I like quiet Fridays. Production of India Abroad is a time-consuming process, and major events cricketing or otherwise tend to be a distraction — to edit copy or blog? No such problems today, with all quiet on the cricket front. Early morning browsing threw up only two commentary pieces worth your while.
In a column that revisits his earlier argument that the verdict on the Champions’ Trophy and by extension on the future of one-day internationals can be delivered only after this edition of the tournament is over, the part that caught my attention was the afterthought:
I hope though that when the men in blue take the field, attention will be focussed on their performance rather on the content of a privately circulated note which is actually far more thought provoking in the segments that are unlikely to have made it past news editors. So now our young sports reporters have to grapple with conjuring stories on whether having sex on tour is good or bad. Their canvas seems to get broader every day! Time to redo the syllabus in media schools!
What made it into print is clearly the ‘highlights’ package with the question of sex dominating for obvious reasons, but somewhere out there is the full text and judging by Harsha’s throwaway line, it promises to make interesting reading. Hopefully, some time soon.
Elsewhere, Mike Atherton has a couple of interesting points in his piece on the one day game. First, his definition of the problem:
The 50-over game, though, is suffering from more than administrative myopia; it is suffering an existential crisis that was probably inevitable in the wake of Twenty20. Sandwiched between the longest and shortest forms of the game, it neither appeases the traditionalists nor does what it was originally designed to do — to entertain and titillate — now that Twenty20 can do those things much better. Its sole purpose is financial.
And then, his solution — not more regulation, but less:
The answer, surely, is to deregulate, so that the game becomes more like it was intended to be and therefore less predictable and less formulaic. If captains could place their fielders where they wanted to, rather than where regulations dictate, there is a chance they might start to think again and a chance that one side’s tactics might differ significantly from another’s. If a captain could bowl his best bowler for more than the stipulated ten overs, there is a chance that he would and that attacking cricket played by the best players would become more a feature of a one-day match. Powerplays dictate the pace of the game to batsmen; do without them and watch batsmen take the initiative again.
In other late breaking news, Gary Kirsten says he had no idea of the sex dossier, and dumps the onus on Paddy Upton. Revised demand from Rajan Zed expected momentarily.
Smoke Signals 
Also even in test matches bowlers dont bowl more than 10 overs in a spell, as it becomes very tiring. So going into an ODI with 2/3 bowlers will definitely not happen.
Every team would have 4 bowloers, so that even if 1 bowler goes for runs, the rest of the three can bowl around 15 overs (probably in 2 spells)
I would even say that remove the fielding restrictions and regulations for 20-20 also. Make it a fair competition between bat and ball (just like the test matches). There are no restrictions on how long a batsmen can bat, so why have the restrictions on bowlers.
Doing it for 20-20 may see only 2-3 bowlers in a side, but you will see tough competition then, as batsmen dont have easy bowlers to play.
Didnt that happen in the old days? I seem to remember the 1986-87 one dayers in India against Aus,SL and PAK. There used to be like 44-47 over matches and at times few bowlers have completed their quota of 10 overs.
Bowling one bowler for more than 10 overs!! Hmm… does sound tempting.. but.. think about the bowler.. we might also end up with just 3 or may be only 2 specialist bowlers in the side!! each bowling as many overs as the captain wants… Every bowler then becomes more and more predictable as ODI is not a red ball game!!
Just imagine Zaheer and Harbhajan bowling in tandem for 50overs and when they need rest, 1 over by yuvi or yousuf… then back to bhajji and Zak!! Isn’t it too boring to watch the same bowler for 50overs????
No, wait — no captain will want to bowl two bowlers for 25 overs apiece.
The idea is actually very good. What it means is that captains have more strategic options. If for instance conditions happen to favor a particular bowler or particular type of bowler, it gives the captain the option of utilizing that to the full. for instance, assume the conditions are spin friendly — why should a Murali or a Bajji or whoever be restricted to just ten overs?
Cricket needs to be a contest between bat and ball; the ODI restrictions are uniformly intended to weight the contest in favor of the former. How would it be if there was a rule that said no batsman can bat more than say 12 overs? Ridiculous? Well then, why restrict the overs a bowler can bowl?
A captain stupid enough to bowl one bowler non-stop will deserve what he gets — a tired bowler who will give away too many. So no, no captain will go in with just two specialist bowlers in a side, as you fear. The other reason is, you can be a ‘specialist’, but every bowler (a) sometimes finds himself ineffective in certain conditions and (b) has an off day.
Another reason your nightmare won’t materialize is, if Zak and Bajji bowl 50 overs in tandem, they will need to be stretchered out for the next game.
This is a brilliant idea. Removing fielding and over restrictions will give this format of the game the clean canvas it needs. But who does radical thinking today?