My Argument with the Cricket Gods
As a Canadian, it’s not surprising that don’t know much about the sport of Cricket. However, I’d hazard a guess that I know more about this legendary sport than 95% of Canadians. I’ve actually played nearly a dozen games myself – legit, competitive games. Granted, the games were mostly against other actors, but, hey, we practiced every week and competed hard. I even won Man of the Match in one of the games, he said, patting himself on the back…
But I find myself here in Australia again, and therefore, I’m inundated with Cricket – think Hockey Night in Canada, 12 months a year instead of just six. It’s everywhere, on TV, in the news, even on the Beach. And Aussies are as passionate about this sport as we are about our beloved pucks on ice. Hell, this year, we had a ‘Secret Santa’ at work and my surprise gift was a Cricket set, complete with bat, balls and even a wicket and bales. We even use it indoors before the show, in our dressing room corridor – yes, Hallway Cricket is apparently a thing.
I want to love this game, I really do. I love the gentlemanly Sportsmanship, I love the tea break, I love that they don’t wear gloves in the field. I love the throwing, the running, the hitting. But, there are so many oddities and quirks in this game, some of which I find lovable, others less so. One of the biggest things keeping me from loving Cricket: it seems the goal is not necessarily to score more runs than your opponent, but rather, to not get out. Put another way, it places those two offensive strategies as equally desirable.
Case in point – late last year, the third Test match of a series between Australia and South Africa was being played in Adelaide, Australia. I happened to be there, doing an eight-week run of Jersey Boys at a theatre just a short walk from the Cricket ground. That particular Test match went to a 5th and final day, and, falling on a Monday (the traditionally dark day for theatres) a bunch of us rocked up to the beautiful Adelaide Oval to catch the action. Australia had built a huge lead on Day 4 – so huge that they decided to stop scoring runs and give up their offensive innings, so they would have enough time left (a day and a half) to get the South Africans out and secure their big win.
However, the rules dictate that as long as all your batsmen don’t get out, the Test match is called a Draw – regardless of how many runs you are trailing by. South Africa knew what they had to do, and, do it they did. I sat there along with 10,000 others for eight hours – that’s eight freaking hours, people – watching the South Africans block ball after ball, chip one here and one there for a single run, and make virtually no attempt to make up the difference in the score. Sure, I give them credit for not getting stumped or caught out, but seriously? C’mon, Cricket Gods – this is ridiculous.
Ever see a boxer with his hands covering his face getting pummeled in the corner win the match on points? Of course not. Ever seen a gymnast or figure skater attempting zero jumps or spins, and win the competition just because they stayed on their feet? Of course not. I can’t think of any other sport where it’s encouraged to not try your hardest. This bothers me, you know?
Cricket is an old sport, and has some interesting quirks owing to the fact that it has been around for over 400 years. The game was declared the National Sport of England in the early 1700s. By the mid 1800s Cricket was being played all over the world, including the 1st North American Test match in 1844 between Canada and the US.
Because Sports has to adapt with the times, Cricket has taken a good long look at its epic history, and realized that it’s dated. Who the heck can follow a five-day long game these days? And so, although the Cricket Gods have kept the old-fashioned Test Match game intact, they have developed different (shorter) ways to play the game, in an attempt to increase its popularity with world-wide sports fans, who, thanks to technology, the internet, twitter and the like, now have endless entertainment options and the attention spans of gnats. But the changes didn't go far enough.
The 5-day long Test matches are still considered to be the best test of cricket. But since the 1960s, there are ODI’s – 50-over maximum One-day matches, guaranteed to have a result. And more recently, in the last decade they have introduced an even shorter version of the game – the 20-20 Cricket match. Each side gets only 20 Overs to score as many runs as possible, and there is always a winner, no matter what. This type of cricket takes about 3 hours to play, putting it on par with what MLB puts out there as a product.
Three different forms of the same sport. That in itself is interesting. But I am still disheartened – no, annoyed - by the fact that teams are happy to play a match for five full days when there’s a good possibility of it ending in a Draw (a Tie!), regardless of how many runs were scored. Huh?
There’s only one way to play Baseball. Granted, Baseball stadia are of differing size, although the important distances between the pitching rubber and home plate, and between the bases are always the same. And if it’s tied after 9-innings, you play sudden-death extra innings. There are no ties. In football, The NFL, CFL and College/University games all have slightly different rules, but each game is the same length and has an outcome. Ties are extremely rare and considered merely annoying at best.
