| Series | Countries | Live Scores | Fixtures | Results | News |
Features
|
Photos | Blogs | Statistics | Archive | Video & Audio | Games | Mobile | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rather than trimming a format slowly being reduced to un-coveted ashes, Cricket Australia is involved in a dramatic redesign of one-day cricket
Peter English
July 20, 2010
![]()
|
|||
|
Related Links
Peter English : Thumbs up, reluctantly
News : Lorgat, Hussey not convinced on one-day changes News : Cricket Australia considering radical one-day changes Players/Officials:
Michael Hussey
Teams:
Australia
|
|||
The 2009-10 Australian summer was a horrible one for ODI attendances but there were enough television viewers to satisfy the broadcasters. Having West Indies and Pakistan as the struggling drawcards didn't help, especially since it was only two seasons since the introduction of head-to-head contests to liven things up following the replacement of the 29-year-old tri-series. After 10 games in 29 days, with nine Australian wins and a no-result, there was overwhelming relief when the summer's ODI component finally died.
On January 5 it will be 40 years since one-day cricket was born, growing slowly initially until it exploded in the late 1970s. It changed the sport forever without becoming immortal. Phase three has occurred over the past decade with Twenty20 and it has quickly downgraded the revolutionary 50-over concept into a fight for survival.
Despite support from the ICC, which needs the genre for its lucrative World Cups, it seems impossible that the current format will remain recognisable. Former players, including Shane Warne, think it should perish and it would be no surprise if it was pensioned off in the next 10 years. South Africa and England don't compete in any 50-over one-day games at domestic level, preferring 40 overs to the international standard.
In Australia the administrators are currently planning much more than a simple 20% cutback. Rather than trimming a format slowly being reduced to un-coveted ashes, Cricket Australia is involved in a dramatic redesign in which all reasonable ideas - and some wacky ones - are being considered. Over the next month the proposal for split-innings fixtures, played over four 20-over pieces, will be formalised in the hope of partial implementation in next summer's FR Cup, the inter-state one-day tournament. A swift trial is necessary to start the persuading of the rest of the international world that this is a winning method for the 2015 World Cup, which will be hosted by Australia and New Zealand.
It means that many of the concepts that made addicts of a new generation of audiences over the past four decades will be ditched in favour of new flavours. Victor Richardson, grandfather to the Chappell brothers, was fond of saying everything in the game had been done before. It's not always true, but cricket is a sport that relies on recycling.
The starting point for Cricket Australia's re-inventors is an 80-over match split into quarters. Team A bats for 20 overs in the first and third innings and defends its score in the second and fourth segments. England played a split-innings tour match against a Western Australia XI in 1994-95, so the officials are looking back 16 years to go forward. That fixture was a one-off during a period when all sorts of games were being concocted to revive interest, including Super Eight and Cricket Max.
Split innings were trialled in an England 2nd XI competition this year with mixed, and obvious, results. Some games were close and exciting, others were one-sided and boring. Just like in two-innings 50-over affairs, Tests or backyard games.
Cricket Australia's aim is to increase strategy in the contest and make it less predictable. To do this they are discussing sensible ideas, such as two short-balls an over between shoulder and head height, and radical ones, like allowing a star batsman to bat twice. They want more excitement while being conscious of not drowning in gimmickry that will eliminate the project.
Sadly, what can't be changed quickly is the glut of meaningless fixtures because of scheduling commitments and long-term broadcasting deals. Television stations love the duration of one-day cricket and its end-of-over advertising slots; players and administrators are always talking about fewer games and greater context. Cricket Australia's figures for average ODI television audiences show more than 1 million viewers for eight of the past nine seasons. Last summer the number came down to 846,000.
Officials argue people switched off in all formats because Australia were dominating weak opponents. The ODI concerns peaked when West Indies lost their first three wickets within five overs in three of the five matches. A rainy night in Sydney was the main player in preventing a 5-0 result.
Making the game more strategic is a worthy pursuit, although no amount of potions and focus-group feedback can prevent a weak team from being outclassed. Three for 11 in the 55th over of a two-innings match still makes the game more interesting for longer than if a side suffers the same fate in the 25th over of a split fixture.
Celebrate the change of pace |
However, Cricket Australia says it knows what its fans want. The marketing department has conducted 1200 surveys with supporters, who continue to enjoy the ODI game but believe it needs updating. Test cricket remains the style those fans were most fanatical about, achieving a mark of 54% from respondents, putting it ahead of one-day cricket (52%) and Twenty20s (48%).
Crowds at one-day internationals have dropped over the past decade in which the style has been squeezed by the committed interest in Tests and the dramatic rise of Twenty20s. For Australia, the deepest trough came in February when the two ODIs against West Indies at the 90,000-seat MCG were watched by 25,463 and 15,538 people. Despite this the genre remains the version most people follow. "Interest is holding up, but it's an important opportunity to reinvigorate ODIs and improve them," Cricket Australia's marketing manager Julian Dunne says.
In the research Dunne has found that a key consideration is most Australian supporters want to see their team make runs. "If Australia bat second at the MCG the crowd is 25% higher," he says. "In split innings you get to see Australia bat and bowl at night." If the plan to employ a super striker is approved they will be able to watch David Warner or Ricky Ponting have two lives. That would make the casual supporter happier.
During a cross-country exercise - what the politicians would call a listening tour - Dunne and Geoff Allardice, Cricket Australia's operations manager, have been speaking to supporters, players, sponsors and broadcasters about the possible changes. A minimum of four bowlers to deliver the 40 overs, more generosity on legside wides and fewer fielders outside the inner circle are some of the admirable ideas. Dunne and Allardice acknowledge there are some shortcomings to the package, but are confident a plausible alternative to 50-over games can be ready by October.
