Yes a case has been made out. I didn't want it. I've enjoyed and drunk the elixir of good 50-over cricket through my boyhood. But now the devils want to spoil the broth akin to the shunning of ailing lepers. Only that 50- over cricket isn't affected with leprosy. The system is. A change devoid of necessity is a change for the worse. The discussion for change makes a good example for the proverb of too many cooks spoiling a meal. Or worse. Too many differing opinions in the operation theatre leads to disaster for the unfortunate. Tinkering is needed, i concur, but not in the game's style or pattern. But in the administration. Let me make it clear.
The first and the most obscene remedy i've heard so far is shortening to 40 overs an innings similar to the Pro40s played in England. This is neither going to pace up the game nor make it more competitive. A common man wont see any big advantage coming out of 20 lesser overs a match i.e roughly a 6 hour match instead over 7 hours. It will still have the middle overs where the ball wont get smacked every other over. And even for those not minding about the ball getting the leather damaged, and being satisfied with a competitive match, a 40 over version cannot be won by just pure slambang and decided on a spark of the moment. Consequently, superior quality of skills will be necessary again, and weaker teams will continue to struggle. Surprise seekers wont be treated with upsets and the same problems the 50 over format faces will resurface.
The second sacrilege being suggested is two innings a side of 25 overs each. This too is bound to fail. It is to be suggested that a paracetamol tablet can't cure everything. Similarly T20s ( or T25s, whatever!) is not the solution to everything. T20 cricket can be restricted for league tournaments like IPL etc, which is impossible to conduct on a 50 over scale, given the heavy international fixtures, which really are the souls of Cricket. A 25 overs test ( ok, let me not call it as test) will just give us two episodes of a T20. A team with a huge first inning total that has the team batting second in tatters, will have it easier than a one with the same situation in a 5 day test. The reason being that the team which batted second and collapsed will have to get a disproportionately higher score within limited overs to overcome the first inning deficit and set a respectable target.
The third suggestion doing the rounds is to relegate the bottom most teams among themselves and the associate members. I highly suspect that. When a permanent member plays an associate member, the associate will struggle to match standards. Why even Kenya struggled and lost 4-1 in a series to Zimbabwe recently, just to imagine the plight of associate members.Thus this sounds a very lame idea.
Considering all the above, its probably the safest bet not to change anything. Where change is needed is in the office. Everyone remembers the best days of 50 over Cricket as the period when teams matched more or less to one another, when each team has its unique USP and when each country's grounds had their own USP. From the swing battery of Pakistan, to the assembly of all-rounders in New Zealand, to the speed guns in the Carribean. And from the bounce floors of Australia, to the turning tops, green tops and seaming pitches that provided different testing conditions and varieties to the viewers. Repeated batting strips will provide viewers the same plot time and again. It is thus, vital that diversity is restored in cricket to bring back the same flavor that existed in the past and the same excitement that existed.
Also it would be of utmost importance for the ICC to take the necessary steps to spend some thought and money to make teams like West Indies and Zimbabwe stronger, and good enough to give a good match. It is the ICC that needs to do the necessary. Not Allan Stanford, not Lalit Modi. In this light, the Champions Trophy came at the right time. No, im not saying this because the Aussies won. I say so because it provided the highest quality competition seen in some while, was properly organized, and was devoid of dead rubbers, which could've been even better had a regular West Indies team participated. So, solve these niggles like contract problems, and 50 over Cricket will be fit again.
The first and the most obscene remedy i've heard so far is shortening to 40 overs an innings similar to the Pro40s played in England. This is neither going to pace up the game nor make it more competitive. A common man wont see any big advantage coming out of 20 lesser overs a match i.e roughly a 6 hour match instead over 7 hours. It will still have the middle overs where the ball wont get smacked every other over. And even for those not minding about the ball getting the leather damaged, and being satisfied with a competitive match, a 40 over version cannot be won by just pure slambang and decided on a spark of the moment. Consequently, superior quality of skills will be necessary again, and weaker teams will continue to struggle. Surprise seekers wont be treated with upsets and the same problems the 50 over format faces will resurface.
The second sacrilege being suggested is two innings a side of 25 overs each. This too is bound to fail. It is to be suggested that a paracetamol tablet can't cure everything. Similarly T20s ( or T25s, whatever!) is not the solution to everything. T20 cricket can be restricted for league tournaments like IPL etc, which is impossible to conduct on a 50 over scale, given the heavy international fixtures, which really are the souls of Cricket. A 25 overs test ( ok, let me not call it as test) will just give us two episodes of a T20. A team with a huge first inning total that has the team batting second in tatters, will have it easier than a one with the same situation in a 5 day test. The reason being that the team which batted second and collapsed will have to get a disproportionately higher score within limited overs to overcome the first inning deficit and set a respectable target.
The third suggestion doing the rounds is to relegate the bottom most teams among themselves and the associate members. I highly suspect that. When a permanent member plays an associate member, the associate will struggle to match standards. Why even Kenya struggled and lost 4-1 in a series to Zimbabwe recently, just to imagine the plight of associate members.Thus this sounds a very lame idea.
Considering all the above, its probably the safest bet not to change anything. Where change is needed is in the office. Everyone remembers the best days of 50 over Cricket as the period when teams matched more or less to one another, when each team has its unique USP and when each country's grounds had their own USP. From the swing battery of Pakistan, to the assembly of all-rounders in New Zealand, to the speed guns in the Carribean. And from the bounce floors of Australia, to the turning tops, green tops and seaming pitches that provided different testing conditions and varieties to the viewers. Repeated batting strips will provide viewers the same plot time and again. It is thus, vital that diversity is restored in cricket to bring back the same flavor that existed in the past and the same excitement that existed.
Also it would be of utmost importance for the ICC to take the necessary steps to spend some thought and money to make teams like West Indies and Zimbabwe stronger, and good enough to give a good match. It is the ICC that needs to do the necessary. Not Allan Stanford, not Lalit Modi. In this light, the Champions Trophy came at the right time. No, im not saying this because the Aussies won. I say so because it provided the highest quality competition seen in some while, was properly organized, and was devoid of dead rubbers, which could've been even better had a regular West Indies team participated. So, solve these niggles like contract problems, and 50 over Cricket will be fit again.
No comments:
Post a Comment