Let's have a real game of cricket....

[luckyeddie]

How about allowing the Not Out batsman to continue his innings with the man who was out last running from the other end? However, he can only continue his innings for as long as he maintains the strike.

Excellent idea - and instead of resorting to the third umpire for close decisions, we can revert to '3 bat handles'

(Quick. Someone arrange another England v Australia Twenty20. Harmison to bowl, Cheaty to edge to slip - just make sure the ball's close to not carrying)

 

[greg]

Good point. It's not change that is the problem, but that particular changes are not liked. There are a million and one changes that could be made to the one day game, but i guess you wouldn't agree with most of them.

I like 20-20, am not sure it needs to expand into the international arena other than for a bit of fun at the start of series, accept that there is a case for some changes to ODIs but don't like the ones proposed - I for example would favour some sort of staggered application of fielding restrictions eg. 2 outside the circle for the first 15, 4 outside the circle for the next 25 and 5 outside the circle for the final 10. You would be hard pressed to characterise this as an "anti-change agenda"

 

[Swervy]

Good point. It's not change that is the problem, but that particular changes are not liked. There are a million and one changes that could be made to the one day game, but i guess you wouldn't agree with most of them.

I like 20-20, am not sure it needs to expand into the international arena other than for a bit of fun at the start of series, accept that there is a case for some changes to ODIs but don't like the ones proposed - I for example would favour some sort of staggered application of fielding restrictions eg. 2 outside the circle for the first 15, 4 outside the circle for the next 25 and 5 outside the circle for the final 10. You would be hard pressed to characterise this as an "anti-change agenda"

any particular reason why changing the restrictions in the way you have suggested (ie. completely take it out of the hands of the captains) is more preferable to the new restrictions just announced (which gives the captains much more flexibilty)???

 

[luckyeddie]

any particular reason why changing the restrictions in the way you have suggested (ie. completely take it out of the hands of the captains) is more preferable to the new restrictions just announced (which gives the captains much more flexibilty)???

Well, as per usual it's a scheme in favour of the batting side - basically the problem is for the fielding captain to decide which two blocks of 5 overs he's putting himself on a hiding to nothing.

At the weekend, we had a low-scoring final which was absolutely fantastic, which the more and more I think about it stuffs me into the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" camp.

So where's the trade-off? Maybe the captain of the batting side ought to have to have at least one batsman who, for two blocks of five overs per match, has to bat with a tarantula inside his box, so he has to be very, very careful when taking those quick singles.

Yes, that'll do it. All in favour? Bunty? Brigadier?

Pimm's all round.

 

[Swervy]

Well, as per usual it's a scheme in favour of the batting side - basically the problem is for the fielding captain to decide which two blocks of 5 overs he's putting himself on a hiding to nothing.

At the weekend, we had a low-scoring final which was absolutely fantastic, which the more and more I think about it stuffs me into the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" camp.

So where's the trade-off? Maybe the captain of the batting side ought to have to have at least one batsman who, for two blocks of five overs per match, has to bat with a tarantula inside his box, so he has to be very, very careful when taking those quick singles.

Yes, that'll do it. All in favour? Bunty? Brigadier?

Pimm's all round.

well we dont normally get that many games with so many swings in momentum...

I LOVE cricket, I am not just some normal member of the public who can take it or leave it...and yet I pretty much go and do something else during those middle overs, I cannot be arsed watching it, it does nothing for me....so how does the guy with Sky Sports 1, not particularly into the game, flicking from channel to channel feel when he turns on after 25 overs, 115-2, 5 singles an over for the next 15 overs...you guessed it, he turns over.

Most money is made via TV deals. TV deals stem from advertising. Why would an advertiser want a slot during an hour of dour cricket?

The current moves have gone some way to address what for a lot of people was a massive problem with the 50 over ODI, especially since the advent of 20/20 which makes the majority of a ODI look like a test match in the 1950's.

