You have been elected to the International Cricket Council

[Mister Wright]

I say we let the 12th man be able to bat and/or bowl if someone gets injured.

I'm of the other view. In no other sport do they let an extra player make up for an injured player. In basketball - if there were 6 players injured you wouldn't be allowed to bring in a non-playing player on to the court to make up 5 on the court.

 

[roseboy64]

No but you can make substitutions.

 

[Mister Wright]

No but you can make substitutions.

Yeah, you can but only with the other nominated people in the team - be that 5 or 6 (however many are on the bench). But if all those players on the bench get injured you can't bring in another player to make up 5 on the court.

 

[marc71178]

I say we let the 12th man be able to bat and/or bowl if someone gets injured.

And how long would it take for that to be abused with an "injury" meaning a rabbit batsman can't bat, but the 12th man is significantly better?

 

[J.Coney]

test match adjustments.

the touring team decides to bat or bowl. no coin toss required. games are played within 4 days, you have two innings as per usual however for your second innings you only have 7 wickets available the wicket keeper and your designated all rounder must bat in the second innings.(really this is any one who has contributed 25% or more to the bowling)in NZ case this would be B.McCullum (WK) and most likely J.Oram or even D.Vettori could qualify as your all rounder and are both capable batsmen. on retrospect this postion is quite easy to cover

ODI

i've mentioned this before, teams swap roles (bat, field) at the loss of the teams 3rd and 6th wicket leaving your 4 final wickets to see out the game.

basically the games broken up into 3 sections while batting. your opening wickets, your middle order and your tail enders.
i dont want to go into details as feed back generally has been negative.

however the premier cricket players who have read my proposal have given me great feed back and two thumbs up, now it is on it's on it's way to NZcricket.

 

[tassietiger]

Without being too critical of your suggestion, don't you think bowlers have a hard enough time as it is in ODI cricket with the flat tracks, shorter boundaries and restrictions on short deliveries and wides down leg side? We already have heaps of 300+ scores, if you take away the catching aspect of cricket we'd be seeing scores of 400, possibly 450.

I mean, there'd be no slips so bowling outside off stump on a good line and length would be removed from the game. May as well just have bowling machines.

I see what you mean... maybe to advantage the bowler, we could put catches back on and include one hand one bounce. This would mean a safe shot might be all the way over the top, not blocked straight down to the ground.

 

[honestbharani]

I would like to use the idea that someone else here at CricketWeb proposed. I don't remember who it was, I am sorry about that. But his idea was to allow the bowlers to bowl one extra over for every wicket they take in ODIs. It will help us move past these bits and pieces guys era. I really like that idea. I am all for it in the ODI version.

 

[Jono]

I would like to use the idea that someone else here at CricketWeb proposed. I don't remember who it was, I am sorry about that. But his idea was to allow the bowlers to bowl one extra over for every wicket they take in ODIs. It will help us move past these bits and pieces guys era. I really like that idea. I am all for it in the ODI version.

That actually sounds quite good. It would encourage attacking cricket throughout the innings rather than in just the first 4-8 overs.

 

[Mister Wright]

That actually sounds quite good. It would encourage attacking cricket throughout the innings rather than in just the first 4-8 overs.

That would be an inovative idea. I think it would really add to the competiveness. Interesting....

 

[nikhil1772]

I'd really like to see twenty20 develop...

If it doesn't...too bad...the only thing I can suggest is to reduce the ODI version to 40 or even 35 over game and also allow the fielding captain to use the field restrictions in whichever overs he wants...

It'll keep the interest in the game throughout...which doesn't normally happen in ODI's especially in the 15-40 over mark

As for Tests,pitches should be standardised by the ICC...that is none of the pitches will be flat nor 'Mumbai-like'... a quality 350-pitch if thats a term you can use.

 

[chaminda_00]

As for Tests,pitches should be standardised by the ICC...that is none of the pitches will be flat nor 'Mumbai-like'... a quality 350-pitch if thats a term you can use.

