• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The game's new conscience

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/columns/content/current/story/296237.html

I am surprised no one has posted this yet. What do you think about the suggestions?

1. Bowling actions should be monitored in matches, not just in science labs.

Agreed, if they can come up with a consistent rule and an accurate way to judge the bend of the arm in a game situation.

2. There are too many international matches, especially one-dayers.

DING DING DING! Too many for me = more than zero.


3. There should be a standard format for international tours - a Twenty20 "competition" (a rare moment of vagueness), three one-dayers and a Test series of three to five matches.


I'm in love....
I'd actually prefer four to five Tests with no one dayers or Twenty20 (to be replaced by more FC games before and in between the Tests), but than I am in the minority.

4. The World Cup should last no longer than a month, with fewer teams and "fewer one-sided matches".


The World Cupt should last no longer. But close enough. :p

5. Boundaries should go out again, to within two metres of the perimeter fence.

I guess I'm one of the farts that Lisle talks about, but I hate the fact that a six today would have been an easy catch in past generations. It is diminishing the things that bowlers (especially spinners) can do on the field, and it is rewarding bad shots too often. Is mis-hit, even slightly, should never go for a six, except when off the absolute fastest of bowlers (and even than on rare occassions).

6. Groundsmen should stop using glue to hold pitches together.

Meh..agreed with Lisle that it should be used, but only in cases of extreme enviornmental problems.
 

Poker Boy

State Vice-Captain
1. God idea, but the problem is the endless super slo mos of the TV cameras that they didn't have in the old days plus the fact that not all umpires agree (remember Murali played international cricket for three years before he got called) was Hair right, or were all the ones who hadn't caled him?

2. Correct - especially nonsense like the Afro-Asia Cup and all the "offshore" matches.

3. Agreed - but I'd say a maximum of five ODIs (definately NOT seven). Like what de Lisle said about the current England v WI series though.

4. Agreed.

5. Disagree - KP scored a 200 with no sixes on a small ground against a crap attack (his sixes came after he got his 200) which suggests the currency hasn't been devalued yet.

6. Disagree - They started doing it in England to improve one day pitches which is a good thing (in FC cricket probably wouldn't do it - let them wear natrually)

Still more common sense than you get from the ICC anyway....
 

Manee

Cricketer Of The Year
Cricinfo only posted it yesterday ;)
1. Bowling actions should be monitored in matches, not just in science labs.
If they can find technology to wirelessly hone into players arms and the angles, all the better, but that is probably a few decades away. Back to the point, it would be a great addition because you can tell how e.g. Harbhajan Singh's doosra is a chuck and how his off break is pretty fine, but its not like Harbhajan is going to try a doosra in the sceince lab. Especially in taped matches, I think both umpires should take note of suspect deliveries for later analysis.
2. There are too many international matches, especially one-dayers.
3. There should be a standard format for international tours - a Twenty20 "competition" (a rare moment of vagueness), three one-dayers and a Test series of three to five matches.
Good ideas
4. The World Cup should last no longer than a month, with fewer teams and "fewer one-sided matches".
Definately, I am not a fan of having teams like Ireland or even Bangladesh in who have no chance whatsoever of winning. It demeans the whole competitions.
5. Boundaries should go out again, to within two metres of the perimeter fence.
Yes, the six should become more of a feat, now it is a joke created from any toe hit or edge.
6. Groundsmen should stop using glue to hold pitches together.
Definately. What is wrong with the odd crack in a pitch, especially if it tips the game in favour of the bowlers again.
 

cover drive man

International Captain
1. Bowling actions should be monitored in matches, not just in science labs.

Agreed, Anyone can change there action unoticeably in a lab than in a match.

2. There are too many international matches, especially one-dayers.

No, cricket is (and should be) Internationally dominated.


3. There should be a standard format for international tours - a Twenty20 "competition" (a rare moment of vagueness), three one-dayers and a Test series of three to five matches.


I'm not sure

4. The World Cup should last no longer than a month, with fewer teams and "fewer one-sided matches".


The little teams should be given some experience against top teams. So I dissagree.

5. Boundaries should go out again, to within two metres of the perimeter fence.

Meh, I'm not sure

6. Groundsmen should stop using glue to hold pitches together.

Agreed
 

♪♪♪

Cricket Spectator
I'd seriously consider standardising bats within narrower ranges. Bowlers don't get to choose their weapon, seems unfair to allow batsmen to benefit from the newer bats that seem spring loaded, to put it loosely.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
One thing that oh-so-rarely gets mentioned is that people should do something towards making better cricket balls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can't turn the clock back, bats are being made better and rightly so - why should something that's available not be used?

