Badoni, who scored 30 out of 24 goals, was fired after hitting the wicket with eight balls remaining. By that time he had done his job. Photo: Aijaz Rahi/AP
But why bother at all? Twenty-over cricket was born almost perfect: if you were in Worcester in 2003 when the first game of the new format started, I think you would agree that the concept is almost flawless. Of course, international cricket has never felt the need to challenge or change the 20-over format.
And if you were lucky enough to attend the first IPL game in Bangalore in 2008, I think you would agree that the new competition has all the prerequisites for a resounding commercial success, whatever the limitations.
But to increase the number of players on the team from 11 to 12 or 16, including everyone on the bench? Yes, it raises the standards, but reduces the dramatic tension by increasing the number of actors.
The ICC, quite unintentionally, announced an experiment with substitutions in one-day international competitions in 2005. They considered ways to replace the ODI format ahead of the 2007 World Cup, but a zealous official rushed to declare it a fait accompli. It was a failure. England, bowling first in an ODI against Australia, brought the first ever 'supersub' to Vikram Solanki, who replaced Simon Jones in the second innings. It was withdrawn less than a year later.
Vikram Solanki became the first international cricketer. in 2005. Photo: Jason O'Brien/Reuters
This is what happens when you change or dilute the parameters: you reduce the voltage. Playing cricket with a bunch of spares is like playing tennis after the tram tracks have been wiped out. Rugby has become a different game since 23 players were allowed per match and the standards have undoubtedly risen, but has that made the game more spectacular, more interesting, more dramatic?
Different leagues lately also introduced innovations. Big Bash also experimented with replacement deployments, while Hundred's «great innovation» was to switch to five-ball sets. On Monday, Somerset announced the first: different kits for their pitches and bowling at this year's T20 Blast.
However, the IPL doesn't have to fiddle around like other leagues do to stay relevant.
So why did the IPL change the winning formula — and so soon after introducing two new franchises last year, to increase the number from eight to 10 ?
And why introduce another new rule for this edition: teams must do not need to declare their XI before the throw, as it has always been in cricket, only after.
Of course, the intention is completely honest. But the fact remains that the opportunities for betting have expanded considerably, whether it be legal betting or, as is usually the case in India, illegal.
What the IPL should be worried about is that they can become valuable information if the person will know them beforehand.
H was dropped from the team even though he played well and J was invited to his first game of the campaign. X will be removed during the game and replaced with Y, against all expectations. This information may be known only to a couple of people, but it is quite possible to monetize it.
Big hit time when Karn goes on the attack! 🔁
A couple of wickets please!🤞#PlayBold #ನಮ್ಮRCB #IPL2023 #RCBvLSG pic.twitter.com/Pw8ZyY5z91
— Royal Challengers Bangalore (@RCBTweets) April 10, 2023
Overseas stars will continue to flock to IPL for their megabucks, and broadcasters will be happy to connect the overall package: and whatever it is, IPL is entertainment, and commentators act as cheerleaders.
But always vigilant wants to know: why change winning formula and fixing what isn't broken?
Свежие комментарии