Should the first fifteen overs rule in ODIs be changed?

[luckyeddie]

Originally posted by royGilchrist

Every suggestion I have heard (apart from the 'give the best bowler a few more overs') has been in favour of the batsman.

Why should the suggestions/changes be in the bowler's favor.

Ultimately the main goal of changes should be to generate more interest in the game from the fan's point of view. This means hanging on to the existing group and winning over new fans.

No reason at all, Roy. I was just redressing the balance a little.

It's a game of bat and ball (although saying that, I've just watched the third ODI between South Africa and Bangladesh. That was about Billy Bowden. The cricket was an irrelevance).

 

[aussie_beater]

Originally posted by royGilchrist

Why should the suggestions/changes be in the bowler's favor.

Ultimately the main goal of changes should be to generate more interest in the game from the fan's point of view. This means hanging on to the existing group and winning over new fans.

Yes the idea is to generate more interest in the game.

IMO, one of the way to do that is to make the game more fun by increasing the comptetiveness of it by giving the bowlers a fair shot at making a game out of it, instead of letting the batsman flog some weaklings at will.The game is between the bat and the ball and so making it balanced is not that bad an idea, I guess.

 

[Anil]

Originally posted by aussie_beater

Originally posted by royGilchrist

Why should the suggestions/changes be in the bowler's favor.

Ultimately the main goal of changes should be to generate more interest in the game from the fan's point of view. This means hanging on to the existing group and winning over new fans.

Yes the idea is to generate more interest in the game.

IMO, one of the way to do that is to make the game more fun by increasing the comptetiveness of it by giving the bowlers a fair shot at making a game out of it, instead of letting the batsman flog some weaklings at will.The game is between the bat and the ball and so making it balanced is not that bad an idea, I guess.

Unfortunately, for the majority of the one day afficionados, slam-bang cricket is what they come to see. It is the sixes and fours that pump up their adrenalin, not the falling of wickets and restrictive bowling. Also, in their point of view, if the bowlers dominate, the match will not last the full distance. It is batsman-dominated and it will remain so, I think.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Originally posted by royGilchrist
Overs 15-40 are really boring, hence it should be made 24 overs a side, the match lasting about 3 hours including innings break. But some might say that there will be too much sloggin with fewer overs, to curtail that only 6-7 seven players should be allowed to bat per team, designated batsmen as it were. Now an argument would be what about bowlers, their quota would be too small, and we will only see Murali, McGragth and Shaoib for 5 overs each, so the overs quota should be kept at 8, 3 bowlers can bowl 8 each, but to keep things interesting a fourth bowler should be allowed to bowl (only 4 allowed in one innings barring injuries), which will give the captain more options.

So to recap, there should be 7 designated batsmen including the keeper, 3 designated bowlers, and one designated fielder. The fourth bowler has to be one of the 7 batsmen. All eleven should be in the field.

One good thing about this sytem will be that bowlers batting is also a usually (not always though) boring part about matches and can be ignored, 15-40 voers is boring that can be left out, due to a fewer number of batsmen, there will not be only slogging which is better. And finally pure fielders can be given some credit, as a lot of the really spectacular fielders never make it to the matches as they are not good enough batsmen or bowlers and the twelfth man rule is strict now.

This is a serious suggestion, right?

It sounds like some cross between Baseball, Rounders and Power Cricket and can only be bad for the game in the long run.

If you want slam-bang stuff, go and watch baseball or rounders. Cricket's about more than that and IMO it's perfectly fine as it is.

This sounds about as good as the "five for the a one-bounce four" plan...

[Edited on 9/10/02 by Neil Pickup]

 

[royGilchrist]

I am not sure if youve taken the effort to read through my post.

I have tried to maintain the basic idea of cricket intact, no double play, negative runs, etc and all I have done is to remove extraneous things that were generally boring and make the the match fit into 3 hours.

Allowing only three (or four) bowlers is not anything unusual, normal ODI is the same thing, its just 5 bowlers.

Limited overs (24 overs) is also nothing new, why not 24 instead of 50?

Limiting the numbers of batsmen to 7 is also nothing extraordinary, and there is no point really watching tail enders bat, sometimes its entertaining but I think it can be sacrificed for a good cause, i.e. shortening the game time.

One designated fielder is also not a radical change, 12th men do field once in a while, and I introduced this so that 7 batsmen and 3 bowlers came to 10 players, and only 10 fielders fielding will be a huge change in my opinion from 11 fielders and would taking away from the essence of the game.

The whole idea of introducing ODI was to have results and make the game short. Going from 50 overs to 24 overs, is the same thing, as long as we do not radically change the game.

 

[luckyeddie]

After you've gone from 50 to 24, what's to say that in a few years it becomes even more truncated, say 20 then 15 (like at Cardiff last weekend)?

Strewth, I can remember when one-dayers were 65 overs a side (the original Gillette Cup in the 1960's). Then 60, 55, 50.

