

I see a trend to exploit the vast uncovered expanse behind the wicketkeeper for runs. All recent innovations, the reverse-sweep, the upper-cut and the Dilscoop serve to illustrate my point.

Though Kevin Pietersen played the switch-hit first in an ODI, the key question here is whether he would have developed the shot if there were no Twenty20s. While the best answer to this can only be provided by the man himself, we can speculate. I might be wrong but barring the upper-cut, I can't think of a single new shot that was developed in the period 1990-2005. The Stanford game was announced and in less than a week KP unfurled his switch-hit. While precedence is no proof of causality, it is a strong indicator.

Bowling In gully cricket, we have a brand of bowlers called the Nerus. Nerus bowl with an offspinner’s, or left-arm orthodox bowler’s, action but the ball does not spin. They simply fire it into your legs. The word has its roots in the Tamil word near, which means straight. Nerus are now becoming a regular feature and case in point being Sulieman Benn, Chris Gayle and David Hussey. Real spinners like Harbhajan Singh are resorting to Nerus, the 2007 World Twenty20 semi-finals against Australia being an instance.

In terms of fast bowling, I have noticed two new weapons. The first is the 'oxymoronic' slow bouncer that has been used to good effect by Brett Lee, and with lesser success by Dale Steyn. The second is the slow yorker pioneered by Lasith Malinga that got him the first two in his four in four trick.

Tactical Twenty20 has been criticised for providing an unequal battleground between the bat and the ball. While 'unequal' is fairly subjective, and even if we do manage to agree on a universal definition I fail to see why this is of any concern. It is the same for both the teams.

The biggest effect of Twenty20 cricket, as I see it, is the return of spinners to prominence. During the Champions League, Nathan Hauritz did a Dipak Patel and opened the bowling for New South Wales. Even Dilshan opened the bowling for Delhi Daredevils, and less than a week before that Trinidad & Tobago played with three complete spinners, Sherwin Ganga, Dave Mohammed and Samuel Badree. What the World Twenty20s and the IPL have shown is that spinners are effective in keeping the runs down, either directly or by taking wickets, in the middle overs.

It would be wrong to claim that without Twenty20 cricket we would not have these innovations. Twenty20 has only fast tracked these into the cricketing game, and in the old order, they might have been spread over a decade or so.

As I see it, cricket, is undergoing a cultural movement akin to the Renaissance. In the spirit of individualism, players are realising their worth and shaping their own destiny. Coaching manuals, which were supposed to be scared, are being questioned. As established, we are undoubtedly seeing a period of great innovations. What is missing is a sense of regard for classical antiquity, ie, Test cricket.

Comments (18)

October 20, 2009

Posted by Cricinfo at in Twenty20

Finetuning D/L method for Twenty20s

From Tim Parsons, United Kingdom

	How many Powerplay overs should West Indies have got in the rain-interrupted Twenty20 game against England? © Getty Images

I think the Duckworth-Lewis system for Twenty20 games needs reviewing. This occurred to me after England's World Twenty20 match against West Indies in June. To recap: England scored 161 in their 20 overs and, following a rain-delay, West Indies were set a revised target of 80 from nine overs. The number of Powerplay overs was reduced from six to three.

This was all mathematically logical, but the revised target presented West Indies with an easier target. To understand why, think about it this way. It is as if West Indies were told: you have already batted for eleven overs, the score is 81 for 0, and you have a further 80 runs to make to win. Not only that, but three of the remaining nine overs are Powerplay overs. Which team wouldn't accept that with open arms?

The reason why this target was too soft boils down to two things that make Twenty20 different from the 50-over game 1. Powerplay overs are much more valuable in most Twenty20 games than most 50-over games. 2. High scoring-rates can be more easily maintained for the lower number of overs you get in a reduced Twenty20 game. So, in the England-West Indies match, a fairer target would have been possibly nearer 85 or even 90 with no Powerplay overs left.

Here are two ways the ICC could tweak the D/L system for Twenty20 games. 1. Reduce the number of Powerplay overs in a linear rather than a proportionate way. By that I mean that if the number of overs remaining is halved, the number of Powerplay overs should not be halved but reduced by the number of total overs reduced. For example, if the number of overs is reduced by one, from 20 to 19, the number of Powerplay overs should be reduced by one, from six to five. This seems to me to be logical and mathematically justifiable 2. Consider recalibrating the maths slightly for the shortened version of the game to require proportionately higher scoring-rates as the number of overs remaining is reduced. I accept that the second suggestion is, for a layman like me, less easy to justify mathematically, but the first seems to me to be logical, mathematically understandable, and obvious. The D/L system has worked well in ODIs even though it is incomprehensible to the average person. I can live with that as long as it is logical. But if it comes to the point where the system is both incomprehensible and illogical then that is surely the time for it to be changed.

Comments (19)