SUGGESTIONS TO CRICKET AUSTRALIA

Cricket Australia's news that it will be staging a new format of List 'A' cricket by splitting one 50-over innings into two 20-25 over innings has attracted a lot of comments and blogs on the blogosphere. Well, I have a few suggestions...


I have had these suggestions ever since Sachin Tendulkar made the comment that ODIs should be split into 2 innings of 25 overs each. If an official from Cricket Australia ever stumbles upon this blog, you may want to try out some of these suggestions, mate!


Suggestion No. 1: Allow new balls for 2nd innings -


In ODI cricket, the balls are changed after 34 overs and newer 'old' balls are brought in to replace the used ones. Instead, I would like to see 'new' balls used at the start of 2nd innings. This will allow pace bowlers a chance to get more purchase from lifeless pitches, and for batsmen, it will mean better pace on the ball on slower pitches. But this suggestion makes more sense when you read my Suggestion No. 2...


Suggestion No. 2: Allow different batsmen to resume the 2nd innings -


There are talks that the 2nd batting innings will be resumed exactly where the 1st one ended. I have a different opinion. Let the score remain as it was. If Team A was 140-2 in 25 overs, they will resume at that score. But if the team does not want to resume with the batsmen who were unbeaten at the end of the 1st innings, it should be allowed to change. The unbeaten batsmen can be qualified as retired and can come in some other time later during the 2nd innings.


Coupled with the earlier suggestion, it brings a whole new set of strategies in place. Should you go in with 2 sets of openers? Should the middle order be shortened? Where to play your slog over specialists? In fact, the concept of slog overs itself may see a change. To those who think that the idea of two sets of openers is insane, read on the next suggestion...


Suggestion No. 3: Allow all bowlers a maximum of 12 overs -


I heard suggestions somewhere that 2 bowlers should be allowed to bowl a maximum if 12 overs in an ODI. My question is: why stop at 2 bowlers? Why are we so miserly when we want to create rules that favour bowlers? Allowing 4 bowlers a quota of 12 overs (assuming a 50-over game) means that only 2 overs have to be managed out of your part timers. And if your regular bowlers are taking a beating, it will pay to have a genuine all-rounder.


Now, how does this compliment my Suggestion No. 2? If both the suggestions are implemented, then teams can go in with 3 genuine bowlers, 2 decent all rounders, 1 wicketkeeper, 4 openers and 1 solid middle order batsmen / another all rounder / bits-n-pieces player. There will be a lot more scope for flexibility if teams do not opt for 4 openers. They may even want to go for 3 openers and open the 2nd innings with the 3rd opener and one of the unbeaten well set batsmen.


There is a lot of scope for new strategies and there will be a need to change the laws relating to Powerplays as well as Duckworth - Lewis Method. A lot will need to be done. My suggestions might not go down well with everyone and I'd be delighted to read my readers' views on the same. I, for one, definitely feel, that it might just help One Day cricket survive.

UMPIRING HORRORS IN ANTIGUA

South Africa began the second leg (it's a many-legged tour, this one) of their Carribbean tour yesterday, playing the first one of the two Twenty20 matches scheduled against the home side, the West Indies.

The match marked a return of international cricket to the Sir Vivian Richards Stadium, Antigua... the ground that was in news for all the wrong reasons about a year back. But this time, there were no problems in the bowlers' run-up area or the pitch or anywhere on the ground... there was a problem only with the kind of cricket played.

West Indies team has been ordinary for quite a long time now... but I had no idea that their umpires even worse. After watching the performance of their umpires yesterday, I have almost started respecting Billy Doctrove ten times more. He is an international Elite panel umpire who has grown out of that system... with the likes of Clyde Duncan and Norman Malcolm for company and competition. Thank God that ICC follows a neutral umpire strategy in Test cricket... else, following Test cricket in West Indies would have been a nightmare! I was embarassed by their standard yesterday. If I were to explain to a non-follower why cricket is a good game to follow, yesterday's match would certainly not be the one I would choose for an example!

