Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Andrew Maher was talking up the idea on SEN thins morning, likening the idea to the attractions of baseball.

Here's an idea: start a version of cricket called baseball, which actually is baseball.


You could have 8 innings and call it 8ASE8ALL.


Sigh. I'm not opposed to certain radical changes to cricket. I'd even support both a split innings and the substitution of players who hadn't batted at the split; because there is some value in having a mid-point that the team defending can adjust their tactics to. But 10 overlapping innings with a bonus something (point, run? huh?) on each...

The reality of sports with alternating offense and medium-high scoring is that they also drift aimlessly for most of the game until the last few minutes/innings. Without the bonuses, which have no effect on an individual game result, this is no different. The glossy website makes great claims about knowing who is winning, but the reality is, if you've watched ODI cricket for more than ten minutes it is always immediately apparent who is winning. It is, by far, it's biggest weakness: the hopeless predictability from certain game positions.

Not to mention, if the problem is that games aren't close, then this doesn't even approach a solution. If you are going to take the trouble to smash cricket into pieces, play each segment as a set (best of 5 sets), with a limit on either overs (8), or wickets (3) and a baseball style rotating batting order, that means your best batsmen can come back in the late game. That way if one side is smashed we can go home early, but the game is not over if the first 20 overs are a dud.

Or we could just get rid of ODI 50 over cricket, where runs are the currency, but minimising risks is the winning strategy, to the point that only taking risks when the opposition is hobbled has become norm, and further hobbling bowlers the apparent solution.


I'm all for your last paragraph, Russ. Bin F50 and keep T20. Three (or more) formats is bonkers.


I stopped reading at "If Dick Wood". Mainly because nothing in the rest of that article could match the majesty of those three words.


I thought "Dick Wood" were two pretty good words.

The Mongrel

Like the splendidly named Dick Wood I had an idea too.

It's called Hives Cricket. It involves one team batting for 2.3 overs. The second team then bats in chicken suits. The first team then imitates the endangered species of their choice.

At this point all spectators with a love of cricket and not suffering from ADHD break out in hives.

Years ago the Coodabeen Champions had an idea for Brisbane Bears games. They said a coin could be tossed before each quarter. In this way, if the tosses went their way, the Bears would be competitive. Of course if the tosses went against them the Bears would be smashed - but they would anyway.

Looks like the Coodabeens were ahead of their time. Maybe they should sue for copyright infringement?


They'll trial that in Aus next summer you just watch.

Professor Rosseforp

I've said this before, but cricket is moving closer to vigoro all the time. I hope the administrators of vigoro have their intellectual property lawyers keeping an eye on adjustments to the game of cricket.
By the way, does anyone know whatever happened to the single wicket comps that ran in Australia in the 1960s?? I never saw them but used to see the results in the papers, where there were never any explanations of how the game worked. Basically it was one player against another -- perhaps it was extracted from his form during one match, but I got the impression that it was a separate match. This could be our next experiment.
Although I would love to see those old-fashioned games like Wicketkeepers versus Bowlers ; Left-handers vs. right-handers ; and even arm amputees vs leg amputees.


I've got a better idea for 5fives.

Just use the SOOPERDOOPER over format, so that at the end of each over, batsmen change to another pair. Points docked if they got out during the over and all that. So each team plays 5 overs each.

Bowlers only have to bowl one over each, which will thrill Shaun Tait and Lasith Malinga no end.

And it's over and done with in an hour. Win/win I reckon.


You could just call it The Big Thrash or Crashcricket or Doshbosh which at least has the merit of honesty.



Prof, the fact that shonky exhibitions sound as appealing as the games being organised says a lot about the way cricket is organised.

Lou, many years ago I played junior indoor cricket in a comp that generally only got enough players for one team. We played what could probably be called Pairs cricket, bat 4 overs in your pair, bowl 2 each, final score was runs for batting minus runs conceded bowling plus a bonus for taking a catch, all other rules as per indoor cricket. Worked really well, because we could have a game regardless of how many kids turned up and the format smooths out the disparity in skill levels.

Would be interesting as a season opener, 6 pairs a game, 5 overs batting (pair can choose which of the pairing gets to bowl), 10 fielders (+ automatic keeping net). Play 5 qualifiers and a final over a weekend.

Hangover Black

No more Spanky columns to get cranky about.

Suspicious sounding article. http://www.watoday.com.au/sport/cricket-writer-peter-roebuck-dies-20111113-1ndg0.html

It is believed he was spoken to by police earlier in the day.

And Offsiders were talking about the sadness of his solitary nature.

Sounds very much like suicide.

The comments to this entry are closed.