POWER PLAY - Is it time to get rid of it?

[Dasa]

Originally Posted by andyc

And the horribly wanky signal the umpires have to do.

A lot of the signals umpires have to do are pretty stupid/wanky, but we're just used to seeing them imo. Must look pretty silly to someone who has never seen the game before.

[roseboy64]

Agreed there.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Matt79

Voted "no" - while they don't add a huge amount to the game, they do provide an avenue for a bit more unpredictability. Ponting used them well during the WC, deferring them a couple of time, and then bringing them back as an attacking move - was quite good really I thought.

I don't think they either add or subtract from the value of winning the toss tbh.

Certainly did against us; when Bell went it was arguably the turning point of the game; with him & KP situ we looked set for something close to 300. Jayawardene used his well too, the final one absolutely gutted our innings with SL taking (IIRC) three wickets.

I like them because I think they make an ODI marginally less formulaic, which is one of my biggest gripes with the format.

[viktor]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Certainly did against us; when Bell went it was arguably the turning point of the game; with him & KP situ we looked set for something close to 300. Jayawardene used his well too, the final one absolutely gutted our innings with SL taking (IIRC) three wickets.

I like them because I think they make an ODI marginally less formulaic, which is one of my biggest gripes with the format.

Exactly. They add another variable and that can never be bad. I also like the fact that in the optional PPs the fielding restrictions don't require 2 catchers. It adds two more ball stoppers if the batsmen are going well and makes it slightly more difficult to score as quickly as the 1st PP.

[Jono]

I actually don't mind the power plays.

Maybe the whole 20 overs instead of 15 is an issue, but the idea of the fielding team choosing when to use the powerplay overs at his discretion works. And people complaining that its not used enough, and that its always the first 20 overs, is such a stupid complaint.

If its tactically not needed, then why should they have to? But in those rare situations when a team is going at 7-8 an over after the first 10, then let the fielding captain do it.

[vic_orthdox]

I think that the longer that they hang around, the more adventurous (sp) that the captains will get with them. As we saw with the more inventive captains in recent times, if a team is going well, it can pay to hold off on them until you get a wicket. And even if you don't get that pole, you can bring on the power-play while a partnership is on a roll - and when they see the field in they get too adventurous (sp - again) and gift their wicket away.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Jono

I actually don't mind the power plays.

Maybe the whole 20 overs instead of 15 is an issue, but the idea of the fielding team choosing when to use the powerplay overs at his discretion works. And people complaining that its not used enough, and that its always the first 20 overs, is such a stupid complaint.

If its tactically not needed, then why should they have to? But in those rare situations when a team is going at 7-8 an over after the first 10, then let the fielding captain do it.

From both POVs there is actually an argument that the 3-in-a-row isn't the greatest idea. You know me well and I'm very much in favour of keeping ODI scores down. But I'm also in favour of getting as far away from this "they're formulaic" nonsense as possible, and IMO delaying Powerplays can help in both respects. Yes. Even if you've restricted your oppo to, say, 35-0 off the first 10. Me, I'd be just aching to get the field back for a few overs, then encourage them to go for it when I take my next Powerplay. Because history has shown that this sort of thing often results in it not working-out as the batsmen had planned.

[LA ICE-E]

Originally Posted by 16 tins of Spam

Voted yes, simply because the captain almost always uses them immediately, and hence they add nothing to the game. If the powers that be want the fielding restrictions extended it would be better if they just pushed them out to the 20th over and left it at that, so we never have to hear such idiotic, American-style terms such as "powerplay" ever again.

What's the problem with that?

[LA ICE-E]

Originally Posted by Perm

Voted "Yes". They don't really add anything to the game other than bigger totals.

powerplays doesn't really make much of a difference on the totals really.
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/colu...ry/293795.html

Originally Posted by Matt79

Voted "no" - while they don't add a huge amount to the game, they do provide an avenue for a bit more unpredictability. Ponting used them well during the WC, deferring them a couple of time, and then bringing them back as an attacking move - was quite good really I thought.

I don't think they either add or subtract from the value of winning the toss tbh.

Originally Posted by Richard

Me, I don't mind the term "powerplay" that much. Things like that tend largely to pass over my head.

As regards the actual use... I hate more than anything the idea that the batting team have any choice in one of the powerplays. I actually think that, used well, the system has the potential to aid the fielding, not batting, side more than the 15-over rule does. But many captains fail to do that.

I agree. It's just that not all captains are strategical enough to use it in their strategy yet. It's not been that long anyway but captains will get more creative in the future.

[16 tins of Spam]

Originally Posted by Craig

Out of interest, how is that such an evil thing?

It's not evil, it's just gimmicky, cheesy, and totally out of character with our sport. It's like the cheerleaders at the footy.

[16 tins of Spam]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Voted no here, but I think they should tamper with it to make sure that the captain cannot take the last two sequentially. You could take 1st optional PP 11-15, but can't take the other one for, say, 5 overs afterwards.

Another option which would be pretty bizarre, would be that the fielding captain can choose optional PP 1, but the batting captain gets to choose optional PP 2. Would be interesting to say the least.

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

I think that's definitely worth a trial, logic would suggest that the batting side would prefer them later in the innings, but if wickets are falling early on it'd be an interesting decision to have to make.

Originally Posted by Craig

Agreed 110%.

Interesting. The last time I suggested that, I got shot down and it was never discussed again. Where were you lot then?

[Craig]

Originally Posted by 16 tins of Spam

Interesting. The last time I suggested that, I got shot down and it was never discussed again. Where were you lot then?

Well you see thing is...

*runs off in a random directiom*

[honestbharani]

I reckon what Jono and Jack said are my thoughts on this issue too. I don't mind them at all.

[headhunter]

why would you want to get rid of powerplay? it makes what most of you call boring ODI's more interesting.

[headhunter]

also i think the powerplay symbol is a bit girly.