Except for the size of the rink being larger internationally, hockey all over the world is the same. Although there used to be many ties in a season, Shoot-outs were instituted a few years ago to ensure each NHL game has an outcome. Regardless of what you think of using the equivalent of a home-run hitting contest to decide which hockey team is better, never again will we see those annoying tie NHL games, replete with teams literally not trying to win in order to preserve the precious 1-point for the tie.
Tennis is interesting in that each tournament varies the playing surface and the length of match – they play on grass, clay, and hardcourt. Some tournaments employ a best of three sets while others employ a best of five sets format. But each match is scored the same way, and I guarantee you that the player who doesn’t hit the ball back over the net will lose. Ever heard of a tie in Tennis?
But that’s not the only unique element that sets Cricket apart. Even the balls are different, depending on the style of game being played. A White ball is used in the shorter 20-20 cricket and 1-day ODIs, while a Red ball is used for the longer Test cricket matches. Although they are said to be identically made, the White balls tend to ‘swing’ (curve) more and deteriorate faster than their red counterparts. Having held and thrown both, I can definitely say that they do not feel or react the same. Just picture the Jays using a different ball at the Rogers Centre, and the league being OK with that.
Another strange element to Cricket – but this one I strongly favour, however - leaves Baseball in the dust. Curiously, the 400 year-old sport of Cricket has embraced technology. Every single close play is reviewable. They review whether or not a bowled ball nicks the bat. They review whether a runner crosses the crease line before the bales are hit. They review whether a batted ball touches the boundary for four runs or goes over it for six. And, yes, I love this. It’s 2013 people; I believe that since we have the technology at our fingertips, it should be utilized to determine the fairest result. Baseball has got to get on with it.
Want another quirk – this one of the annoying variety? This past Monday night I had the pleasure of attending my first 20-20 match live, this time at the hallowed MCG – Melbourne’s Cricket Ground (pictured below). Sri Lanka batted first, pounding out 161 runs during their 20 overs. Australia was batting in the 10th over when suddenly the skies opened up, causing a rain delay. It rained for no more than 10 minutes, during which time the ‘pitch’ (where the balls are bowled and the batsmen run) was covered by a tarp. Once the rain stopped, the tarp was removed, and yet it took almost 30 more minutes before the game re-commenced. Annoying, to be sure, but not nearly as confounding as what came next.
Instead of Australia finishing their last 10 overs trying to chase down Sri Lanka’s total of 161, the Gods of Cricket decreed that the game was being shortened to 15 Overs, and magically, the Sri Lankan total was shrunk down to 122. (This was not their total after 15 overs, by the way). “Um, sorry buddy, all those 4s and 6s you hit in the last few overs – we’re taking them back - they never happened. You understand, right? It’s Cricket.”
Apparently, back in the 1990s two English statisticians named Duckworth and Lewis devised the aptly titled Duckworth-Lewis method of creating a totally bogus, non-real way of rescoring a match – and the Cricket Gods thought it was a great idea. It’s routinely criticized because it produces results that are often “counter-intuitive” but, that’s being a bit polite - they often make no logical sense. Imagine if you will the final round of the 2013 Masters is being played. Tiger birdies three of the last four holes to move to -6 for the tournament just before a thunderstorm passes through. Mickelson is sitting at -1 on the 8th hole at the time. When the rain stops, the Golf Gods say – “Tiger, we’ve decided that Phil only has to play 4 more holes, and if he gets to -3, he wins the tournament. Oh, and we’re taking back those birdies, and readjusting your score. Hope that’s ok. Oh, and you’ll make less money too.”
It seems so strange to me that a sport that has embraced video replay technology - to ensure the fairest results - can allow major international matches to be decided by what amounts to a ‘reality’ seemingly devised by a child’s imaginary playtime.
It turned out that, with this new (completely made-up) total to chase, Australia had no choice but to go for it. (This being a 20-20 game, there was no way to block their way to a Draw.) They suddenly started trying really hard to score runs, and what do you know? They actually scored 59 runs in their last five overs, doubling their rate from their 1st 10 overs, and only needed a Four on their last ball to win. They didn’t get it. But their increased effort and risk-taking created an incredibly entertaining finish to what was a strange night at the Cricket. Exciting, yes, but not real. Gives a new meaning to Fantasy sports, doesn’t it?
Why did it take 40 minutes to get the game restarted? Why did they change the length and score of the game? Why don’t they finish the games, regardless of how long they go into the night? If it gets too late, why don’t they reschedule them for the next available day? What about the player’s statistics? So many questions for the Cricket Gods. So many reasons to stay on the fence about Cricket. I want to love it, but… I guess I’m just not that religious.Yet.
