Even Sachin can be wrong

By Rajadhyax

Ace cricketer Sachin Tendulkar recently stated that One Day Internationals (ODI) must be divided into four innings of 25 overs each. This would increase the interest in the game and make it more action oriented in the bargain. Dave Richardson, the ICC Cricket Manager and former South African Test cricketer promptly agreed with him. “I quite like that idea,” says Dave, “This might work in day-night cricket where one team has to bat in day and the other at night. It provides something different and reduces the effects on the team that loses the toss.” ICC has even indicated that they might try this feature experimentally in 2009 and review it in 2010 when ICC Cricket Committee is scheduled to meet again.

But frankly, this is another case of idol worship moored more in blind faith than strong logic. Sachin could be next to God in cricket – and might be arguably the greatest ever in the game – but afterall he is a human being and prone to making erroneous judgement. In this case he has done that and this article dares to say so. Firstly, the very claim that ODIs are becoming drab or losing out to the T20 format is blatantly false and is not supported by statistics. Preliminary matches in long tournaments always ran to half empty houses and they will continue to do so even after the introduction of four innings. Mr. Tendulkar, you should have known that spectators come to watch big stars and triumphant teams and in preliminary matches were they are not involved, the spectator turnout is low.

The claim that ODIs are becoming predictable or boring is not tenable either. Majority of ODIs are fascinating affairs with just a handful becoming one-sided and hence a trifle drab. As for the predictability of matches, I would challenge anyone (including the great Tendulkar himself) to predict the result before the match and I’ll eat my words even if he predicts 50% of the results with good accuracy. It is simply not true that match results can be predicted, as shown by the tremendous money changing hands in betting on matches. If ODIs were predictable, the simple working of a betting business model says that betting would have stopped.

Introduction of four innings in ODIs would render every inning virtually a T20 match by itself. That will spoil the fun of a slowly building suspense that a normal ODI offers. A T20 match is like a high octane action-film while an ODI is like a Hitchcock fare. Dividing ODIs in four innings is like banishing Hitchcock-like films forever. It will be more action oriented but the fun of ODI’s strategising developments accompanied by the final slog-overs assault will disappear for ever. Would you, my dear readers, like to lose that aspect of the game and get four patches of slog-overs in the bargain where the batsmen will indulge in crazy power play and the bowlers have very little say? All the subtleties of the ODI will be history.

And what’s the need? There are T20 matches for those who like that kind of stuff. There are Test matches for someone who likes patiently building epics. And then there are ODIs for those who settle for something in-between. That is a good hierarchy of formats and should be continued with. There is no need to tinker with it again! It caters to all three kinds of needs and players also can divide themselves accordingly. And by the same yardstick, may be, Mr. Tendulkar will next suggest that Test matches must be divided into eight innings of 25 overs each. Come on, that is just change for the sake of change.

No one wants cricket to look like a damn video game one day. And TV executives will pressure ICC into doing it if someone doesn’t stop the juggernaut.

Or are we getting so concerned about TV companies and their TRPs that we will change cricket to whatever extent needed to make it a more TV friendly game? I assure Mr. Tendulkar, Mr. Richardson and others of their mind that if the TV companies are told that the formats will not change any further, they will come up with their own marketing strategies and campaigning to make the existing formats of the game most acceptable to the public.

When cricket is one of the most popular games in the world, it has high TRPs, its getting so many sponsors falling over each other to fund the game, kids want to become the next Sachin, academies and infrastructure is increasing and more countries are jumping on to the bandwagon, where on earth did Tendulkar and co get the message that the ODIs are dying and some knee-jerk reaction is needed in it?

Or does it prove the old adage in the game that – players are good at playing the game and not so good at managing it.