Well, I aired the 200 over idea at one of the cricket user groups, and got roundly trumped by several persuasive arguments that made me reconsider, if not abandon the idea altogether. Took up several hours of my time, and made me ruminate on why I spend so much time researching/reading/writing about/thinking about cricket. I really don't know, since my humble opinions are unlikely to change anybody's mind about anything, but I figured it was time to summarize the "Bostock View" as it pertains to the noble game, circa 2004, and try and harmonize the disparate ideas I have jotted down, sporadically, in this blog, since May of last year, and probably in doing so throw some light on myself in general. Here goes:
1) In general I dislike contrived contests in any sport. Obviously certain rules exist in all sports to assure a fair contest, but when they become arbitrary they undermine the essence of the game. By this token 3, 4, and 5 day two-innings cricket is the ultimate and best form of the game, being that it is the least contrived, there being no limits on overs, bowlers, etc., and most fluid and changeable of all cricketing formats. Its long history also is a vital link to the past, an important point that brings me to...
2) Historical continuity is very important to me. One of the reasons I love baseball is its century long stability in rules and rivalries -- ie Yankees-Red Sox -- and cricket loses that continuity at its peril, recognizing that since the advent of limited overs cricket it has already travelled some way down that path. Talking of limited overs cricket brings me to...
3) A love/hate relationship with limited overs cricket. Without its introduction (all the way back in 1961, Gillette Cup, 60 overs a side!) cricket may well have withered and died. The 40 over Sunday League was tremendous at first, until negative field placings and medium paced trundlers undermined its excitement, and led to the need for fielding restrictions, fielding circles -- in other words excessive contrivances, a tacit recognition that the format was flawed, and remains so to this day, where everyone seems to agree that overs 15-40 are simply boring in most games, for players and fans alike. Of course a way to solve that is...
4) Twenty over cricket, a brilliant innovation because, despite contrivances, it evens the contest between bat and ball. This may seem counterintuitive, since batsmen are scoring so freely, but one cannot bowl conservatively and "contain" in this game, since the batsmen are obligated to take risks and attack, thus opening up more opportunities for the bowlers. Scores are high but wickets are plentiful, a good combination for the spectators, and an indication that there is a good balance between attack and defense. Far from "undermining technique" as some critics were concerned about, it is opening up possibilities. In fact judiciously applied beligerent batting in the 50 over game has rubbed off on...
5) The longer game, bringing us somewhat full circle, where Test matches are thriving again, with less draws and faster run rates, and bigger crowds, and Twenty20 will further accelerate that trend as the years go by. So in a perfect world, if I had my druthers, cricket would look like...
6) This:
* A regionally organized County Championship of 3 day matches, allowing for lots of local derby games (incredibly important in my opinion for larger crowds, and sadly lacking now with 2 divisions), with a points system weighted heavily towards winning rather than drawing to encourage positive cricket, played 12:30 to 7:30 in two 3 hour sessions, with lights at every ground to dispense with "bad light" forever, aggressive marketing, ticketing policies to encourage the after work crowd who like Twenty20 so much to attend the 4:30-7:30 session of each day, games scheduled on the same days every week for spectator continuity.
* A season long 20 over competition on Friday nights and Saturday afternoons, with playoffs and a best of 3 final at the end of the season.
* A harmonizing of outfits between the two games, basically whites with some colored accents, names and numbers, and an orange ball that can be used during both day and night, 3 day and 1 day games.
* The Test nations would play Test Matches and 20 over games, the Test matches scheduled around the County games, so all Test players could also play in the County Championship, assuring better quality 3 day games, and more fan interest, identification, and attendance.
* A 21st century marketing and business culture in English domestic cricket, alongside the desire to preserve its traditional core values, and re enliven the County Championship, and make sure the public have access to see and enjoy the great cricket played there.
Well, it's amazing what one sits down and writes when the dog wakes you up at 3:30 and you can't get back to sleep, but the above states succinctly what it may have taken many (unread) blog entries to cover. It's a great game, and over the last 43 years, since those first tentative one-day initiatives, it has grown into a many headed monster, with two many competitions, too many one-sided ODIs, a haphazard schedule that no one can follow, a bloated organization, bloated expectations, and too many competing demands on players. The one thing that continues to improve is the cricket, especially the uncontrived, long form variety, enlivened as it has been by its short-form cousin. It's time to take stock and make sure the longer game remains cricket's central focus, so that our grandchildren can watch essentially the same game in 2050 as their great grandparents watched in 1950.
Since one-day cricket, 50, 45 and now 20 overs, is so popular, and since it generates its excitement from the building pressure of having a limited number of overs to achieve a goal, why not apply the same logic to Test Matches, and make a simple change to the format, whereby in a Test Match, each team gets a total of 200 overs for their first and second innings combined? Draws would not, and should not, be eliminated, since a rearguard action is often fascinating cricket, but it would produce more results, since teams would have to declare at the end of their 200 overs. It would be interesting strategically, since a huge first innings total, scored slowly, would leave fewer overs for the second innings, and a team would have to weigh the cost/benefit analysis of that decision. On the other hand, as Twenty20 is showing, an awful lot can be done in 20 overs, when batsmen hit freely and aggressively, so a short second innings could still produce a lot of runs. I think this idea would enliven Test Cricket without upsetting its fundamental appeal.
