ODI’s ‘25x4’ Format has A Distinct T20 Flavoring To It!

It would be an understatement to say that the contemporary format of ODIs is fighting hard for its existence. The constant criticism that it faces, seems to be echoing louder with every passing day. Among all the suggested alternatives to make the format more appealing, only one proposition has found favors among the ICC’s conservative hierarchy and many ex-cricketers. It was the maestro, Sachin Tendulkar, who suggested that the ODI game should be reinvented by introducing four innings instead of the current trend of every side having once chance to bat. According to him, each innings should be of 25 overs only.

This essentially means that each side would be batting and balling in two, separate installments. The proposal has already caught the attention of many ICC bosses and some of them are willing to give it a go-ahead by introducing it in the English county circuit. Some purists say that this format would be a bit too confusing, since most viewers would find it difficult to keep a tally of the scores over four innings in a single day. However, I really don’t think this argument makes much sense. In our times, having access to information on a 24x7 basis is no longer a challenge and hence, any concerns about viewers getting confused are unfounded. In fact, trying to read into the scoreline after each innings might just be an added incentive for people to check upon the match’s progress.

So is there anything wrong with the suggestion?

My personal opinion is that it tampers with the current format too extensively. We have already seen what the T20 game is doing to the game. Teams are constantly on the lookout for players who can score a quickfire, 20-30 runs, seldom batting with any elegance. Considering this, ODIs still breed batsmen that have some basic batting technique and the bowlers’ mettle isn't tested on the grounds of being able to contain runs only. If the 100 overs are split into four installments of 25 overs each, aren't the players being indirectly told to treat a one-dayer like a couple of back-to-back T20 games? I have no doubt that an excess of five overs in this suggested alternative won't be able to stop the madness of T20 seeping into the ODIs and changing its very essence.

Yes, there are advantages such as reducing the impact of weather conditions that often render teams at the mercy of the toss. The recently concluded tri-series in Sri Lanka is ample proof that the ground conditions could pre-decide the fate of the match — every team that batted second in this tournament, lost. Therefore, splitting the 100 overs between the two teams in an alternating format would distribute the weather-related implications. However, it is still bound to change the ODIs beyond recognition. The ongoing one–day series is proof enough that every current form of the game is absolutely different from one another — Aussies who lost the Ashes rather comprehensively have whitewashed the English team, leading the seven-match series, 5 to nil and these variations is worth preserving. Introduction of changes based upon Tendulkar’s perspective would mean making the ODI game considerably similar to the T20 format and hence, slowly eradicating the fundamental nature of one-dayers.

I am not against introducing changes but they should complement the fundamentals of ODIs rather than trying to eliminate them. Perhaps the ICC should try to correct its own mistakes that initiated the downfall of the ODI game, i.e. making the game bend too much in the favor of batsmen by allowing games on dead, lifeless pitches that don’t offer anything to the bowlers. Had this issue been dealt with in time, the aura of ODIs with the game constantly seesawing between the bowlers & batsmen would have sustained viewer interest and the present fiasco would have never emerged. I guess self-introspection is a lot tougher and the ICC is no different. The easy solution obviously lies in hosting numerous ‘meetings’ in plush resorts and five star offices to suggest wholesome, unwanted changes and you don’t have to be an ODI enthusiast or discriminator to understand this.

Anybody watched T20 Women’s World Cup matches?

International cricket certainly isn't going to go score many points for equality of the genders. For starters, there is little that the ICC has done for the female cricketers in terms of scheduling tournaments across the world. Secondly, the broadcast of women’s matches for something as important as the world cup were done so shabbily that not many people even realized that just when their teams were fighting out for a semi-final berth in the West Indies, the women counterparts of the men’s teams were also sweating it out to make a point, both in terms of engaging attention towards their skills and winning an ICC tournament. I still don’t get it—the viewership for T20 World Cup itself wasn’t too encouraging and further the spectator interest in island nations was also abysmal, then how scheduling women’s cricket matches in the same stadium really helps the cause of women’s cricket?

Too Many Dew-affected Matches for Cricketing Comfort of Fielding Sides

I don’t to nitpick but the fact is that the number of ODI matches that are turning one-sided affairs with immense disadvantage to side bowling in the evening/night are rising at an alarming rate. It is not something new as such — dew has always been a factor particularly in the sub-continental conditions where the ground conditions do tend to change once the ground develops a hard-to-counter wet blanket. However, what is surprising is that even though so many captains have complained about this issue, the ICC remains unmoved. It seems that the motive behind this calculated ignorance has been fuelled by the BCCIwhom we all know as a money-making, cash-obsessed cricketing body that rules the roost of international cricketing fixtures. As day-night matches do tend to provide more excitement and bring-in more spectators to the ground and the viewership is substantially higher than all-day ODI matches, it isn't hard to understand why the BCCI and then the ICC have turned a blind eye towards this issue. However, it would like to say that rather than eradicating or limiting day-night encounters in this part of the world, what needs to be done is finding more solutions. Yes, the answers are difficult since there is no practical escape from dewdrops that tend to descend and rise in volume with every passing minute. However, there could be a system wherein the bowling side is provided the option of using more ball — I mean more than the normal number of ball changes to ensure that the side isn't left struggling with a wet, slippery ball with which the bowlers are rendered useless. The current tri-series in Dhaka is another example of this wherein the bowlers are struggling horribly to hold the seam once the ball gets run on the wet outfield.

