Cricinfo - Blogs - Rob's Lobs

The main drawback with the instant success of Twenty20 in the summer of 2003 was that it blinded the England and Wales Cricket Board to the possibilities proffered in Manchester. Admittedly, the sense that the 50-over variant sorely needed reinvention – and powerplays and substitutes would ultimately prove about as radical and useful as giving a leopard bigger spots – had yet to become as glaringly obvious as it is now. The excitement generated by Sanath Jayasuriya and Romesh Kaluwitherana’s thunderous opening alliances at the previous year’s World Cup had bought the format a few years’ breathing space.

As the pendulum swung ever further towards the batsmen, on the dubious and rather patronising premise that tomorrow’s audience could only be ensnared by an endless succession of sixes and fours, the impermanence of the 50-over game’s revival became ever more blatant. Since 1996, each World Cup has managed to outstrip its predecessor when it comes to generating apathy. That the ICC recognises as much can be gleaned from the rather unseemly haste to launch a Twenty20 World Cup.

But that doesn’t mean the panacea is beyond reproach. Nor even that the 50-over game should necessarily die. As it stands, the senior one-day form falls short in the most critical department: in the vast majority of cases, it deprives us of drama. By 1) belatedly getting shot of any restrictions on how many overs a bowler is permitted and 2) quartering games along the lines of that Old Trafford experiment (which was repeated spasmodically elsewhere before withering on the vine), or even allowing both teams two separate 25-over innings, there is a chance that the missing ingredient can be relocated.

In all likelihood, though, the 50-over format will be thanked for its services and given its gold watch, leaving Twenty20 to become the staple diet. In which case Mr Speed and his chums should instigate a major revamp. If the almighty US cultural dollar is valued as much as it seems to be, they could always go the whole hog and trim XIs to Xs and have nine alternate innings per side a la baseball, each expiring with the fall of a wicket. If, on the other hand, they want to restore the primacy of cricketing principles, so many of which have been consigned to the sacrificial bonfire, why not revert to two distinct innings per side?

This is also what Mr Fernando prescribes, along with the abolition of Duckworth-Lewis calculations in games of such brevity, thus preventing any more of these Ten10 or Five5 fiascos. You could even introduce a facility – let’s call it, oh, I don’t know, the “follow-on” – whereby, if the team batting second trails by, say, 50 runs, they could be asked to bat again straightaway. Team A might score 122-3 off their first 10, whereupon Team B limp to 54-6, then “follow-on” and rack up 134-6, leaving Team A chasing 67. The possibilities, if not endless, should certainly be pretty extensive. And it could still all be done and dusted inside three hours.

This is a rare opportunity – make that a unique one – for the game to profit by turning back the clock. It is also no job for the hesitant.

I was hesitant of the idea at 1st but you know what though this might actually be a good idea. Although, I think it be a waste of idea if used on twenty20... Twnety20's good as it is, but what about ODI's? Not that it really needs something new, it's fine the way it is, but this idea might make it even more exciting... This would probably help remove the "dull" middle overs, although powerplays aren't bad. Spinners would still come into play, and the same ball should be used for the who innings and should not be changed after 25 overs. Each team gets one new ball like it is now. Each 25's would be called a quarter as in 1st quarter, 2nd quarter, halftime, 3rd quarter and 4th quarter. (Sorry I'm American, so our kind of think comes into the ideas.)

These are all good points. The main issue I have with cricket is, why tilt the game so gratuitously in favor of the batsmen? I am in favor of having two innings per side in an abbreviated form of the game, but if we are discussing a revamped game of cricket truer to its soul, why limit the number of overs for the bowlers?

The argument against that is that you could have the 2 best bowlers in the world in your side and have them bowl all 15 overs (in Mr. Fernando’s format) or all 20 in the current format. But so what? It is insulting to me that cricket administrators think it takes a four or six to entertain me. I would rather watch an absorbing contest between bat and ball.

It is unlikely in this event that sides will play 9 batsmen and 2 bowlers who can bowl economically. Any batsman has to get in and it is in the best interests of any batsman to spend as much time at the crease as possible. Given this, it will be difficult to lose more than 5 or 6 wickets in 15/20 overs. So 9 batsmen are unnecessary.

I doubt that allowing unlimited overs for the bowlers will change the composition of teams too much. The best bowler in the world can have a bad day or unfavorable conditions. Playing 3 or 4 is more logical.

But it will even out the contest between bat and ball and make cricket, cricket again.

I am sorry but the idea is ridiculous! continuity both for the players and the spectators would be an issue here. Instead of parting the game right down the middle and which could take the spectators out of it not to mention the delays that could be caused due to it.

The cry about the batsmen game could be addressed by actually using two new balls in one innings for 25 overs each. This way no matter how spongy the surface being played on there will always be something for the bowler to look forward to. However the scores of 300+ will become a thing of past but At least it will become a little more interesting.

As per the American "we don't care about this sport"-as an American I would say there is a ton of interest in the sport, yet nowhere to play it. There is only one place where I live (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) that has an actual cricket pitch, which is without boundaries and on a school ground miles from the center of town. The interest is there for expanding the market, at least in the midwest, all we need is somewhere to play it.

