3 simple changes ICC can bring about to not let down the game of Cricket
Luck, it seems, can play a big role in life. You start for the
airport 2 hours before the departure of your flight and still miss the flight.
Bad luck! Is it really? It really depends upon from which place you tried to
pull of this stunt? In a city like Bangalore, it is asking for trouble. If you
had checked with locals or even merely checked the Google maps, you would have
known that you should have doubled the time you gave yourself. There are lot
many such situations where we attribute it to “luck” when all it was needed to
make it “science” was simple application of mind.
If you follow the game of cricket, go ahead and
read on. If you don’t follow the game, let me improve your luck by telling you
upfront that this one is not for you. Thanks to the format and the rules, as
such explaining the game to a novice is difficult, trying to explain the
loopholes and issues in those rules and format can be a nightmare and could
derail me.
Sports, in general, has its share of luck. For cricket however,
the impact of the so called “luck” is profound. We all think it is a level
playing field for both the teams, but we reasonably know well that it is not!
The Toss, the conditions of the pitch, the weather, the rain, when the rain
comes, algorithms to determine what’s the target for a curtailed game, the mood
of the umpires and these factors(luck) that influence the game just goes on and
on.
Duckworth-Lewis-Stern Method- Implement it better
There has been many a debate on what should be the new
winning target, for a side batting second, in a rain curtailed game. Algorithms
have been embraced, turned farcical in match situations and have been discarded
later. Some have stayed for longer but had to be tweaked to make it more reasonable.
Duckworth-Lewis-Stern
method is the latest that is believed to be the most reasonable implementation of
an algorithm to compute the new target in a rain curtailed game.
“Most reasonable”? I have my doubts. Let us take a look at
the two recent semi-finals match of the WC 2019.
NewZealand had scored 211 for 5 at the end of 46.1 overs
when the rain interruption hit (when the play resumed on day 2 of the one day
international, NZ eventually finished with 239 in 50 overs, setting a normal target
of 240 for India in 50 overs at a run rate of 4.8). However, had the game
resumed the previous day and had got curtailed to a 20 overs chase for India,
the target for India would have been 148(a run rate of 7.4)!
Contrast this with the second match – Australia had scored all
of 223 in 50 overs and set England a target of 224 in 50 overs (16 runs less
than the target for India in the previous match). England has comfortably
reached around 150-2 at the end of the 20 overs when there was a bit of a
drizzle and that is when the DLS algorithm calculators came out. At that point,
if this match had got interrupted, the DLS Target score was 74 at around the
20-22 over mark (when the chasing team is 2 wickets down. Would have been
lesser if England had lost even lesser wickets at this point).
Almost every cricket follower would know that 74 for 2 in
20 overs at a run rate of 3.7 an over is a lot comfortable to make than getting
148 at a run rate of 7.4 in 20 overs. The difference is like “Chalk & Chimpanzee”
– that stark!
How can the same algorithm come up with a difference in
target to the tune of 100% (74 runs) for a mere difference of 16 runs in the
original 50 over target in 2 different matches back to back! How can you still
call it reasonable and not ridiculous?
The reason for this difference is very simple- the target
becomes ridiculously different based on at what point the rain interrupts. Let
me explain.
If NZ had got to 239 in 50 overs as they did and if there
was no rain interruption lets say till 20 overs after India began their chase,
the target would have been between 80 and 100 if India has lost less than 3 wickets
or so (Just like how it was for Eng around the 20 over mark). It would have
been 148 only if India had lost all the 10 wickets in the 20 overs. However, if
the rain had come before India began the chase and had curtailed it to 20 overs
on resumption, India would have had to go after 148, not matter how
many wickets they choose to lose in the process of playing 20 overs.
The implementation of the algorithm to calculate the revised
target for a team batting second in a rain curtailed match, should be the same irrespective
of whether the interruption happened in the middle of the chase or whether it
happened at the beginning of the chase. And for this to happen, for the team
batting second should be given a choice of targets instead of a single Target.
What it means is that the team batting second should be
given an option of 10 targets (based on a combination of runs scored and
wickets lost – Eg. 80-0; 90-1: 100-2; 104-3…133-7; 140-8; 145-9 and 148-10- Illustrative numbers to make the point)
instead of merely giving it a single target (148 runs). This would make the
game more fair and strategically more exciting for all concerned.
India eventually played the full game and fell short of the 240 target- fair and square! However, the fans would have been gutted had the target been 148 in 20 overs and India ended up at 140-4. Duckworth, Lewis & Stern would have suddenly become too popular for the wrong reasons.
I think the change in implementation of this wonderful
algorithm makes a case for itself and I rest it here!
The next 2 recommendations are fairly simple ones
Play Offs instead of Semi-final knockouts
The simple logic is when the group matches are very many
(like this world cup) there could be a lot of situations where the teams
finishing #1 and #2 in the group stages would have done significantly better
than teams finishing #3 and #4. So as an insurance against a rough day for a
very consistent team (Indian Captain mentioned 45 mins of bad play cost them
the tournament), the tournament should end with IPL styled play offs for the
top 4 teams instead of a typical simple knock out format (ICCs quest to keep it
simple for the audience and for their own minds over what could have been more
fairer for the teams and fans)
Two 20 over innings instead of this 50 over drab
It is not a surprise that the T20 cricket has gained more
popularity over the 50 over format. The close finishes, the super overs, the
drama that are associated with a T20 were largely missing in the 50 over world
cup format where the best 10 teams played each other. The games were predictable,
where a huge percentage of games were won by the teams winning the toss (at
least when a good team took on a good team). It is a matter of time before the
50 over cricket becomes extinct. To save this one day international format, Sachin
Tendulkar, many moons back, had recommended to split up the 50 over format in
to 2 set of 20 over innings played alternately. Masterstroke from the master. It
takes out the toss, the conditions and the boredom in one stroke. It would be a
beautiful fusion of two other cricket formats (Tests and T20). The master has
applied his mind and given the idea on a platter.
Three simple changes, to reduce the ridiculousness (you can’t always get away by calling it a game of luck!)
Looking forward to more exciting and fairer cricket games and rules.
Good luck to ICC!
Pradeep Krishnamurthy
Comments
Post a Comment