Oh my Barrow and my Rose long ago
Limited overs declarations
In 1975 a South Africa African XI played in the Gillette Cup limited overs knockout competition. In the height of apartheid days, the inclusion of this team of black players was an attempt to break down some of the barriers in society at the time. The African XI, not surprisingly given the massive disadvantages in life that they had, were outclassed. In their match at Durban, Natal made 361-2 declared (yes, ‘declared’. You read that right) after 54.4 of their allotted 60 overs. They declared when opener Alan Barrow reached his double-century. His 202* was the second double century in List A limited overs history. At that time, declarations were allowed in limited overs matches as there was no reason for them not to be. The option to declare had been in the Laws for a long time, so nobody thought much of it back then.
Things changed a few years later when Brian Rose famously declared with Somerset on 0-0 after 1 over of their Benson & Hedges Cup match against Worcestershire. While memory suggests that the tie-break mechanism in effect in limited overs competitions at the time was straight run-rate as it was in many similar competitions, it was actually balls per wicket taken. Either way, Somerset effectively maintained their balls per wicket taken, and thus guaranteed themselves qualification for the quarter-finals by this action, despite obviously losing the match. There was inevitably much of the “it’s just not cricket, old chap” hand-wringing, and Somerset were duly disqualified. And, of course, stern disapproval in the Editor’s Notes of Wisden followed (this did not prevent the Almanack from naming Rose as one of the Five Cricketers of the Year). Declarations were duly banned from the limited overs game. Rose’s one was the sixth and final List A declaration (to date).
Limited overs matches have long had a minimum number of overs stipulated to constitute a match (currently 20 for 50 overs matches and 5 for T20s). If the team batting second don’t have the opportunity to face the stipulated minimum overs, the match is a ‘no result’ and points are shared. Virtually all limited overs competitions are a hybrid of league games leading to knockouts. For a long time, a scenario has existed where a team needing a win to qualify for the knockouts when a rain-out would not help them might want to declare (and are not allowed to) with rain threatening, to ensure that a match has a result and keep their knockout hopes alive.
And then this game happened today:
With rain threatening, UAE retired out 10 batters as they effectively closed their innings in order to try and ensure that there were enough overs to constitute a match. They then bowled Qatar out for 29 and collected 2 points rather than 1 as they would have if the match had been a ‘no result’.
Here is the thing: The conditions that existed at the time of Rose’s declaration no longer exist, and haven’t for a long time. Net run-rate (Run-rate For minus Run-rate Against) is the preferred option. Straight run-rate or balls per wickets were disposed of many years ago. If Somerset had the same situation today, a declaration wouldn’t have helped them. They would have been deemed to have made 0 in their allocated overs (55 for that match), which, as you might imagine, would have done significant damage to their net run-rate rather than preserving their standing as the playing conditions at the time allowed them to. The point of all this is that the prevailing rules that led to the banning of limited overs declarations no longer exist. We do not need the farce of a succession of players going out to bat only to retire out, an average-damaging decision as they were all effectively out for ducks. It is time to restore the declaration to the limited overs game.