I had been contemplating
putting down my thoughts on how IPL should change, how it should not be just
another T20 tournament, how it should develop its own USP. And that is when I
came across the article Power-hitting,
the stand-out aspect of T20 cricket, by S. Dinakar in The Hindu of May 2, 2014. The article starts out “The sixes have
been bludgeoned rather than timed in the on-going Indian Premier League”.
I noticed the
difference immediately – in the title it is T20 but in the first sentence it is
IPL. Save Erapalli Prasanna, a favorite cricketer of mine when I was growing
up, none of the people quoted in this piece made the distinction between T20
and IPL. Then, I thought I should join Prasanna and cement this distinction,
going far beyond what I suspect my hero would have liked to. Sorry Prasanna!
To start mild,
I would say that as IPL has to discard this toss ritual. The designated home
team must bat first, no matter the conditions. As each team plays every other
team on a home-and-away basis through the season, each team will be forced to
exhibit its wherewithal in setting a target as well as in chasing one. With
some tweaks this can be taken into the play-off games also.
The field
restrictions must go. This would bring in dynamism to the match. It is up to
the captain to marshal his strengths strategically and tactically too. Where he
placed his fielders for a particular bowler at a particular stage in the
contest must be his prerogative and his alone.
The faster IPL
sheds power plays, the better it would be. These look such a patchwork of rules
and regulations. The bowling captain should give the nod to the fact that any
ball bowled is a potential wicket or the clichéd “maximum”. He has to do a risk
assessment – after all he has a battery of laptops working for him. On the
other hand, I do not see any harm in keeping the no ball, short pitched ball and
wide rules.
In American baseball,
one of the funniest and most entertaining things to watch is the signal from
the dugouts to the players in the middle. I miss these in IPL. IPL should bring
in these, one signal, as decided by the captain taking feedback from the
coaches, to all in the field. There should be detailed playbook with each
combination of bowlers, batsmen and field positions given a specific code. It will be a choreographed dance’ like
touching the nose, pulling the right ear, slapping oneself on the right cheek
etc. and we could be spared the pom-pom shaking of the cheer leaders!
The umpire’s
status must be lowered. As it is, even for the most obvious decisions, the third
umpire is consulted. It is the decision board that conveys the decision. The
umpire is becoming increasingly redundant. Then, I do not see the need for the
exalted position given to umpires. They must become more like the ball boys and
girls in tennis!
And, here comes
the big one. Each team must comprise two sub-teams, one batting and the other
fielding. The batting sub-team must have no more than six players. The bowling
team may have either eight or nine players; that is, six or seven players to
cover the field. No restrictions on how many players can be shared between the
two sides (the maximum, of course, is six!)
I will hint at
the logic behind these suggestions. With only six wickets to lose, and even
with only six or seven fielders roaming the field, the batting side will be
wary of “bludgeoning”. The effect of “field restrictions” is brought out
through another mechanism. The batsmen can go in for his shots but has to bear
the risk of things not going well. There has to be heightened level of
confidence behind a shot as the number of wickets to be sacrificed is fewer. The
batting side will not carry the deadwood of bowlers trying to swat any and
every ball out of the park. There will be some cricket left in IPL, unlike
today.
If all these
changes are brought in IPL would cease to be T20. A new name can be thought for
this format of the game. Prasanna’s distinction will be valid and I will be
satisfied. Why worry about the others?
Raghuram
Ekambaram
3 comments:
Call it a coincidence. Within hours of my writing that the on-field umpire in IPL/T20 has become redundant, an incident in the on-going match between Delhi Daredevils and Rajasthan Royals has shown the validity of my suggestion, through a counter example, so to say. The on-field umpire missed a huge/obvious/explicit runout/stumping decision, which was confirmed by TV replay of the incidence. Yet, the umpire did not call for the review, peremptorily dismissing the appeal. The batsman continued. The decision may or may not have a bearing on the outcome of the match. Yet ...
Had the umpire been a mere ball boy, as I had suggested, this injustice would not have happened.
To be generous to myself, I proclaim I am good!
Raghu
I dont know the detailsbut whatI like about what is happening is that it gives teams like Rajasthan Royals ( a team with no big heroes and probably on a shoestring budget) some chance over bullies and rich teams like the Bangalore and chennai teams
Yes pala, the game is "democratised" in this format in the sense you mean. But, the way I am reconfiguring it, it will not lose anything, because the players will be the same and what they need to do will also be the same. The only difference in how they choose to go about the task. Look at Punjab this season! None would have thunk it!
Raghu
Post a Comment