I know Duncan Fletcher once suggested this, and its worth a second look,
And while we're about it, isn't it time to take the marketing of Test cricket into the 21st century. I'd love to see cutting-edge, well-produced ads on TV touting the pleasures of the long game -- its epic nature, the building tension, the attacking field placings, the aggressive bowling, the huge innings, the fast-scoring cameos... A new generation, perhaps being brought into the game through Twenty20, need to be pitched to, and shown the pleasures of the long game, before it is too late...
Well, it's been an interesting spring so far in English cricket, with the England team surging forward, and Test cricket keeping a high profile, while at the same time advance sales for the Twenty20 are encouragingly high, and talk of other nations adopting the format, and maybe down the road an opportunity to use the new format to bring cricket back to the Olympics. You'd think, reading the press coverage, that these are competing ideologies -- the "slam bang" versus the "traditional" and the "battering game" versus the "patient game". In fact, they are both quite clearly cricket, and easily reconcilable. Test cricket has gone from strength to strength in recent seasons because of the faster scoring rates, clearly a positive effect of the one day game, and with less meandering draws the beauty of the longer game is there for all to see. There are many aspects to any sporting contest, but the closely fought, dramatic game is an essential ingredient for most spectators. A multi-day two innings match allows for a significant ebb and flow whereby each side is sometimes in the ascendancy, and also a second innings allows for the dramatic comeback. The 20 over game offers the same drama, except for totally different reasons, in that 20 overs is rarely long enough for a team to gain the upper hand so definitively that the other team is completely out of the game, as opposed to the Test match, which is long enough to allow a great innings or two to turn the game around. Thus, I would argue, both of these forms of cricket provide a high degree of drama, and therein lies their appeal.
That leaves the 50 over game, really the version of the game that has helped preserve cricket into the 21st century, and not something that should be dismissed easily, but many seem to agree that the games have become formulistic and predictable, and often one-sided. The sporting drama so important to any contest seems often to go astray during the "long short-game". I've argued for years that this could be solved by bifurcating the innings into 25 over segments, thus preserving the element of drama for a longer period in the game, and also solving the day/night lighting problem that seems to give the side batting first a bigger advantage. I have a feeling that as the 20 over game becomes more ubiquitous, that there will be calls to end the 45 and 50 over games. I think that would be wrong, but it will be an opportunity to improve and fine tune it, and I hope the powers that be have the wisdom and foresight to do that, rather than to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Well, dear reader(s), it's been over half a year since my last post, and I am reluctant to provide false hope by suggesting that this might become a regular blog again. I am, however, inspired by the cohesive and solid playing unit that is currently the England team, and their wonderful victory at Lords. What I am thinking of doing is writing a once-weekly column, perhaps on a Sunday, a "weekend update" kind of thing, that will revive this space, without too much pressure to add content too often. No high expectations, then, but we'll see where it goes.
It's been a quiet month, particularly for English cricket, and in addition October is a month where I am focussed on the baseball playoffs, one of the most intense 30 days in all of sports. However, I am forced out of my blogging hiatus to bring you this article, which rightly praises Hayden's ability to accumulate 380 runs in a Test Match, but also accurately laments the predictability and one-sidedness of so much Test Cricket. This is a point well taken. As I watch the Yankees-Red Sox-Cubs-Marlins square off in the baseball Pennant race, where it is obvious that I am watching the four best teams in baseball play at their very best, I am reminded that that is exactly what Test Cricket is supposed to be, the very pinnacle of the game. Domestic cricket all over the world is sparsely attended and not-well supported. Cricket lovers look to Test cricket for the passion and intensity of the "contest" and "spectacle" that has drawn people to sporting competition since chariots raced around the Piazza Navona in ancient Rome. If we dilute Test Cricket, we are risking the future of the entire game.
Jon Henderson
Sunday September 14, 2003
The Observer
As Andrew Flintoff piled on the runs, Channel 4 piled on the viewers, which, surprisingly, may have left the station's chiefs in a bit of a bind.
By tea on the fourth day of the deciding Test last Sunday, a peak audience of 3.2 million had gathered in front of their television sets.
That meant more people were watching cricket than Songs of Praise, BBC1's Sunday-evening audience banker. It also meant that, with an audience share of 23.7 per cent, Channel 4 had more than twice as many viewers as they usually do.
So why the bind? Well Channel 4 have been starting to think that cricket may not be worth the not inconsiderable amount they have paid to keep it until 2005.
But given the sort of big numbers the Test series has been doing for them this summer - an average audience share of 13 per cent is still a decent improvement on the Channel 4 average of 10 per cent - they may have to rethink.
Michael Vaughan is at it again, with this ridiculous suggestion. A fifty percent reduction in county matches, with two weeks! in between each game. If you coupled this with the exponential increase in one day cricket, how long, sensible readers, do you think that multi-day county cricket would last? Two, five, ten years maximum?
Well, I just noticed that this blog was 6 months old two days ago. Glad to still be posting, and thank you to those of you who bother to post comments. When I started I wasn't sure whether there'd be enough material to write about, but clearly this wonderful game boasts an inexhaustible well of topics.
