Cricket regulations that could do with a tweak

Make the shortest format two-innings a side

Bring Test cricket's great strength to cricket's money-making format

Rob Steen

April 14, 2013

Comments: 55 | Text size: A | A

Akshath Reddy is bowled for 27, Sunrisers Hyderabad v Pune Warriors, IPL, Hyderabad, April 5, 2013
Have a 30- or 40-over affair with two 15- or 20-over innings for each team © BCCI
Enlarge

The doomsday scenario is all too visible. Within a decade or two, should those entrusted with running our precious game carry on careering down their current treacherous slope, T20 will be the only game in town, rippling with cheap thrills and uniform skills: McDonald's without even the pretence of nutritional value. We might as well call it bashball. To go forward we need to go back to basics.

Cricket hasn't always been a two-innings game, but at the risk of being branded a fascist, I would say the best of it is. Even if we set aside the dramatic possibilities, the very fact that everyone, in theory, gets a second chance is justification enough. Without wishing to get too philosophical on your bottoms, I can't think of a worthier message for any cultural activity to send.

Trouble is, attention spans are not what they were, so seducing new disciples is a big ask and a vast task. If Test cricket is to have any prospect of long-term survival, therefore, the shorter incarnations should, ideally, serve two functions: 1) Make pots of money, thereby funding the less punter-friendly format, and 2) Replicate as much of the latter as possible. As things stand, only the first of these is being fulfilled.

On one blindingly obvious level this should mean dispensing with all restrictions on the number of overs per bowler, always a distortion too far for this observer. Even more telling would be two innings per team.

It is hard not to suspect that, sooner or later, three formats will become two, so why not do what all struggling businesses do and opt for a merger?

A 30- or 40-over affair, with each team entitled to two separate 15- or 20-over innings, would placate those for whom the ten-over slog is a cartoon too far, while giving newcomers a feel for the intricacies, variations, tactics and strategies that make the five-day play the planet's finest anachronism, not to mention a potent antidote to all this fast-food, instant-gratification codswallop.

Granted, such contests might consume more time than a T20 match, but the enhanced number of gaps to sneak in adverts should in no way dismay the broadcasters, the tails that so efficiently wag the dog. Nor would it preclude single-innings fixtures.

Ultimately the number of overs is less relevant than the principle. Doubling the number of innings might not necessarily double the fun, but it could certainly go a long way towards convincing the coming generations that, as with life itself, playing and watching cricket is not about quick fixes and emotional extremes. It is about treating those twin impostors with equanimity, savouring the subtlety and variety, defying time's stormtroopers - and grabbing those second chances.

Rob Steen is a sportswriter and senior lecturer in sports journalism at the University of Brighton

RSS Feeds: Rob Steen

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by Foddy on (April 17, 2013, 6:06 GMT)

Forzaps: "Scrap ODIs. Create a world test league thats played over 1-2 years" And a lot of people say 5 days is too long . . . . . (sorry, couldn't resist that)

Posted by   on (April 16, 2013, 4:29 GMT)

I humbly disagree. There are people who want to watch a match in 3-4 hours, like most other major sports. A single t20 innings does that. No need to change this format. 50 over match is going to die out, IMO, since it has no obvious advantages over either tests or t20

Posted by Insult_2_Injury on (April 16, 2013, 3:19 GMT)

So prevalent now in the instant world is the knee jerk change because 'powers that be' have to be seen to be doing something in the face of 'overwhelming argument'. Apparently the quality of the 'argument' is no longer relevant. Are we seeing an irreversible move away from Test patronage to instant T20 gratification requiring massive structural changes, or are we seeing a short term (5 of 150 years of cricket history) fascination with a new toy? Will the improvement in quality of players from all nations improve the Test product and have spectators return? We may never know if we keep knee jerking .

