I am submitting a proposal for the complete overhaul of all the forms of Cricket to meet the challenges for the future. My proposal includes both Test Cricket and Limited Overs Cricket.
Proposal
1) Play Cricket in a continuous session of roughly 4 hours in a day, allowing only drink and injury breaks.
2) Have two formats of Cricket - Thirty-Thirty (T30) and Test Cricket.
3) Limit the number of wickets in an innings to 7. This allows specialization of skills.
4) T30 Cricket needs to be played as 30 over innings for two teams. The last man, 7th wicket, can bat till the end of 30 overs or till he gets out.
5) Test Cricket needs to be played in five days, each day with 60 overs. A team will be allowed 150 overs, which needs to be split into two separate innings whichever way the team wishes.
6) In Test Cricket, the team which scores more runs will win the match. If both score the same runs, it will be a tie. There will not be any draws.
7) In Test Cricket, the last man, 7th wicket, can bat only for 10 overs since the time the 6th wicket fell.
Detailed Study that led to the proposal
1) Introduction
Cricket, like most other sport, is an evolved game. People started playing "something" which was different from other sports. Rules were introduced around that "something". These rules were written, then rewritten. Any rule has its own shelf-life. Once the world changes, the rules that do not fit go out of the window. If the rules do not, the game itself goes out of the window.
Any game survives on satisfying the appetite of two segments of society- two segments that are in conflict with each other. Category-I is those who seek momentary time pass, they need action and drama. Category-II is those who seek innate beauty of the game- they want to savor the game, time after time, long after it is over. A game should be able to attract the large Category-I into its fold, and be able to sustain that interest through building up the small Category-II. Cricket, because of the unique style of play, has given birth to three different official formats in this process. I do not have to discuss deeper on any of these formats, as everyone who follows Cricket is aware of them.
The only thing that needs mention is the confusion which has resulted because of these different formats. Everyone knows T20 attracts Category-I people, but are equally aware of the lack of quality necessary for the Category-II. Everyone knows not only that Test Cricket is where the beauty of cricket is, but also that it is a complete failure to attract Category-I.
My humble attempt here is to identify the key parameters that need to be considered in order to clear the confusion about the different formats of Cricket and suggest an alternative format that optimizes these parameters.
2) Key factors considered
i) "Time" is the foremost factor that has hindered the popularity of Test Cricket, with all its beauty. Who wants to spend 30 hours across five days on a single game of Cricket? I do not have to discuss much on this aspect as everyone is aware of this.
ii) "Time of day" is another factor that needs attention. A weekend is always much better than a weekday. Evening is much better than noon. I do not have to go any deeper.
iii) "Competition" - this is what brings quality and life to the game. Competition is the realization of skills. People want to see real battle, not schoolboy scuffle. This is why Category-II does not like T20. In Cricket, competition involves both Bat vs. Ball and Team vs. Team. A corollary here is that more skillful should generally win. If you cannot differentiate skills through results, then much of the competition factor vanishes.
iv) A rather curious factor that has hindered the progress of Test Cricket is the "Result" - or the lack of it. I am actually surprised that this factor has not got the attention it requires. Why Test Cricket is dragging at times? The single most important factor is that teams can play for a Draw. Many teams approach a test match with an intention to "save" the match first, before thinking about winning it. This attitude has contributed a lot towards creating negativity around Test Cricket.
I have excluded factors such as location, weather, technology etc from my consideration- they are much more general than rules and formats of cricket.
3) Optimizing the time.
What is the ideal time for playing a game of Cricket? The longer the game of Cricket, the more skillful it is. But people will not want infinite sporting game. So, how long are they ready to watch it? Why assume it is 20 overs? Why not 15? Why not 30? The answer to this question cannot be arbitrary. We need to approach it in a rational way. The answer lies in the way people approach any entertainment.
How long can a set of people dedicate themselves to entertainment in a day? I propose that people organize their daily lives according to "human sessions". A get-up-get-ready session in the morning; work-till-lunch session after that. An after-lunch session follows. Finally a let-me-relax evening session. My hypothesis is that any activity that spans two or more "human sessions" are deemed as "work", not as "entertainment". Need examples? Take tennis, movies, dance, parties, parades, circus- what not? Majority of the universal entertainments are contained in a single human session. This is my first proposition- cricket needs to be contained in a single human session.
