I have been fairly supportive of the T20 format, especially in comparison to the 50-over game, but here is one shortcoming that I noticed, and one which could conceivably be addressed.
In a game like the one between Chennai Super Kings and the Mumbai Indians the other night, when one batsman like Jayasuriya gets going, the game is over and there is nothing that can be done about it. Well, it might be breathtaking for the audience, but as a contest it is one where there is no chance for the other team to fight back.
On the other hand, in a game like the Knight Riders v Daredevils the earlier night, even though another genius like Shoaib fires, there is still plenty of time and opportunity for the opposition to make a comeback ?
Why ? Because Shoaib is a bowler and Jayasuriya is a batsman ! The old adage of it being a batsman's game to the fore yet again ! The thing is Shoaib only has four overs to bowl ! If he had had a couple of overs more, maybe Delhi might not have had a chance to get to even 100 !
The fundamental problem with any limited overs game is that it puts a limitation on how many overs a bowler can bowl but not on how many balls a batsman can bat. This effect is more pronounced the shorter you make the game, because the bowler's opportunities get fewer while the batsman's remain the same.
I don't know how this idea of skewing the game in the batsman's favor thus came about when 50 over cricket was started but it has been so well-rooted, that it would be a travesty to question it. However, I dare to question it here. I think there is a case to be made to restore the balance here.
Restricting the number of balls a batsman is allowed to face is not an entirely ridiculous idea - say just as 120 balls are divided among 5 bowlers as 24 each, divide 120 balls among 6 "batsmen" as 20 each. Naturally some batsmen are going to get out playing fewer balls. These can be consumed by the batsmen coming in after No. 6. The main problem with this approach is what if a couple of top order batsmen face 20 balls and leave and then there is a collapse and the rest get bowled out soon and there are still a couple of overs left ? Do the top order batsmen then return ? I haven't quite worked out the details yet but I belive the idea is fundamentally sound. Revolutionary, but sound.
A less controversial idea and one suggested elsewhere is to allow one or two bowlers more than 4 overs.
It is fine to negotiate and discuss and adjust the numbers but something has to be done to redress the balance. Otherwise just as Jayasuriya destroyed the contest in the space of some 35-balls yesterday, so will other such great batsmen like Gilchrist, Tendulkar, Sehwag, Pietersen etc. The catch is that equally great bowlers like Shoaib, Lee, McGrath, Warne will be denied that opportunity.
In a game like the one between Chennai Super Kings and the Mumbai Indians the other night, when one batsman like Jayasuriya gets going, the game is over and there is nothing that can be done about it. Well, it might be breathtaking for the audience, but as a contest it is one where there is no chance for the other team to fight back.
On the other hand, in a game like the Knight Riders v Daredevils the earlier night, even though another genius like Shoaib fires, there is still plenty of time and opportunity for the opposition to make a comeback ?
Why ? Because Shoaib is a bowler and Jayasuriya is a batsman ! The old adage of it being a batsman's game to the fore yet again ! The thing is Shoaib only has four overs to bowl ! If he had had a couple of overs more, maybe Delhi might not have had a chance to get to even 100 !
The fundamental problem with any limited overs game is that it puts a limitation on how many overs a bowler can bowl but not on how many balls a batsman can bat. This effect is more pronounced the shorter you make the game, because the bowler's opportunities get fewer while the batsman's remain the same.
I don't know how this idea of skewing the game in the batsman's favor thus came about when 50 over cricket was started but it has been so well-rooted, that it would be a travesty to question it. However, I dare to question it here. I think there is a case to be made to restore the balance here.
Restricting the number of balls a batsman is allowed to face is not an entirely ridiculous idea - say just as 120 balls are divided among 5 bowlers as 24 each, divide 120 balls among 6 "batsmen" as 20 each. Naturally some batsmen are going to get out playing fewer balls. These can be consumed by the batsmen coming in after No. 6. The main problem with this approach is what if a couple of top order batsmen face 20 balls and leave and then there is a collapse and the rest get bowled out soon and there are still a couple of overs left ? Do the top order batsmen then return ? I haven't quite worked out the details yet but I belive the idea is fundamentally sound. Revolutionary, but sound.
A less controversial idea and one suggested elsewhere is to allow one or two bowlers more than 4 overs.
It is fine to negotiate and discuss and adjust the numbers but something has to be done to redress the balance. Otherwise just as Jayasuriya destroyed the contest in the space of some 35-balls yesterday, so will other such great batsmen like Gilchrist, Tendulkar, Sehwag, Pietersen etc. The catch is that equally great bowlers like Shoaib, Lee, McGrath, Warne will be denied that opportunity.
No comments:
Post a Comment