 

[greg]

The problem I have is that the fielding restrictions used (2 men outside the circle) are fundamentally unfair and contrary to the usual attraction of cricket where it is "a fair contest between bat and ball slightly favouring the batsmen". I may be old fashioned but i believe if a bowler bowls well he should not expect to go for too many runs, similarly if he bowls badly he should expect to go for runs (and batsmen should get due reward for their shots). The problem with 2 outside the ring is that it skews the first of these heavily away from the bowler and towards the batsmen, and the problem with the "middle overs" as they stand is the reverse - they protect 'bad' (within reason) bowling (hence so many teams get away with a number of part-timers. Nobody ever gets bored when Harmison, Warne or McGrath are bowling during the middle overs! I think the 'tweak' that i suggested would broadly improve this problem. Any batsmen looking to score appropriately against 5 in the ring may have to take a few risks but will get due reward for taking those risks. And a good bowler bowling well should have few problems.

I fear that the new fielding regulations will lead to even more games being decided, not by particularly good batting or bowling, but because one team gets lucky during their "power play overs" whereas the other loses a wicket at a crucial time. And also whereas pace bowlers with a new ball (especially in England) can sometimes just about cope with 2 outside the ring, I fear that with the new rules the supposed "flexibility" you extol will prove illusory - especially if a captain has to find a way to get through 10-20 overs of a part-timer or a spinner. He will have almost no choice about when to use the power play overs.

 

[kendall]

20/20 is far more of a threat too the 50 over games which i do find very tedious as there are just so many of them like the pointless natwest series about too start. basicly as a short exciting game 20/20 is better than 50 overs and as a game of "real" cricket a test match is far better than a 50 over match I think the change in the fielding restrictions isnt a bad idea but the substitutions take a way a lot the skill in selecting a balanced side and i dont think is a good idea.

 

[Jono]

I've had precious little exposure to Twenty20 cricket up to this point, but to be honest, I kinda like it, and don't feel that the game is that threatened by it. Having said that, there's always a line between happy tinkering for greater enjoyment and purposeless gimmickry - the only thing that really irritates me about some of the newer innovations is that friggin' music they play in between dismissals, after boundaries, etc. They're usually based on stupid wordplays, ie "The only way is up, baby...", or you get the same song being used to introduce multiple players because when the promoters asked them "What's your song", they said "I don't f***in' care."

I can't believe that playing this music ups spectator involvement in the game - it's just distracting and irritating.

BTW, I just wanted to praise Lillian Thomson for having such an excellent username.

LOL! That's my biggest gripe too (I'm not too keen on the free hit as well, but whatever). I first noticed music during the NZ ODI series a couple of years ago. But the fact that they are trying to link the songs to match occurences makes it that much more annoying.

It really is a joke, and as minute as it is, it actually detracts from the game.

 

[Dasa]

LOL! That's my biggest gripe too (I'm not too keen on the free hit as well, but whatever). I first noticed music during the NZ ODI series a couple of years ago. But the fact that they are trying to link the songs to match occurences makes it that much more annoying.

It really is a joke, and as minute as it is, it actually detracts from the game.

I don't mind the music myself, if only it was good music instead of 'Eye of the Tiger' for every 2nd batsman.

 

[chekmeout]

I almost seem to be the only one, but I feel the music adds to the ambience and the atmosphere at the matches.....

 

[Slow Love™]

I don't mind the music myself, if only it was good music instead of 'Eye of the Tiger' for every 2nd batsman.

Or "Another One Bites the Dust" every 2nd dismissal.

Although If Warnie was to make a return to one-day cricket, something that could really work would be if they played Nelly's "Hot in Here" when he strolls out to the crease (or to the top of the bowling mark), and he could, like, dance and stuff to it, particularly the "little bit of uh-uh" bits.

I spit game cuz baby I cant talk it
Warm, sweatin its hot up in this joint
VOKAL tanktop, on at this point
Your with a winner so baby you cant loose
I got secrets cant leave Cancun
So take it off like your home alone
You know dance in front your mirror while your on the phone...(<--- this part really works!)

 

[jhnnyby000]

The problem I have is that the fielding restrictions used (2 men outside the circle).

when i played and was batting in 10 over match from the strat they had 4 men outside the circle
i dont know if it is bug or not