On strategy and tactics

OK. Definitions (for the benefit of readers rather than for Mukul).

"Strategy" is generally used to describe decisions/actions with broad long-term implications. "Tactics" is generally used for actions/decisions with short-term impact. For example, a decision to play two spinners/two fast bowlers is strategic whereas a decision to put an extra slip into the cordon when a quick man is bowling is tactical.

Now, Mukul had written:

There are equally difficult decisions to be made in one-day cricket – (the new ball/follow-on/declarations obviously don't exist). ODIs demand far more flexible batting orders, they make sudden demands on both teams to switch from attack to defence with instant effect, they involve skippers juggling two half-decent bowlers to make up the "fifth" quota, they involve decisions to change reverse-swinging balls in the slog or not. In a run chase, careful planning is always required to anchor and target specific bowlers.

In addition, ODIs now involve sharp strategic thinking around the timing of powerplays, and supersubs – I don't have the space to expand on specifics. I disagree with Mukul's desire for a blanket ban of the supersub – I would much prefer a soccer-type team of 13, any 11 of whom could bowl, or bat, or be on the field at a given time. As it stands, the system of announcing the supersub before the toss leads to warped outcomes.

Certainly I would like an ODI scenario where two designated bowlers could bowl a maximum of 15 overs each. By the way, the prevalence of one-day cricket has led to a deterioration of close-in fielding standards – the only major drop in skill I can think of as a result of ODIs. Very few decent third slips and bat-pads are available nowadays.

I didn't mean to imply that Test cricket lacks strategic content but I suspect that ODIs force cricketers to be continually thinking on a ball-to-ball basis about overall pictures in a way that Tests don't. This is why most cricketers prefer playing Tests – it's easier to concentrate in a Test where there usually isn't an equation ticking away continuously.

Of course, Tests require a deeper knowledge of core skills – I've already said that – naturally it can test a batsman more when bowlers don't run out of quota and captains are not worried about a sudden 2-3 over blast of slogging.

About field restrictions (with regard to powerplays), West Indies at their peak, Australia in 1975 and other quick bowlers sometimes (in early stages of 1999 for example) have gone for the kill with 6 men inside the circle (3 slips, gully, bat-pad, etc). As did the Sri Lankans in that infamous 1996 semifinal when their spinners strangled the Indian middle order. I don't understand why a captain would necessarily be hobbled by the removal of fielding restrictions if he reckons he can get a few more wickets by keeping close-ins.

Anyway my point is that I think both forms of the game can survive and of course, I agree that cross fertilisation could improve both games.