Referral System does undermine the on-field umpire

I still cannot make-out the use of having on-field umpires when the players can just make signal to send up a decision for review. Yes, this initiative does mean that the ICC is trying hard to make the game more progressive and transparent but what it does not do is make the game simpler, in any way. Let us be clear about one thing, with so many computer-generated images that are flashed on our TVs, it was just a matter of time that the same technology was used in making actual decisions. But then, if we are using technological inputs for making decisions, then why not go the full-circle way and make the on-field umpires merely a component of the entire decision making, communication process. The present system makes mockery of the decision making ability of the umpire who is already under a lot of scrutiny with every appeal being showcased a thousand times on the huge screens installed at the grounds and the crowds seem to get very vocal and very upset if they realize that a mistake has been made. The ICC needs to be clear about what it wants to establish in a clear-cut manner - on-field or off-field umpiring and then stick with it rather than trying to blend two formats and make the entire process more confusing and controversial. What needs to be understood that the two, on-field umpires are placed at the core of the entire action on the field. If a system makes them mere referral mediums, then it compromises their air of authority and with so much being said about the antics of some international players, this would indirectly impact the ability of the umpires to regulate the behavior of players,

ODI’s Suggested ‘25x4’ Format has Distinct T20 Flavoring

It would be an understatement to say that the contemporary format of ODIs is fighting hard for its existence. The constant criticism that it faces, seems to be echoing louder with every passing day. Among all the suggested alternatives to make the format more appealing, only one proposition has found favors among the ICC’s conservative hierarchy and many ex-cricketers.
 It was the maestro, Sachin Tendulkar, who suggested that the ODI game should be reinvented by introducing four innings instead of the current trend of every side having once chance to bat. According to him, each innings should be of 25 overs only. This essentially means that each side would be batting and balling in two, separate installments. The proposal has already caught the attention of many ICC bosses and some of them are willing to give it a go-ahead by introducing it in the English county circuit. Some purists say that this format would be a bit too confusing, since most viewers would find it difficult to keep a tally of the scores over four innings in a single day. However, I really don’t think this argument makes much sense. In our times, having access to information on a 24x7 basis is no longer a challenge and hence, any concerns about viewers getting confused are unfounded. In fact, trying to read into the scoreline after each innings might just be an added incentive for people to check upon the match’s progress.

So is there anything wrong with the suggestion? My personal opinion is that it tampers with the current format too extensively. We have already seen what the T20 game is doing to the game. Teams are constantly on the lookout for players who can score a quickfire, 20-30 runs, seldom batting with any elegance. Considering this, ODIs still breed batsmen that have some basic batting technique and the bowlers’ mettle isn't tested on the grounds of being able to contain runs only.

If the 100 overs are split into four installments of 25 overs each, aren't the players being indirectly told to treat a one-dayer like a couple of back-to-back T20 games? I have no doubt that an excess of five overs in this suggested alternative won't be able to stop the madness of T20 seeping into the ODIs and changing its very essence.

Yes, there are advantages such as reducing the impact of weather conditions that often render teams at the mercy of the toss. The recently concluded tri-series in Sri Lanka is ample proof that the ground conditions could pre-decide the fate of the match — every team that batted second in this tournament, lost.

Therefore, splitting the 100 overs between the two teams in an alternating format would distribute the weather-related implications. However, it is still bound to change the ODIs beyond recognition. Aussies who lost the Ashes rather comprehensively have whitewashed the English team, leading the seven-match series, 5 to nil and these variations is worth preserving. Introduction of changes based upon Tendulkar’s perspective would mean making the ODI game considerably similar to the T20 format and hence, slowly eradicating the fundamental nature of one-dayers.

I am not against introducing changes but they should complement the fundamentals of ODIs rather than trying to eliminate them. Perhaps the ICC should try to correct its own mistakes that initiated the downfall of the ODI game, i.e. making the game bend too much in the favor of batsmen by allowing games on dead, lifeless pitches that don’t offer anything to the bowlers. Had this issue been dealt with in time, the aura of ODIs with the game constantly seesawing between the bowlers & batsmen would have sustained viewer interest and the present fiasco would have never emerged.

I guess, self-introspection is a lot tougher and the ICC is no different. The easy solution obviously lies in hosting numerous ‘meetings’ in plush resorts and five star offices to suggest wholesome, unwanted changes and you don’t have to be an ODI enthusiast or discriminator to understand this.