Tag Archives: cricket rules

Changes to the Laws

Posted on by

The ICC has made several important decisions in the past few weeks. Here is my take on them:

Mandatory DRS: I am very happy about this. Of course, we have this weird compromise between the BCCI and the ICC with the ball-tracking technology being removed. But it is a start to making umpires accountable, improving their standards and also reducing sham incidents in matches.

No runners in international cricket: I don’t understand who had this as a big priority item. There have been a few cynical incidents involving runners, but I didn’t know that this was such a burning problem. Having a runner is a double-edged sword in that the batsman can conserve some energy, but also be out on some stupid confusion. So not sure what difference this will make on the average.

New balls from both ends in ODIs: May make for smaller targets with the top order crumbling more often than usual. I would have also provided an option for allowing one side to change a ball after the 30th over just to keep things interesting.

Batting and bowling Powerplays to be taken between overs 16 and 40: This is excellent and goes to show how clueless the ICC was when they introduced extra Powerplays without such limitations. You would have thought that there should have been some discussion of making sure that the Powerplays are used to spice up the middle overs. Anyway, all’s well that ends well.

Captains to be suspended after only two over-rate breaches in a year, as opposed to the existing three: What a joke! Captains have over-rate problems when they are losing. A good captain (I am not talking about Ricky Ponting here) would rather be suspended than speed through the overs and end defeated. A much better way to do this would be to punish the errant team (if they bowl first) by reducing the overs they get to bat. Or if they bat first, then they will get the runs in their most productive overs cut off from the target for the second team. I don’t know about Tests, maybe have a reserve day for all the missing overs?

Batsmen can be dismissed obstructing the field if they change their course while running to prevent a run-out chance: Duh!

Bowlers will be allowed to run out a non-striker backing up unfairly: Duh again! I have never understood why this was supposed to be against the spirit of cricket. Someone explain to me why stealing several yards to make a run is okay while running out that person is supposed to be a horrible crime. As for the warning before dismissal, should a bowler warn a batsman that he has taken a wrong guard and not york him?

Spinning the Debate

Posted on by

Ducking Beamers has a good response to our post on Johan Botha and offspinners in general. Let me elaborate upon what I agreed with the writer and what I disagreed. First, though, go and read it. I will wait.

DB is correct in suggesting that the entire article provides no corroborating evidence for any of the claims. This is a fair argument especially in the context of chucking with respect to spin bowling action. This calls for reading more on the bio-mechanical aspects of the bowling action. I suppose the ICC should have published more information on this. I haven’t read it and should have. Once I do so, I will post another article explaining what I learnt and linking to others. Watch this space.

DB is also correct about Saqlain Mushtaq, who actually is one of the doosra bowlers who didn’t get accused of chucking. Shoaib Malik was the Pakistani bowler who was reported to the ICC. He has since been cleared. Here is a list of international players who have faced allegations of throwing.

When I mentioned “bias” against Murali, I was talking about the “institutions”, specifically the ICC. The ICC seemingly used the best science they had and cleared him. They have to be commended for that. I didn’t think of commentators and former cricket players as an “institution”. Obviously, quite a few people including past cricket players (Bishen Singh Bedi comes to mind) still think Murali chucks. We cannot help that.

I also suggested that the behavior of people like Darrell Hair gives greater credence to allegations of racism. It has only been a short while that apartheid existed in South Africa. And other Western countries have had their struggles with racial relations. It is more than likely that some of the antagonism against Murali comes from a bad place.

But I do have a problem with the theory that Murali’s problems can be entirely attributed to racism. The root cause is that he does have an odd action. And he was only cleared by a scientific analysis, which implies that an umpire or another player could not distinguish such an action from an illegal action using the naked eye. This creates a sort of cognitive dissonance, where you “see” a bowler chucking and you have read that it is perfectly legal. I suppose there could also be a level of envy and disbelief at Murali’s incredible success that contributes to the ongoing murmur about his action.

Also, I don’t think that the racial argument is a good one to use in any case. Either he is throwing or not throwing. End of story. Once you start bringing race (or religion or nationality) into an argument, you lose sight of the facts. And just because a racist says something doesn’t mean that it is false. You have to prove it false.

DB, for some reason, suggests that a bowler would not consciously throw the ball if a chucking allegation could end their careers. Excuse me, but I think that is pretty naive. That would imply that no cheating ever takes place in sports. Cricket had its match fixing scandals. Almost every sport has had doping scandals. I am sure that there are sportspersons who stay clean to avoid getting into trouble, but there will always be people who want to gain any slight advantage they can, even if it means bending or breaking laws. Just look at the Tour de France history of doping.

I remember how, for a brief period of time, at least for me, match fixing created disillusionment with cricket matches. You would always wonder if a weak underdog beat a stronger team, or if there was a strange collapse of the batting order, or if the fielding team seemed a tad lazy. You just didn’t know what was true. And the match fixing scandal was true and it threatened cricketing careers and cricket itself.

In the same way, chucking is a serious problem and has to be dealt with accordingly because it threatens to undermine the integrity of a bowler’s record. The problem is that things are very muddy nowadays. As I noted before, the difference between chucking and a legitimate delivery is not clear to the casual observer. The umpires can report a person to the ICC and the player has to undergo tests.

The question is: How do they make the decision to report? I suppose that it is easier with the major Test-playing nations. But now, international cricket is expanding tremendously with so many countries and so many different forms of cricket. I would guess (without proof, but with a high degree of confidence) that different umpires have different personal standards for making this decision.

So let me explain why we should care about bending the arms within the permissible limit. First, the assumption is that throwing brings some advantage to the bowler. If it didn’t, there is no point in discussing any of this because who cares if the bowler throws or bowls if spin “chiefly depends on wrist and finger movement“?