Having said that, the two innings idea would help to segway from baseball to cricket in a short amount of time (say, four or five hours) for the stubborn few who can't learn the sport as is. I like it.

Rob, Rob, Rob. If you're going to make fun of baseball, at least do it correctly. There are nine players on a baseball team, not ten. :-)
I think regardless of the number of overs or innings, the game needs to be playable in 3 hours to get any significant number of casual spectators.
One of the marketing angles that has not been tried is to set cricket up as a contrast to the high-pressure youth sports that are far too common in American suburbia. There's starting to be a significant backlash against year-round traveling soccer teams, little-league dads, parents suing coaches, and all that mess. The gentility of cricket is a natural asset for wooing that disaffected population.

I don't think most sports fans in the US would be necessarily against cricket before or after the fact. But both OneMK and Aditya are right: nobody knows what the game is over here, and probably only encounter it on trips abroad; when you do get the taste for it, you can't play it or get it for Playstation or find DVDs easily - if you think baseball is "dumbed down," watch as we Yanks blindly order stuff from cricshop in PAL format.

But look, there's nothing so "dumb" or fast-paced about baseball that one-day cricket has to change substantially to appeal to the American dollar. Baseball's a slow game, stands are often empty, they pack 100+ games into the summer even before the championship series, there's a bunch of traditionalist (nativist, really) silliness associated with it. It also has a long amateur tradition, and a nice park like Camden Yards is a great excuse to blow off work and drink beer. In other words, it's similar to cricket in more ways than the fact there's a bat and ball, and it's not different for being jazzed-up or dumbed down or whatever point Rob's trying to make there. I do love the two-innings idea though.

The problem with cricket over here is that it's a game played only by expats, and the cultural atmosphere is a little iffy over here right now. I don't think it's any coincidence that Bush having a session in the nets w/ the Pakistani team wasn't exactly the biggest photo op he's had, abroad, or that news stories @ Woolmer's death led into seemingly unrelated stories @ the Caribbean as the "new terror center." Maybe you're better off without our cash.

It's a pity, too, because - with all the stories about self-centered athletes and rageaholic parents at little-league/peewee football games (hockey too), cricket's the one game that puts an emphasis on good conduct. You'd think cultural conservatives would be all over that.

I frankly don't care qhat happens to one-day cricket as long as what goes on in the test world carries on without the interference of morons.

I will say this, though: county twenty20 is A) a great money-spinner that allows what is admittedly a minority interest sport in test cricket to flourish, and B)a good way to bring people into live cricket who wouldn't otherwise have had the opportunity. A working dad would not be able to take his son to a day of championship cricket, but could well go to three hours of twenty20 in the evening. However, whilst I am in favour of the super short form of the game in domestic cricket, having inernational versions devalues the concept of international cricket.

I'm honored that my suggestion to make the limited overs games 2 innings per side has sparked so much comments, but as it is quite clear it is neither a unique nor an original idea.

I quite agree with WB's comments that we seem to have forgotten the bowlers in the current limited over games. ICC has forgotten that this is a contest between the bat and the __ball__. They seem to think it should be to figure out who can slog the ball the most. Keep that up and we won't have any kids aspiring to be bowlers. Why bother when the format of the game and the playing field are stacked against you?

Make the overs-per-bowler limit such that a team is forced to include at least 3 good bowlers. Yet, a team that includes only 3 bowlers is asking for trouble if one or two of them were to have a bad day, so they will be forced to include 4 specialist bowlers. So, a team would consist of 4 specialist batsmen, a wicketkeeper, 2 batsmen who can bowl well, and 4 specialist bowlers.

And, let's not make so many "batting" pitches. A bowler-friendly wicket will force the batsmen to go back their cricket fundamentals and play proper shots rather than baseball slogs.

Marketing this sports in USofA would be easier than a lot of people perceive it to be. Hit the ball and run is not an idea that is new here therefore it could be relied upon to give game a boost.

Partneships with baslball league could do a lot of good for the game to make inroads in this new market. Expatriats of all the major cricket playing nations could be relied upon to supply the boost at the grass root level. I must admit that 20/20 would be the ideal way to market the game in US. ICC should have sense enough to see that it has every potential to become the golden goose. They should pore in all that money they have made over past years. Champion teams should play here to stir up the local interest. But I guess they are too busy blowing money away in all the wrong places.

If the main motivation behind scrapping/radically changing the 50 over format and replacing it with Twenty20 is to attract an American audience (along with the accompanying fortune from advertising revenue)I think it is fundamentally flawed.

As bitter a pill it might be for the ICC to swallow, they must realize that Americans genuinely do not care about anything other than basketball, football and baseball. Unless the ICC has the fortitude to recruit Lebron James, Peyton Manning & Sidney Crosby and put them through a rigorous cricket-training program there is absolutely no way they will ever garner any interest from anyone other than the Indo-Pak community in North America.

Allen Sanford..I hope you're reading this!