The Sunday league was 40 overs a side, the game started at 2:00 pm and had to finish by 7:00 pm.

If it has to change, make the transition between the transition between the first 15 overs and 'the rest' occur over a longer period. Say overs 16-25 just allow 3 outside the circle, or insist that the fielding side has to have at least one close catcher throughout.

 

[royGilchrist]

Once again, the primary objective here is to make the game 3 hours long and spectator and tv friendly, and the objective is not to make the game more entertaining, its already quite entertaining.

Alhthought he game changed from 60 overs to 50 and sometimes matches in the sub continent are 40 overs, its not becasue there is some kind of conspiracy going on to eventually make the game 5 oers long or something. Sometimes we are just too protective of our game. There was simply no way 60 overs could finish in the cricket season (winter) in Pakistan for example as the day is not long enouhg, so whoever came up with the idea of 60 overs a side was just designing for English summers and had no idea about the rest of the world.

IN this day and age, if its a 3 hour game, it can fininsh in an evening, so people can go to the stadium after work, tv can show two matches in a day instead of only one, Rain delays do not become such a significant factor and a day game for example could be shifted to night if it rained in the day. The wear and tear on players will be less too.

 

[anzac]

I too would like to see some redress for the bowler in ODI, particularly where leg bye's are concerned - the bowler beats the bat and the batsman gets a run - how does that work????

the ODI game is geared towards a run chase to draw the public - as such the bowler & fielding team have the restrictions placed on them rather than the batting team.

I think the 1 bouncer rule is good but I do not recall too many bowlers taking advantage of it in the ICC Trophey - particularly in the early overs to keep the batsmen guessing.

I would still like to see more consistancy in the pitches so far as pace and bounce are concerned - I believe this is improving by the size of some of the huge scores being posted - but too often these are just batting strips. The pitch needs to encourage both batting and a variety of bowling, not just pace OR spin.

I am not a fan of the big scores in excess of about 260 - 280, as too often these matches cease to either last the distance or be a real contest - I know there have been some classic matches from these scenarios but they seem to be the exception.

:ticking:

 

[Simon]

I too would like to see some redress for the bowler in ODI, particularly where leg bye's are concerned - the bowler beats the bat and the batsman gets a run - how does that work????

Then it's the captain's problem, he needs to set the right field, sometimes its unavoidable that the ball will take a deflection and go somewhere where it is unstopable.
Leg byes dont go against bowlers anyway, just the team.

 

[luckyeddie]

The 60 overs a side game originated in the 1960's when fielding sides were expected to bowl at least 18 overs an hour. It was common to see over rates up to 20 an hour on occasions, but I suppose that a lot of this was down to field placings - the old 'spread out, lads' philosophy, rather than any more scientific approach.

I would not like to see ODI's drop below 50 overs a side, but as for other competitions, sure. English summers have been full of 10-over swats in rain-interrupted games in the past.

The 'success' of the Brits v RotW 'electric rounders' games was there for all to see. The crowd enjoyed it, the players certainly seemed to, and Bob Willis didn't.

!00% success, if you ask me.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I don't call crowds of ~4,000 an 100% success Eddie.

Roy - Why do we want to squash cricket into a shorter timeframe than it is at present? 100 overs a side is fine. Removing the middle overs of the match would destroy a lot of the tactical possibilities of ODI cricket and turn it into far more of a slog fest.

This just isn't cricket.

 

[marc71178]

I agree with Neil - why not go the whole hog and toss a coin to decide the winner?

A game with specialist batsmen and specialist bowlers just wouldn't work - What would any of these players be picked to do:

Kallis
Pollock
Flintoff
Cairns
Razzaq
Klusener

 

[royGilchrist]

Why do we want to squash cricket into a shorter timeframe than it is at present

For tv and new fans, the same reason why ODI was invented and has been such a huge success.

Name any other game that lasts more than 3 hours, the only one I can think of is Golf. Every other game (especially team game) lasts three hours or less.

Kallis
Pollock
Flintoff
Cairns
Razzaq
Klusener

I said one batsman can bowl, but maybe there should not be a limit on how many batsmen can bowl. Also, if a team with allrounders should be given some kind of benefit, they can perhaps pick two specialist fielders.

It will not be a slog fest as playing with 7 batsmen, teams will definetely not slog throughout the innings.

The method I'm suggesting is not chaging the game in a drastic fashion, its just removing some of the lesser exciting parts and saving time, the rest of the game will stay similar to the ODI that we have now.

 

[aussie_beater]

Originally posted by royGilchrist
For tv and new fans, the same reason why ODI was invented and has been such a huge success.

Its a great success as of now and so there is no point in changing anything.You don't have to bring in new fans at the expense of existing fans.I for one would stop watching that form of cricket if it was tinkered radically in that fashion.

Name any other game that lasts more than 3 hours, the only one I can think of is Golf. Every other game (especially team game) lasts three hours or less.

Couldn't care less about that..... Its whats it is.If Americans don't have time for it...well, to hell with them !!

