An evolving game
By Rayed Mamun – 5 July 2007
One day cricket is relatively young, and as with everything out there, still not perfect. This year the ICC has introduced some new rules to the ODI game, to help rectify these imperfections. The use of the Powerplays, the excessive no balls, condition of the ball itself, and the size of the grounds are all issues that have been looked at. These changes favour both batsmen and bowlers depending which way you look at it. Overall these new innovations should make ODI cricket more appealing in this evolving game, that is quickly looking like falling under the shadow of Twenty20 cricket.
As of October 2007, the fielding side may have one extra fielder outside the fielding restrictions circle during the second and third Powerplays. This is a clever move that will make the game more interesting. Many batsmen out there have indicated that they look to attack the last two Powerplays. This is because they are used to the conditions by then, and with the field still in, they have a great opportunity to attack. With the new rule, this plan may need reviewing. The batsmen will be slightly more challenged, while not greatly disadvantaged. Fielding captains will be more innovative with fielding settings, and are likely to take more risks in the early overs while the ball is still new. With all factors taken into account, the battle between bat and ball looks to be an intriguing one.
The new no-ball rule is a controversial one. Nobody likes the no ball, particularly because it is a simply a waste of time to all involved. The traditional one run penalty is there, but bowlers out there still aren’t getting the message. As of later this year, if a bowler bowls a no ball, the subsequent ball will be a ‘free-hit’, that is, the batsman cannot get out on the ball after the no-ball, even if it is a legitimate delivery. This is a tad harsh. The bowler already has to re-bowl his illegal delivery, and has cost his team a run. He now faces the psychologically blow of a guaranteed spanking the next ball. While harsh, this is great for the fans. It is good entertainment especially during those middle overs, where the batsmen are just nudging around the singles. The odd no-ball in this period would bring the game to life.
The next rule is a good one. Time and again the batsmen complain at around the 30-40 over mark about the colour and shape of the ball. This makes the ball harder to hit, but more importantly, harder to see. Teams change the ball variably according to the condition of ball at that particular match. There seems to be no guidelines. The only guidelines are basically, when the batsmen start complaining and the umpires agree with the batsmen, the ball is changed. The new mandatory rule states the ball must be changed after 35 overs. While this is good, is doesn’t go to the root of the problem. Why is ball like that in the first place? The ball manufacturers need to have a serious look at themselves, and find out the problem with the ball itself. This sort of rule such doesn’t need to exist in the first place. Also, when the ball is changed, what is it changed to, a ball that is 35 overs old? How can one judge a 35 over old ball? What about a ball that has been hit for 35 overs in the nets? What about one that has been played 35 overs in a high scoring match? What about a low scoring match? The 35 overs in each of those situations is constant, but the condition of the ball would be vastly different. The only fair way would be to give the fielding team a new ball, which is completely out of question.
Finally, the last rule states that boundaries must be bigger and of a certain size. This once again makes the game of cat and mouse between batsman and bowler more interesting, as it is harder to clear the fence. This also gives a sense of fairness when comparing performances between players. Although the difference between a so called ‘big ground’ and a ‘small ground’ may not be much, it can be the difference between a four and a six, or a six and a wicket. Why should a century scored at the small Adelaide Oval, be of the same significance as a century at the bigger MCG? There’s a fair chance that the innings full of sixes in Adelaide would only count for fours in Melbourne, and furthermore, the chance of the batsmen getting out in Melbourne would be much higher. There needs to be some guidelines and a standard, so that the difference between a ‘big ground’ and a ‘small ground’ is negligible.
One day cricket is fast evolving and hopefully these new rules bring about a new and exciting era to the game of cricket.