On the other hand, people are always willing to stretch an entertainment session as much as possible. Why? Because entertainment is entertainment. You may not stretch your work. But you will always stretch your entertainment. You will buy a movie ticket assuming that it will last for three hours, but you are always prepared to watch it for four hours. You may get into a tennis match expecting a three-setter. But you will not be worried if it goes into the fourth hour and fifth set. This is my second proposition- cricket can afford to stretch a session as much as possible.
Combine the two propositions with the inherent nature of cricket to be more beautiful with more time. You get the optimal value for the time parameter- cricket needs to stretch as much possible within a human session. In other words, in a given day, cricket can take around 4 hours of time without seeming like a "long game". So, if 15 overs can be bowled in an hour, we are looking at 60 overs per day. You may include a break of 15 minutes, and another 15 minutes for time lags. So, we have a playing time of 4.5 hours a day. Sample play timings: 9 AM - 1.30 PM or 2 PM - 6.30 PM or 6 PM - 10.30 PM.
4) Optimizing the Time of day
This is pretty simple now. We need to find out a human session which allows maximum number of people to be entertained. Obviously, it is the time after 6 PM. But, if the technicalities do not allow it, we can switch to either the forenoon session or afternoon session depending on local habits and other external factors like weather.
5) Optimizing the Competition
Cricket is a battle between bat and ball. The more skillful the bowler and the batter are, the better the battle is going to be. It is always fascinating to watch Sachin, the batsman vs. Warne, the bowler. But it is not very fascinating to watch Warne, the batsman vs. Sachin, the bowler. Why? Because Sachin's primary skill is as a batsman, while Warne's is that of a bowler. If that is the case, why allow Sachin to bowl and Warne to bat?
This is my proposition- Cut-The-Crap from the game. Tail-enders need not bat; it does not add any quality to the game of Cricket. People do not generally pay to watch stroke play from Tail-enders. It may be entertaining because it may look funny, but Cricket can afford to avoid the "funny" parts, because it is more fun to watch being played very seriously. So, how many quality batsmen are there in a typical Cricket team? I would say 7. So, I suggest having only 7 wickets per team in an innings, instead of the 10 wickets. This would allow us to reduce a lot of playing time without affecting the quality of the game.
6) Optimizing the Result
Limited over Cricket seems more exciting largely because of one factor- that play progresses to a result; players are bound to be innovative to maintain a chance to win the game. It can be argued that Test Cricket at times seems out-of-touch with the world purely because of the lack of necessity for a result. Teams, more often than not, start with the attitude of securing a draw and then think of winning the game. This results in the absence of aggression very much required in sports. (Just to give an analogy, it is worth to recollect the kind of reaction from the public if a team plays for a draw in Soccer). It is high time that a result- win, lose or tie- is mandated on Test Cricket by rules. How can it be done? I will discuss later.
7) Optimizing the Form
In this section, we are going to combine the optimum value of the different parameters discussed above to bring out a format for Cricket, which is sustainable, marketable and pure.
How many formats Cricket need to have? We have already seen that Cricket can be played for 60 overs per day. So, 20 overs per side are "too short" and 50 overs per side are "too long". We can get rid of both these formats and replace with a T30 (Thirty-Thirty) cricket.
What about Test Cricket? Category-II people will not be satisfied with a T30 format, for sure. So, we will need a format that spans more than a day. Here, a curious fact needs to be considered: does it matter how many days a game is played, as long as we fit the play of a single day into a human session? Can we watch Tennis the entire week? Definitely yes, but the matches are different. We can watch five different movies on five different days. So, as long as the "action" is different, I believe that we can continue to watch a game of Cricket over five days. I a tightly contested Test, the action will be different on different days, so five days will not create a headache as such.
But why five days? Why not four? Why not six? Why not Ten? Let us make an assumption- Test Cricket needs to be long enough to be "proper cricket", but not a second longer. So, what is that timeframe?
The beauty of Test Cricket stems from the fact that it allows a batsman to stay in the wicket as long as he wants. The time factor does not play a big role. So, let us find out how much time the first 7 batsmen have spent in the crease in the test matches in the last decade. That should give us a clue on the surviving capability of the batsmen. Cricinfo stat guru says that during 2000s, for all the Tests, top order batsmen (nos 1-7) faced 784464 balls in 11094 innings, out of which 856 were not out. In Tests not drawn, 568045 balls were faced by them in 8602 innings, out of which were 570 were not out. For all test matches, balls per wicket are about 77. For result-matches, balls per wicket are about 71. So, this is my proposition- the "average surviving capability" of a top order batsman is around 12 overs.
