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

[JASON]

This last World Cup was the first one that used Power Play. IMO Power Play gives the Toss winning Captain an even greater advantage than it already was. It has made ODIs more lopsided than it used to be. Teams chasing had a chance without Power plays , but with Power plays the disadvantage to the chasing Team is huge.

Is it time to get rid of the Power play ( by which I mean the extra 5 overs) and go back to what it used to be ? [with a proviso that the Captain can choose when he wants to take the Power Play 2 (the 5 overs that follow the first 10 overs of field restriction) ]

I would like your views ...

[marc71178]

I'd like to have a valid reason from you as to how the power play favours the side winning the toss...

[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.

[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.

[Scaly piscine]

The only time there's even a decision over when to take the powerplays is when the pitch is a road, which is bad anyway.

For me they're just a gimmick.

[brockley]

Power plays benefit the sides that attack,not just in batting,some sides don't even go after the bowling in the 20 overs they just push it around.
The aussies proved you can use it in the bowling as well.
20/20 has helped develop one day cricket as well.
Reason australia is so far ahead is they have embraced 20/20 and the power plays some countries have not.
The supersub tended to = things up with the supersub as you could play an extra bowler.

[roseboy64]

If captains don't just use them straight away then I wouldn't mind them still being in use. having captains spread them out and use them strategically at different times in the match is the best approach to having power plays. The 20 overs straight thing is kinda boring really.

[Perm]

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

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Burgey

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.

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.

[Spitfires_Fan]

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.

I voted yes, because England are rubbish at using them properly

[crickhowell]

If they were to change anything they could at least change the name. I cringed when I heard that they were considering "Super-subs" and "Powerplays".

I think the current system doesn't work too well, in most cases it seems they just bowl through them in the first 20; even more so in the first innings. If the batting side was given the choice of when one of the powerplays was they'd most likely just use them towards the end no matter what which leaves us in the same place that made them bring this rule about in the first place, lack of variety.

I wonder if a solution could be for the captains to agree before the match starts when the fielding restricitions will apply. That evens things out a bit more and if it turns out most teams preffer to use them all up right away it might prove or disprove the usefullness of the powerplays in the first place.

[andyc]

Originally Posted by crickhowell

If they were to change anything they could at least change the name. I cringed when I heard that they were considering "Super-subs" and "Powerplays".

And the horribly wanky signal the umpires have to do.

[Craig]

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.

Agreed 110%.

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.

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

[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.

[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.