Satire on Today's world
How Cricket can be even cooler sports than what it is now? What are the some of innovative ideas?
Look one can have plenty of cool ideas about Cricket, will ICC listen? Will every board members agree to that? The major power player is BCCI, now in country like ours where we don't like change, even ideas like T10Is for only Olympic games also get sidetracked. People of India are also not really comfortable with any change. One needs to push it to them, remember first T20I WC in SA, well before that tournament, BCCI wasn't ready to play by saying T20I was a joke, Indian people also kind of went with that as they follow most often our former cricketer say, fortunately BCCI voted out in the meeting, and rest is history. Now look at Indian public's craze with T20Is. Because Indian people most often don't know what they want. Ask most Indian about T10Is only for Olympic as even 3 hr of T20Is are long for Olympic, they will say they hate the ideas. They said same thing about T20Is as well. Actually the problems with Cricket are tradition and nostalgia and it's clash with this modern world. At certain points of time ICC and BCCI need to choose between keeping the old fans satisfied or creating completely new age fan base who weren't interested in cricket before by creating new version of Cricket which more interesting and eye catching than before for even those who doesn't have any ideas about Cricket before.
I mean look at old test cricket loving crowds in Australia and England. What will happen after 10 years from now, when most of them will be dead?
No one knows answer to this question.
First of all, if you look at world sports, glamour sells and it sells well in sports.
I mean anyone can see woman's tennis obvious popularity now, and it's sheer level of competitiveness, but is it always like this?
A big no
Glamour started to bring attention and money in the sports and then gradually women's tennis competitiveness hit the roof.
Some things similar could be done for women's Cricket. Conservative ideas won't help anyone here.
There should be a group in ICC whose prime job is to research on Cricket and build some new ideas to make it more interesting and innovative and exciting for the new crowds, they should research on Cricket to bring new kind of thinking to change the game forever, they should research why particular group of people in particular part of the world like particular game, what is the thinking behind that kind of mentality, how they could be interested in cricket, what general Cricket fans are thinking about the game, what they want, how they want game to change, maybe they should learn from other sports- what is working for other sports, bring that into Cricket etc etc etc etc etc etc
For test cricket:
Cricket specially test cricket is based on certain factors like patience etc where percentage of that happening from people are very low. Let's add to that 5 day long test cricket in today's day and age . And you get ignorance and ridiculing from people and even from those test playing nations. Test cricket lover always say that test cricket is like those traditional setar music whereas T20Is are more like hip hop.
But is it really???
Or is it more complex than that?
See people are very participatory nature in their core even though the whole concept of test cricket will drive away most people these days and that should be expected not to be surprised about but people end of days like to see their team is playing and participating and competing and competing hard even if the level of cricket is not exactly up to mark to the purist test cricket lovers.
What exactly my point here?
It's very simple.
Former cricketer always talk about balance between bat and ball , yet they never do anything about it pushing convention wisdom AKA with innovative thought process.
What is exactly going on now in limited over's cricket?
There's some invisible structure where 40% of matches are played on extremely flat surface and rest of 60% matches played on three types pitches - slow(20%), turning(20%), seaming(20%).
But in test cricket it is extremely opposite such as bowling favoured pitch since the perception is that limited over's cricket is only played on flat surface therefore test cricket should be played on bowling favoured pitch otherwise bowlers will disappear.
But it just different tone from the past era when test cricket was played on flat surface otherwise it is very same. It just two sides of a same coin.
While it is very hard to make test cricket viewers friendly in today's day and age. But one can try and do by pushing the conventional wisdom.
How is that possible?
Well first of all stop trying to pretend that test cricket is a simple game.
It is not. It is the most complex game in the world.
So rather than trying to be something that test cricket is not , I say test cricket should hold on to it's best attributes that it is a complex game therefore innovate rules from that point of view to make this game more multi dimensional and contest worthy in every single matches.
It should not matter which team is playing against which team.
Since pitch is such a big deal in test cricket , let's make rules based on according to every kind of pitch that a cricket game can offer.
This should be the job for match referee since most of the time they are not super busy in Cricket game. They should handle this complex responsibility of cricket rules with accordance to cricket pitch to bring out it's multi dimensional nature.
Situation no 1>
If the pitch is absolutely flat and nothing is happening allow the bowlers to push the envelope of conventional wisdom of cricket rules. Allow ball tampering to an certain extent to reverse swing the ball both ways and allow Spinners to bowl with illegal action to bring different varieties like dusra etc to cause problems for the batsman in a bowlers graveyard. There are lots of theory and calculation out there today which wasn't earlier to predict the pitch better than ever before so this should not be that hard for match referees.
Situation no 2>
If pitch is too slow and nothing is happening. Allow the bowlers to do exactly like in situation 1 but also make sure the boundary limit is ridiculously small(extremely small) to give a ‘kick start' advantage to test batsman to play more attacking cricket since most of them are devoid of great stroke making ability to suit the test cricket.
Situation no 3>
If pitch is seaming like in England or South Africa or in New Zealand, allow the boundary limit just like in situation 2 to favour the batsman to play more attacking cricket.
Situation no 4>
If pitch is turning like in Indian subcontinent, allow the boundary limit just like in situation 2&3 to favour the batsman to play more attacking cricket.
