|
|
Expert Analysis & Opinions
|
 |
An After-Thought
|
|
Posted by Raghuvir Leelasagar on Feb 26th, 2010
|
Setup:
Team A vs. Team B in an ODI. A hot day with high humidity. A belter of a pitch at a relatively small ground - a big scoring game.
Situation 1:
Team A, on which Mr. X is an opener, bats first. Mr. X plays a marathon inning, and is exhausted at the end 50 overs. As Team B attempts to chase down the target, Mr. X doesn’t take the field, and is subbed out by the twelfth man. Team A would miss Mr. X if he were also a bowler; if he were purely a batsman, Team A gains from the fresh legs of the twelfth man for the duration of their defense. Advantage Team A.
Situation 2:
Team A, on which Mr. X is an opener, bowls first. Given the heat and humidity, Mr. X opts not to take to the field towards preserving his energy for the chase. The twelfth man takes to the field in place of Mr. X for the duration of the inning, as Team B bats first and sets a target. However, having spent an extended duration of time off the field, Mr. X cannot open the batting; he will have to wait till the fall of the fifth wicket, before he can bat.
Quandary:
1) In ’situation 1’ should Mr. X be required to take to the field during the chase, no matter his condition (other than an injury), which allows Team B to exploit a tired and possibly weak fielder?
2) In ’situation 2’ should Mr. X be allowed to open, in spite of spending the entire duration of the first-inning, in the pavilion, given that ’situation 1’ is a common occurrence?
2a) If Mr. X had fielded only for the first half of the first-inning and spent the second half of the first-inning in the pavilion, should be allowed to open the batting when Team A attempts to chase down their target?
2b) Mr. X spends the first half of the first-inning in the pavilion, but fields for the second half of the first-inning. That’s considered as making up for time spent away from the field, and he is allowed to open the batting, when Team A attempts to chase down their target. Given the subtle differences between ’2a’ and ’2b’, what are your thoughts?
Questions in Summary:
1) Should a team be allowed to move one or more players, from the starting 11, on and off the field, to allow them to perform their task, while their bodies are at full-strength?
2) Should hard-restrictions be enforced on a player leaving the field of play for a non-injury related reason? The team violating this, will be fined runs rather than a percentage of their match fee.
Closing Statement:
In the Gwalior ODI vs. South Africa Sachin returned to the field of play after breaching the 200 barrier, as part of South Africa’s futile attempt to chase down a mammoth 401. That talks greatness about Sachin’s fitness. However Sachin, Saeed Anwar, and others, after playing a marathon inning have not taken to the field for the duration of the chase. Their teams get a pair of fresh legs on the field - the twelfth man - and proceed towards defending their target without a problem or a dilemma. Teams that have to chase a mammoth score, do not have the luxury of using a fresh player when it comes to the chase. This scenario applies to the Test match arena as well. England, in the 2005 Ashes, used the twelfth man actively to use a fresh pair of legs while fielding, as they rotated players from the starting eleven on and off the field. The twelfth man made his presence felt on the field - run-outs, and catches - leaving the Aussie camp furious.
It’s time for the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), the International Cricket Council (ICC), and other stakeholders to address this topic. |
| |
 |
|
|
 Loading, please wait...
|
|
Posted by Dave Edwards on Feb 26th, 2010 |
Hi Raghu,
It is really good one. One suggestion if you can replace x and y with real team name.
|
|
|
|
Posted by on Feb 28th, 2010 |
Hi Raghu,
For your questions, my answers will be
1. yes, teams should be allowed the freedom to move in n out off the field to perform their task, while their bodies are at full strength.
2. I dont think any more hard restrictions are required. If they follow the existing rules by ensuring its real spirit of the rule thats enough.
Why because, first of all cricket is a team game and we want the better team to win (by team.. I am meaning declared playing 11 n the substitute bench players), so by allowing the freedom to move in n out off the field to perform their task, while their bodies are at full strength, you are getting better cricket performance from the players, i.e batting, bowling n fielding. and thats what I believe any cricket audience wants. Better batting against better bowling n better fielding side will always make a match interesting.
We can also think of like a american football setup. Like a american football team consists of offensive team n defensive team, we can also have a cricket team consisting of batting team (ten best batsmans), fielding team (consisting of best 9 fielders) n bowling team (consists of 5 best bowlers). Batsman doing their job and taking rests, bowler doing their job and taking rest and fielders doing their job and taking rest. I believe this will result in a higher competitive cricket...What do you say ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Opinions
|
| Expert comments not available |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 | JULY 2010 |  | | | | | | 2 | | | 5 | | | 8 | | 10 | 11 | | 13 | | 15 | 16 | | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
