IF THERE IS ONE THING most people in the Caribbean would agree with, it would have to be the love we all associate with the “gentleman’s” game of cricket.
Despite the loss of dominance of our still beloved West Indies cricket team, the game in all of its formats remains as relevant and popular on and off the field to all in comparison to other sports in the region.
Traditionally, Test cricket was deemed the ultimate form of the game to which all young and promising players aspired. To represent the West Indies in Test cricket was not only a means of earning a decent standard of living as a professional athlete (at least nowadays) but an opportunity to showcase to the world the talent and skill levels of a small and proud people that have experienced the ravages of slavery.
Today, things have changed quite dramatically in the execution of the game of cricket. To be frank, no longer does Test cricket have the appeal it did back in the early days of the sport.
The advent of Twenty20 cricket has changed the mindset of many of our players, particularly some of the more seasoned campaigners for whom, sadly, Test cricket has become an opportunity cost of playing the shortest version of the game.
But what is even more telling is that with the evolution of the game of cricket, as we observe from time to time, the approaches as well as techniques required for success are vastly different from the Test players’ toolkits. How such dramatic changes will affect the game going forward is anyone’s presumption.
Focusing, for the moment, on the shorter forms of the game – Twenty20 and One-day internationals – is there any difference in terms of the ingredients for success from the players’ perspectives? This, to me, is an interesting question because it is quite evident that many countries are now developing “specialist” teams for each of the three configurations of cricket.
Fortunately, we do not have to wait much longer for some insights into this issue for it has been eloquently addressed by Colin Cannonier, Bibhudutta Panda and Sudipta Sarangi in a timely and most appropriate 2013 publication entitled 20-Over Versus 50-Over Cricket: Is There A Difference?
Should you be interested in the findings of this study, the abstract says it all: “Using 2008-2009 data, we identify winning input combinations for the game of cricket in two different formats: 50-over one-day internationals and 20-over games from Twenty20 internationals and the Indian Premier League. We find that attacking batting and bowling are the best determinants of the winning probability in both formats in an international setting despite their 30-over difference.
Interestingly, attacking batting and defensive bowling are the optimal input combinations in the league version of the 20-over format.” Given those findings and as we in the Caribbean continue to witness the evolution of cricket it is imperative that we face head-on team selection criteria for the shorter forms of the game.
Going forward, therefore, we have to ask ourselves this simple question: Should we have different teams for either forms of the game or should we focus on developing a cadre of players who can serve the regional side in both configurations? I think the empirical evidence from the publication cited is quite compelling and unambiguous in terms of providing the guidance we need to reach a definitive conclusion! Do you?
After all, cricket is evolving and so too should be our thought processes if we are to give ourselves the greatest chances of succeeding in the shorter versions of the game. No other objective should occupy our attention!
Email: bfrancis@uwi.edu.bb
