4 things that cricket needs to get rid off to stay relevant

Every facet of life needs to evolve with changing demands of time if it needs to stay relevant.

Cricket is no exception to the aforementioned fact. It needs to constantly evolve and get rid of its existing fallacies to pander to the non-cricketing audience to a bid to grow as a global game like Soccer.

With the rise of Twenty20, Cricket's traditional formats i.e Tests and ODI are facing stiff competition to stay relevant.

Don't be fooled by the capacity crowds in England and Australia; outside of the aforementioned countries, we rarely see a ground packed in Test cricket.

Take the example of the recently concluded Test series between Australia and Pakistan which was played out at near empty grounds. Mindless scheduling and over prioritization towards Twenty20 cricket along with mushrooming of franchise-based leagues all over the world have resulted in context-less international cricket where teams' turn up to a ground to participate in a contest which has nothing riding on it.

After the 2-match series, Pakistan and Australia will participate in a 3-match T20I series while India will kick-off their tour Down Under with the same before the Border-Gavaskar Trophy.

With the World Twenty20 two years away, there is nothing riding on the eventual outcome of the series which makes for lack of interest in viewing among the cricketing folklore.

This article is an attempt to highlight some of the fallacies that cricket needs to get rid off if. It aims to pander to the non-cricketing audience as well as harbour any chances of making it to the Olympics in near future.

Today, in this article, we'll have a look at the four things that Cricket needs to get rid off in a bid to stay relevant.

#4. Get rid of the boundary rope

We talk about bringing parity to the balance in a game that is so heavily tilted towards the bat these days.

We talk about the flat decks, big bats and insane ODI rules that pip the game unfairly in the favour of batsmen, but we fail to address the elephant in the room- the boundary rope.

Back in the day, ropes weren't employed in a match which basically meant the ball had to hit the hoardings for it to be constituted as a boundary.

But, as the popularity of limited-overs cricket skyrocketed and more and more commercialism came into the game, ropes came into the reckoning, which has accentuated to ridiculous levels in the modern-era especially in the sub-continent where the ropes are brought in a good 10 meters.

While the use of ropes on big grounds such as in Australia is somewhat justified, on smaller grounds, like in the sub-continent, it tilts the balance heavily in favour of the batsmen and needs to be done away with, if we are serious about bringing parity to the balance.

#2 Scrapping off some useless rules

In Centurion, earlier this year, India had bowled South Africa for a paltry 118 in 32.2 overs and were just 2 runs short of victory when the on-field umpires inexplicably called for lunch citing the redundant law that defies logic as well as common-sense.

Kohli was shocked. The South Africans were shocked, and the commentators flabbergasted. 45 minutes later, the players walked out on the field to complete the formality in front of empty stands.

India might have won the game but the ultimate loser that day was cricket. If cricket truly aims to be a global sport that panders out to the non-cricketing audience, it has to get rid of redundant laws and its complexities that prevent it to be embraced by a non-cricketing audience, as well as harbour any chances of making it to the Olympics in the distant future.

#3 Scrap mindless bilateral ODI series

Multi-nation tournaments are a need of the hour.

ODI cricket thrived in its nascent days and went onto become what it is today because of the triangular/quadrangular tournaments. We remember Javed Miandad's last bowl six off Chetan Sharma, Sachin's sandstorm innings at Sharjah in 1998 and many other pulsating moments during that era- all of it came in a multi-nation tournament.

Up until the late 2000s, England and Australia used to stage a tri-nation tournament every season.

England stopped staging them post 2005 while in Australia, a tri-nation series is held every time India visit their shores (2008, 2012 & 2014-15).

The reasoning behind administrators' reluctance towards staging multi-nation tournaments is the lack of crowds in a game not involving a home side but context is a big thing in any sport; not only it drives fans' interest in it, but it also spurs on a sportsman to perform to the best of his ability, when he knows a lot is at stake and millions around the world are watching him.

Bilateral ODI series that are constantly forced down the throat of cricket fans these days have little context attached to them which is why ODI cricket is constantly facing a battle to stay relevant against the onslaught of the rising popularity of T20 Cricket.

Very few bilateral series force a decider as in most cases one team wraps up the series in the third or the fourth game, meaning the remainder of the matches ends up as being dead-rubbers.

Take this year for a reference. India wrapped up the 6-match bilateral series in the fourth match, England did the same against Australia twice both home and away while South Africa clinched the 5-match ODI rubber in the first three games, essentially rendering the remainder of the matches as 'dead rubbers'.

If ODI cricket needs to survive, we need to go back to the multi-nation tournament concept which has context riding over it in every single game.

#4 Scrap 2-match Test series

Almost every time the better teams emerge as winners in a full-fledged Test series.

Back in 2014, Sri Lanka toured England for a 2-match Test series. The first Test ended in a draw while Sri Lanka clinched the second Test to win the series 1-0.

A few months later, India visited England for a five-Test match rubber. The first Test at Trent Bridge ended in a mundane draw while India won the second match at Lord's by 95 runs to take a 1-0 lead in the series.

If it had been a 2-match rubber, India would have won the series 1-0, but they proceeded to lose the series 1-3; losing the last three Test matches comprehensively.

The face of the matter is in a full-fledged Test series, almost everytime the best side emerges as the winner and if we are really serious about saving Test cricket, we need to stage more 5-match Test series or at least a 3-game rubber instead of sacrificing a Test in favour of a mindless limit-overs series, as is the case in the ongoing Australia tour of the UAE.

The current Australian tour consists of 2 Tests and 3 T20I putting in context as to what is wrong with scheduling these days.