Let's take a 'tactical break'

From John van der Westhuizen, South Africa
We all know how the game has become batsman-friendly over the last twenty years or so. Well Lalit Modi and the IPL marketing ponytails have finally found a measure to counteract the trend.

Without going into too much detail - lets look at random developments of late (the last twenty years) which favour the batsmen in ODI and T20 cricket : Anything down leg is immediately called a wide - any batsmen's real or perceived weakness in keeping a ball down while playing off the pads can't be exploited because there is no margin for error in delivering the ball. Powerplay 1 - first ten overs where only two fielders are allowed outside the ring. As long as he can hit the ball fifty feet, an absolute hacker could get away with murder during this period quite regularly, because the fielders are all in the circle.

Powerplays 2 and 3 - farcical from a bowler's point of view - 40% off all overs bowled in ODI's now have a limit on the number of fielders outside the circle. One bouncer per batsman per over - this rule has single handedly prolonged the careers of Ganguly and Yuvraj to name but two, as their main weakness (by law) cannot be exploited. Modern bats are far more effective in destructive hitting - more a natural progression of the game, but certainly not one designed to help bowlers sleep at night.

Change of ball in 34th over - The ball is no longer shiny, white and hard, spinners and exponents of reverse swing, having waited thirty four overs for their time to shine, get their main weapon removed. Boundary ropes have not exactly been pushed out either, have they? At some stadiums, especially in the subcontinent, they are brought in a full fifteen or twenty yards from the stadium's natural extremities.

Batsmen getting runners if injured during the game - what absolute poppycock! A batsman should be out in the middle as long as he is fit to do his job. Geoffrey Boycott will tell you that running between the wickets is part of his job. When a bowler gets injured, he limps off and often has his overs completed by a part timer (surprise, surprise - that suits the batsmen). These points raised do not pretend to be all encompassing. They are the few that I could think of off the top of my head. Batsmen being allowed to call on runners certainly isn't a modern development, but its development in the batsmen's favour.

Can anyone think of a development where the bowlers' interests were preserved or (god forbid) enhanced? I can, and its not a direct advantage as much as I think it is a by-product of the rules' amendments. It's called a 'tactical break'.

Lalit Modi is loving life, having generated millions in extra advertising revenue, but the small number of games in the IPL so far have shown that momentum for a batting side once lost, is very hard to regain. The overall averages for overs eleven and twelve directly after the break, do not paint the most convincing picture in the world. We are looking only at the two overs bowled directly after the 10 over 'tactical break'. To date, the 40 overs bowled in the tournament fitting the above description have yielded 18 wickets at a cost of 16.5 and a run rate of 7.4. But if you look at just the first five games, those numbers drop to 123 runs in 18 overs at a cost of 6.8 per over and 13 wickets at a cost of 9.5 each. Does this suggest that teams took a while to get used to it? Perhaps. Overall numbers have improved, but are still below tournament averages. I think we have the slightest suggestion of a slight advantage to bowlers, and that's a step in the right direction.

To lose absolutely no wickets in overs eleven and twelve clearly helps team results. It has happened seven times and only once did the team concerned lose the match, Chennai in Game 1. Four teams have done it once each. Deccan Chargers have managed it in all three of their games and guess what? They won all three and sit atop the league table. A new challenge has emerged for batsmen - and even though it will only be in the IPL for the time being, in due course one should not be amazed to see it drafted into other forms and competitions.

Going forward, I would not be surprised to see bowlers volunteering for an over directly after the break. An obvious disclaimer would have to state that this analysis does not claim to be gospel. Cricket is like that, and often the numbers can be made to show whatever one needs them to show. But I reckon its food for thought. "Statistics are like bikinis .... What they reveal is suggestive, what they hide is essential" said Navjot Sidhu. If all of this is merely suggestive, I suggest batsmen start concentrating on the two overs directly after the 'tactical break'.