Re: Substitutes to be allowed in ODIs
some interesting points raised by the author…
Cricket does not need substitutes Arun Sivasankaran
July 3, 2005
The search for the second Kapil Dev can now be put to an end, in one day internationals at least. Where is the need?
Thanks to the ICC wanting to try on soccer boots, India can now forget about unearthing players who can contribute both with the bat and the ball. When you don’t need a finished product anymore, when there is an opportunity to put half and half to make one, why not grab it?
From now on, Team Indian can put that magician with the bat who can’t field to save his life, VVS Laxman, on the field, extract a few good runs from him, say ‘thank you’ for a job well done, and then bring in a better fielder, or even a frontline bowler, for the rest of the match. Laxman will get full pay for less than a half day at the office. So will his substitute.
That is not cricket, is it?
It is not that the ICC has got it all wrong. Increasing the number of overs when field restrictions would be in place from 15 to 20 may not be too appealing, specially if you are someone whose runs in an bowl to earn a living, but allowing the fielding captain to decide when to use half of those overs, in two blocks of five each, is a masterstroke. Teams won’t be able to run on autopilot in the middle overs anymore. Giving on-field umpires the freedom to consult the TV umpire on any decision, though an open acknowledgement that technology is king is another step taken in the right direction. Far too often, batsmen have got away with murder when it comes to close LBW decisions.
It is obvious that the panel chaired by Sunil Gavaskar, which proposed the changes in the ODI format, has its heart in the right place, but what was the need to try and clear the ropes when a hit along the ground would have done? Coloured clothing, day and night games and floodlights, all of which came in along the way, jelled perfectly with the nature of the game, but substitutes? That is tinkering with the dynamics of the game, dumping down in the name of innovation.
Imagine this scenario: Pakistan, chasing down a big total by India, is tottering at the brink, even though Inzamam is still in and going about his job without any fuss. Wickets have fallen in a heap at the other end and with just number eleven to come in, India can sight the finishing line. In place of Shabbir, the last man, comes in Yasir Hameed, the substitute. Captain and substitute then take Pakistan home. Bizarre? The ICC certainly does not think so.
Teams will go into a match knowing fully well that it does not matter if they have erred in picking the final eleven. Reading the pitch right or winning the toss will not be as important as it was anymore. If you go in with three pacers and the pitch starts taking turn, kick the third quick and get a spinner in - it is as easy as that. One should be grateful that the ICC did not look at hockey, with its rolling substitutions, for inspiration.
The speed at which the game is played demands substitutes in soccer; cricket can easily do without it. Manufacturing excitement, as the ICC is so obviously trying to do, will only drain drama and strip the game of the romance that makes it much more than just a battle between bat and ball.
In a way, it is a surprise that Gavaskar and friends stopped at this. The panel was looking at some other very interesting ideas as well, including a double-play situation, where you can have two dismissals in one ball. “If a batsman’s been given out leg before wicket and the ball ricochets off to gully and the fielder picks it up and throws the stumps down at the non-striker’s end with the batsman out of the crease, you have two batsmen walking to the pavilion in one ball. Same if the ball’s gone up in the air and is caught,” Gavaskar had said some time back. The ICC, thankfully, has not been that reckless.
That the changes in the ODI format have come in the year when the ICC is shifting base from Lord’s, the home or cricket, to Dubai cannot be a mere coincidence. The message is clear - tradition is a nice word, a good thing to have, as long as it does not come in the way.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/htcricket/74_000100040021,1419344.htm