So the season of test cricket starts. Brendon McCullum and some of his countrymen have left the Indian shore and are already playing against the English at Lord's. And this time, the play is not only for batsmen. This time, its test cricket, or as the purists say, the highest form of competitive cricket.
Hang on a second there. What made me say 'this time, its not only for batsmen' for T20 cricket, the Indian version of which has reached the playoffs by now. But, isn't that the case with cricket all along? It has always been more about the batsmen than the bowlers. And this has been like this since the advent of one-day cricket.
The reasons for starting a limited overs version of cricket were simple. People were not turning up for test matches in the huge numbers they used to in the 50s and 60s. They were getting bored by the 'slow' and 'drawn' games lasting for 5 days. Everyone wanted results and quick and fast cricketing action, like boundaries being hit on a regular basis and results coming out after a day's play. The ICC wanted cricket to stand up to other sports and we gradually shifted to ODIs and other limited overs domestic tournaments and leagues. Time moved on and even the ODIs started to seem long enough to search for even shorter formats and we have T20 on our hands now, which has really caught the attention of the crowd with towering sixes of Gayle and AB de Villiers and with some small bowling marvels once in a while.
But somehow, during this whole transition, we forgot about our bowlers by constantly limiting their armoury. There have been many debates over a lot of points on how to bring more 'equality' in the game of cricket. One of the major ones being allowing 1-2 bouncers every over (depending on the format being played). But a lot of benefits still are in the batsman's favor. He can go for a switch hit whenever he wants, but a bowler has to tell the umpire before delivering which side he wants to bowl from (over the wicket or round the wicket). A batsman can shuffle in the crease all he wants, but a bowler can't be an inch outside the bowling crease, otherwise he runs the risk of conceding a 'free hit', which in turn, again gives the batsman an edge. These points have been discussed over and over again by the pundits and it cannot be outrightly denied that some of these batsmen-friendly rules have helped the shorter version of the game.
The point which I want to put across is regarding the over limits for bowlers. Test cricket gives a batsman and a bowler to play to his strengths and keep going on. A batsman can play one whole day in a test match and similarly, a bowler can keep bowling as long as he wants (by taking appropriate breaks in between). But when we shift focus to limited overs cricket, batsmen still have the license to keep going for the entire duration of the innings, whereas the bowlers just can't. Every year we are seeing new boundaries being breached in cricket, the highest individual score or the fastest 50/100/150/200 and so on. The latest world cup itself saw 2 double hundreds, one from Chris Gayle and the other from Martin Guptill, where they single handedly took the game away from the opposition by batting for 40-50 overs (Guptill actually batted through the entire 50 overs - watch https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NGkG6-02yHg). But do the bowlers ever get such a chance even when they are bowling well. Take for instance Wahab Riaz during his game in the QF against the Aussies. The spell he bowled to dismiss Michael Clarke and literally terrify Steve Smith and Shane Watson has been dubbed as one of the most lethal bowling spells in the history of modern cricket. Even the greats of yesteryears, like the Akrams and the Chappels and the Bothams hailed it as one of the best spells ever (watch https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zmkBKY7CAjE). But even though that contest was a great one to watch, how many overs would it have lasted for, at the maximum? 10 overs and that's all about it. Do we ask the batsmen to retire after they have scored a century or played, say 150 deliveries in a one day match? No. Then why do we limit the bowlers who might be really bowling well in a particular match. Why can't we allow, say, 2 bowlers who won't have the cap of 10 overs (ODI) or 4 overs (T20)? This will give the bowling side something to play for when a Gayle or a McCullum is going all guns blazing. I believe this would definitely tip the scales a little bit towards the bowlers in a match. Also, it would be adding another exciting feature in the game and keep the batsmen wondering if they can really play out a bowler by just defending him.
If we analyze other team sports, we don't see a limiting feature on certain teammates, like the way it exists in limited overs cricket. We don't see a pitcher getting only 10 pitches in a baseball match. We don't see a goalkeeper in a football match being replaced by someone else after he has saved 5 goals. It just doesn't exist in competitive sports. Its time that the ICC and other national boards look into this matter and some of the other long-standing points which have kept the bowlers as second grade citizens in a game of cricket. They can probably look at instituting the above modification in domestic tournaments and see how it goes there. If successful, we can take this to the international arena and enjoy the gentlemen's game a little more.
Comment in the below section as to what you think. The more the discussions, the better it is for the sport.
No comments:
Post a Comment