So why on Earth are we not trying to make cricket-balls that swing more, and are more resistent to wear? It was done in football years and years ago, long before Roberto Carlos' free-kick. It'd be a much fairer way to do things than to deliberately put some sort of limit on batsmen.

I'm also in favour, very much, of using the longest boundaries possible (while, obviously, taking account of safety matters).

I hate the idea of three ODIs a tour, though. Absolutely hate it. I'd quite happily lance Twenty20 Internationals outside a WC competition (and actually believe that such a thing would make the sheen wear off less easily, as one of the biggest appeals of the format is that not many people really know what they're doing) though.
 

♪♪♪

Cricket Spectator
One thing that oh-so-rarely gets mentioned is that people should do something towards making better cricket balls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can't turn the clock back, bats are being made better and rightly so - why should something that's available not be used?

So why on Earth are we not trying to make cricket-balls that swing more, and are more resistent to wear? It was done in football years and years ago, long before Roberto Carlos' free-kick. It'd be a much fairer way to do things than to deliberately put some sort of limit on batsmen.
.
Perhaps because the spinners wouldn't like it.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
It wouldn't harm spinners - wristspinners (who are exceptionally rare in any case) would still be good bowlers regardless, and fingerspinners would still be good bowlers on turning pitches.
 

♪♪♪

Cricket Spectator
It wouldn't harm spinners - wristspinners (who are exceptionally rare in any case) would still be good bowlers regardless, and fingerspinners would still be good bowlers on turning pitches.
But it is a disadvantage to the spinners nevertheless. There is a reason why spinners use the old ball better than the new one, and prolonging the life of the new ball would only delay and reduce the spinners' impact on the game. Also, you could simply turn the quoted logic around and say that keeping the balls as they are now, pace bowlers would still be good on quick and bouncy or seaming pitches.

The only permissible changes to the ball really, that can be considered, are those that favour both the quicks and spinners equally, not one at the expense of the other.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
♪♪♪;1211325 said:
But it is a disadvantage to the spinners nevertheless. There is a reason why spinners use the old ball better than the new one, and prolonging the life of the new ball would only delay and reduce the spinners' impact on the game.
Don't see so. Spinners will bowl well on turning pitches. Therefore, however effective the seamers are, spinners will still do well when conditions suit.

When they don't, though, it's better to have some more in it for the seamers than there presently is.
Also, you could simply turn the quoted logic around and say that keeping the balls as they are now, pace bowlers would still be good on quick and bouncy or seaming pitches.
IMO cricket balls are currently in a poor state, and help seamers less than they used to, especially in England. I want to see swing as well as seam, not just the latter. In any case, the two go together - generally a swinging ball will also be easiest to get to seam when the pitch allows.
The only permissible changes to the ball really, that can be considered, are those that favour both the quicks and spinners equally, not one at the expense of the other.
There's no changes to the ball that can make things better for spinners, though - that's all to do with pitches.
 

cover drive man

International Captain
Say we use balls designd for swingers and it works fantastically it will give the spinners a dissadvantage To get into the side.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
The only way spinners will be disadvantaged is if there are fewer turning pitches. And yes, I actually would like to see a few more turning pitches than we currently do. But that's a separate issue to the fact that I'd like to see more swing from balls.
 

♪♪♪

Cricket Spectator
Don't see so. Spinners will bowl well on turning pitches. Therefore, however effective the seamers are, spinners will still do well when conditions suit.
Yes mate, and the quicks will still do well when the conditions suit them. The suitability of conditions is a common factor for both the sub-sets and cancel each other out. What remains is the condition of the ball, which you seek to make more suitable for the quicks than the spinners.

IMO cricket balls are currently in a poor state, and help seamers less than they used to, especially in England. I want to see swing as well as seam, not just the latter. In any case, the two go together - generally a swinging ball will also be easiest to get to seam when the pitch allows.
There already exists a solution for that though, the SG ball. It has a more pronounced seam than the kookaburra or even the Dukes, and is preferred by the Indian spinners at home. Indian spinners have gone on record saying that one of the major factors explaining their inferior performances abroad is the less pronounced seams of the balls used there, compared to the SG used at home. A more pronounced seam is fine, I don't see either the pacers or spinners complaining about that, but a more durable finish that preserves the newness for longer is out of the question as far as spinners are concerned IMO.

