The rhapsody of Twenty20
| For those like me who regard cricket as a form of music and despise "" wholeheartedly and without reservation "" people who are tone-deaf, the coming of |
| Twenty20 is only one more step toward the eventual completion of a grand composition that the British started 700 years ago. If Test cricket was the adagio or vilambit and 50-overs cricket was allegro or if you like allegro moderato (madhyam), Twenty20 is vivacissimo or drut. There is one difference, though: you listen to music with your eyes shut, whereas in Twenty20 cricket if you shut your eyes the game might have got over. |
| Cricket, like music, appeals to the masses for reasons that no other game does. And that reason is this: both involve an extraordinary degree of complexity. Some less developed countries also have sports "" soccer, baseball and (American) football "" with such mass appeal. |
| But for evolved minds, such as of those who read this newspaper (and those who write for it, naturally), the differences are so obvious as to be beneath notice. These sports are to cricket what hip-hop is to, say, Liszt's rhapsodies or Haydn's trumpet concertos. It is a no-contest. |
| The appeal of cricket "" only to evolved minds, mind "" comes from its essential non-linearity which is just another way of saying "India Wins World Cup" (25 June, 1983) or "Zimbabwe beat Australia" (September 12, 2007). Non-linearity is a somewhat prissy, mathematical way of saying something that everyone has known for a long time, namely, that you can't predict anything from initial conditions. After all, see how Dr Manmohan Singh has crucified those dreadful Communists. |
| Cricket's so-called "glorious uncertainties" (or non-linearity) arise from an unmatched and unique characteristic of the game: the extraordinarily large number of variables that matter in it. These variables are wind, rain, earth, sun, moisture, wet grass, hot lights, day temperature, speed, swing, spin, flight, grip, stance, right-handed or left-handed, field-placements, line, length, punters, fixers and, most deliciously, even the bloody umpires. |
| The sheer size of the game "" the huge playing area, the number of players, both formal and informal e.g. the fixers, the way the field can be positioned, each adds a mite to the degree of uncertainty. The end result can be painfully funny, "Zimbabwe defeat Australia by 5 wickets", or "Bangladesh push India out of World Cup". |
| I can hear some uninformed protest that soccer and hockey also have 11 players and that they are played on fairly large grounds et cetera. But, as one would expect from less evolved persons, they miss the point completely. The key difference is this: thanks to passing, soccer and hockey are both essentially continuous, not discreet, games in the way cricket is. |
| Cricket stops and starts, which apart from making it TV companies' delight, makes all the difference to the game itself. Every ball bowled is a new stage where you start ab initio. Since the initial conditions change completely in this way, so can the end result. Show me one game that has this characteristic and I will vote for the CPM in the next general election. |
| Cricket is like music even in terms of the unpredictability of the kind that arises from a permutation and combination of several free variables. Just consider: the seven full notes on a scale can be combined in an almost infinite number of ways by merely varying the intervals and the tempo (see box). Add the semi-tones or half notes (komal swars) and you begin to get the idea. |
| This infinity of possibilities makes cricket a punter's delight as well. That is why derivatives were invented in cricket long before the slowcoaches of finance got around to them. In which other game could you bet on whether a wicket will fall in the fourth or fifth over or whether a batsman will score less than 40 but more than 35? To the extent that a derivative is basically a bet on the outcome of a previous bet, this is what most of cricket betting is all about. Only fools bet on match outcomes. |
| Still don't get it? It is the combination of the entire set of variables in the mixture that matters. Get it right, and the result is bound to be splendid. What's more, the very large number of ingredients makes it very hard to get it wrong. It is almost impossible to goof up when you have so many things going into the broth. That is why the game can yield the most unexpected results, like the Australia-Zimbabwe match on Wednesday. |
| But even though cric-ket and music are essentially non-linear, they do have to follow some basic rules because these rules help in distinguishing between unpredictability and anarchy. As in everything that works well, the sequence of the events has to be just right and that is what the rules ensure. Get the sequence wrong "" like Prakash Karat has done "" and you are done for. |
| So if sequencing is critical, has Twenty20 come in just at the right time for cricket? I think so because not only had the 50-overs version got into a predictable groove, it needed nationalism to keep it going. For the Twenty20 version, I think nationalism will not matter as much as individual performances do. |
| In that sense, we may be closer to a competitive structure that resembles football and, in consequence, cricket may move on to a club structure. The ICL initiative will spur this movement forward. And now that others like the BCCI are also getting into the game, the resulting competition can only enhance the game. |
| That brings up the central issue: is Twenty20 going to be competitive in nature or entertainment? It is too early to say because it will depend on what happens to the non-batting part of the game. |
| If the whole thing is reduced to a one-sided "wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am" thing, interest will wane very quickly because the very soul of the game "" unpredictability, non-linearity, whatever "" would go out of it. That is why it is crucial to keep the competition between bat and ball on an even keel. The notion that people pay to see runs being scored is short-sighted and will boomerang. |
