Have a full game at any cost

For many years, the one-day international changed its shape from country to country, from tournament to tournament. It was played over 60 overs in England, 50 elsewhere. In shortened matches, the reckoning changed from the simple (the relative scores at the end of the over when the match was called off) to the slightly more sophisticated (run-rate multiplied by the number of overs played) to the complicated (Duckworth-Lewis). Initially there were no fielding circles or field restrictions or Powerplays. Most confusing of all, fine-tuning was a continuous process, and captains had to familiarise themselves with the changes every time they met new opponents.

Then came the common-sense call - regularise or perish. Soon the ICC stepped in, and the rules were standardised. Now it didn’t matter if you were playing in England or Australia or India or Sri Lanka. The same rules applied. This was good for television, no one was confused (except those trying to figure out D/L, but that was seen early as an occupational hazard).

Then came the lights, and it was assumed the one-day game had overcome one of the natural handicaps of the game, its dependence on natural light. Test cricket would be played in varied conditions, the differences in the venues, clay content in the soil, latitude and so on being part of its charm; true champions triumphed whatever the conditions. The shorter game meanwhile moved towards greater homogeneity, and for a while there was some thought given to drop-in pitches which would take away yet another imponderable from the game.

It is natural to assume that it is the duty of those who rule the game a) to ensure that a full game is played as far as possible b) to give the paying public a full game c) to use whatever is available to ensure both of the above – eg: lights, retractable roof in case of rain.

And yet the third one-dayer in Kanpur, played to a full house, left a bad taste in the mouth because neither the game nor the paying spectator was taken into consideration. Time was wasted in the morning, and lights were not switched on in the afternoon to finish the game because the teams had not reached such an agreement.

When rules go against common sense, they ought to be ditched. The paying public is gradually moving out of the frame where cricket is concerned, and that is not good for the game. Boards no longer think the public is important, because their money comes from television rights and corporate deals. But this is the same public that buys the toothpastes and the cars and the shoes that advertisers try to sell through cricket. To forget that is dangerous.

India won (they probably would have anyway); it was a well-planned victory (captain Dhoni knew from the start that D/L would make the difference and played accordingly), but in the end it was unsatisfying because a full game was not played when it could have been. It is time to tweak the rules again. Lights, roofs, water absorbers, whatever it takes to have a full game must be pressed into service. As the popular message on a t-shirt has it: If you’ve got it, flaunt it.

Read in App

Elevate your reading experience on ESPNcricinfo App.

Download App Now