Wally's wonky cricketing farce

In the lead-up to the World Cup, many pundits were predicting a fairly high scoring affair. They pointed to the array of new regulations which have been brought in recently, and the lack of regulation of bats, to suggest that this World Cup would be a run-scoring bonanza.

I suspect that even they are surprised by just how bountiful the matches so far have been.

Today we saw Bangladesh, a team that has never before scored 300 at a World Cup, easily chase down a target of 319, set by Scotland, who had also never before scored 300 at a World Cup. Bangaldesh had not previously chased down a score above 250 at a World Cup.

Yesterday Australia absolutely obliterated Afghanistan, making 417, which is the highest total ever at a World Cup, and winning by 275 runs, the biggest margin ever at a World Cup.

Four of the ten highest totals in World Cup history have been made at this World Cup. Three of the seven successful run chases of 300+ in World Cups have been in this one.

What's really noticeable about the three successful 300+ run chases is how easy they were. At no point did Ireland, Sri Lanka or Bangladesh seem like they were in serious danger of losing the match. 

Despite this, Bangladesh's 322 is only the tenth highest score at this World Cup. There have been sixteen scores of 300+ in the first innings so far, three of which were over 400.

But the most distressing statistic of all has been the average runs scored from overs 40-50. This currently sits at over 100. Yes, that is an average of ten runs an over in the last ten overs across an entire World Cup. Little wonder 300 is increasingly being viewed as a par score, when teams are scoring that many runs so quickly and so consistently.

And what is the reason for this?

It's all thanks to one man.

The man on the left is Wally Edwards. He is the quiet one of the Big Three chairmen - all of whom will soon be out of their board positions for one reason or another - and he has some ideas on which way ODIs should be going. Some of them are worth discussing, particularly his idea that ODIs should be based around the World Cup, as the World Cup is what gives them context.

But today we'll be looking at the ideas he's already had implemented: two new balls and tighter field restrictions.

The idea of having a new ball from each end had been mooted here and there for a number of years before it came in. It replaced a fairly unusual situation before when the white ball would be replaced around two thirds of the way through an innings. However, it also necessarily changed the nature of the innings. Previously, the ball would swing for around ten to fifteen overs (if it was swinging at all), and then the shine would come off, making batting easier. Then, as the ball got even older, reverse swing would come into the picture, with both the first and second balls.

Two new balls completely changed that dynamic. Instead, the ball could be swinging for twenty to thirty overs at the start of the innings, and then doing not much for the remainder. Reverse swing ceases to be a factor entirely, as the ball doesn't wear enough. It's little wonder that India was unimpressed with the idea.

So, how does this change the game? Well, it means two scenarios are more likely. First, the bowling team can tear through the entire opposition. If the ball is moving around a lot, it will be moving for at least half the innings. Chances are, if they're a good bowling team, they can take most of the opposition's wickets by the time the ball ceases to be as potent. Second, the batting team can rack up a higher score. If the ball isn't doing much, there is no threat of reverse swing to worry about at the back end of the innings. This means that teams that save their wickets early on can go ballistic in the last twenty overs, knowing that the bowling won't be throwing up any surprises.

This is where the new fielding restrictions come into play. Previously, a fielding captain would at least feel somewhat secure in the knowledge that if the batsmen were swinging the bat, he could have five men in the deep, ready to catch any mis-hits. The simple change of forcing him to only have four men out in the last ten completely destroys that safety net. Four men cannot hope to cover the 360 degrees that batsmen can hit in. Theoretically, having five men inside the circle could keep the pressure on batsmen. But, if the batting team knows what they're doing, they will have enough wickets in hand that they will be hitting the ball over the fielder's heads, thus rendering them useless.

We have seen a few occasions where teams have fallen into a rut in the last ten overs, but this has been far outweighed by teams putting the game out of reach for their opponents by scoring at ten runs an over.

So, why have these clearly lopsided regulations been brought in? Well, according to Dan Brettig, Edwards believes that the regulations for ODIs should encourage attacking cricket; that is, more wickets and more runs. Certainly, there are games with lots of runs, and games with lots of wickets.

Unfortunately, these very rarely happen together, and what these regulations have actually done is kill the contests. It's hardly surprising that the two best games of the cup so far have involved totals of less than 250 being chased down with only one wicket in hand.

For the most part, it has been a dull affair with massive first innings scores, and occasionally some massive second innings scores too.

And the worst thing is, it's not even close to being over yet.