So, what is the average number of overs in an innings required by the top order batsmen and top order bowlers to express their full skill set? It is 84 overs (12*7). Multiply that by 4, and you get the average number of overs required for a "good" test match - 336.
So, this is the conclusion: Going by the data from the last decade in Test Cricket, a 336 over Test Match is sufficient to express the qualities of the top batsmen and top bowlers.
Now, here is a catch. This average of 12 overs per top order batsman also depends on the fact that they played at times too slow because the result orientation was missing. Once a result has to be reached, batsmen are going to take a few more risks, and hence the surviving capability will definitely come down(A proof is the average number of balls faced by the top order batsmen in ODIs in 2000s- it is around 7 overs, after excluding not out innings. This is almost half of the Test Average). But I do not count want to incorporate this factor much into our equation- as there is a beauty in batsmen looking to occupy the crease more. However, I need to round off the 336 overs to fit into the number of days the Tests are going to be played. Going by our optimum value of 60 overs per day, we will need to play either 5 days (resulting in a 300 over Test Match) or 6 days (resulting in a 360 over Test Match) to watch quality Test Cricket. I will prefer to round off 336 to 300 overs, because we are going to mandate a result for every Test Match.
How do we enforce a result in a Test Match? My formula is simple- allow 150 overs per team. It is up to each team how do they want to split their 150 over quota into two innings. They can choose any option, whether 150+0, or 130+20 or 100+50 or even 29+121. Whichever team gets more runs wins the match. If they score the same runs, its a tie.
Now, does it sound like ODI? I would say no. First, there are only 7 wickets per innings. Even now, without any restrictions, teams struggle to last 100-120 overs in a good pitch with all 10 wickets. If they approach the 150 over match with the ODI mindset, I do not think that teams are going to complete their 150 overs with 14 wickets. They will need to bat it out like they do in Tests now.
At this juncture, I want to consider a fault with the 7 wickets approach. At present, the number 7 batsmen at least get a chance to bat along with the tail and make some runs. In a 7-wicket innings, the last man may be denied even a single ball. Mind you, it is an established batsman that we are talking about. Can you imagine a situation where Gilchrist or Dhoni walks out to bat, and goes back frequently without facing many balls? This situation may kill the skills, and needs to be avoided. What is the solution?
I have a simple solution- which I myself have seen many times being used in kids-cricket. We used to call it Last man-batting. The last guy bats till he gets out. I just want to add a condition- the last man can bat for 10 overs (very close to the average surviving capability) from the time the 6th wicket fell. So, if the 6th wicket went down in 56th over, the innings will windup either after 66th over, or when the 7th wicket falls. I believe that this simple approach gives fair opportunity for everybody in the team, yet does not introduce too many one-man shows. (A note here: it does not mean that the 7th guy in the team always gets only 10 overs. He would have to the crease at the fall of 5th wicket and might have already batted for hours. Also, it need not be always the 7th guy who gets to bat these mandatory 10 overs. The 7th guy would have gotten out as the 6th wicket and the not-out batsman on the other side, may be the 4th guy, needs to utilize these 10 overs).
8) Conclusion
So, here is the game of Cricket that I propose:
i) Play Cricket in a continuous session of roughly 4 hours in a day, allowing only drink and injury breaks.
ii) Have two formats of Cricket - Thirty-Thirty (T30) and Test Cricket.
iii) Limit the number of wickets in an innings to 7. This allows specialization of skills.
iv) T30 Cricket needs to be played as 30 over innings for two teams. The last man, 7th wicket, can bat till the end of 30 overs or till he gets out.
v) Test Cricket needs to be played in five days, each day with 60 overs. A team will be allowed 150 overs, which needs to be split into two separate innings whichever way the team wishes.
vi) In Test Cricket, the team which scores more runs in 150 overs will win the match. If both score the same runs, it will be a tie. There will not be any draws.
vii) In Test Cricket, the last man, 7th wicket, can bat only for 10 overs since the time the 6th wicket fell.
No comments:
Post a Comment