By increment or by innovation: how should cricket approach its own development?

OLLIE WILLIAMS - CRICKETER YOUNG WRITER OF THE YEAR: Ultimately, the best explanation is probably that most developments in cricket begin life as incremental improvements, which then have the potential to be viewed as hugely innovative in the future

^{Cricket innovators: Tillakartne Dilshan's 'Dilscoop', Kevin Pietersen's switch hit, the Big Bash and Kerry Packer}

Many choices of consequence tend to be framed as a deliberation between two options.

Think of a captain’s choice of heads or tails at the coin toss, Neo’s choice of the red or the blue pill in The Matrix, or a gambler’s choice of whether to stick or twist.

This kind of choice, between competing options that present two divergent paths, faces cricket administrators and governing bodies across the world: whether to pursue innovation or incrementalism.

Innovation is an idea likely to be familiar to all: the pursuit of new, shiny ideas that have the potential to be ‘the next big thing’.

Incrementalism, on the other hand, is more nuanced and, in any case, can be taken to mean several different things.

^{A Big Bash fan}

In one respect, incrementalism is the pursuit of the ‘one-percenters’ or marginal gains (as popularised in professional cycling), that when added together result in a substantial advantage over the other competitors. However, others, perhaps more unkindly, would view incrementalism as a kind of ‘muddling through’.

There is some evidence to suggest that this kind of incremental development is endemic in any big, complex organisation, as any kind of quick, large-scale change is simply not possible.

Regardless of whether you subscribe to incrementalism as the pursuit of excellence through small gains or the gradual, lumbering development of an organisation, the essential idea is still the same: small developments that result in a gradual change and improvement over time.

These kind of gradual improvements over time are found throughout cricket. Whether it’s a fast bowler making minor adjustments to their action, a spinner practising with an altered grip on the ball, or a batter grooving their backlift and stance, the game is predicated on a dedication to the minor adjustments that elevate the whole.

The ubiquitous discussion and dissection of players’ techniques by coaches, fans, and commentators shows evidence of this. Yet cricket is also home to bombastic, game-changing innovation – think Kevin Pietersen’s audacious switch-hit unveiled against the great Muttiah Muralitharan or Tillakaratne Dilshan’s ‘Dilscoop’ that burst onto the international scene during the 2009 World T20.

However, it is off the pitch where the choice between innovation and incrementalism has the most impact on the future of the game. These decisions, made in the boardrooms and offices of the ICC and national governing boards, result in the direction of travel taken setting the course for the future of cricket.

Innovation-led decisions have occurred throughout cricket’s history. In England alone, the last 60 years has seen one-day cricket played at domestic level, professionalisation and central contracts for international players, and Twenty20 cricket, each of which represent a significant change in direction from the game that came before it.

Looking further afield, Kerry Packer’s World Series Cricket and the IPL are also examples of changes that upended the existing power structures and dynamics of cricket. But what are the benefits of taking this kind of innovation-driven approach to cricket governance?

^{Lalit Modi, the brains behind the IPL}

Primarily, it comes down to the potential reward. Innovation is characterised by the dynamic of high risk and costs versus high potential reward. The potential benefits that the governing body can reap from such a strategy are therefore much larger when compared to small, gradual changes.

However, given these risks and costs, it is not particularly surprising that two of the biggest international innovations cricket has seen in the last 40 years (World Series Cricket and the IPL) have been driven by private individuals – Kerry Packer and Lalit Modi.

This could suggest that, because of the complexities and risks involved, it may be preferable for the ICC and the individual national boards to focus on gradually developing the game, allowing for the big and bold ideas to come in from the outside (although this is conceivably as unrealistic as asking a turkey to vote for Christmas).

It is more difficult to point to specific historic incremental developments that have shaped cricket as we know it today, as these are the sorts of changes that are almost undistinguishable from a normal day at the office, subtly manoeuvring the direction the game takes.

Therefore, it is better to look to the present for examples, with the trialling of day/night and four-day Test cricket both cases of incremental development. Neither are radically different propositions (day/night ODI cricket has existed since 1979, whilst four-day first-class cricket is an established format) and yet, as they continue to be pursued, the game will gradually change.

These developments showcase the inherent benefit of an incremental approach for cricket’s governing bodies. Small changes can be trialled and tested, and if successful, pursued further; if not, they can be consigned to the scrap heap of history.

Pietersen in action

While this may result in criticisms of boards as meddlesome and an interference, it does mean that, in theory, decisions can be made more quickly, any mistakes can be quickly found and fixed, and allows a greater responsiveness from the board to the fan and player reaction – although whether the theory holds is another question entirely. Both choices therefore come with potential benefits but also with inherent pitfalls.

Of course, there is no reason that both could not be pursued simultaneously, in different areas. In fact, despite the concentration of the apparent difference between the two approaches so far, it could be argued that the division between innovation and incrementalism is insufficiently clear.

There is an inherent fuzziness around some ideas, with the potential for them to fall into either the camp of innovation or incrementalism – and much like Neo’s choice in The Matrix, you only know the answer by seeing. For example, DRS – a gradual development predicated on improved technology and TV coverage or a game-changing innovation that has benefited spin bowlers and changed batter’s techniques?

This dilemma suggests that far from being a choice between two clear paths, there may in fact be crossroads and intersections along the way.

Ultimately, the best explanation is probably that most developments in cricket begin life as incremental improvements, which then have the potential to be viewed as hugely innovative in the future.

As such, truly innovative ideas, that are recognised as such at the time of their conception, are far rarer – and therefore, rather than choosing the (potential) silver bullet of game-changing innovation, cricket’s governing bodies may be best off taking an incremental approach, in the expectation that they will be rewarded by future generations looking back and marvelling at the innovativeness of their choices.