| Here, in fact, I am willing to take a bet that at long last, bowling will see a renaissance. Everyone is predicting that Twenty20 has sounded the death knell for bowling, but I completely disagree. I think bowlers will be forced to innovate in ways they have not had to so far. The reason is that until now, bowlers could depend on "help" from the weather or the pitch. But with just four overs each the rope has become very much shorter. |
| There has always been the view that compared to the batsmen the bowlers have much more room for manoeuvre. A bowler can make five mistakes in an over and get a wicket on the last ball "" because the batsman can make only one mistake. I completely agree with this. Fifty-overs cricket had reduced that gap a lot and now Twenty20 reduces it even further by forcing bowlers to improve. |
| This can only be good for the game because we will be able to see much better bowling now. The fast bowlers will need to bowl far more accurately all the time. They will have to be like Waqar Younis and Wasim Akram used to be when they were at their very best. The spinners, too, will have to turn the ball the way Shane Warne still can. Add to this the new no-ball rule and the pressure on the bowlers becomes very clear. |
| Then there is the ball itself. If it remains hard throughout the innings, it means that much more trouble for the bowlers. And finally, the wicket itself, which will not wear out and will make life harder for spinners who don't turn the ball very much. Gone are the days when you could aim for the footmarks and leave it to the close-in fielders to finish off the job. |
| Not just this. Given that every batsman will be hitting from the word go, the premium on hitting will decline and the premium on good bowling will go up. This will attract more kids to bowling, just as the 50-overs version attracted them to batting. But all this will take time to happen, just as it took around 20 years for the New Zealander opener Mark Greatbatch's approach to the first 15 overs appear in the 1992 World Cup. It was he, not Sanath Jayasuriya and Kaluwitharne in 1996, who pioneered the bang-away-in-the-first-fifteen-overs approach. |
| What about fielding? I think the opposite of what happens to bowling will happen to fielding, especially if the grounds are not of the same standard size and are made smaller. Overall, it will deteriorate. TV sponsors will certainly prefer smaller grounds where more sixes can be hit and the local associations will also go along because they will want to accommodate more viewers by bringing in the 65 yard boundary by 10 yards to help seat 2,000 more people. |
| This will mean more sixes and just-at-the-rope fours. I would predict that ground fielding is going to be greatly devalued if the Twenty20 version becomes the commercial mainstay of the game. What good would a squad of Jonty Rhodes do if the ball just keeps sailing overhead? To increase the probability of a win a side needs to set a target of around 180-200 and that is possible only with lofted shots. |
| It is very early days yet so no one has started to pay attention to umpiring yet. But just as the 50-overs version increased the focus on it, the Twenty20 version will sharpen it even further. In a 50-overs game there is scope for things to even out. But this is not so in a 20-overs game. This can only lead to one outcome: technology will come in for more than just the line decisions. |
| So here is another prediction: sooner than anyone expects, and because ICL will use it, technology will be used for all decisions and eventually, the decision to give out or not will shift off-ground. Many purists "" remember, purist is just another word for silly people like Mr Karat "" will grumble. |
| But they must be told that the umpires have two functions: one is to regulate and the other is to act as judges. The two should not be confused. Indeed, they can regulate the game better if the judging decision is taken off-field because if they are seen as not making mistakes, their authority will increase. It is truly amazing that if governments can be elected using technological means, sports decisions cannot be taken using it. Only the ICC could be so hidebound. |
| Advertising will also have to change. Ads will have to be shorter because, as we are seeing now, using the older and longer ads just doesn't work. The time between overs in a normal match, in both the Test and 50-overs versions, is around 40 seconds on average. This gives enough time for one 20-25 and one 15-second spot to intrude. |
| But in the Twenty20 version the time between overs is only around 25-30 seconds. So the ads will have to adapt and become shorter. Shorter ads could drive down the price per second which means we should be able to see a greater variety of sharper ads and fewer of those tiresome repeats which mainly the MNCs are able to afford. It amazes me that advertisers still haven't realised that endless repetition actually puts people off the product, at least for a time. |
| Finally, there is betting. It will increase in exactly the same way as money supply has increased because of all those derivatives. The government, therefore, needs to legalise betting. If it is okay for horse-racing, why isn't it okay for cricket? The finance minister should impose a tax on it and dream of meeting the FRBM target without fudges. |
| To conclude, here's a question. Those who answer correctly will get a copy of an advanced text on probability theory. The question is this: Why do bookies bother with all those temperamental players when they can so much more easily fix an umpire? |
| THE WAY SHE MOVES ME* |
| Prestissimo : extremely fast (200-208 bpm) Vivacissimo : Very fast and lively Presto : very fast (168-200 bpm) Allegrissimo : very fast Vivo : lively and fast Vivace : lively and fast (~140 bpm) Allegro : fast and bright (120-168 bpm) Allegro Moderato : moderately cheerful and quick Allegretto : moderately fast (but less so than Allegro) Moderato : moderately (90-115 bpm) Andantino : Alternatively faster or slower than Andante Andante :l at a walking pace (76-108 bpm) Adagietto : Rather slow (70-80 bpm) Adagio : slow and stately (literally, at ease) (66-76 bpm) Grave : slow and solemn Larghetto : rather broadly (60-66 bpm) Lento : very slow (60-40 bpm) Largamente/Largo : "broadly", very slow (40 bpm and below) |