Ind vs Eng: Ready for ODI cricket's T20 avataar?

There are things about the India-England ODI series that don’t make any sense. For example, why would the BCCI set up a ‘home’ series against England immediately after playing a long-winded ‘away’ series against the same team. In the years gone by, only Sri Lanka were accorded such an honour. Between July 2008 and now, India and Sri Lanka played over 30 ODIs, to go with nine Tests and four T20s. Now, it seems England and perhaps West Indies – who come in a close second – are the new Sri Lankans in the eyes of the Board of Control for Cricket in India. International cricket doesn’t have enough quality teams but it has enough teams for the BCCI to ensure that such scheduling gaffes don’t take place. Do you want to watch India play the same team that trashed them for the last two months? Shouldn’t the whole idea of a series be to give rise to new rivalries? But when you play the same teams over and over again – there is no excitement simply because after a point of time, it feels like there is nothing new to see. [caption id=“attachment_107512” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Do you want to watch India play the same team that trashed them for the last two months? Noah Seelam/AFP”] [/caption] Then again, the Indian team continues to be without its biggest stars. The replacements are not half the players they’ve replaced and that basically means the crowds are not really going to buy into the dream of revenge anyway. There are many more such explanations but the biggest reason this ODIs series doesn’t make any sense is the ICC’s new rules. The one-day format has its own niche – it acted as a link between the new baby, T20 and the veteran, Test cricket. And by all indications that the ICC has been feeding to the media, ODI cricket was holding its own against the other two. Yet, they’ve decided to change the game and the fear is that it’s not for the better. Indian captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni termed the new rules for ODIs set by the ICC as “tricky.” But he was probably being just polite because the new rules ensure that ODIs – in form and style – become a lot more like T20s. Shouldn’t the idea be to ensure that each format remains as different from the other as possible? According to the new ICC rules, there would be two new balls used from the two ends while batting and bowling powerplays needs to be taken within the 16th and the 40th over. “It’s a bit tricky as we have not yet played any match under this new powerplay. It would certainly need a different approach as the second and third powerplay will now be taken within the 16th and the 40th over. “Earlier while chasing, teams would be happy to keep the batting powerplay for the last five overs. But now we have to make few changes in tactics. It will be giving different results till we get used to it," the Indian captain said on the eve of their opening encounter of the five-match ODI series against England. The skipper also seemed worried about the fact that there may not be a lot of reverse swing as both the balls will be only 25 overs old at the most. “A bit of swing will definitely be there but there may not be much reverse swing as we expect in the sub-continent. Now the reverse swing also depends a lot on the nature of outfield and how you make the ball but of course legally,” the skipper said. The other fallout of new ball rule will be that bowlers will now have to use their lessons from T20 to adapt to the game. The spinners will be bowling with a newish ball, so the grip available won’t be great. There may be bounce but little turn. It’s also been noticed that in the sub-continent you can often do more damage with reverse swing, than with conventional swing. That will be another aspect that bowlers will struggle with. Rather than make it a sport where bowlers have an equal say, the ICC have only pushed ODI cricket in the direction of T20. More entertainment, more shots and more meaningless cricket. The crowds may still cheer with gusto but those who like ODIs will shed a tear when England and India take the field, the ICC may have inadvertently killed a form of the game that helped it survive the tough times. Winston Chruchill once said, ‘Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter.’ By that definition, at least, the ICC and the cricket boards are not proving to be very good generals.