This will almost make sure that the percentage of draw become almost non existent.
This is a creative idea which you have the option to disagree with but remember something is always better than nothing and this will also make sure small teams to come into the game big way in test cricket and everyone, I mean everyone will have their opportunity to eat the pie and that of course include big teams.
But is it going to make test cricket very popular?
I don't think so.
Is it going to make better test cricket for everyone , I mean not just the big teams but even for the small teams- I believe so.
What do you think?
For ODIs :
What exactly do we want from ODIs, we want to see two teams are contesting hard inspite of their unequal power of strength as it should not matter which team is playing against which team. I have a solution for this, but a warning it will sound complicated so read carefully, truth is if you want to make Cricket matches one sided contest free then we don't have much options but the complicated ways as Cricket is designed to be one sided.
In ODIs a bowler's limitation is 10 overs, but there are circumstances when bowler is bowling superbly but in rest of the bowling line up, few are okay and few are having a off day. To counter this situation, one option is that best bowler from that day can bowl upto 20 overs or in another option two of the best from the rest can bowl 15 overs each and rest can bowl either remaining 30 overs or 20 overs with 10 overs limit respectively or as another option go back to traditional five bowlers 10 over max rule. The bowling captain needs to decide and let umpire know after the chosen bowler or bowlers finished their first 6 overs. When one team goes to bat they should have the option of having two batsman from the reserve bench replacing any two bowlers from playing XI, when they go to bowl everything will be the way it was before. In a similar bowling team will also have the option to choose two bowlers from reserve bench replacing two batsman and when the bowling team will go to bat things will be the way they were before. Four bouncers in a over should be another nice option. When a team is all out they should have the option of playing their XI again but with each batsman coming to bat, there will be 60 runs penalty cut off from the total and this will be considered 2nd innings of that particular batsman in that match (Only for the batting team as this will farther complicate it for the bowling stats, so bowlers don't need any second innings)[Remember this second innings options can be used any situation not just when team is all out, for example suppose Virat Kohli has got out early with this rule he can bat again anytime but with 60 runs extra to the total as it has been cut off from the total as penalty for using the second innings options, yeah now it sounds very interesting], stats and average will be working according to that. This new rule will make sure both team & comparatively weaker team stay in the match and it will be multiplying their strength there by reducing the percentage of one sided contest. Because ODIs go on for long time therefore one sided contest is killing it. I believe this is the best cure at the moment.
See the idea is very simple, let's have one team whose strength is 100 and another team whose strength is 10 and you will know that who is going to win even before the match and with above mentioned ideas both team's strength will be multiplied at least hundred times which means even though the stronger team will win most occasions but game will be very close contested therefore one dimensional nature free. This is what people are looking for from ODIs and Cricket.
So How do you like this idea which you have the option to disagree with but remember something is better than nothing and it just a creative thought end of the days. You can add if you have something.
Is Karan Johar right when he said that star kids are better?
No. He is wrong. But the problem is elsewhere.
Let me explain-
See, we are obviously not the richest country in the world.
But that would not have been a problem if we were a sexually liberated society not a conservative one which would allow us to adapt in every level to compete each and every one even without the money. Because then we would not have anything that is blocking us from our psyche.
What is going on at the moment?
We have plenty of good actors from all over India. But most of them do lack in certain areas. Because most of them grew up in a comparatively conservative background compared to this Bollywood kids which means they were always better groomed than rest of us. Even the rich kids of our society is also from a comparatively sexually conservative background compared to the west which is one the reason- anyone from West can sign through in this so called glamour industry way better than us. As they have two advantages over us- money and sexual independence.
So does that mean- these Bollywood kids are some kind of best?
Absolutely fucking not.
Most of them are terrible.
But the reason mentioned above, we can't really push them out of their places just like in western countries. And that is why you see nepotism is prevalent more in Bollywood or rather in India.
Actually nepotism is everywhere but the difference is ordinary people are socially empowered in West not to make it a factor. This is why, you will see that people are competing with everyone in West which is very difficult to do here.
So Karan Johar isn't right when he said that Bollywood kids are better, but it just our society's backdated ideas and thinking process and design are preventing us to bulldoze nepotism.
Let's be honest here - how many of us are really groomed from childhood to take them on? I mean money itself is a factor but it wouldn't have been if as I said it before. I personally don't like Karan Johar but I have to admit one thing that he did try to potray a counter narrative as oppose to the stereotype potrayal of Indians in western movies. But he does it in a very stupid way which is another discussion.
The point is in his mind, he probably only see certain people from certain background meeting that criteria for his movies. Because Bollywood not just a movie industry, it is also a glamour industry as well.
As I said before it could have been challenged then and there if India already was a sexually liberated society.
But the good news is it is becoming like that very very quickly.
Our economy is slowly but surely improving with the help of internet and other technology, Indians are exposed to the world more openly than ever before from the childhood.
I know for a fact our young generation is more sexually adventurous than ever before. We definitely becoming more healthy and good looking than ever before even though our government data may say otherwise. But you know what I am talking about. So the chances are that nepotism won't be that big of factors in Bollywood 7 -10–12 years down the line as things are changing in India in a very rapid rate.
So Karan Johar may still get away saying shit like that but not for very long.