But if throwing does provide an advantage, then it goes that some unscrupulous bowlers will try to incorporate as much of the throwing action as possible without actually being called for throwing. Some bowlers may be doing this unconsciously as they try to imitate the successful Murali. Since other bowlers do not have Murali’s physical condition, what exactly are they doing?

I am sure that I missed a couple of interesting points. But primarily it boils down to this: When you sit down to watch a game of cricket, you want to be 100% sure that the final result is the outcome of two teams that fought hard and fair. That is why issues like match fixing, ball tampering and chucking allegations are crises: they destroy that confidence. And all cricket fans should be clamouring to demand that we end the drip-drip of such chucking revelations and establish standard regulations and procedures to resolve this.

Explain To Me Again Why We Need Dead Pitches

Posted on by

While giving due appreciation to Younis Khan’s triple century, the recent Test between Sri Lanka and Pakistan was the worst advertisement for cricket there could be, especially in the age of instant cricket and global TV viewership. If this had been a timeless Test, it would perhaps have gone for ever. When Test cricket attendance is falling sharply and fans are clamouring for more Twenty20 matches, what excuse do the powers-that-be have for making a mockery of a contest.

Let us look at the advantages stoked in favor of the batsmen:

  1. Heavy bats that result in even mistakes being carried over the boundary.
  2. High standard and light protective gear that protects every part of the body from injury.
  3. Rules to prevent bowlers from intentionally or accidentally hurting batsmen.

Not to mention every change in one-dayers that has been favorable to batsmen and resulted in bowlers being turned into sacrificial sheep. What was the last innovation that helped bowlers? No, I cannot remember either.

These results hurt batsmen too where it really matters: their reputation. For example, Thilan Samaraweera’s batting has been praised as the best of Sri Lankan batsmen by Sangakkara, but there is no way to accept that, especially when he has scored on sub-continent pitches against poor opposition. He may still end up with a plus-50 average courtesy Bangladesh, but he will never be respected.

People will only come to watch Test cricket, especially on the last day if both bowlers and batsmen have the same chance of winning. The best matches are where the 4th innings is an average target and wickets are falling at regular intervals, so that there is always the suspense. Even draws can be thrilling as long as there is always the possibility of a result.

The solution? The ICC should draw up guidelines for competitive pitches. Obviously, having one standard would take the fun out of cricket, because all players could practice on the same kind of wickets. So there should be a range of acceptable wickets, some a little favorable to batsmen and some favorable to bowlers. So, you wouldn’t have a wicket that takes spin on the first morning, but you also wouldn’t have a graveyard for bowlers, either. The recent WI-Eng Test, abandoned for a different reason, should hasten such thinking. After all, the ICC does govern the conditions of balls and equipment, so why not pitches?

Why ODI Statistics are Worse Than Useless

Posted on by

ODI match

ODI Match

Statistics are the bread-and-butter of sportswriters. Sports fans love how we can analyze the best players and teams in different conditions and times. Games like soccer provide very limited opportunities for statistical analysis. But cricket with its ball-by-ball action has inexhaustible possibilities for data mining. I don’t mean in any sense to demean this activity. It is part of the fun of being a cricket enthusiast. Numerical data also provides us guidance in expectations for team performance and improvement.

However, in the realm of one-day cricket, statistical analysis for many aspects of the game is becoming worse than useless. Analysis only makes sense when you are comparing performances that take place in constant conditions. Let me start with the caveat that every cricket match is different: grounds, pitches, teams, etc. But you could make an argument that over a long period, such an entire career, many of these variables iron themselves out and so you may be able to do some comparisons. But that argument falls flat on the many changes to the rules of one-day internationals as well as the strategies used in the games.

Consider the following:

  1. There have been different rain rules until the Duckworth-Lewis method came into being. With a run-rate based rain rule, the team batting second had an unfair advantage, while the best-scoring overs gave it a distinct disadvantage. Teams and players had to play differently according to those circumstances. Nowadays, when there is a chance of rain, teams have to be very careful not to lose wickets and can sometimes afford to play out a few overs if they happen to be ahead on runs.
     
  2. The idea of openers hitting sixers from the first ball only originated in the 1992 World Cup (20 years after the first ODI), and the idea of BOTH openers doing it came from the Sri Lankan team just before the 1996 World Cup. Comparing openers before and after this period is meaningless. For example, the Indian opener Sunil Gavaskar had a solitary ODI hundred, because the idea of openers batting faster was not in vogue then.
     
  3. Runs from wides and no-balls are now treated differently than before. We also have free hits that didn’t exist before. Players add easy runs to their record without even the risk of being out.
     
  4. Advancements in technology reduces mistakes made by umpires. Starting with run-out decisions, we now have third umpires for deciding on clean catches and providing guidance on LBW’s and so on. This is also an issue with Test stats. Technology has also reduced the risk to batsmen from dangerous fast bowlers and provided improved bats that carry enormous power for them to hit freely. Even mishits end up as sixers behind the wicketkeeper. 
     
  5. Once upon a time, the first 15 overs had fielding restrictions. Now it is 10 + 5 + 5, allowing teams to post bigger scores. The most recent innovation is that the batting team can decide when to take a 5-over Powerplay, which they will do only at the most opportune time. 

In short, this is not your father’s ODI. It is not even your elder brother’s ODI match. The pace of change has picked up with the ICC trying to popularize the game and make it more appealing to the crowds. The huge success of T20 is putting pressure on ODI to change or die. Until we reach some stability, comparing batsmen, bowlers and teams from different ODI periods (even though they are a fraction of the Test match era) is essentially an exercise in futility.

[photo licensed from Talisen]