Can we come up with a better short form of cricket than Twenty20?

In a previous post, I detailed how, since the beginning of professional limited-overs cricket in 1963, the shorter form(s) of the sport have been beset by an accretion of new rules and playing conditions which favour batsmen over bowlers and which limit the tactical options of captains. In this post, I will attempt to sketch a short form of cricket which is at once more bowler- and fieldsman-friendly and less tactically inhibiting.

The two teams would bat for one innings each, limited to two hours and ten minutes; with quicker over rates and increased use of spinners, this should equate to at least forty overs each. Victory would go to the side scoring more runs (no draws), but none of the special playing conditions specific to limited-overs cricket would be in place: bowlers could bowl as many overs and as many bouncers as they like, there would be no fielding restrictions or ‘free hits’, and wides would be given only if they meet the definition of a ‘wide’ prevailing in first-class cricket.

To address the imbalance between bat and ball, a few changes to rules and playing conditions would be implemented. Pitches would be uncovered, and groundsmen prohibited from ‘doping’ them to create lifeless decks conducive to high totals. Hefty modern bats and short boundaries, two of the biggest blights on modern cricket, would be banned.

To increase the chances of wickets falling, a fourth stump would be added at each end (an idea which has been suggested by some of the greatest minds in the game), batsmen would be given out l.b.w. if the ball pitches outside the leg-stump (an extension of the 1935 law change which allowed for l.b.w.’s pitching outside the off-stump), and ball-tampering would be legalised.

To makes things even dicier for the batting team, I would allow the fielding team to have thirteen players in the field. ‘Odds’ matches were common in the nineteenth century, and at least one of W. G. Grace’s first-class centuries was scored against a fifteen-man fielding team. The extra two players would be barred from batting, bowling, keeping wicket, or fielding in the slips (the traditional disabilities of the twelfth man); they would be a purely defensive player, much like volleyball’s libero, in homage to whom they might even wear a differently-coloured shirt.

A further element might be added in the form of a penalty for the loss of a wicket. Five penalty runs are applied in cases of ball-tampering or where the ball hits a stray fieldsman’s helmet; if we add ‘losing one’s wicket’ to the list of offences punishable by the five-run penalty, batsmen would think twice about playing the silly shots which characterise Twenty20 cricket. Other possible ideas which could be tried include eight-ball overs (to speed up over rates) and awarding fewer runs for boundaries.

A catchy name is needed for this new format: Super 13s is a possibility, due to the fielding team having thirteen players. Whatever the name, this format provides a means by which cricket can be condensed into a contest the length of a baseball match, while still retaining the fundamental equilibrium between bat and ball.