The One Day Overhaul

What do we do with ODI Cricket?

One Day Cricket the literal middle child of Cricket. Years ago, it was the dynamic, young version of cricket that would bring in some interest to the great game of cricket. Face it, how much ever we all love test cricket, no one could claim to have the time to watch 5 days of action. The one day game made sense. But fast forward to our generation and ODIs are today where Tests were back then. No one has the time to watch an entire day of cricket. People want fast satisfaction, introduce the 20/20. All said and done, the format is a raging success (due in major part to the IPL). Test cricket now is strong and most matches have results. The influx of ODIs and Twenty 20's have ensured that the style of cricket has changed (Tests have gone down the road of old wine, I suppose). So, that leaves us to ask, what of ODIs? Does cricket really need 3 formats?

The number of experiments that have been done with ODI's over the years tend to suggest that there is a problem with the format. There is a cut that does not seem to heal. Think about it. ODI's started as a 60 over game and very soon it was cut down to 50 overs a side. That's the format that most of us would remember growing up. 50 overs a side, fielding restrictions in the first 15 overs, no bouncers and amazing cricket. ODI's in the 90's was a joy to watch, with enigmatic players and fierce rivalries. The generation of Waqar, Wasim, McGrath, Warne, Walsh, Ambrose, Donald ensured a balance between the bat and ball. Brilliant batsman emerged who destroyed them. It was all part of the fun. But as time went on, pitches became better, bowlers were not as special.ODI's lost their balance, batsmen started dominating and the changes came in thick and fast.The One Bouncer Per Over, allowing bowlers to use all their skills. The Super Sub, allowing captains to swap out a player at one time in the game. The Free Hit, you can't get out the ball after a no-ball. The Power Plays, changing up the 15 over fielding restrictions into 3 slots. The Batting Power Play, giving control of one of the power plays to the batting side. The Referral, letting players question the umpire's decision. Some of these changes were for the good. They made sense, the bouncers and the free hits improved the quality of the cricket. The Batting power play introduced a new tactical angle to the game.

But none of these changes have been able to address the major problem of ODIs. The Middle Overs.The time in the game between the fielding restrictions and the final 5-10 overs where the batting team consolidates and the the bowling team tries to get it's weaker bowlers out of the way. It produces some dull cricket. The problem has been exaggerated with the introduction of T20s. The reason T20s are a success because they just cut out the problem in the ODI game. It's just a shorter, faster version of it's predecessor. But, I feel the T20s are missing something. They are missing the soul of the game. The game is too fast. It does not provide a chance for the a player to test all his skills. It does not allow a plan to be formed. And although T20 is the format of choice today, all of us would agree that ODIs are something different. They have a place of their own. All of us will remember sitting in front of our TVs and bitting our nails during a thrilling ODI. But not too many of us can remember too many T20s.

England and South Africa have already changed their domestic one day competitions to 40 overs a side. Shorter the game, shorter the boredom? Hmm.. I don't think so. That may not be the answer. 40 overs or 50 overs. It does not make too much of a difference. If there is a talk of a over haul. Over haul it the right way. Turn it out side down, inside out. Come up with something new. Something that will work. So is there an answer?

So, what do we do? Cricket Australia thinks they have the answer. Make the ODI a mini Test match. Break it down into a 4 inning game of 25 overs each.Okay, it's not a revolutionary idea. It's one that's made it's rounds in cricket for a long time. It's been whispered and discussed but never tired out. So here's it's chance. But how would it work? It would be no better than 2 back to back T20's if the teams restarted each innings with all 10 wickets intact. Don't worry, CA has the solution. Not only would the new ODI format carry over the runs, but also the wickets lost in the previous innings.What that means is that a batsman can bat only once and the second innings could potentially see only tail enders at the wicket. This may produce some really lopsided contests.

