• 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.

My Out of the box 20/20 Format

Xuhaib

International Coach
Just out of sheer boredom I came up with this idea.

Rules

- 20 overs per side.
-11 players in each team.
- Only 7 gets to bat which means innings finishes at the loss of 6 wickets.
- Each team gets to use only maximum of 4 bowlers and each bowler has to finish his quota of 5 overs regardless of the tap he's getting.

Advantages

- Just 6 wickets means no crash-bang slog, teams have to plan better since they have fewer wickets to fall back on.
- Encouragement of specialist but quality all-rounders can still play their part.

I think this idea could really work imagine the number of different strategies that can be employed by teams ,some may rely on just specialist others may still play all-rounders since presence of all-rounders would allow teams to accommodate specialist fielders so guys like Gary Pratt or Roger Harper may still make the team just on their feilding skills.

Feedback?
 

Isura

U19 Captain
I'd go for maximum 5 bowlers. To encourage all-rounders. But I like it, will add more strategy to the game.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Just out of sheer boredom I came up with this idea.

Rules

- 20 overs per side.
-11 players in each team.
- Only 7 gets to bat which means innings finishes at the loss of 6 wickets.
- Each team gets to use only maximum of 4 bowlers and each bowler has to finish his quota of 5 overs regardless of the tap he's getting.

Advantages

- Just 6 wickets means no crash-bang slog, teams have to plan better since they have fewer wickets to fall back on.
- Encouragement of specialist but quality all-rounders can still play their part.

I think this idea could really work imagine the number of different strategies that can be employed by teams ,some may rely on just specialist others may still play all-rounders since presence of all-rounders would allow teams to accommodate specialist fielders so guys like Gary Pratt or Roger Harper may still make the team just on their feilding skills.

Feedback?
I do like the batting side of it actually - it'd keep the general original aim of Twenty20 cricket (ie. shorter game that finishes quickly) while discouraging the random aggression-fest we've seen. It'd still be a bit more aggressive, obviously, but it'd allow players to build an innings a bit more, knowing they had less wickets to work with.

I don't like the bowling idea though, really - if someone bowls poorly, or the situation calls for it, the captain should be within his rights to give someone primarily selected for their batting a trundle, IMO. I do like the 5 over maximum rather than 4 idea, however I don't like the thought of it also being the minimum.
 

Poker Boy

State Vice-Captain
Too artifical IMO. When the ECB thought up 20/20 at first they thought of tinkering with the game - they even had the "brainwave" of a "golden over" where the battimg side could choose an over and all runs scored would count double - imagine if England picked both Plunkett and Mahmood in a 20/20 game. What a tough choice for the oppo's captain:laugh: but they dropped the idea because they wanted it to be like a noamal LO cricket match except shorter. Off topic, but is that why M Crowe's version of the short form of the game Cricket Max didn't take off? I don't know much about it but I do know they had a Max Zone where you couldn't be dissmissed and all runs scored were doubled (so you could get a 12!) NZ members: did any of you see that version of the game and was it too artifical?
 

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
pretty much my idea.
also get rid of the stupid no-ball penalty, way too harsh.
No it's not. No-balls are a blight on our game and we should be trying our hardest to eliminate them from being bowled, eventually the bowlers will have to learn. It can get ridiculous on certain occasions though, such as Auckland needing 13 to win off the last ball in the recenty State Twenty20 and managing to pull it off thanks to a no-ball.
 

nightprowler10

Global Moderator
While I agree that no-balls are dire, the free-hit rule is obviously not in place for the betterment of the game, its there so it gives the batting side more chances to score which is what the audience wants. After all, over-stepping is not that big of a crime.
 

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Well, its not. Being a fast bowler (in theory) myself I'll never agree that its a blight on our good game.
Yet a bowler can struggle to establish himself in the international arena due to a no-ball problem? I'm thinking of a guy like Dilhara Fernando who can get pace, bounce, seam and swing with a reasonable amount of accuracy but is continually let down by his inability to bowl without conceding no-balls.
 

Poker Boy

State Vice-Captain
Actually I like the free hit rule. We've had it in English domestic OD cricket since 1999 in what was the National League and is now the Pro 40. One complaint - they shouldn't be allowed to change the field. As for the Auckland game mentioned I would love to have been a fly on the wall in the dressing rom of the losing team and hear what the captain said to his transgressing bowler.
 

Top