5ives Cricket - Possible new 50-50 format

[Ausage]

High-fives all round for new one-day game

A radical proposal to revamp 50-over cricket is under consideration and has already secured support from some of the game's most influential voices. It is widely believed that the 50-over version of the game has become tired. Dick Wood, a number cruncher from Cape Town who reached the top of his profession at an early age but withdrew to follow his heart, wants that to change.

With time on his hands, Wood looked at 50-over cricket and realised it was too slow. In particular, he felt the format of one team batting for around four hours and the other side trying its luck for the next four hours, did not create the drama needed to satisfy crowds. For a start, teams were too far apart. One side had scored 300 before their opponents had put a run on the board.

Contrastingly, he noticed that baseball sides stay in close contact throughout, so the state of play is clear to spectators. In tennis, too, a player does not serve 100 times before giving his opponent an opportunity to reply in kind. It would be too boring, too repetitive.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Yet cricket allows one side to complete an innings spread over an afternoon before allowing its rival to go to the crease. Only barrackers willing and able to watch all day and into the night will see both sides bat and bowl. Even then, the contest will lack the nip and tuck observed in other sports, including boxing, rugby, football and so forth.

Wood's solution was simple and audacious. Without interfering with the laws of the game in any way, he advocated letting teams bat in shorter bursts so tension is sustained. Cricket has been tinkering around the edges, by introducing power plays and obliging teams to take them within the first 40 overs, but Wood did not think these improvements went far enough because they did not tackle the real problem.

5ives Cricket, his baby, has a simple format. Team A bats for five overs then Team B bats for 10 overs, completing the first cycle with a bonus point at stake and throwing down the gauntlet for the next five-over cycle. Team A then bats for another 10 overs, and so on, until the 50 overs have been completed and the victor has emerged. Along the way, bonus points are given for every five-over burst, forcing captains to decide whether to go for the point or concentrate on overall position.

At first, it sounds harebrained but, gradually, advantages emerge. For a start, Duckworth-Lewis is not needed. The team in front, when rains stops play, wins. Both sides have the same opportunity to anticipate changes in the weather. Moreover, a glance at the scoreboard will tell spectators the situation.

Showing the sense of adventure that, unexpectedly, has become its hallmark, the Marylebone Cricket Club tried the format on a recent trip to Abu Dhabi. Typically, too, they went the whole hog, using Wood's formula rather than a compromise. Even old pros like Clive Radley and Mark Alleyne, the coaches, liked it. Both thought it had a future, both confirmed players enjoyed it and both praised its intensity.

Not the least attractive part of Wood's proposal is that the laws of the game are left untouched. The only alteration is that 12th and 13th men are allowed to field - a strategy that quickens the changeovers, letting not-out batsmen get ready whilst their side is fielding. MCC reported that turnarounds took 90 seconds in Dubai. Both coaches thought the 10-over (40-minute) batting stints worked. Clearly, swift turnarounds and informative scoreboards are essential or the purpose is lost.

In every other respect, the game follows its traditional course , with 10 wickets, batsmen getting a single innings, bowling and fielding restrictions as required etc.

Besides the MCC, the 5ives format will be trialled by South Africa universities this summer. Cricket Australia likes it, as does Sunil Gavaskar. Both advised Wood that the ODI format will not change till after the 2015 World Cup because teams will want to prepare for the current rules. But both thought the idea had merit.

5ives is worth a look because the current format looks weary. Perhaps the last words ought to be left with Radley, Alleyne and Robert Wooley, the MCC Universities captain.

Asked if they thought 5ives cricket could catch on they said:

Alleyne: ''Certainly.''

Radley: ''Yes at professional level.''

Wooley: ''Yes, I believe it will."

Interested to see what the good folk of CW Cricket Chat think about the possibility of a new 50 over format.

[robelinda]

Unsure. If I want to watch baseball i'll watch baseball. Don't see anything wrong with a team batting first and making any sort of score, its called cricket. Thats why its good. Don't know why the emphasis is on the batting team in his theories, a team doesn't mind bowling first too sometimes. The match is hardly over if a team makes 300, its not 1986 anymore......

[Days of Grace]

My real problem with it is that it doesn't give a batsman any chance to build an innings, which is why I still like 50 over cricket, as opposed to T20.

[_Ed_]

Dick Wood? That's his name?

[GingerFurball]

I'd have to see it in action before making a proper judgement on it, but my gut reaction is that it's far too gimmicky. It's basically a way of engineering a closer contest without any guarantees that it'll do so - what if the team batting first blasts 70 off their 5 overs and the team coming in 2nd slumps to 20/3?

It's also based on the wrong headed notion that baseball sides stay closely matched at all times, which to me indicates a complete lack of appreciation for baseball.

[Spikey]

all problems with OD cricket can be solved by removing bowling restrictions tbh

[Ausage]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

It's basically a way of engineering a closer contest without any guarantees that it'll do so - what if the team batting first blasts 70 off their 5 overs and the team coming in 2nd slumps to 20/3?

I think you'd see the same level of collapses and comebacks that you do currently. 0/70 playing 3/20 after 10 would have a different dynamic in this format than it would in an ODI because both teams lack the context of the rest of the match the first innings. The leading team might get complacent losing a couple of quick wickets while team two, knowing they have to pick things up, blasts a few 10 run overs. Suddenly the game is in the balance again.

[juro]

I don't mind the proposal. It is much better than other ideas like power plays and special overs counting double, which are just bells and whistles. The important thing is that it is still a contest between bat and ball.

The new proposal has several good points to it - rain affected matches can be measured objectively, rather than the Duckworth Lewis system or any other system you could come up with. It gives better variety for the viewers, seeing both teams bat and bowl in a relatively short period of time. And it overcomes the problem with lengthy innings breaks by having extra fielders replace the current batsmen. I'd be happy to see how this proposal works.

But the best thing for 50 over cricket would be to improve the context of games. Give them meaning! Have a cricket league that runs over several years, with all teams playing each other, with qualification for the world cup on the line.

At the moment we just have glorified friendlies, all these little series here, there and everywhere, and the players play for a trophy with no credibility. Why should the fans care?

If we don't fix the context, viewers will still not care, regardless of what changes you make to the format.

[morgieb]

Sounds stupid.

[Tricia McMillan]

has already received support from some of the game's most influential voices

In other words, the BCCI suggested it?

Seriously though, sounds stupid to me. If they want to make the game like baseball they should end a batsman's turn at bat after he has faced a certain amount of balls (say, 20).

[wellAlbidarned]

Not going to diss it until I've seen it in action, sounds interesting.

[Daemon]

It might be exciting no doubt, but then again there are really way too many problems, for example there's no reward for a batsmen who grinds out a fiery new ball spell and gets his eye in, only to have to come out for 40 minutes and repeat the process again. Guys who take time to get settled and build their innings will be severely disadvantaged.

It does sound intriguing though, and might not be the worst thing for a format where not many enjoy it any more.

[Prince EWS]

Pointless.

[Agent Nationaux]

I'm willing to give it a go and see what it's like. Will they have a new ball for each 10 over burst?

[Daemon]

Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux

I'm willing to give it a go and see what it's like. Will they have a new ball for each 10 over burst?

Definitely not.

If that were the case I'd be all for it tbh