Posted by Foddy on (April 16, 2013, 3:06 GMT)

Dark Harlequin and Romanticstud have good ideas, but perhaps they are over-complicating the situation. Instead of 2 x 15 over innings, how about 15 x 2 over innings, on the basis that if 2 is better than 1, 15 is very considerably better than 2? This would also maximise the potential of the whole exercise from a sponsor's point of view, since there will be 14 opportunities for extended advertising breaks, and it will be possible for more frequent re-assessment of strategies. And, to add an additional element, there will be an option to trade players (other than those actually batting at the time) between the 2 sides during any of the innings breaks.

Posted by Yuji9 on (April 16, 2013, 0:00 GMT)

@Spandan Biswal - so T20 displays the 'most diverse skill set' does it? Strange observations there but cricinfo seem to agree and as for #KK47 it may be impossible for YOU to absorb complexity over a period of time but do not assume to speak on behalf of others. You ask how many countries has Test cricket spread to? Since when is cricket's central philosophy supposed to be expansion and change? Why not play baseball? Seriously. You seem to think the aim of cricket should be to sell itself to the mainstream and become like the fast paced world. Cricket has always been an island in the mad storm of the world and something timeless and different. As for Rob Steen, can't you see that 3 need not become 2 and T20 need not clash with Tests if you would simply advocate for a split full-time. T20 is similar to a fat child demanding that an ancient yoga master needs to adapt, expand and meditate to music and cheer girls as he is not exciting for TV!!! Go away from the temple and build your own.

Posted by coachieballgames on (April 15, 2013, 19:33 GMT)

Totally agree. This is how I'd do it for T20; 20 overs a side BUT an innings break after the batting side loses 5 wickets or if 10 overs have been bowled--whichever comes first. However it's done, both ODIs and T20s need two innings for entertaining ebb and flow rather than the boring accumulate-and-chase model.

Posted by   on (April 15, 2013, 18:55 GMT)

Why change something that is not broken? I am a fan of test cricket for alost forty years and will always love it; but there is a place for T20. This is the first year I am watching the IPL and I love it. Yes, we can call it T20 Bashball if we want; but it has it place. Sadly, it might cause the demise of test cricket. But you have to give the consumer waht they want, and they want T20.

Comments have now been closed for this article

FeedbackTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Rob SteenClose
Rob Steen Rob Steen is a sportswriter and senior lecturer in sports journalism at the University of Brighton, whose books include biographies of Desmond Haynes and David Gower (Cricket Society Literary Award winner) and 500-1 - The Miracle of Headingley '81. His investigation for the Wisden Cricketer, "Whatever Happened to the Black Cricketer?", won the UK section of the 2005 EU Journalism Award "For diversity, against discrimination"

    'I never stole money, yet I was given five years'

Half a decade since his ban ended, Maurice Odumbe continues to live with the stigma of corruption. By Tim Wigmore

    Younis Khan and the art of scoring hundreds

Numbers Game: Only five Pakistanis have scored 15-plus hundreds, but his appetite for tons matches that of the best

From oranje to green and gold

Netherlands' batting mainstay Tom Cooper dreams of playing for Australia, his country of birth. By Peter Miller

'Gilchrist always looked to take on the spinners'

Modern Masters: Rahul Dravid and Sanjay Manjrekar discuss Adam Gilchrist's adaptability

The bias of umpires

Scott Oliver: Understanding the historical trends in decision-making might help you deal with your own iffy calls. Or maybe not

News | Features Last 7 days

How India weeds out its suspect actions

The BCCI set up a three-man committee to tackle the problem of chucking at age-group and domestic cricket, and it has produced significant results in five years

A rock, a hard place and the WICB

The board's latest standoff with its players has had embarrassing consequences internationally, so any resolution now needs to be approached thoughtfully

Twin Asian challenges await Australia

What Australia have not done since returning a fractured unit from India is head back to Asia to play an Asian team. Two of their major weaknesses - handling spin and reverse swing - will be tested in the UAE by Pakistan

Kohli back to old habits

Stats highlights from the fourth ODI between India and West Indies in Dharamsala

WICB must tread on eggshells with care

The WICB statement should cool down emotions and allow all parties involved to take the next step forward

News | Features Last 7 days