The One Day Cricket Conundrum

08Sep09

Tomorrow, English cricket supporters will get another chance to see their side take on the ‘old enemy’, Australia, in the third game of a seven-match One Day International series at the Rose Bowl in Hampshire. Games between England and Australia should always be a draw to both hardened fans and casual viewers, but the sense of apathy at overwhelming.

And who can blame them? Even the players seem disinterested. Certainly, England have been playing like a side to whom the one-day game is an annoying distraction from their celebrations. Even the new boys – bar the excellent Adil Rashid (above), whose performance at the Oval was hopefully an indication of future  international success in this format of the game – have looked a bit bored and non-plussed by the whole experience. Paul Collingwood recently summed up the mood of the nation when he stated, matter-of-factly, that the fans “aren’t interested” in this one day series. That says it all.

There was always likely to be a bit of an “Ashes hangover”, particularly considering the one-day form of the two sides. England are probably the most inconsistent one day cricket side in the world. On the rare occasions they get it right, they can be brilliant. Usually, though, they are mediocre at best, particularly in the batting stakes. They can’t set totals, chasing down even so-so scores seems nigh on impossible and they are prone to calamitous collapses. Without the hard-hitting antics of the mercurial Kevin Pietersen and always-injured Andrew Flintoff, England struggle to get anything over four-and-a-half runs an over. Of the current side, only Luke Wright can be classed as an out-and-out power player, and he’s as inconsistent as those above him.

Australia, meanwhile, as in flux as a one-day side. With their celebrated power players of old long retired and a clutch of youngsters still finding their feet, they are happy to play conservative cricket and grind out wins. They have some decent players in their ranks – vice-captain Clarke, fast-rising middle order star Callum Ferguson, the always entertaining Mitchell Johnson and  the nagging but effective Nathan Bracken and Shane Watson – but they are a shadow of their former selves. They are ranked fourth in the world for a reason.

For these reasons alone, you could forgive English sports fans for switching off and tuning out in their droves. But it is not just the make-up and style of the two sides, and the excitement of the recent Ashes test series that is causing such apathy in this corner of the cricketing word. It is the nature of one day international cricket itself.

The enormous success of Twenty20 cricket has shown up the 50-over format for what it is: drawn-out and predictable. Although the ICC has tried to counter the lopsided nature of games by tinkering with the rules to give batting sides a “five over powerplay” to be used whenever they like after the first 15 overs (this, for newcomers, is when the fielding side are allowed just three fielders outside of the inner ring, 20 metres from the wicket), it has done little to cure the problem they were trying to solve. 50-over matches are still usually decided within the first frenetic 15 overs and in 10 manic overs at the end, leaving 25 to 30 overs of dreary cricket in-between. It is occasionally different in the Asian sub-continent and on the flat, bouncy wickets of South Africa and Australia. Here you often see higher totals and more exciting run-chases, but in the dour, cold conditions usually found in England 50-over games more often than not drag on. Run-scoring can be difficult – especially against sides with good slower bowlers – so batsmen rotate the strike with endless singles while crowds opt for a mid-afternoon snooze.

One-day cricket is a huge money-spinner around the world, even in England. Test cricket is slowly dying in everywhere bar Australia, England and, on occasions, South Africa. Crowds are tiny and interest is almost non existent. One-day cricket – particularly the Twenty20 format – is the lifeblood of the game. It brings TV viewers, sponsorship and crowds, the three things that keep the game afloat internationally. It’s because of this that the ICC have been reluctant to address the 50-over format’s failings. Soon, they will have to – there is far too much limited overs cricket played, but not enough top class matches.

But how can new life be breathed into the format? It’s cricket’s million-dollar question. Various changes have been suggested, with the England and Wales Cricket Board suggesting future international matches, particularly World Cup ones, be played over 40 overs a side – a format that has long been used in English domestic cricket (both at a grass roots and professional level). This idea has some merit, especially as the duration of matches makes it easier for spectators to attend day/night games. There are still issues, though. For starters, there will still be a lull in the “middle overs” of each innings. Secondly, will the all-powerful Board Of Control Cricket India (BCCI) agree to any move that effectively cuts down their chance to maximise advertising revenue?

Another more radical idea has been suggested by Sachin Tendulkar, arguably the finest one day batsman of all time. His “big idea” is to turn one day internationals into “mini tests”, which each side having two innings of 25 overs in sequence. It seems a rather barking idea at first (a bit like the ECB’s idea to revolutionize 40-over cricket in the UK by offering each side two innings of 20 overs), and still offers opportunities for dull or one-sided games. What happens, for example, if there is a huge discrepancy in the scores between the two sides after each has had one innings? By the fourth and final innings of the day the match could be dead as a contest. That said, as an idea to liven 50-over cricket it should at least be trialled.

Perhaps the ICC could look at placing the “powerplays” throughout the 50 overs in order to liven the game up a bit. One idea would be to have 5 sets of 4-over “powerplays”, which would be positioned at the beginning of each set of 10 overs. It may sound a bit gimmicky, but it would ensure that there is some interest retained throughout each innings and no extra-long “lull”, as we have at present. Other ideas which could be trialled include “super overs” – with, say, just two fielders outside the ring – which could be used by the batting side when they see fit. The batting side would be given five “super overs”, say, to use when they like, but with a proviso that they cannot use them in the first 10 or final 10 overs.

These ideas may sound a bit gimmicky, and to some extent they are, but the ICC needs to address the problems of 50-over one-day cricket and such ‘outside the box’ thinking is needed. Then, we might get excited about one-day cricket again – though a successful England side might help.

Filed under: Comment and analysis, Cricket, Sport   |  1 Comment