Saturday, September 19, 2009

20-20-20-20?

Recently, Sachin Tendulkar suggested that 50-over ODIs needed a refresh, and proposed a two-innings contest with 25 overs per innings. Of course the idea is not new, but it has caught some attention because it came from Tendulkar, and because the T20 game has thrown doubt on the future of 50-over ODIs.

One thing is clear, the day-long, 50-overs ODI game is dying, and that's a good thing. It's been losing spectator interest for a while now, and has been kept alive only by gimmicks such as super-subs, powerplays and pulled-in boundaries. Even with these gimmicks, it's only the multi-nation tournaments (not even tri-series) that attract some interest. And of course spectator interest (and TV viewership) is necessary to commercially sustain the game. While cricket boards may still feel some obligation to support a loss-making Test version of the game, there would be no such obligation towards 50-over ODIs if they stop being commercially viable.

There is of course a potential successor to ODIs in the form of T20 cricket. At least for now, it has captured the audience and thus TV revenues are a given. However, T20s suffer from one big drawback -- less airtime. The typical T20 game only lasts half a day, and thus there is lesser airtime for TV to fill with commercials, compared to the day-long ODI. So T20 is only really viable, long-term, in the form of multi-team leagues or tournaments. With a league like the IPL or a T20 World Cup, you can schedule two games a day, not overlapping of course, and thus get more commercial time. But two-team country vs. country matches are not going to be viable for long. Of course the stadium will be full, but that's not where the revenues come from.

In this backdrop comes Tendulkar's suggestion of a two-innings, 25-over game. There are of course a few tweaks possible. Should a team start each innings afresh, or would the batsman dismissed in one innings be unavailable in the next? In my opinion, the team needs to have all its batsmen available in both innings. The attractiveness of T20s arises from the fact that each team has 10 wickets to 'spend' in 20 overs, and thus batsmen can take much higher levels of risk, compared to the 10-wickets-50-overs ODI game. Splitting the innings into two, without restoring the wickets, will only have the benefit of equalising the batting conditions for the two teams, to some extent. It cannot increase the pace of the game significantly. So it's best to emulate the T20 game and enable higher risk-taking. Secondly, it may not quite be feasible to cram in a 25-25-25-25 game in a day, given the added breaks between innings. So, a 20-20-20-20 game seems more reasonable, with a lunch break betwen the two T20s, and 10-minute breaks for the changeovers.

While we're at it, there could be more tinkering with field restrictions, etc. What if field restrictions are eliminated? Given the ability to spend 10 wickets, batsmen would likely still take nearly as much risk as the T20 game, but bowlers would be more likely to take wickets, and scores would be a bit less obscene. Some encouragement to the bowlers is necessary, otherwise attacking bowling will be an extinct art.

So, what does this mean to the traditional cricket lover, the Test match fan? This may sound like blasphemy, but this comes closest to a "mini-Test"... a "one-day Test", even! Certainly it won't have the range of cricketing skills that are on display in a good Test match. But the dynamics of a two-innings game would make things interesting -- a second chance, to make up for a first-innings failure; follow-ons perhaps... And this would open up a range of other possibilities -- such as a consolidated bowling limit across two innings. A bowler would be permitted to bowl 10 overs (or 8, or whatever) in the day, but not necessarily limited to 5 in each innings. So if a bowler was in the middle of a good spell, the captain might use him up in the first innings! Or on a Sri Lankan or Indian ground, the captain might hold back his main spinner for the second innings. If powerplays are retained, the captains would have the option to split them across innings as well. Let's say each team needs to have 8 overs of fielding restrictions, but the bowling captain has the ability to split these across innings arbitrarily. The range of tactical possibilities would certainly be broader than in the T20 format. And you wouldn't need multi-nation tournaments to enable the commercial viability of the game -- bilateral series would be quite feasible.

I think this is an idea whose time has come. ODIs have certainly gotten more predictable, or too dependent on the toss, with conditions favouring one side right from the outset. I would certainly prefer a future with Tests and "mini-Tests", and possibly no T20s at all!

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Suraj Muley:
My only problem with this concept Neeran is that there is no grafting of innings in a 20-20 game like there is between the 20th and 40th overs in a 50 over game. So doing a 20-20 game is changing the concept from a 50 over mind set to a 20 over mind set (even though there are two innings). The only solution would be to have a 20 over two inning game but have an incentive to preserve wickets. So a 70 for 3 in 20 overs should be better than a 70 for 5. If they can do that I agree with all the other points you have made.

abhijit shilotri said...

chhan nani,

Your views and view points should be noted...send this to the BCCI ...I am sure they will take a leaf from your blog...

Neeran Karnik said...

@Abhi: Thanks.

@Suraj: Matt Hayden said something similar about the middle overs being a test of cricketing skill. My thought is, if you want to see some grafting, you're going to have to depend on Test (and first-class) cricket. The one-day version is purely for the slam-bang audience that draws the advertising dollars. There's no room in the cricket calendar for a third, compromise version that combines some slam-bang with some grafting... Just not enough days in the year! Look at the scheduling problems that IPL is causing already.

Anonymous said...

Suraj writes - Neeran, but then why not scrap either the 20-20 version or the 50-50 version completely and have only a 20-20 or 20-20-20-20 version. I cannot see what having a 20-20 and 20-20-20-20 version is going to accomplish. As you say if one wants to only see slam-bang cricket they can have one version. The discussion is about whether a third version (what used to be the second version) is important. So I still feel that have two innings of 20-20 is like having a longer version of 20-20 and in principle the cricket, the strategy etc does not change.

Neeran Karnik said...

@Suraj: I agree, the only reasons to have both T20 and 4x20 versions would be commercial. As I mentioned, T20 isn't as commercially attractive in two-country format because of reduced airtime (and thus ad time). So two-team series could be held in the 4x20 (should we just call it '420'?) format, while multi-team tournaments or leagues could be T20. Either way, the nature of the game is similar, and very different from first-class cricket, thus allowing them to target two clearly separate market segments. That third, in-between, confused viewer segment that wants both slam-bang and a bit of traditional skills will migrate over time to one of the two sides!

Sushrut said...

Why you need such game format at all? why not just have T20 games instead? Having 2 T25 games within one is hardly beneficial to the quality of the cricket being played.

Sushrut said...

Having said that, I will also prefer to have a 4-day test match now. Speed of cricket has increased so much that having a 5th day feels like waste.

Neeran Karnik said...

@Sushrut: As I mentioned in an earlier comment above, I think one reason to have this format is because there isn't enough ad inventory (time) in a 3-hour T20. To extract as much as possible out of the sponsors and advertisers, the board(s) would want a full day of TV coverage. Also, the split-innings format will make some innovations possible and bring more tactics into the game, instead of just slam-bang all the way. Something worth trying out, as Australia are now going to do. See my latest post on this blog...