That clichéd retrospection- ODI rules and all that

The bowlers are in danger. They may lose their jobs… how!!!

Here’s how….

5^th January 1971- 24^th February 2010 there was only one… take a guess?

Only one double century in this period, by sachin tendulkar. Even for him it was seen a miracle, a once in a lifetime achievement. It was thought that that record will take SOME time to break.

Guess what… they were wrong

It took LITTLE time.

 From 2011 till now- Virender Sehwag, Rohit sharma, Rohit sharma (this is not a typo, he has scored two double centuries. What can I do? Once he starts hitting I guess he gets too lazy to stop.) And two more in this world cup by Chris Gayle and martin guptil.

Hmmm. Five double centuries in four years… not quite that once-in-a-lifetime-achievement anymore is it?

not that miracle achievement anymore ?

A few more boring stats.

Of these five, four have come after the new rules have started and three (excluding sachin’s) have come in India.

The new rules initiated by the ICC

1. The first rule came up in October 2011 where two new balls were used from each end alternatively.
2. From 30^th October 2012 only four men were outside the ring and they scrapped the bowling power play.

That’s all folks; u can open your eyes now.

These rules have supposedly come in response to the dwindling interest of crowd in ODIs and to rejuvenate the game and to make it more proactive. There was a developing trend between the overs 11 to 40 were the fielding team was happy to give four runs per over and the batting team was happy to take it.

 “I won’t hit too many boundaries during these 15-20 overs if you don’t take too many wickets.” 

“Agreed.”

It was good for the cricketers all around but it was not good for the crowd and for the ICC.

They saw their coffers dwindle and hence such action 

or was it so….

The two new balls. It’s a good thought. It works well in seaming conditions where spin doesn't play much of a role namely Australia, England, South Africa and New Zealand. But in the subcontinent, let’s just say it has made the bowlers into bowling machines as MS Dhoni rightly pointed out.

 Two new balls means the ball will swing for longer duration in bowler friendly conditions.

However it actually neutralizes the spinners as the ball doesn't get old enough to spin and mostly removes the reverse swing one gets around the 30^th over.The ICC then had to go and pull back a fielder into the 30 yard circle.

Just imagine the batsmen’s delight: its play time folks!!!

There have been, after this rule 96 games where 300 or more runs have been scored. This is ridiculous. 320 has become the new 260.

It’s not fun when we watch a match where 300-350 runs are being scored every alternate match.

It’s not fun when boundaries are scored of mistimed edges.

It’s fun watching AB De Villers, Kumar sangakkara bat and time those balls sweetly whereas it is not fun to see shahid afridi come in and mistime shots for six. 

Snjay Manjrekar correctly said that you didn't have to be an extraordinary hitter to score at ten runs per over at the back end, and only an extraordinary death bowler could restrict the opposition for less than ten per over.

It’s not fun when bowlers are being continuously hit around the park and are merely being reduced to just bowl and hope for the best. Bowlers are becoming more helpless in the game which already favours the batsmen.

There was actually a conflict inside the ICC for the implementation of these rules. India Pakistan and Bangladesh were against its implementation. Believe it or not BCCI couldn't stop its implementation and for once were on the losing side.

The game is losing its skill and becoming more of a power game now. Mistimed shots are falling in gaps. They are two games within an ODI innings now. The first- the accumulation and conserving wickets part until over number 35. the second- slog and try to double your score from over no.35 and bat the next 15 overs as if it is your last game of cricket.

 The rules were made to make the game more proactive, more free flowing, to bring out an attacking and aggressive brand of cricket by both sides.

However these rules have done better than they were intended for. As I previously stated, these rules have worked really well outside the subcontinent. It is, if i may be allowed to go technical, not easy to hit across the line in those conditions as there is more carry and bounce. if you are a tall bowler then nothing like it as one then gets all the bounce from the pitch. Sure, scores have increased but an attacking mindset also results into wickets and that extra fielder in the circle becomes an attacking option for the captain then.

Come the subcontinent and you need to look no further than the 2013 series between India and Australia which was a run-glut. Two scores above 350 being chased down by India, fastest Indian ton; a double century; you name it all of the records were being broken and made. A good -length ball is not so good any more.

                                            

the 2013 series- more a gully cricket series

MS dhoni started getting on a monotonous rant about how the bowlers were struggling. I bet that every post match conference in the last two years has dhoni beginning with “it is a challenge for the bowlers to ….”

In the subcontinent it just turns into a contest to see which side bowls less badly.

Intro’s over folks.(that’s it?)

Now the controversy – was this rule made to disable the sub continental teams from their strength- their spinners. As stats will tell you which I am not going to show(thank god!!!) the spinners haven’t really done all that badly at all. However they have surely turned from one who controls the game in the middle over- one who strangles the opposition and attacks- to one who simply tries to contain.

It is telling that Australia has won the world cup without a quality spinner. Was this rule meant to assist the host teams? Was it meant to neutralize the potency of sub continental spinners? The four fielder rule definitely provides and attacking edge for top-quality spinners who are ready to attack and go for a few runs in quest for wickets.
 The two new balls just removes that initiative.

The four fielder rule is good in removing those bits and pieces cricketers. It is helping in teams choosing players with a more specific skill-set. However in flat pitches what has happened is that the batsmen turn into something similar to playground bullies who bully and harass younger children (i.e. bowlers) into bowling to them who do so in hope of getting their batting turn, which they never do. (I know, believe me)

Let us take the example of Glenn Maxwell.

Glenn Maxwell is a prodigious talent. He has played unimaginable strokes with unnerving consistency for it to be called a fluke anymore . 

However I ask, is it possible for him to score, not in the rate that he has but in the areas that he has scored in if that fifth fielder was outside or if the ball was 28 to30 over old when it starts holding up on the pitch.

Probability says that he will, but not with his current consistency.

In the 70s and the 80s India and Pakistan were role-models for hockey. However in the introduction of AstroTurf the skill-driven game of the two couldn’t adapt and compete with the fast paced, power driven game of the Australians, the Dutch and the Germans.

Is something similar happening here? Mostly not. Indian hockey did not have the resources to adapt whereas Indian cricket is at its height. There are innumerable coaching centres and a well set infrastructure.

The next world cup is in England. Hmmm…..

Was this done to provide advantage and focus more on the power game of the Australians and to neutralize that skill, that unorthodoxy the subcontinent teams bring into their game.

I, however think that the ICC being what ICC is did this in a more commercial point of view. They did this to save ODI cricket i.e to maintain the revenue they get from it.

Economics of the game is a very important aspect but it shouldn't be at the cost of the skill and the art the game is based on.

We already have a power game in form of t20. we have a completely skill based game in form of test cricket. The connecting bridge is ODI-  skillful power, you could say. Lets not change too much of this game.

I think the two new ball rule and the four fielder rule do not go together in tandem. Either one has to be removed. I feel that the two-new ball rule should be scrapped- this promotes and encourages spinners and reverse swing and continue with the four fielder rule which encourages proactive play from both the teams and imaginatively attacking captaincy.

Writer Gideon Haigh made observation: from merely being a part of cricket, commerce had taken over the game. Cricket will only protect what it wants to protect.

A well played ODI should be a fulfilling and competing one between the bat and the bowl, and a satisfying one for the players and an exciting one for the crowd.

TO THE ICC

Ian Chappell says and I quote

 'If you want to captain this bloody team, you come and captain it. Allow me to captain. Don't try to captain with your bloody regulations.'"

Exactly.
Or else the bowlers will lose their jobs…..

Don't say i didn't warn you.