4 simple changes ICC can bring about to not let down the game of Cricket
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. Here are 4 changes (3 simple, 1 a bit more complex) suggested that can reduce the "Luck" factor in the game.
This blog outlines four strategic recommendations aimed
at reducing the influence of luck and unfairness in
professional cricket. I first take a hard look at the Duckworth-Lewis-Stern
(DLS) method, proposing a more flexible system of multiple targets to
better reflect match situations during rain delays. Another suggestion involves
using technology to halve the runs awarded for unintentional
edges, ensuring batters are not disproportionately rewarded for poor shots. To
modernize the game and maintain engagement, I support splitting 50-over
matches into two separate 20-over innings for each side. Finally, I propose
allowing the team that loses the toss to make a tactical
player substitution to compensate for unfavourable pitch or weather
conditions. Through these changes, the game could be more skill-based
and equitable competitive environment governed by the International
Cricket Council.
1. 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 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 had 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, 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 3 recommendations are fairly simple ones
2. Unintended Edges- Identify it, halve it.
We have seen it so many times and lazily brushed it off as
the batsman got lucky.
Perfect Yorkers from the bowler, batsman like a deer caught
in the headlights. Inside edge, goes to the boundary. The winning margin of the
match is 2 runs. We can sit tight about this situation saying that luck will
even out things for everyone- but it might take some years. What about this
match?
Can technology not help identify deliberate edges from unintended
edges. Of course, yes, I can do it with my eyesight (nowhere near the 20:20
vision), a 9 out of 10 times, without even looking at a replay. Tech can do it
99 out of 100 times. If tech gets it wrong 1% of the time, we just cannot say we
will leave it to luck. Get it right the other 99 times please. Ok now, what
after the tech determines it is an unintended edge than a deliverable edge.
Simple, just award half the number of runs than what the edge fetched the
batsman in the first place. A sixer becomes 3, a 4 becomes as 2 and a 1 becomes
0.5. Goes without saying, a catch of an unintended edge remains a catch, a wicket for the bowling team.
3. 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.
4. Toss out the advanatge of wining the toss
Many a times, the side winning the toss gets a grand advantage
owing to the conditions that prevail that help either the batsman or the bowler.
For two teams matched similarly on skills, If you are a team familiar with the conditions,
and you win the toss, you win the game. At least happens to 25% of the matches.
How do we toss out the advantage of winning the toss? It could be done many
ways, but the simplest way would be to allow the team losing the toss to substitute
1 person from a team of 11 that gets picked with another person of our choice
(usually, this will involve a skillset change. Pick one extra batsman instead
of a bowler or vice versa based on what the conditions dictate). This way they can
negate the disadvantage of losing the toss to some extent.
Four 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