According to cricinfo this shot is one of an invisible (yet handsome, you'll have to take my word for it) Ewen Chatfield stretchered off after nearly being killed on the cricket field, in a Test match against England in 1975. Pre-helmet days, Chatfield reportedly swallowed his tongue after being hit unconscious on the temple by a bouncer from English fast bowler Peter Lever. Chatfield, a 'New Zlnd' medium-pace bowler himself, was revived by heart massage.
As a digression once again distracts me from the main focus of this blog - which of course will always remain Sachin Tendulkar - I'm inviting contributions from the cognoscenti on a number of aspects of contemporary cricket which often incite heated debate. So, to begin this week, let's hear it from amateur cricket statistician and 'the Ewen Chatfield of Sunday social cricket', Jeremy Gilling, writing as himself:
Putting a premium on taking wickets
by Jeremy Gilling
Christine has kindly offered me space for an irregular column in which I air a few suggestions for revamping cricket in both its long and short versions. I begin with the one-day (50-over) format.
It is clear that the 50-over game in its present configuration is slowly dying. Crowds for this once hugely popular form of entertainment are down almost everywhere, calamitously so in its domestic manifestation. Most games follow a script that has become tediously familiar. The rules are made ever more artificial and byzantine in an effort to reinvigorate the game, with further tinkering in prospect.
The heart of the problem, in my view, is that, unlike in the traditional unrestricted overs version of the game, wickets don’t count for nearly as much as runs. Worse, the value of a wicket declines sharply as the innings progresses, and is often next to worthless in the last handful of overs. Conversely, batting becomes ever more recklessly extravagant as the overs tick down. The end of innings slog must break the purist’s heart.
A resultant problem is that there’s little room for tactical subtlety. Field settings are dictated by the rules and the stage of the innings. You can even reliably predict who will be asked to bowl when, and what line and length they’ll bowl. Bowlers try to bowl as wide of the off stump as they can get away with without being called. Even deliberate full tosses have their place. It would be sad if it wasn’t so dreary.
My proposal is simplicity itself. Give the batting side 10 bonus runs for each wicket intact at the end of their innings. At the same time, do away with the power play – and perhaps (after the innovation’s been trialled for a while), abolish all limited-overs field restrictions (in other words, scrap the fielding circle – the only restrictions in place would be those that apply in first-class cricket). You could probably even scrap the one-day wide rule.
This reform – which would only apply in games that run their full length (the Duckworth-Lewis formula already allows for wickets lost) – would I think transform the game by bringing wicket-taking back to the fore throughout the innings.
Now suddenly batsmen have to place a value on their wicket at every stage of the game (just like in Test cricket), and will bat accordingly. The ugly crossbat slog – and that dreadful step to leg to hit over the top of covers – will become a thing of the past. Strokeplayers will replace bashers. Bowlers will mix attack and containment just as in a Test (and attacking bowlers will supersede medium-pace trundlers). Captains will balance attack and defence in setting fields.
It would also solve the problem of the tedious middle stage from around over 15 to over 35, which even the administrators have finally recognised is killing the game, where there’s an implicit truce between the batsmen and bowlers: we’ll give you 4 to 5 runs an over so long as you just bunt the ball down to long on and long off for singles.
But the best thing about this proposal is that it would introduce complexity and intrigue into the limited overs game, and require everyone – batsmen, bowlers, captains (and of course spectators/viewers and commentators) – to have their wits about them at every stage of the innings. Suppose, for example, that side A scores 5-250 in their 50 overs (= 300 with the bonus). After 40 overs, side B is 3-200. Under the present rules, that would be a cakewalk for side B – just plod along for 5 overs without losing more than a couple of wickets, then throw the bat. But now, under this proposed format, both sides have to think strategically. Side B will have to decide whether to aim for 31 runs in 10 overs if they’re good enough to keep all wickets intact (remember that side A will be attacking, not just containing), or 41 runs losing just 1 wicket, or 51 losing 2 wickets ... And side A will be making exactly the same calculations. Not only that, but every time a wicket is lost, they’ve got to reappraise their tactics.
Another example: side A scores 5-250 as before, and side B is 5-248 after 49 overs. Game over under the present rules, but under my suggestion, side A still has a real chance – if they can take a wicket before side B scores 3 runs, everything changes. (And just to add a soupçon of spice, you could say that the game stays alive even if side B scores 3 runs off the first ball – that they still have to play out the last five balls without losing a wicket.)
Let’s try it out in the Australian interstate competition next season – we’ve nothing to lose, after all; the game as it stands is dead in the water. I can see only one problem with this suggestion. Channel 9 and Fox Sports would have to hire some intelligent, numerate people as commentators, and I’ve no idea where they’d find them.
Jeremy's next column will be about restructuring the Test championship. Comments welcome from those stirred up by Jeremy's proposal. Please feel free to let fly - & if you have difficulty logging comments on here, email me at cvwananda@gmail.com
In the meantime, next week we'll have a photo and commentary offering on the subject of the great Sachin Tendulkar from Marcus Couto (CCI) et al.
Copyright for main article Jeremy Gilling.
Ewen Chatfield pic 1st Test, Auckland, February 24, 1975 was reproduced on cricinfo www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/image/343409.html with permission from The Cricketer International.
Pic of Jeremy Gilling, not as brave as Chatfield but obviously a little worse for wear while not prepared to don his whites on a cycle trip in Vietnam about 30 years after Chatfield's close shave with death. No connection exists between the two photgraphs as far as I can see, except that Jeremy, as a young lad, must have admired Chatfield to describe himself comparatively.Check out our other blogs edited into an exclusive ebook at: http://www.searchingforsachin.net/