The method I'm suggesting is not chaging the game in a drastic fashion, its just removing some of the lesser exciting parts and saving time, the rest of the game will stay similar to the ODI that we have now.

With the changes that you are recommending it doesn't even make it look like cricket anymore.

Thank God, you aren't a cricket admin.

[Edited on 11/10/2002 by aussie_beater]

 

[full_length]

Merits of the case about cricket being ruined aside, I don't think curtailing the innings and reducing the no. of batsmen will serve the purpose you are looking for Roy.
The overs 15-40 are pretty dry because that's when the batsmen are consolidating (whatever that means!) and basically trying to keep wickets in hand (while making singles) for the final ten overs.
If you reduce the no. of batsmen and also no. of overs, they'll still do the same thing right?
After a few hotheaded innings, teams will learn that seven happy-go-lucky batsmen can perish in seven overs and keep their wickets for the last five overs! (uh.. the backyard cricket experience!)

 

[luckyeddie]

Originally posted by Neil Pickup
I don't call crowds of ~4,000 an 100% success Eddie.

Roy - Why do we want to squash cricket into a shorter timeframe than it is at present? 100 overs a side is fine. Removing the middle overs of the match would destroy a lot of the tactical possibilities of ODI cricket and turn it into far more of a slog fest.

This just isn't cricket.

Nor do I - that's why I put it in inverted commas.

I thought that the crowd was very disappointing.

Mind you, I watched it and thought that it was fun (but shouldn't be thought of as cricket)

 

[luckyeddie]

History lesson.....

One-day cricket as we know it started in England in 1963 with the Gillette Cup. The competition was 65 overs a side and games were completed in a day.

Sunday cricket made its first appearance in England in the mid-sixties, and matches were of 40 overs per side because games had to finish before the Evensong church services.

These games were 'a county v The International Cavaliers' and were some of the first outside broadcasts on BBC2. Because of the success (large viewer figures, crowds in the 10,000 region), the Sunday League (John Player) was a natural spinoff.

Again, 40 overs was the duration, and the limiting time factor was the church service. This rule even applied to local village cricket matches (quite often, the local cricket pitch was in the middle of the village green or recreation area and was owned by the Church of England)

Sounds funny, I know, but the 'Lords Day Observance Society' was a very powerful political lobby group at the time.

Incidentally, whilst I was digging through my old records the other day looking for something totally undrelated, I came across an article in the Observer (1995) where Ted Dexter pontificated about one-day cricket.

He described the game as a 'virus', bemoaning the fact that he was only ever asked to go and look at young sloggers as opposed to batsmen (and was hardly ever asked to go and look at bowlers).

One interesting point he made was that, in his opinion, young players should not be permitted to play one-day cricket until they had established themselves as first-class players.

This has got me going. Over the next few days (or weeks), I will research the 'History of 0ne Day Cricket' and publish an article on CricketWeb if anyone is interested.

 

[royGilchrist]

I for one would stop watching that form of cricket if it was tinkered radically in that fashion.

Trust me, you will not stop watching cricket even if it changed dramatically

Name any other game that lasts more than 3 hours, the only one I can think of is Golf. Every other game (especially team game) lasts three hours or less.

Couldn't care less about that..... Its whats it is.If Americans don't have time for it...well, to hell with them !!

I said team sports, andother sports in general. Do you think that its only americans that play sports and specifically team sports?

With the changes that you are recommending it doesn't even make it look like cricket anymore.

Thank God, you aren't a cricket admin.

First of all you guys dont look closely at the changes I'm making, or you simply assume that any change made to ODI will make it not look like cricket anymore.

The reality is that our 'beloved' game will have to change eventually, as times change, I just hope that when its shortened its basics are kept intact and no radical changes are made, like someone mentioned double play which will be totally alien to cricket.

In an ideal world there will only be five day matches, but we are not living in an ideal world.

 

[marc71178]

In an ideal world there will only be five day matches, but we are not living in an ideal world.

I don't think a better post has been made than this sentence,

 

[Neil Pickup]

Originally posted by royGilchrist
Trust me, you will not stop watching cricket even if it changed dramatically

I think we would if it became too americanised/rounderised (that's not a word)

Name any other game that lasts more than 3 hours, the only one I can think of is Golf. Every other game (especially team game) lasts three hours or less.

Why does cricket have to follow the crowd?

First of all you guys dont look closely at the changes I'm making, or you simply assume that any change made to ODI will make it not look like cricket anymore.

Only seven batsmen? This one looks clear enough to me.

The reality is that our 'beloved' game will have to change eventually, as times change, I just hope that when its shortened its basics are kept intact and no radical changes are made, like someone mentioned double play which will be totally alien to cricket.

But cricket isn't just about short time period. It's not a sport than can be easily packaged for this kind of thing.

In an ideal world there will only be five day matches, but we are not living in an ideal world.

Why do we need to do away with One-Dayers and make them 3-Hour games then?!