Are the new ODI rules meant to rejuvenate the game or is it plain stupidity?

Charlotte Edwards of England attempts a switch hit during the ICC Women’s Twenty20 World Cup match between India and England at The County Ground

In the midst of all the T20 excitement generated by the Indian Premier League and Big Bashes, the 50-over format has suffered. We were seeing empty stands all around the world but the alarm bells started ringing when the sub-continent started to suffer. The Indian audiences that are eternally starved for cricket, even when they easily play the busiest calendar in the world, began to turn to Bollywood and started their torrent downloads when a 50-over cricket was offered. This was not solely a problem caused by the innate nature of the format, it was a result of multiple factors.

The first is the overkill. As they say, always leave them for wanting more. With the Premier League being contested every year for two months, Test cricket being played all round the calender and repetitive India-SL series (wait there’s one going on right now), the audiences are going to be satiated at some point. Another problem was a lack of imaginative thinking in the ODI format on part of the teams which began to approach it with a fixed formula. Test cricket remained an arena where you had to arrange field placements on your feet, bring bowler changes and be constantly active but the 50-over format could be figured out. Four overs to begin with three in the middle, four at the death and there goes the excitement. The middle overs became a kind of no-war peacetime pact when the batsman gathered runs with singles as fielding captains tried to defend boundaries.

The ICC brought in new rules but both these factors remain overlooked as no change in the calendar has been made. On the other hand, the game has been made more formulaic by the introduction of batting power-plays (which teams insist they won’t take before the 35th over). The boundaries are coming in, the bats are getting bigger, the life expectancy of a spinner is getting shorter. The ICC is basically trying to change the 50-over format into two games of T-20. There is a whole lot that is wrong with the 50-over format.

Let us have a look at the individual changes that were made to make the limited overs format more enticing. The most prominent change that has been introduced in the game are the two new balls that are now taken simultaneously at two different ends. The idea behind this is that the new ball swings for double the time offering the bowling side a little hand of help. The mandatory change of the ball that happened at the end of the 34th over does not happen any more (if the umpires can please note that down!).

Scott Styris of New Zealand attempts a switch hit during the Fifth NatWest Series One Day International match between England and New Zealand at Lord’s

The problem with this rule is that even though the bowler is offered a little more, the batsman still holds considerable advantage in this change as he gets to exploit the field restrictions with a harder ball for the greater part of the game. Not only that, the possibility of reverse swing that is prominent in sub-continent conditions is entirely obliterated. If you thought that was not enough, think about the poor spinner. He will have to ply his trade with a new ball which is extremely frustrating even if you take into account the fact that spinners have gotten used to bowling with a new ball in T20 cricket. But this is not T20 is it? Or rather it was not T-20.

Two bouncers an overs are now allowed so the speedsters have a slight advantage, which is a slightly more sensible move. It has been expected for a long time. With the batsman having absolutely no limitations over what he can do (switch hit anyone?), why add restraints over what is after all a perfectly legitimate delivery? There can’t be possible overuse of the short ball because if that happens the batsman will learn to cope with it. It is not a very effective delivery in the slow and dry conditions of the sub-continent if you are not an express fast bowler (and let’s be honest how many express fast bowlers does India have anyway?) The idea is to remove predetermined shot-making and let’s hope it works.

The third and the most contentious of all the three changes is the change in field setting. The batsman already have a free run in the power-play overs with just two fielders outside the circle. Now an additional rule has been introduced that allows a maximum of four fielders outside the circle. Yes, that’s it. Bring the boundaries in, make bigger, meatier bats, free-hits, everything outside the leg-side is wide and you can turn around and play lefty if you want…why doesn’t the ICC abolish running two’s and three’s and ask the bowler to bowl under-arm? This rule means that the game becomes all about big hitting and less about what it was in its initial conception. It was about the smaller arts of running-between-the-wickets and athletic fielding. The game does not need as much change as much the ICC think-tank thinks it does.