Nick Bendel
How to fill cricket stadiums again
July 17th 2010 02:46
Several changes are going to be introduced in time for the coming domestic season, with a view to spreading them throughout the cricketing world. The aim is to arrest the declining popularity of the one-day international.
Although next year’s World Cup is going to be played under existing regulations, if even some of the changes find favour internationally, the 2015 tournament could end up looking very different.
One confirmed change is that teams will bat out their overs in two innings rather than one.
Furthermore, there are said to be quite a few other modifications being considered: reducing matches to 40 overs; giving teams 10 wickets at the start of both innings; allowing a single player dismissed in the first innings to return in the second; allowing bowlers to deliver as many overs as they like (provided a minimum of four are used per match); allowing bowlers more leeway with bouncers and leg-side wides; and making the fielding restrictions more onerous for the bowling side.
The changes, confirmed and proposed, may be divided into two categories: the orthodox and the gimmicky.
And therein lies the confusion. Embracing orthodox cricket to make the ODI more appealing would be exciting; resorting to gimmicks to seduce fans would be concerning. Sadly, it looks as though emphasis is going to be placed on the latter.
However the greater concern is that CA seems not to understand the essence of the problem. The reason for the steady decline in the popularity of ODIs can be simply explained: they generally seem pointless. With an ever-increasing number of meaningless fixtures being played, it is natural that people would lose interest. But the way to win them back is not by emphasising gimmicks; the way to win them back is by emphasising cricket.
First and foremost, CA should be campaigning to have the number of ODIs reduced. Fifty per cent of the matches could be cut from the international schedule and nobody would notice. This is nothing more than the commonest of common sense: reduce the supply of a product and demand increases.
More benefits would follow. Once players stopped being ceaselessly dragged from one corner of the world to the other to play matches that they care little about, they would be fresher, fitter and keener to play in those matches that remained on the schedule. So as the quantity of ODIs is reduced their quality would increase. And that, in turn, would further stimulate demand.
(Incidentally, slashing the one-day schedule would improve tests. Without so many meaningless 50-over games, touring teams would be able to return to the traditional practice of arriving in a country well before the start of a series, in order to play a reasonable number of warm-ups. Properly acclimatised, they would then have a greater chance of beating their hosts, making the tests more competitive and thus more appealing.)
Although playing fewer matches would be the most logical way to reinvigorate the ODI, that doesn’t mean that other changes shouldn’t also be considered. For that, CA must be congratulated – even if, as seems probable, not all their changes turn out to be sensible.
The general approach that the board should take is this: cricketing changes are worth considering, gimmicks are not.
For that reason, splitting ODIs into two innings is a wonderful, and long overdue, idea. In day-night matches, the team that bats under lights is at a disadvantage, so this simple change would immediately make contests fairer and thus closer and thus more exciting.
Another good idea is to improve the lot of the fielding side. Fans don’t only want to see close matches; they want to see matches in which there is an even contest between bat and ball. One hundred overs of slogging is mindless, even if it is somewhat redeemed by 10 tense overs at the end. By contrast, matches in which the advantage constantly ebbs and flows, in which first the bat, then the ball, then the bat and then the ball again is on top, produce drama from beginning to end.
For proof, we need only look at two of the most famous ODIs ever played. At Johannesburg in 2006, Australia belted the South Africans mercilessly for 50 overs, to accumulate 4-434. In reply, South Africa belted the Australians mercilessly for 50 overs, to accumulate 9-438, and win the game with a ball to spare. The finish was undoubtedly dramatic – but what about the other 90 overs?
Seven years earlier, the same two sides met in the semi-final of the World Cup in Edgbaston. Australia batted first, scoring 213; South Africa responded with the same score. And for the entire 100 overs, the match was in the balance, as the pendulum swung back and forth, between country and country, between batter and bowler, with none of the parties managing to get more than a nose in front before their advantage was nullified.
Administrators must be doing everything possible to produce more Edgbastons and fewer Johannesburgs. But gimmicks won’t make it happen; only orthodoxy will. In other words, administrators should be looking to make ODIs more like tests, not less.
An obvious start would be to allow the best bowlers to deliver more than 10 overs, something Ian Chappell has long campaigned for. Clearly, watching the Mitchell Johnsons of this world bowl is more appealing than watching the James Hopes’.
For the same reason, bowlers should be allowed more leeway with bouncers and leg-side wides. That would allow bowlers more opportunity to work batters over – one of the better features of test cricket – and reduce the flow of cheap runs – one of the worst features of one-day cricket.
(Moreover, administrators should insist that groundsmen abandon the practice of producing flat track after flat track, in which the bowlers are reduced to little more than glorified bowling machines. Even the contest between bat and ball and the ODI improves.)
While embracing cricketing fixes of this sort, CA must shun gimmicks. Just as supersubs and free hits haven’t increased interest in the 50-over game, neither will designated hitters (batters dismissed in the first innings allowed to return for the second). Tightening the fielding restrictions would make things harder for the bowling side, and thus make the contest between bat and ball more lopsided. Reducing matches to two lots of 20 overs would be a lazy attempt to exploit the popularity of twenty20 cricket. Fans watch this format because they want to see lots of action in a short amount of time, not because they have a spiritual attachment to the number 20. Similarly, giving teams 10 wickets at the start of both innings would be misguided; if fans want to watch twenty20 cricket, they’ll watch twenty20 cricket, rather than an ODI masquerading as a supersized T20.
The ODI has a problem, and it needs to be fixed. But to fix a problem, one must understand its cause. As ODIs have increasingly come to be seen not as a shortened form of traditional cricket, but as a cheap and crass bastardisation that seems to exist only to make money, people have been losing interest. Gimmicks will make the ODI seem even less like real cricket, and thus will only make the problem worse.
Fans of cricket, whether committed or casual, want to watch cricket – so why not give them cricket? Gimmicks might pique their interest in the short term, but once the novelty wears off, they’ll be seen for what they are. The solution to the problem of ODIs is not to trick people into watching them. It is to make them what they once were: cricket. After all, if cricket doesn’t respect itself, why would others?
| 346 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog