Interesting post from Simon Hughes, via The Analyst Inside Cricket Substack, in which he bemoans the lack of opportunities to play cricket in inner City locations, and proposes a new format to make the game more accessible.
The problem is genuine. Who just plays cricket, any more?
But is yet another match format the solution? Why is “cricket” so shy of proclaiming cricket to be a great game? Do we really need the gimmicks, or the fireworks, to sell the game?
C6 Cricket
The distinguishing feature of the new format, known as C6 Cricket, is the creation of six designated scoring zones around the playing area — hit the ball into the zone and score an automatic 10 runs
fwiw Street20 (in essence, C6 scoring without the zones) would surely work just as well? And it is much closer to “proper” cricket!
Do “constraints” work?
I do use “constraint-led” formats with scoring zones and/or forbidden zones.
Maybe even give a bonus for hitting different zones — if a batter hits the same zone twice or more with consecutive strokes, their next scoring stroke in a new zone counts double. Or say “that zone is now full, no more bonus runs in that direction” to make the batter try something different.
Sometimes all hits to leg are automatic runs, to dissuade bowlers from straying too straight — good when space is at a premium so we can have more “off side” action.
We will play Jailbreak, with the challenge to hit a pre-specified target area to release a “jailed” team-mate.
But as a generic game format? Rarely, as it relies too heavily on a neutral umpire (coach) to judge zone strikes, and on the players having the ability to hit the zones (or the bowlers to maintain appropriate line & length).
What’s wrong with “proper” cricket?
This question has been asked many times before, when The Hundred was introduced, when the ECB first mooted T20 cricket as a serious competition back in 2003, 40-over cricket, 60-over matches before that?
The biggest issue is the time it takes to get a result. On un-made pitches, in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, two innings’ matches could be comfortably completed in a day, or less, and all wagers settled. Today, 5 days might not be long enough to get a result in a Test match.
(Even Test matches have evolved — pitches are now more helpful to bowlers, and hyper-aggressive batting “tactics” focus on “putting pressure on the bowler” over “scoring enough runs to win the game”.)
So formats evolved to constrain the action to fit the limited attention spans of the audience.
But those new formats mostly respected the traditions of the game. Batters vs bowlers; runs scored by hitting the ball into the crowd, or by actually running.
Fielding restrictions are applied (possibly anachronistically, today, especially in the shorter formats), but batting is largely unrestrained (although controls on bat design have been introduced to reduce boundary clearance, at least a little).
But the most competitive formats leave it at that.
Because the game works. Bat vs ball. Get on with it!
What is C6 Cricket?
Interestingly, C6 Cricket appears to be a commercial venture, created by an entrepreneur who has “..transformed the Barmy Army into a multi-million-pound success story…” and a former IT sales director, designed for corporate events.
The playing regulations nod to the Hong Kong 6s tournament, played in a tight space too small for “proper” cricket, or Cricket Max.
So not really a participation format, perhaps?
Leave a Reply