What is wrong with pitches that suit bowlers in Test Cricket. Batsmen have too much help from pitches in ODI they don't need any more help in Tests. I would prefer to watch a close match that ends in 3 days then a boring 5 day draw. Test cricket is about testing all players not just bowlers. The pitch in Mumbai tested batsmen and only Martyn was up to the challenge.

 

[marc71178]

allow the fielding captain to use the field restrictions in whichever overs he wants...

That wouldn't work - what if they choose the last 15 then skittle them in 35 - major disadvantage for opposition.

 

[biased indian]

i would like to see batsmen given out to deliveries that pitch out side the off stump and is going on to hit the stumps right now if the batsmen is deemed to be playing a shot he wont be out.

y should he be given the benift when actually the bowler beat him
that will help the umpires a lot now a days a umpire have to make sure that the bowler was behind the line with his foot and make sure that the bowl piched in line and that the bowl will go on and hit the stump.

in ODI's allow two bowlers to ball a max of 12 overs

 

[Jono]

What is wrong with pitches that suit bowlers in Test Cricket. Batsmen have too much help from pitches in ODI they don't need any more help in Tests. I would prefer to watch a close match that ends in 3 days then a boring 5 day draw. Test cricket is about testing all players not just bowlers. The pitch in Mumbai tested batsmen and only Martyn was up to the challenge.

Because apparently if there is less than 350-400 runs scored in the 1st innings, its a boring test match

Btw, I think you'll see Sachin and Laxman were also up to the challenge in Mumbai along with Marto

 

[benchmark00]

i would like to see batsmen given out to deliveries that pitch out side the off stump and is going on to hit the stumps right now if the batsmen is deemed to be playing a shot he wont be out.
y should he be given the benift when actually the bowler beat him
that will help the umpires a lot now a days a umpire have to make sure that the bowler was behind the line with his foot and make sure that the bowl piched in line and that the bowl will go on and hit the stump.

in ODI's allow two bowlers to ball a max of 12 overs

Its allowed to pitch outside the off stump, but it cant strike the batsmen outside the offstump when he is playing a shot

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Its allowed to pitch outside the off stump, but it cant strike the batsmen outside the offstump when he is playing a shot

I assume he meant the leg stump, not off. Pitching outside off, hitting in line and going on to hit the stumps is out. Pitching outside leg with the batsman attempting legitimately to play the ball with his bat = not out, regardless of the ball position.

 

[howardj]

I would abolish the leg bye. Why on earth should the batting team be awarded extra runs for missing the ball - when the object of the game is to hit the ball with the bat? Or, to put it another way, why should the bowling team be punished on the scoreboard for beating the bat?

I can understand wides- the bowling team is being punished for a wayward delivery. Likewise, with byes, the bowling team is being punished for poor wicket-keeping. However, with leg byes, there is no similar underlying rationale.

 

[Mister Wright]

I would abolish the leg bye. Why on earth should the batting team be awarded extra runs for missing the ball - when the object of the game is to hit the ball with the bat? Or, to put it another way, why should the bowling team be punished on the scoreboard for beating the bat?

I can understand wides- the bowling team is being punished for a wayward delivery. Likewise, with byes, the bowling team is being punished for poor wicket-keeping. However, with leg byes, there is no similar underlying rationale.

You get rid of the leg-bye, you have to get rid of the L.B.W. law. Every action as an equal and opposite reaction. The opposite of the leg-bye is the L.B.W.

To take your stance - why should a batsman only be disadvantaged for balls hitting the pad? It has more to do than getting beaten by the bowler, what if the pitch is poor?

Scenario: There is 1 run to get off the last ball, the batsman gets beaten hits the pad and the batsman could have got a run. Why can't they go for victory? Not fair, if you ask me.

 

[honestbharani]

I still think the 'one extra over per wicket' is the most practical idea.

 

[chaminda_00]

I still think the 'one extra over per wicket' is the most practical idea.

I think they are thinking about trailing this in the ING Cup next season. Ever two wickets a bowler get, he get another over. Sounds like a good idea. if it was done in ODI then Murali could end up bowling 12 over a game. It time they changed the rules to encorage attacking bowling and bowler's in general.