Indian domestic cricket February 14, 2011

Implement Ranji format for the shorter versions

The BCCI did well for Indian domestic cricket when they decided to scrap the redundant Ranji format of teams from a particular zone playing among themselves, before the top two could proceed to the knockouts

The BCCI did well for Indian domestic cricket when it decided to scrap the redundant Ranji format of teams from a particular zone playing among themselves, before the top two could proceed to the knockouts. While the system had been in place for long, it wasn't doing any good to improve either the standard of cricket or the quality of cricketers. In fact, since it's almost a given that a couple of teams in each Zone would be mediocre, the players from stronger teams often walked away with inflated figures, which of course wasn't a true reflection of their actual skill. Some of these performances, at times, went a long way in getting a nod for Duleep Trophy. After all, it's the number of runs and the wickets that count, however lopsided the contest may have been.

Even the quality of surfaces provided in certain Zones was not conducive to producing good cricketers. What does a batsman learn about playing the horizontal bat shots if the ball doesn't bounce above the knee-height regardless of the length? Or how do you possibly learn to tackle pace when you play on surfaces where, perhaps you can lean back and enjoy a cup of coffee, before the ball actually reaches the bat? If not the quality of the opposition, such surfaces are bound to make you an ordinary cricketer. Also, by restricting the games only to the Zone, you end up becoming a one-dimensional cricketer. For the longest time, the players from the North were better equipped in tackling the swing, while the men from South could only master playing spin.

And hence, the format was changed to Elite and Plate in which good teams played against each other on home and away basis. Now, you could learn to play the moving ball in Delhi's winter and also tackle the turner in Chennai in the same season.

If just a couple of changes in a format could reap exceptional results for domestic four-day matches, then why the delay in implementing them in the shorter formats? At the moment, domestic Twenty20s and fifty-over matches are being played within the Zone and the top two teams qualify for the knockouts. Obviously then, the lapses of the old format are still plaguing the development of these shorter games. The first round of domestic one-day matches gets over in 7-9 days, which is as gruelling as it can get. At times you play on two consecutive days, like we did here in Kanpur. Or you could be playing on alternate days, as it's done in the North, but the rest day is consumed by travelling from Chandigarh to Patiala.

When the Elite-Plate format has worked well for us, why the fixation with matches between teams within the Zone? It seems that while we have successfully adopted one format, we are still afraid of letting go of the other one. If we want to continuously evolve as a cricketing nation, we must keep evolving at all levels. If shelving a few tournaments or formats is the way forward, then so be it.

Former India opener Aakash Chopra is the author of Out of the Blue, an account of Rajasthan's 2010-11 Ranji Trophy victory. His website is here and his Twitter feed here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • testli5504537 on February 15, 2011, 17:19 GMT

    I have a suggestion for the Ranji game format. At present, Too many emphasis is on the first innings, hence the teams tend to bat out the opposition, making the game dull and added advantage for team winning the toss. My suggestion is that first innings for both teams should be restricted to a Maximum of 90 overs. The second innings can be of unrestricted no: of overs. This will enable 1)curators to go for a more plater-developing-true test-pitches 2) Batsmen- stroke players to display their talent in the first innings and grinders to take their guard in the second.. Bowlers - In the first innings they will have to try to get wickets and be economical and can go all out for wickets in the second innings. 3) Most of the games will have a result.. which will be good for the game and attract more crowds cons: ....

  • testli5504537 on February 15, 2011, 8:17 GMT

    I can't agree with you more Akash.It is a much needed change.

  • testli5504537 on February 15, 2011, 4:21 GMT

    maybe has something to do with scheduling? the longer games allow more time to travel while the shorter ones do not?

  • testli5504537 on February 15, 2011, 3:49 GMT

    Is cost a factor for not going the whole hog? Travelling away in a different zone may be a more expensive affair. Just guessing, you'd know better.

  • testli5504537 on February 15, 2011, 2:43 GMT

    There is still one more problem left unresolved by the new system. The knockout games. Why do you need those? The Ranji trophy champions should be those who have performed consistently against top teams throughout the season, not someone who slipped in through the back door, bowled well for a couple of sessions and took the first innings lead.

    There are no knockouts in the football leagues, for example. Teams play seriously throughout the league, and not follow strategies such as "Let's just get to the quarter finals, and then we will step up from there", or "We have already qualified for the quarter finals, let's rest our key players for the rest of the league matches."

  • testli5504537 on February 14, 2011, 9:49 GMT about developing some fast and bouncy tracks across the one we saw in bangalore in the warm up match wth aus...wont it help our cricketers...

  • testli5504537 on February 14, 2011, 8:42 GMT

    You seem to be right. I agree with you.

  • No featured comments at the moment.