One day Cricket becoming BATSMAN only game??

[anoop4real]

From the last few oneday internationals we have seen big scores on the board, batsmen are not yet released from the jynx of IPL, they seem to be fearless........things like "freehits" makes situation even worser.......it is hightime to make the rules for bowlers little soft ie by allowing more number of bouncers and all....otherwise oneday cricket may
turn out to be a graveyard of bowlers.....isn't it??


PS: If a thread with similar topic exists please point me there

 

[_Ed_]

From the last few oneday internationals we have seen big scores on the board, batsmen are not yet released from the jynx of IPL, they seem to be fearless........things like "freehits" makes situation even worser.......it is hightime to make the rules for bowlers little soft ie by allowing more number of bouncers and all....otherwise oneday cricket may
turn out to be a graveyard of bowlers.....isn't it??

I don't think so.

For example, we're still seeing quite a few games like this:
http://content-nz.cricinfo.com/engvnz/engine/match/296906.html

Which is great, I love low-scoring ODIs like that.

 

[cricexpert]

Yes You are right, specially after the IPL it's look like to become a bats man games, I have also read somewhere that ICC is looking to change the 50-50 format to 40-40 format,
For example in recent ASIA CUP in Pakistan 300 was looking a very low total in every match even Bangladesh also scored up to 300 also,.

 

[anoop4real]

I don't think so.

For example, we're still seeing quite a few games like this:
http://content-nz.cricinfo.com/engvnz/engine/match/296906.html

Which is great, I love low-scoring ODIs like that.

I am not telling that in all games it is happening. I was just talking about some of the matches that has happened recently, especially the ASIA cup ( except the final )......i feel like some batsmen are batting fearlessly for example Sehwag. I think he has become more aggressive than before...

 

[Richard]

PS: If a thread with similar topic exists please point me there

Yes, many. It's inevitable, really.

Personally I feel there's only one thing that can bring one-day cricket back to something which allows good bowling to be effective, without causing games that are over in 55 overs, and that's deliberately producing slow surfaces.

Whether those who say that "the crowds want to see fours and sixes" are right or not, and I'm far from certain they are, we'd only find-out by cutting down on them.

Awesome avatar BTW.

 

[GIMH]

I read the thread title and thought that the ICC had brought in automated bowling machines and fielders, allowing all teams to bat right down to 11. Turns out I was wrong.

 

[steds]

I read the thread title and thought that the ICC had brought in automated bowling machines and fielders, allowing all teams to bat right down to 11. Turns out I was wrong.

That would probably make ODIs less monotonous, actually

 

[cricman]

It was the dead flat Pakistani pitches, A sporting wicket goes a long way

 

[Uppercut]

I don't mind whether ODIs are high or low scoring, if they're close, both can be very enjoyable. What i don't like is "single down to third man syndrome" which generally kicks in around 20 overs and doesn't end until the 40th.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

You don't like the rotation of the strike that is typical of Test cricket?

 

[Uppercut]

You don't like the rotation of the strike that is typical of Test cricket?

It's not typical of test cricket, because they don't give you runs for free in test cricket. Bowling teams often set fields in ODIs once the powerplays are over that are defensive enough to allow the batsmen to score plenty of singles but no boundaries. Sometimes in international cricket bowlers like Murali and Vettori can come in and offer a threat with a defensive field, but in first-class cricket it often becomes extremely formulaic in the middle overs.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

It's the same principle of strike rotation, because it's the batsman looking for a single in the view of building an innings. It's not a free run, because a fielder can be placed there to cut it off.

 

[Uppercut]

It's the same principle of strike rotation, because it's the batsman looking for a single in the view of building an innings. It's not a free run, because a fielder can be placed there to cut it off.

The fielding team generally don't mind the batsmen taking singles 3 or 4 times an over. And the batsmen don't mind taking them, in any case they're not going to force the issue. Hence there's not much of a contest going on.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

It's poor cricket when a team is content with allowing 3-4 singles per over, IMO. I think it's more a problem with the approach of teams than the game itself.

 

[Uppercut]

It's poor cricket when a team is content with allowing 3-4 singles per over, IMO. I think it's more a problem with the approach of teams than the game itself.

Absolutely, yes. But it's still a problem. The worst example i can think of is the first Sri Lanka-West Indies ODI not long ago, the one Shiv won off the final ball. West Indies had Sri Lanka at about 50/5, yet Gayle still decided that defensive fields were the way to go once the powerplays ended and the batsmen ticked along with singles and ended up reaching a very respectable total. Kapugadera almost scored a century when I'm not sure he could have pierced a test match-style field once.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I agree that defensive tactics ruin the game. But that's the point really. It's not a problem with the ODI format per se. It's a problem with the general approach to it. There needs to be something done to encourage aggressiveness by the fielding side. That's really what powerplays are about, but now they've given those to the batsmen too.

 

[Natman20]

20/20 + ODI = Aggressive = 180* (178), 0 (2), 26 (9). = 160/10, 350/6

 

[anoop4real]

20/20 + ODI = Aggressive = 180* (178), 0 (2), 26 (9). = 160/10, 350/6

LOL

 

[Richard]

I agree that defensive tactics ruin the game.

It's not defensive tactics though - it's tactics that aren't defensive enough. Tactics that don't do enough to defend singles.

If captains looked more to defend singles than defend boundaries OD cricket would be that much more interesting.

Of course, the reason they're stuck in the defend-boudaries mindset is the relative dearth of quality seam-bowling which allows such fields to be set. But a good captain should be able to adjust when he has good seamers instead of part-time useless spinners (who do indeed need boundary-defensive fields to be even remotely effective, and even then they usually still end-up with 10-50-1 or something, which is still a poor spell for someone who bowls 10 overs) and it's disappointing when a good seamer gets 10-43-1 when good captaincy might well have seen them get 10-31-1 or so.

 

[zaremba]

One day Cricket becoming BATSMAN only game??

Pope becoming Catholic.
Sea becoming moist.
Bears starting to defecate in the woods.