Saturday, March 4

cricket for the people of united states - part two

On the changes required for selling cricket to the people of United States, the next category is scoring. And the nominees (with which we have a problem) are... 1) sky rocketing scores, 2) pumped up batsman averages, and 3) caffeinated run rates.

Since the number of balls in a over is reduced, it automatically reduces the scoring chances. Still there is a possibility of scoring 220-250 runs. For people in the US, 220 can be an OK Cholesterol count, but certainly unacceptable as a game score. (Disclaimer: Actually, 220 is NOT an OK Cholesterol count. I am NOT a physician. So don't sue me if I made you believe that this is a fact.)

Hence, I propose a reduction in the runs awarded in each play. To maintain the proportion, every scoring unit will be reduced by half. Only 0.5 run is awarded for what is now a one run play. A four run play would be just two runs, and six would be three. That would do it, for the scores. From now on, I would refer a six as three.

To reduce the run rate, I propose a new rule - (Take a deep breath) - "A batsman can score a second three (aka six) in three overs, if and only if his partner has scored atleast one three, or his partner gets out. This rule is applicable for the every second three (aka six) scored by a batsman (aka six) in the three over stretch, starting from the first three (aka six)." No such restriction for twos (aka fours) scored.

If you think the above rule is very complicated, my friend, Welcome to the world of American sports. Let me explain you this rule "clearly". Stay with me. OK ?

When a batsman scores a three( aka six), he can not score another three (aka six) for next three overs. Still with me ? Good! BUT the batsman can score a three (aka six) after his partner scores a three (aka six), or his partner gets out. Clear ? OK. What if the batsman scores a three ? - He would be awarded only 0.5 run. And this rule is applicable for every second three (aka six) scored by the batsman.

I know what you are thinking - This rule is dumb, and filled with lot of loopholes. That's what American sports are all about. First - Make dumb complicated rules. Second - Bring in lot of controversies out of these rules. And Third - Blame the referee or the umpire for everything, including the Bird flu in Asia and Europe, and of course, Malaria in Africa.

Finally - Handling a tie. Why this should be a even considered ? A tie game happens, say, once in half-a-dozen years ? Americans can not handle that, even there is a chance of it happening once in, half-a-million years. What would they write in the history books ? That no body won ? And most importantly, that no body lost ? Who was the "Looser" (with a big 'L') ?

And, how good could be a tie game ? - For American fans, "A tie game is like kissing your sister on the lips. Of course, you had a kiss. " This is one of the most important reasons, when you talk about soccer, the real football, Americans say "I don't know, man ! I think it tastes like almonds, may be ???" Translated: They don't care. That's a game, that the whole world is crazy about.

For handling tie, I propose Sudden Death. Alternate plays of one over each, who ever scores more than the other wins!!! (This should happen even if a team had all of its players out)

If we do all that, may be, Cricket would be as exciting, as dramatic, as nerve-racking as a Basketball or an American Football game. But it wouldn't be that as relaxed, as lazy, as a game it is now - with heart-warming light fun... Like a Cafe Latte. No, we wouldn't be seeing those bikini women lying, as spectators, when a game happens in Australia or Newzea Land.

No, we wouldn't be seeing a single player, as a hero, (like Rajinikanth movies) saving everything. No, it wouldn't be played by 11 fools and watched by 11,000 fools, as George Bernard Shaw thought it was. Cricket, then, would be a product deigned, manufactured, quality controlled, painted, packaged, made more sexy, shipped, and delivered for the sake of excitement, and entertainment.

Cricket, just wouldn't be cricket anymore. Cricket, wouldn't be played just for the sake of Cricket. I guess, it has already begun, and I am not sure, I am happy about that.

No comments: