• 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.

Slow down outfields?

Slow down outfields to counter powerful bats?


  • Total voters
    36
  • Poll closed .

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
On the final day of the Lord's Test between England and New Zealand, some MCC reps were testing the speed of the Lord's outfield with whatever those things they use in golf to test the speed of greens and fairways are called. This interested me.

Ian Botham, perhaps not surprisingly, was sceptical - and it must be said one of the suggestions, trying to standardise the speed of outfields, is a horrible idea.

But the other - slowing outfields down - is IMO a very fine idea. People talk about how bats have become better, and Michael Atherton (who has sat on some I$C$C committee which has recently discussed how the balance between bat and ball needs to be addressed) talked earlier about how there has been thought to try and undo the improvements in bat technology.

My question is (and he and David Gower touched on this) - why would you want to deliberately try and undo progress? Why not aim for countering progress in other areas? I've long said people should try and manufacture cricket-balls that swing more.

But this outfield thing strikes me as a fine idea, as I say. To lessen the effect of more powerful bats, which certainly does IMO need to be done, why not just slow the outfields down? Leave the grass longer?

Ian Botham of course brought up the "people want to see fours and sixes". Well, some of the simplistic fools who barely qualify as cricket fans do, maybe. But the increasing disquiet over the bat-friendliness of the game from genuine fans at the current time suggests maybe this view is becoming antiquated.

Would you be in favour of slowing down outfields?
 

Somerset

Cricketer Of The Year
Personally I find that a really sluggish outfield is almost as bad as a lightening quick outfield. In saying that, if it could be manipulated in some way that it still gives value for good shots then its worth a crack I guess.
 

andruid

Cricketer Of The Year
Injury in sports is an emotive issue :naughty:


I am for balls that offer 90 degree swing to mediocre trundlers just to counter bats that allow any old slogger a 40+ test average.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Personally I find that a really sluggish outfield is almost as bad as a lightening quick outfield. In saying that, if it could be manipulated in some way that it still gives value for good shots then its worth a crack I guess.
I think the point is that right now there are too many lightning outfields, and that we need to slow them down to make things more "equal". Not leave every blade of grass so long that it hits the grass and stops.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Increasing the size of the boundary or fixing a minimum of , say, 90 meters to the fence would be even better.

I also feel it might be good to remove this point-of-contact-should-be-in-line-with-stumps business and allow balls pitching outside the off stump and coming in (as long as the umpire is certain beyond doubt that they would hit the stumps) to be declared out irrespective of where the point of contact is.

The no ball rule should revert back to the rear foot.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Increasing the size of the boundary or fixing a minimum of , say, 90 meters to the fence would be even better.
I agree completely and there's already a directive in place (or being mooted - can't remember which) to enforce this.

However, some grounds are small. And the boundary is already out as far as it can go. For these grounds, a slow outfield is imperative.
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
Increasing the size of the boundary or fixing a minimum of , say, 90 meters to the fence would be even better.
AWTA...This is needed very much...Test cricket viewers won't mind one or two not-so-decent shots going to the boundary between two slips or between two fielders...But mi****s going for sixes will hurt test cricket (and cricket, in general) badly if proper action isn't taken immediately...
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
But the other - slowing outfields down - is IMO a very fine idea.
Terrible idea. You want batsmen to get full value for good shots.

Slow outfields (and Ive played on hundreds of them) promote the aerial route and discourage quality orthodox cricket.

Fast outfields encourage good cricket. Dragging the boundaries out is ok but slowing the outfield is bad.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Indeed you do want batsmen to get value for good shots. But the point is that currently with the power in bats many batsmen get value for shots that aren't good ones - balls that have simply been blocked or nudged, or swung without hitting anywhere near the middle of the bat.

Taking the aerial route brings huge risks and if batsmen started doing that regularly, chances are they'd score much less. So if it did start happening, I'm fairly confident it'd stop again very quickly.
 

masterblaster

International Captain
Terrible idea. You want batsmen to get full value for good shots.

Slow outfields (and Ive played on hundreds of them) promote the aerial route and discourage quality orthodox cricket.

Fast outfields encourage good cricket. Dragging the boundaries out is ok but slowing the outfield is bad.
Completely agreed.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
You're just encouraging power players even further then, as their importance is emphasised over orthodox batsmen. So no.
 

GotSpin

Hall of Fame Member
Slow outfields is probably the most frustrating thing ever for a batsmen. Highly against it. I'd rather green tops but value for your shots than the other way around.

[havnt read any other replies so excuse me if im being repetitive]
 

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The batsman should get full value for their shots, while the bowler should have a friendly pitch.

IMO.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Not really
Well, all right, there are a fair few worse things.

But I've always had a healthy hate for the outfield which allows a simple nudge to leg from nowhere near the middle of the bat or the defensive stroke through extra-cover that speeds away for four. So, I don't doubt, do most if not all bowlers.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Well, all right, there are a fair few worse things.

But I've always had a healthy hate for the outfield which allows a simple nudge to leg from nowhere near the middle of the bat or the defensive stroke through extra-cover that speeds away for four. So, I don't doubt, do most if not all bowlers.
If they hit it to where you dont have fielders then Ive no sympathy.

My thoughts are simple. You dont want to be hit there then dont bowl it there or if you want to bowl there but dont want runs to come from there then put a fielder there.

Hard to complain that a ball travels. There are 9 fielders you have to plug the gaps.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
slow outfields may take element of gun fielding out of the game to a degree?
No, not at all - one of the biggest plus-points is that it'd bring fielding back into it.

The only reason I'm hesitant is Jono's point that it might actually just make "power hitting" seem even more important, when the object of the exercise is to try and make it less so.
 

Top