If successful, it will mean there are five different forms of the game played in Australia this summer: five-day Tests, four-day Sheffield Shield contests, 100-over one-dayers, 80-over split innings affairs, and Twenty20s. Two of the formats will be applied in the same FR Cup competition as the organisers attempt to marry the new idea with the traditional structure so it will not hamper the Australian players' fine-tuning for the 2011 World Cup.
Cricket Australia's board will vote on the final submission next month and something very unusual - perhaps a committed revolt from the players; Michael Hussey says it doesn't sit right - would have to occur for the split-innings system not to be implemented. It took almost a century for Test cricket to gain a sibling, but the modern one-day game can now change in an off-season.
Cricket Australia is taking comments on the split-innings format. Place yours below.
| Comments have now been closed for this article |
||||||
Access your Indian Rupee earnings from anywhere in the world.
ICICI Bank Money2India brings " locked exchange rate" and a free gift
on registering and transfer of USD 250 and above.
FREE copy of Playfair with Wisden pre-order
At Cricshop.com
As one part of ODIs is about defending or attacking good batsmen (or batswomen), what about letting any batsmen out in the first 20 overs being allowed to bat again? Or allowing bowlers who get a wicket to bowl an additional over?
Posted by BionicBowler on (July 23 2010, 19:19 PM GMT)I think the split innings idea is simply a fairer way of distributing the overs available. Instead of 2 lives for one batsman per team I suggest that each team should be able to 'retire' any one of their star batsmen in order to 'rest' them for later in the game so 10 wickets available per side. This star batsman could take advantage of a tiring bowling attack...
Posted byHow does no one see that split innings won't change anything!!! Teams still will want to keep wickets in hand for the end of the overall batting, so the first 20 overs will inevitably become a period of settling in and not taking many risks, so there are more wickets for the end. Doesn't that happen currently??? There will be the odd game where one team makes 80 in their first innings, opposition scores 140 and then the first team is under pressure, but that happens in the 50 over game as well where sometimes teams lose a mountain of wickets early and rebuild or one team keeps motoring along through the whole innings. Split innings is stupid.
Posted by RodStark on (July 23 2010, 00:01 AM GMT)Kudos to CA for exploring new ideas! Cricket fans tend to be very conservative, but the game must keep evolving. I think we should start with looking at the current problems with the 50-over game. I think these are: Incomprehensible D-L targets/results. This could be resolved by alternating innings--the team ahead at the end of the last pair of completed innings wins. Why not four 10-over innings per team? Incomprehensible rules and restructions. I would get rid of all the artificial restrictions--powerplays, bouncer limits, overs per bowler restrictions. Boring middle overs, toss advantage, spectators don't get to see their team bat/bowl if they arrive late. Probably solved by the first two suggestions. A lot of this, I realize, is heading a bit towards baseball rules, but that might not be a bad thing. For example, in baseball, if the pitcher is on form and in good enough shape, he can pitch the entire game. Why not? Toss advantage
Posted by lucyferr on (July 22 2010, 17:17 PM GMT)Great move by Cricket Australia! ODIs need updating, and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. Now, about the bit "Team A bats for 20 overs in the first and third innings and defends its score in the second and fourth segments" ... I hope they also try the option of Team A batting in the first and fourth segments. That'll help eliminate the advantage of winning the toss.
Posted byI agree with Peter English. I love 50 Over ODI as it is. The real issue is too many games with little to no context. I remember, how long I had to wait for a new series (whether tests or ODIs) to start in my childhood and now it's hard to remember even glorious innings or bowling spells with nonstop cricket across 3 formats. My solution - Play less, allow players to give their best all the time, assign importance to every game and you'll have crowds in stands and eye balls on TV. Yes your revenue might hurt a bit but that won't kill the sport.
Posted by Rumour on (July 22 2010, 15:15 PM GMT)No matter what the format. If you play giants again dwarfs, the game will be boring. Keep 50 over cricket, it is brilliant.... Look back to the 3-3 result in the 6 matches OZ v SA last time around... Nothing wrong with the format, just think there should be proper tiers of cricket with promotion-relegation through tiers. Ensuring similar strength in squads
Posted by Metyl on (July 22 2010, 13:16 PM GMT)How about trying "attacking/defensive" teams, 11 fielders and 11 batters, so the best bowlers/fielders of one team are taking on the best batters of the other team and vice versa for the next innings. Players can play both fielding and batting if they are all rounders or a batting wicket keeper, so there doesn't have to be 22 players on a team.
Posted by govin.acs on (July 22 2010, 10:14 AM GMT)The split innings would be more interesting in a way that a team will divide its 12 (11+1) into two teams (with 4 batsmen and 2 bowlers) contributing in an innings....I feel it would be interesting to see the competition with the team as well...(though does not feel every team will do that). In case if the team played all its batsmen in the first innings, it is going to be really boring to watch the rest of the bowlers batting in the second innings. hence, I would feel having 6 wickets per innings would be more appropriate. (not sure if this rule is already implementedi n split innings). As youngAB said, having necessary free hits with in the innings will make matches more interesting than even T20s. We should also have the follow-on pattern implemented in split innings, just to make sure the team batting first does not overscore (which ends up in a one sided match with boring 3rd/4th innings). -
Posted by anurag23bhide on (July 22 2010, 09:43 AM GMT)there is no denying that ODIs need desperate reinvention for survival, and, more than the advent of T20, it is the inane scheduling of meaningless and unnecessary bilateral ODIs and triseries that has resulted in this situation. firstly, the administrators of the game must decide whether there really is any necessity to resuscitate a format that is dying a natural death. the viewers are losing interest, and there now remains just marquee event in the World Cup to play for. i suppose the need for sustenance is dictated more by the television channels and sponsors, for whom ODIs are still the #1 cash cows.