Well Cricket has certainly hit a crossroads. Test cricket is still considered the pinnacle by many fans but even they don't often have the time to watch it in stadiums or even follow it most of the time on TV/Websites.
They just look up scores, watch some exciting portions of the highlights and just follow the rankings. This is the same for even their own teams.
Cricket isn't looked at worldwide as an athletic sport, wherein the fittest guys survive or even where you can find all fit guys in it. It's more like a hobby sort of sport for many youngsters.
So how do we change all the misconceptions and make the sport more exciting for the younger generation that seems riveted on T20 or ODIs?
Well here are some ideas, mostly radical but won't be entirely impossible to implement:
1.
Cricket is too protective for a supposedly athletic game.
I know it is hard on fielders/ bowlers to play when it is raining, but protection of the pitch/field must be stopped.
It should be part of the beauty of the game to play in the rain.
Of course, thunderstorms and such cannot be helped but in general rains shouldn't stop play.
Different tactics could come into play with rains, for example fast bowlers cannot have a long runup so mostly they will bowl from a few steps.
Fielders also cannot run too fast or too far, lest they slip, so captains would be forced to place fielders in attacking catching positions where they wouldn't be expected to cover too much ground to save singles but rather take catches from there or thereabouts.
Batsmen wouldn't be able to run quick singles/doubles since the ground is the slippery so they will be forced to score off boundaries or take comfortable singles.
So the entire complexion of the game will change. Of course, the question of fairness will arise, but then again teams will find a way of countering that.
It will also show how tough cricket is and will intensify the myth.
Above all this, let's not forget how hard it is to bat on a sticky wicket, let alone something that is raining. There's also the question of vision- hard to look at the ball when you have water-drops raining in your face.
2.
In order to counter the injustice of the rain rule, and for obvious reasons, we could change 50-over ODIs into three stages of 20-20-10.
So we have two teams with two innings of 20-20 overs played alternately and the final 10 overs played in reverse order.
That is Team A wins the toss, decides to bat first.
Then after 40 overs each, for the final 10 overs, team B will bat first and team A last.
It can be decided during the toss. So the team winning the toss can choose to bat first in the two 20 over innings or bat first in the final 10 overs dash, assuming the match goes so far.
Of course, overs and wickets will be carried over. Also, one or two substitutes can be allowed in the 2nd and 3rd innings.
3.
Substitutes
Cricket has for long been too rigid a game- that is everyone in the starting XI must play until the end of the game, even for the 5-day version. (Come on ain't it silly not to have substitutes in a match that last 5 full days?)
We miss out on exceptional talents like Malinga and Bond missing out on cricket due to this rigidity. Their bodies cannot handle the rigors of 5-day cricket.
How wonderful it would be to see Malinga suddenly introduced at a pivotal moment, turn the face of the game with a fiery 5-over spell and then go back to dressing room?
He wouldn't have to play an entire match- ODIs or Tests. Just some time.
It would make the game interesting.
It's high time Cricket introduced substitutes- every other team sport has that.
I'll put up some more as thoughts come in- I forgot many other nicer points.
Profitable Innovations in Cricket
posted on 27/6/11
Bowlers be able to bowl any number of bouncer,no restriction on field placing(bring on the bodyline series), new ball available after 50 overs. Bowler may not call.
posted on 27/6/11
I like the idea of being able to bowl more bouncers - also the new ball coming forward - 50 may be too soon though
posted on 27/6/11
lydneyian and indiasox:
What makes you think increasing bouncers in Cricket will make bowlers more threatening and the action on the field increasingly watchable?
Just because you guys are nostalgic about the 80s when fast bowlers ruled against helmet-less batsmen does not mean it is the only way to improve conditions of wicket-taking for the bowlers.
I have other points like giving the option of wetting the pitch before the start of a day by the batting captain. I'll put it up. Wait and see. Those shall be better.