There's no changes to the ball that can make things better for spinners, though - that's all to do with pitches.
Exactly, which is why they should not be further disadvantaged by super-lacquering up the balls. As far as balls go, the only practical solution (and I'm not too sure of the practicality of this solution to be honest) I see is allowing the fielding side to pick two balls instead of one - a new one and an old one for the two ends. Allows the spinners an early entry into play, and preserves the shine on the new ball longer for the quicks too.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Fairest solution: I should be allowed to take a shovel to the pitch whenever I decide its too batsman friendly. In any case..hampering the spinners is not the solution. Larger fields, plus more sporting pitches should start to swing the equation back around IMO, and nothing more is really needed.
 

_GB_

Cricket Spectator
1. Bowling actions should be monitored in matches, not just in science labs.
It'd be nice, but I don't really see that we have any technology to be 100% sure. Still, it's something I think should be on te to-do list.


2. There are too many international matches, especially one-dayers.
Yes. Not just too many, but at the wrong time. The Ashes Tests were the most important part of England's tour to Australia, so they should have been played last. A triangular ODI series after a Test series is just wrong.



3. There should be a standard format for international tours - a Twenty20 "competition" (a rare moment of vagueness), three one-dayers and a Test series of three to five matches.

Agree, I suppose this ties in to what I was saying above. ODI and Twenty20 matches should be used as a warm up for the Tests. I hope this suggestion isn't implying the end of FC matches between the tourists and county/state teams though.

4. The World Cup should last no longer than a month, with fewer teams and "fewer one-sided matches".

Scrap the Super 8's and I'd be happy. A group stage, then knockout quarter finals, semi-finals and the final is my ideal format.

5. Boundaries should go out again, to within two metres of the perimeter fence.

I don't really mind either way.

6. Groundsmen should stop using glue to hold pitches together.
Agree. What's wrong with a few cracks in the pitch.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
♪♪♪;1211334 said:
Yes mate, and the quicks will still do well when the conditions suit them. The suitability of conditions is a common factor for both the sub-sets and cancel each other out. What remains is the condition of the ball, which you seek to make more suitable for the quicks than the spinners.
The ball can't be suitable for spin, though. It can either be helpful to swing or unhelpful. Being someone who has always loved to see and realised the full potential of swing bowling, I'd like to see rather more of it than the current balls (of all makes) are allowing.
There already exists a solution for that though, the SG ball. It has a more pronounced seam than the kookaburra or even the Dukes, and is preferred by the Indian spinners at home. Indian spinners have gone on record saying that one of the major factors explaining their inferior performances abroad is the less pronounced seams of the balls used there, compared to the SG used at home. A more pronounced seam is fine, I don't see either the pacers or spinners complaining about that, but a more durable finish that preserves the newness for longer is out of the question as far as spinners are concerned IMO.
It's not neccessarily about a more durable finish - it's just about something that makes it swing more. I'd certainly not want anything that makes it harder for the spinners to grip.

As regards the SG ball, I had honestly never heard of the thing until England's most recent India tour (2006), having first learned of the differences between Dukes, Readers and Kookas in 1999. It'd be interesting to try it in other places - but TBH, I can't believe it has anywhere near the effect on spinners that unhelpful pitches do. Of course, spin-friendly pitches have been rare outside India (and Sri Lanka) for ages, and have of late become ever rarer in India too.
Exactly, which is why they should not be further disadvantaged by super-lacquering up the balls. As far as balls go, the only practical solution (and I'm not too sure of the practicality of this solution to be honest) I see is allowing the fielding side to pick two balls instead of one - a new one and an old one for the two ends. Allows the spinners an early entry into play, and preserves the shine on the new ball longer for the quicks too.
It has its advantages and disadvantages, something like that. TBH, though, as I say - only an absolutely brand-new-slippery ball presents too much disadvantage to spinners, and more lacquering is certainly not what I'm proposing, just something to aid swing. In many cases, the lacquer is thought to cause more difficulty than help to swing bowlers, and it's not that unusual to see bowlers achieving more swing once the lacquer's been worn off.

If the pitch is turning, quality spinners will profit, regardless of the state of the ball. I do indeed want to see quality spinners profit, so I want to see some pitches turning. But I don't ever want to see seamers taken out of the game, so I always want a ball that swings more than we're seeing at the moment.
 

Top