John Buchanan came up a rather an unconventional idea of having multiple captains in a T20 game.
How about extending that idea and having multiple units within a team, with each unit having its own captain/coach - a la NFL type super-specialization? The team structure can be something like this - a batting unit, a bowling unit and a fielding unit. The batting unit can have about 6 members, the bowling unit can have about 5 members and the fielding unit can have about 10 members (including the wicket-keeper).
In any particular game, the members of each unit perform their task alone. For example, a fielding unit member only fields and does not bat and bowl; a batting unit member only bats and does not field and bowl etc. Similarly, a bowling unit member only bowls – at end of every over, a bowling unit member can come out of the pavilion to bowl the next over and goes back to the pavilion at the end of the over. Given his center position in the field, the wicket-keeper can act as the on-field coordinator with the bowling unit.
I strongly suspect that the super-specialization of tasks, particularly batting and bowling, will increase the efficacy with which tasks are executed, thus increasing the quality and the competitiveness of the game being played. There are couple other benefits that I can think of. Having lower number of wickets (batters) will increase the premium of each wicket and batters will have lesser incentives to take callous risks, thereby leveling the battle between bat and ball a little bit. Team management can use the fielding unit to introduce talented young players, who can possibly move to one of batting or bowling units, with relatively lower risk toward the result of that game.
While I realize that the above fundamentally tampers with the definition of a team in cricket, what are the big cons?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hi Deepak,
Nice thoughts. Typically American. Aiming for ultra-specialists?
Though it has its advantages, I feel its main drawback will be total dependency on the specialists & specialists alone. You have to forget about the words "rearguard action" i.e. when the batsmen fail, even the bowlers can't be 'expected' to come to the rescue - yes, you can't even EXPECT leave alone them performing.
Then, with the current crop T20 tours & too many ODIs happening, already Test cricket is losing its audience & people don't have the patience to watch Test matches, in spite of very good contests happening like in the recent India-England Chennai Test and the just-concluded Napier Test where India struggled but ultimately batted for 3 consecutive days to save the test against lowly ranked NZ. Batsmen will forget "how to bat out time". India have to forget about a future "third wall" after Dravid & Gambhir.
In this connection, please read an interesting interview of Mark Greatbatch in Cricinfo, which gives great insights into the minds of "Walls" of the world.
Lastly, "utility"players will become extinct. Both ODIs & T20 needs such class of players, who proved to be the real match-winners for their teams many times in the past.
Dpak -
In theory, it makes the game more "efficient" I guess, but like you said, it fundamentally changes the game itself.
The fundamental question is that does cricket exist as a means of entertainment or is it a proxy for battles, that have to be fought efficiently and won?
Part of the charm of cricket is the long drawn out battle and the strategic aspects at times. It is less efficient and more creative. People want to stay engaged throughout, and they wont really if you tell an epic story in a summary format, or if they dont find role models with unexpected sides to their games. Kapil's 4 6s to save the follow on, Zulu's fierce hitting, Sachin's hero cup over. Those are the things that you really remember. Those are the things that make a normal match stand out.
In the method you proposed, there would never be a Kaluwitharna or Harbhajan being promoted up. Would the ancient Romans be as excited if the man in the ring with the lion pulled out a gun or a spear that he impaled the lion with?
People like battles, and barehanded ones even more. Which is why I prefer cricket to baseball, and test cricket to T20. Ah the age old resistance to change :)
-RR
Post a Comment