In my old MBA days we were taught that strategy is determined by structure – or was it the other way? Anyway, lets presume it was the first. It is fascinating watching 50 over matches and 20/20 matches to observe how the captains decide on strategies based upon the structure the rules of the game force upon them.

The big issue at the moment is when should a team take its batting Power Play. Captains are driving the TV commentators to extraction by leaving their taking of the Power Play until after the 40 over mark. The aged experts – but not as old as me – insist that the Batting Power Play should be taken early on, in the 20, 30 over range, when the best batsmen are sure to be in. That seems to make sense to me too. So what is in the head of the captains in not obeying the well considered opinions of the arm chair - presumably well paid - critics. To this shallow brained observer, it may be a concern by the captains that their elite batsmen may get themselves out having a go, under the pressure of having to produce runs when the fields are not so tight – and as a result causing a collapse which exposes the teams less equipped batsmen.

Would love to hear Ponting pontifcate on this.

Anyway, my initial stimulus to ponder upon how structure determines strategy was a game of Over 60’s cricket I played in last year. I feel my old Business Strategy lecturers would have swooned if they had seen how our elderly age cricket  rules influenced strategies in this particular game. We have a rule that batsmen should retire once they have scored 40 runs – the reason being, seeing as our game aims to increase participation, it ensures virtually every batsemen gets a chance to bat in  our 40 over innings matches.

  On the day of this game, one batsmen was approaching 40, having hit out hard with numerous fours. However wickets had been falling around him, so if he reached 40, and was retired, it could mean an early end to the teams innings. So being warned that he was 37,  he dropped anchor – and just blocked and blocked. He was the Mr Southcott of A. G Macdonell’s “The Cricket Match”.  He  “fell into a kind of  cricketing trance, defending his wicket skilfully from straight balls, ignoring crooked ones–”.

Our captain was incensed. The opposition was exploiting our rules – our structure – to continue to build their innings. This could not be allowed to happen.  So our captain produced his own strategic response.  ”Any shot of that bastard that goes near the boundary, let it go for four. So the bastard has to retire.’

But the batsman continued to defend resolutely, while the other batsmen continued to score runs. Then one of our bowlers managed to get a ball to lift awkwardly – an unusual happening for the slow medium pace of over sixty cricketers. It hit the edge of our Mr Southcotts bat, and flew down to third man. Who should be fielding down there but our tactically astute captain. He ran to the ball reaching it about twenty metres inside the boundary, then escorted it, running beside it,  on its trip to the boundary rope. Then he turned to the batsman and shouted ‘Get off”

What an admirable example of strategy emerging in response to structure.

Tags: 20/20 cricket, cricket Tactics, cricket tragic, Over Sixties Cricket