Trust me, watching bowlers bounce batsmen all day would get so boring so fast because good batsmen can duck all day and even those who don't know much about the short ball will learn in course of time and fast bowlers will be one-dimensional to the core.
And let's not forget- you guys have never faced a ball at 150kmph. It's nothing less than life-threatening even with the helmet.
_____________________________________
hopefor:
I said TEAM SPORTS!
All team sports have substitutes. I wasn't talking about individual sports. What's the point of having substitutes in individual sports?
Cricket is the only TEAM SPORT that does not have any tactical substitute. The only time the ICC introduced the substitute, it was a stupid pointless PowerSUB rule that defeated the purpose of substitution.
posted on 27/6/11
no not nostalgia - i just think allowing more bouncers would liven it up - does the fact that ive never played first class cricket make a difference to my thoughts - i think they should make F1 cars faster as well
posted on 27/6/11
lydneyian:
"does the fact that ive never played first class cricket make a difference to my thoughts"
*****************************
It doesn't deny you the right to have these thoughts, but it would be more insightful and intelligent if you had actually played the game to understand the nuances and suggest such changes.
Thoughts are always welcome.
Allowing more bouncers livens it up for the paying public, but it will get stale very soon.
If the public wanted a more even match between bat and ball, here's my innovation:
At the start of any day in a Test match, the batting captain has the right to wet the pitch with a stipulated amount of water spread evenly across the pitch.
For this option to be available, the batting side must have a lead above 200.
The idea is to make the pitch harder for batting. Why would a batting captain do that to himself? Because with a lead above 200, he expects to declare soon.
He can't bat too long hoping to extend the lead- lest the water dries off soon.
Since the option is available only for the batting side, it will change the dynamics of declaration etc.
Let's remember that a sticky wicket is useful for both fast bowlers and spinners.
posted on 27/6/11
I think having more bouncers make for a better batsman than only 2.1 reason among other is it keeps batsmen guessing.
I also think that a fielding side be allowed gloves for 3 fielders including wi-ke. It would be brilliant to see short leg and point fielder diving and catching ball,which they now try to get out the way of danger.
In grade games, what about trying a "seamed hard tennis ball-red ball". I have played a lot with those hard tennis ball(is it right that most people play cricket with tennis ball than cricket ball?) and they bounce at chest level where cricket balls keep low.worth experimenting?
Also what about playing cricket with 12 players-1 player is only for fielding but cant be wiki.
My ideas will certainly makes it harder to score and it will be more conducive to bowling?
posted on 27/6/11
indiasox:
That would change the basic structure of the game too much and make it unidentifiable- 12 men fielding, gloves for some fielders etc.
Truth be told, having gloves is more a hindrance than a help- it's really hard to throw with a gloved hand and let's not forget- wicket-keepers drop as many catches as fielders so its no improvement.
Baseball uses gloves because that is bigger and harder.
As for bouncers making for a better batsman, bowlers are allowed to bowl accurate bouncers as much as they can- as long as it's not above head/shoulder height.
Every bowler wants to target the ribs and the bouncer rule makes for accurate bowlers without letting them bore the hell out by bowling bouncers all day.
Trust me- watching a bouncer barrage once in a while looks amazing, but if that became the norm, Test cricket will be very boring.
Run rates will be abysmally low and batsmen would easily learn to evade bouncers and soon you'll notice bowlers like Mcgrath or Steyn are the ones who get more success.
posted on 27/6/11
Rex - are you right about everything ?
posted on 27/6/11
Lydneyian:
Prove me otherwise.
posted on 27/6/11
Lydneyian:
The last comment was meant to be a joke- I forgot to add the wink to signify that.
But I don't see what's wrong in debating something instead of blindly accepting.
So when someone debate, he/she believes that his point of view is right.
And in the course of the debate it is not proved otherwise, then why should they change that view?
But really this is just a brainstorming thread so everyone is free to give ideas. I never deny folks the right to give their opinion.