In 2008, the BCCI had a tie-up with Cricket Australia for training the umpires and prepare them for a spot on the Elite Panel. India, after all, has not had a representative on the Elite Panel ever since Srinivas Venkatraghavan retired in 2004. I think WICB needs a bit of the same to prevent dramas like the ones that happened yesterday.

(I know I haven't reported any of the embarassing umpiring decisions, but you can read many other accounts of the same floating over the internet for that purpose. I would recommend Luke Tagg's match report at The Boundary Rider.)

WHEN THE GOING GETS TOUGH, THE GAME GETS DIRTY

On Straight Points, I read about how Australians seem to react in an unruly manner when they are under pressure. After reading the article, I went into my pensieve, recalling all the incidents I remembered of Australia's behavioural troubles.

The most recent one, obviously, is the one involving Mitchell Johnson and Scott Styris. As rightly pointed out by Straight Points, Australia was the team under pressure as Styris was looking to pull of the chase comfortably, which he eventually did.

In the third Test at Perth on the West Indies' tour, Shane Watson was fined for his send-off celebrations after Chris Gayle's wicket. And Mitchell Johnson featured again, alongwith Brad Haddin this time, in an altercation with Sulieman Benn. This came at a time when the team from Caribbean had shown the Aussies in the previous Test that they are not going to be pushovers.

The next one I recalled was the 'elbow' incident between Shane Watson and Gautam Gambhir. This happenned at a time when the Australian bowling attack was being clobbered to all parts of the Ferozeshah Kotla at New Delhi after being 1-0 down in the series.

Then there is the very infamous 'Monkeygate' scandal between Andrew Symonds and Harbhajan Singh. This again came at a time when a partnership between Sachin Tendulkar and Harbhajan Singh was flourishing, and had put the Australian bowling under pressure.

In May 2003, in the match where West Indies created the world record of successfully chasing the highest 4th innings target against Australia at Antigua, there were a couple of incidents I recall. For these two incidents, I searched the Wisden Almanack's report on this match and here are a couple of quotes:

"On the second morning, Lara walked out to bat in a bellicose frame of mind, had exchanges with three Australians before he faced his first ball, from Lee, and duly hammered it over point for six. Lara spent the first half-hour of his innings arguing furiously with his tormentors, and at one stage stood toe to toe with Waugh, who had moved to short cover to pepper him with more chat, causing umpire Shepherd to intervene briefly. It was an unedifying spectacle, though no further action was taken by umpires or referee."

"As Sarwan approached a mature hundred, there were signs that Australia were losing the plot. McGrath, who started the verbal war, became utterly incensed at Sarwan's riposte - he apparently referred to McGrath's wife. After a set-to with the batsman, he wagged his finger at umpire Shepherd, demanding he get involved. Despite this, no official action was taken, though once pictures were beamed round the world both the ACB and ICC castigated the Australians and called on them immediately to mend their ways."

James Sutherland, the then Chief Executive of Cricket Australia (then Australian Cricket Board), told the media: "It's all very well to be playing the game in the right spirit when things are going your way, but if things are not going your way, that's when the real test is on. If you can't carry yourself in the true spirit of the game at those times, perhaps you need to have a good look at yourself."

And the last incident that I recalled, perhaps the most infamous of them all, one that occured long before I was even born, was the Chappell brothers' underarm incident. New Zealand needed six to tie the match. Even if Greg had not instructed his brother Trevor to go for the underarm approach, its doubtful that Brian McKechnie, the Kiwi on strike, would have hit the ball in the stands. It was the first ball he was facing in the innings and he was not renowned for any pyrotechnics with the bat (his career strike rate in ODIs: 37.24 without a single 6 and just four 4s in his till then 13 ODIs). Yet, Australia slumped to a new low in gamesmanship with that one act.

In this article, I have just pointed out the occasions when Australian behaviour on the cricket field created controversies off it. I have restrained myself from being extremely judgmental. However, I must state that I cannot think of any other team that has so many cases of apparent unruliness when the tide is not in their favour. When I think of the Indian team (there are certain controversial characters in there too), such cases come out only when they are on top. I guess it would make a good case study, if you are interested in psychology.