I think the CA model warrants and honest trial. People are assuming that the second innings could see only tail enders bat. But that may not be the case. You may land up seeing that captains are smarter than that. If they loose 2 or 3 wickets in their first time out, they are going to send out the tail enders to hold up the innings, so that the rest of the batsmen can have another chance the second time around.There might be a total re-structure in the way a team is selected. They may want 3 openers, 2 middle order batsmen and 3 all rounders in each team to bring in the balance. But there are other things that they could try. This is a 4 inning game but each person gets to bat only once. Am also assuming that each bowler will get only 5 overs each. So why not split the wickets as well? You can loose only a maximum of 5 wickets in an innings. This will allow teams to use their batsmen strategically based on the nature of the nature of the game and the pitch. They would also need a new follow on rule. So if the team batting second does not get within 100 runs of the oppositions score they can be asked to follow on. Of course the innings victory concept would still remain, if the team batting second bowls out the opposition twice for less than their first total. This may be an amazing way to watch the player cope with the pressures of the test match in a single day.

The 2011 World cup in South Asia may be the last of it's kind if the trials go well and world cup doesn't. I don't know how many people will miss it and how many will embrace the brave new world. But I don't expect major changes overnight after the world cup because if the world cup goes well Haroon Logart said nothing would change. And in India I don't expect the World cup to be a disaster. But I don't think that's the right attitude. It's a good idea and it should be at least tried at the international level as an experiment in bi-lateral series. It will take time to evolve and it must be given that opportunity. Maybe it should be a choice for bi-lateral series for teams to decide what format of ODI's they want to play, that would help experiment with ideas a the highest level.

Well.. just my thoughts..Also read what Harsha Bhogle & Dean Jones had to say on Split innings One dayers... I think the first article has some really valid points. But Dean Jones' idea would dilute the quality of the competition.

Rahul..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POST SCRIPT: August 13th 2010 - Too many changes too soon.

Today, Cricket Australia (CA) announced that they have approved the Split innings one day competition for the upcoming one day season. The players are not happy that it will be all season long as they feel it will affect their World cup preparation, but the board says they have done what the fans want. That's not my problem with this change. The problem I have is with the number of changes they are making.

They could have just made the game 25 overs per side, with wickets carrying over, but they have tweaked it much more.. I think it will confuse players and fans. Here's the rundown of what they are doing,

• 45 overs a side - First innings will be 20 overs and the Second will be 25.

This one gives the second innings more time.
It makes sense. It's more important. It decides the game

• 12 players per side. Any 11 can bat and any 11 can field.

My biggest problem is with this change.
Cricket is a 11 man game. Stick to that.
This was tried before in a different way with the super sub and it didn't work.
Why again? It does not add value.

• Two Bouncers per over - Enough said.

This change is cool.

Enough of 400+ scores, go bounce those batsman out.

• 2 Balls throughout the game for each team

Really? - One new ball at each side which goes throughout both innings.
I don't know how this will work.
One ball may wear out more than the other, one may swing more than the other.
Where do you keep the other ball - with the umpire?

• 12 Overs for a bowler throughout the game

Yeah OK. So I need only 4 bowlers in the side.
That's good for most international teams, who don't play 5 bowlers anyway.
I think we may see teams playing just 3 specialist bowlers now.

• Insane Field Restrictions - Overs 1-5 = 2 fielders outside the circle; 6-20 = 4 outside; 21-25 = 2 outside, 26-45 = 4 outside & NO POWER PLAYS.

The first innings is slap, bang, boom and the second is supposed to even it out.
Yikes, all the best to the cricketers to remember this.
The power plays didn't add much to the game, it don't think it will be missed.

The trial is a big leap in itself. Why muddle with the entire game. This is trying to bite off more than you can chew. They are either trying to kill the idea or drive away the traditionalists. I still hope the trial goes well, but at the end of it some committee comes together and says, "Split innings makes sense, but these other rules don't".

Let me sign off with this quote from James Sutherland about the changes.

"The public told us to act and we have," he said. "The fans told us, through formal research, that they like ODI cricket best, but they want to see it refreshed and they want to see it with a short-form identity that is distinctively different from fast-emerging T20 cricket.

Read the entire article at Cricinfo

Rahul...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------