Should the first fifteen overs rule in ODIs be changed?

[full_length]

Aravinda de Silva says the ODI rules should be changed to make them more interesting. He believes test cricket is in good health and ODIs need a helping hand.

How should they be changed? One way lots of people have suggested is to change the first fifteen overs rule to make them applicable at bunches of 5 overs at any time in the first 40 overs. What do you think?

 

[marc71178]

NO, it's already too synthetic.

Next we'll be adding in Golden Overs!

 

[full_length]

But Aravinda's right- there's nothing much happening in overs 15-40. On the other hand batsmen can hit over the top in the first 15 with no fear. Maybe allowing the captain to spread out the overs may pose some challenges to batsmen.
Take for instance, Afridi. If they place fielders outside the ring, they could restrict him. Then again we may see something new from players like Dravid.

Ofcourse, captains will find a way to misuse it- then we change it again!

 

[Kiwi]

Leave it the way it is. Cricket is good now. y make all these changes when people are enjoying it.

 

[Anoop]

agree with Tamara..
too many changes spoil the game

 

[aussie_beater]

Originally posted by full_length


But Aravinda's right- there's nothing much happening in overs 15-40. On the other hand batsmen can hit over the top in the first 15 with no fear. Maybe allowing the captain to spread out the overs may pose some challenges to batsmen.
Take for instance, Afridi. If they place fielders outside the ring, they could restrict him. Then again we may see something new from players like Dravid.

Ofcourse, captains will find a way to misuse it- then we change it again!

IMO, one change which could bring a better balance to the game is to give an extra five overs to one bowler.That would mean the best bowler of the day could bowl a total of fifteen overs but only one bowler gets to bowl anything over 10.

 

[Simon]

in the ING cup in Australia the rule is between the 15th and 30th overs you can only have 3 outside the circle comapred to 5 that is allowed in international cricket.
i really like that rule and i think it should be in ODI's as well.

 

[full_length]

Originally posted by aussie_beater

Originally posted by full_length


But Aravinda's right- there's nothing much happening in overs 15-40. On the other hand batsmen can hit over the top in the first 15 with no fear. Maybe allowing the captain to spread out the overs may pose some challenges to batsmen.
Take for instance, Afridi. If they place fielders outside the ring, they could restrict him. Then again we may see something new from players like Dravid.

Ofcourse, captains will find a way to misuse it- then we change it again!

IMO, one change which could bring a better balance to the game is to give an extra five overs to one bowler.That would mean the best bowler of the day could bowl a total of fifteen overs but only one bowler gets to bowl anything over 10.

That's a good idea.

Or let bowlers bowl three consecutive overs. Imagine facing Shoiab for eighteen balls in a row

I'm not for the three fielders outside ring idea :O
Especially not in matches on good batting pitches. There should be some battle to cricket too.
I liked the idea of spreading the fifteen overs around better.

 

[TurbanatioNation]

[/quote]

IMO, one change which could bring a better balance to the game is to give an extra five overs to one bowler.That would mean the best bowler of the day could bowl a total of fifteen overs but only one bowler gets to bowl anything over 10.
[/quote]

That would be a horrible idea, if Akhter and Murali gets to bowl 15 overs in a onedayer, they would destroy the opponents, the innings would hardly ever last till the 50th over!

 

[royGilchrist]

I think there should not be rules changes unless it serves an important pirpose. People who watch cricket these days enjoy ODI, but I would suggest different rules to win a larger sized audience and make the game tv friendly.

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.

 

[luckyeddie]

It's probably those 'problem' overs 16-40 which have been responsible for the increase in scoring rates in test cricket over recent years.

Batsmen hate being tied down and it is this which has increased 'positive running'. Eventually it spills over into all types of cricket because it becomes second nature.

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

Why not allow the 'double play', i.e. don't have the ball go 'dead' once it is caught so the other batsman can be dismissed too from the same delivery (run out).

 

[aussie_beater]

Originally posted by TurbanatioNation

That would be a horrible idea, if Akhter and Murali gets to bowl 15 overs in a onedayer, they would destroy the opponents, the innings would hardly ever last till the 50th over!

The one day game is heavily tilted towards the batsman at present and so if any change is there, it should favour the bowlers.So if the best bowler gets to bowl a little more, it could add spice to the duel.

 

[Paid The Umpire]

Best Idea Ever...

Lets make the game....

Tip 'n' Run

AND

Six And Out

AND

One Hand, One Bounce

BUT MAINLY

Rigged so that it is more interesting.

ALSO- shouldn't one-day cricket be more like Wrestling :O where you know it is fake but it is good fun.

Now that is a good IDEA!

 

[Gotchya]

hmmmm 15 overs, thats 30 % of the total, maybe 12 will be better. I dont think 15-40 is that boring, you get to see some nice cricket in there, on most occasions thats where the match is decided. If we were to have swishing and flashing in there as well.....ODI's will not be the place for the cricket lover, that would be the demise of cricket for me :alien384: Come on, you dont realise how much those overs mean, if they are replaced by swahbucling batting you'll go berserk !! believe me

 

[luckyeddie]

Originally posted by Paid The Umpire
Best Idea Ever...

Lets make the game....

Tip 'n' Run

AND

Six And Out

AND

One Hand, One Bounce

BUT MAINLY

Rigged so that it is more interesting.

ALSO- shouldn't one-day cricket be more like Wrestling :O where you know it is fake but it is good fun.

Now that is a good IDEA!

We'd have to dig up Hansie.

Sorry

Bad taste

 

[Gotchya]

ALSO- shouldn't one-day cricket be more like Wrestling where you know it is fake but it is good fun.

Now that is a good IDEA!

Thats a ver bad idea

 

[full_length]

err.. isn't the change suggested by Aravinda favourable to the bowlers?


Right now, batsmen know how it all works- come out in the first fifteen overs, and be aggressive. It's likely that the opposition's top bowlers are bowling at the start ('cept for the spinners) so maybe you could hit them over the top to start with.

Now if this were spread over the fifteen overs, the fielding captain could choose to, say, keep fielders inside for the first five, then push them out to contain for the next seven, then when a wicket falls, push them in again and so on. He can't be defensive all the time, because batsmen will know they have 15 overs of two fielders outside the ring in the course of the first forty.

I thought it's a good idea worth trying out- some more headache for captains, some more armchair criticism, and more complications to the most complex sport of all!

 

[luckyeddie]

Originally posted by full_length
I thought it's a good idea worth trying out- some more headache for captains, some more armchair criticism, and more complications to the most complex sport of all!

Don't make it too difficult for skippers - especially Nasser. After all, it took him a whole series to come up with 'bodyline 2002' (and will presumably take him until the end of his career to un-learn it).

 

[Rik]

Hmmmm but in this "Bodyline 2" the only thing which gets hurt is the bowler's lack of wickets and the batsman's strike rate!

 

[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.