Thursday, June 30, 2005
One day Cricket match will try out new rules
Even though Cricket is a game which you could consider to be "conservative", it does have its own share of experimentation and evolution. Why am I referring to "conservative" here ? To put things in perspective; it is a game where the "body of cricket" is traditional, in trying to preserve the evolution of the game. Even though the shorter version of the game (One day match) has soured in popularity, many critics (who happen to be the cricket pundits and former cricketers) have trouble accepting this. Another area, is the use of "technology", with TV instant replays and Hawk-Eye (a system which tracks the path of the ball and then predicts its trajectory had it not been intercepted by the batsman), only recently was a third umpire allowed to look at close decisions and that too in a limited way (review run outs mostly). Umpires are humans after all! For many, use of technology seems to take away the credibility of the umpires. For some introducing these new "unknown" gadgets seems to be polluting the "game of cricket". If one looks at the "LBW" rule of the game (which has changed over the years) has a very complicated set of guidelines ( if I may use this word here), that ultimately the decision hangs in the "eyes of the umpire" only. The bigger version (test cricket) of the game has bearly evolved over the years. Imagine former cricket players used to be injured, since they were "not allowed" to wear protecting head gears many years ago. There are many who have been disabled because of this. I am sure the reader if not convinced before reading this, should now be convinced about why I used "conservative" in the beginning. So much on this sub topic.
Recently, two new rules would be experimented in the one day Natwest Finals between Australia and England currently in progress. For those who have not heard about this yet, the 15 over field restriction would be reduced to 10 overs in the beginning of the innings, then the fielding captain could choose to implement the restricted field twice (5 overs) anytime in the remaining overs of the match. The other new rule is the 12th player (substitute) who is allowed into playing the game, anytime of the game. These changes are being considered to make the match more exciting since many consider the game less exciting in the middle overs of the match where teams are mostly defending their wickets instead of scoring runs. Hmmmmm.............. interesting changes! Some pundits are already against this since they some how think this is "Americanizing" the game of cricket. Looking at these new rules, how is this going to change the game. Well since the captain and/or team think tank will be making the decisions, they could go either way. Looking at it from purely the entertainment point of view, the chances of these rules making the game more entertaining is good. Team selection now would be a very different ball game not only because of the 12th player, but teams with more attacking middle order and seven batsmen would become more common. It also makes the "toss" much more vital in influencing the outcome of the match. However if teams choose to use an extra bowler (12th man) as in the case of India, they usually play 7 batsmen and 4 bowlers with Dravid behind the stumps, it would bring an interesting balance. It also would encourage more all rounders to emerge since a 12th man (all rounder) could be good choice for many captains who would like to play it safe and not want to speculate on the outcome of the toss. Even though if these new rules could be used in a positive way which could potentially make the game more interesting, there is always a chance of teams misusing this. Teams could use this to cover up for out of form batsmen, or not so good fielders, or simply swap players out who are just having a bad day in the field. I would think the success or failure of this especially the 12th man change, would greatly depend on how the majorty of the teams put them to use.
Every one is entitled to their opinions, while some choose not to comment on these types of changes and allow things to play out. There are others who want to focus on the positive changes, while some say "don't fix it if it ain't broken". Many others support trying out new things. Will these changes become an integral part of the one dayers? Would the "conservative" "body of cricket" would resist this from the word go and ultimately seal the fate not giving this enough time? Whether these changes would make the game more interesting? Or whether the new rules get shelved due to its unpopularity or not generating the expected excitement, only time will tell. Whatever the outcome, hey! I say "you simply don't know until you try it!"
