My changes to the 50-over game

[Days of Grace]

Another game, another side using their powerplay in the 45th over. It's all getting very predictable.

I propose a rule where the batting powerplay has to be taken before the start of the 40th over. Therefore, you will get more of a range of powerplay periods, and it will also stop those complaining that the middle overs are too boring.

Another change I would make is giving each bowler a maximum of 12 overs instead of 10. This allows good bowlers to have more say in the game and gets rid of the dibbly-doblers and Dilshan-ish part-time spinners. There is still a place for the allrounder, as you need three main bowlers and another couple who can bat and bowl.

What do you think?

 

[Prince EWS]

I don't really care about PowerPlays; I'd actually like to see them removed so commentators can stop acting as if they're the only thing worth talking about. If anything I'd like to just see a maximum of three men out for the first 40 overs with two mandatory attacking catching men (determined at the discretion of the umpire and not just by a smaller circle so you can have a short fine or something cheap). Field restrictions for the whole innings bar the death which don't cripple spinners too much but encourage attacking bowling.

I sort of like the twelve over rule in theory, but in practice I don't think it'd work. No matter how few bowlers you actually have to use, teams will always push the boundaries and look to make up overs with part-timers and faux-allrounders to extend their batting lineups and give their top order more freedom to go hard. I think the only way to remove the part-time crap bowling would be to allow twelve overs per bowler as you said but also allow twelve players per side (eleven bat, eleven field), like what is being trialled in the Ryobi Cup at the moment (along with a lot of other innovations with much less promise). Whether or not that takes the game too far away from the essence of cricket is debatable but it's the best way to remove the problem.

Really though I don't think there's too much wrong with it. Complicating it more is probably a bad idea - it needs to get less gimmicky and more straight-forward. At its best ODI cricket could combine some of the genuine Test cricket balance between bat and ball with the convenience you get out of a match that finishes in one day. There's no point trying making it more like Twenty20 because it'll just end up a poor cousin of it.

 

[Hurricane]

I don't really care about PowerPlays; I'd actually like to see them removed so commentators can stop acting as if they're the only thing worth talking about.

IF I had a dollar for every conversation I have heard about when to take the power play I would be a rich man. I can't stand the constant conversations about it.

I will give the 12 over idea some thought - one draw back of it as a batting side is that you have to face 12 overs of Dale Steyn. I think scores in cricket will go down somewhat which isn't necessarily what the public wants to see.

 

[Redbacks]

Batting sides are inclined to preserve resources for the latter overs to go for a real slog at the end when the rewards start to decrease in comparison with the rewards. Having fielding restrictions in the 25-40 over area might force sides to bat more aggressively in this patch of the game as well as encouraging the better bowlers to be on.

 

[GotSpin]

My changes - Play less of them

 

[Somerset]

Another game, another side using their powerplay in the 45th over. It's all getting very predictable.

I propose a rule where the batting powerplay has to be taken before the start of the 40th over. Therefore, you will get more of a range of powerplay periods, and it will also stop those complaining that the middle overs are too boring.

Another change I would make is giving each bowler a maximum of 12 overs instead of 10. This allows good bowlers to have more say in the game and gets rid of the dibbly-doblers and Dilshan-ish part-time spinners. There is still a place for the allrounder, as you need three main bowlers and another couple who can bat and bowl.

What do you think?

Interestingly a little over a year ago Jonty Rhodes suggested a similar restriction on when the powerplay could be taken, but going one step further and making the 31st over the latest point in which the batting side could take their powerplay: Rhodes suggests Powerplay tweak to rejig ODIs | Cricket News | ICC Champions Trophy, 2009 | Cricinfo.com

My view is that the powerplay was supposedly brought in to make the middle overs more interesting, so either do without them or adopt something similar to what you (and indeed Jonty Rhodes) has suggested.

 

[juro]

The power play just makes the middle overs more boring. Teams try to just keep the scoreboard ticking with minimal risk during overs 15-40, saving wickets for the tonk at the end. If there were no power plays, teams may take more risks during those middle overs, knowing that that final 5 over burst won't be there.

My suggestions, which I have read before but can't remember who suggested them - remove fielding restrictions, bowling restrictions. If a bowler wants to bowl 25 overs, let him. This brings it more in line with test cricket, which is simply a battle between bat and ball.

Also, give us some real context. Bring in qualifiers for the world cup for every nation. That would help stop all the meaningless bilateral games every year. Any games other than the qualifiers and world cup or other ICC tournaments is just a friendly and doesn't count towards ODI records.

 

[Migara]

1. Power play has to be taken before the 36th over by batting side. fielding side can use it whenever they like.

2. Two balls from each end. Mid inngs ball change looks stupid. If white ball cannot be sustained then go back to the red ball with whites (of course you can have colored stripes etc in the whites to make it look nice on TV)

3. Put mandatory >75m limit for the boundries. Then half hit slogs won't clear the bountries.

4. Prepare some lively pitches. If you don't know what is, just see a match played at Dambulla. Youget swing, seam and spin there.

 

[Somerset]

2. Two balls from each end. Mid inngs ball change looks stupid. If white ball cannot be sustained then go back to the red ball with whites (of course you can have colored stripes etc in the whites to make it look nice on TV)

3. Put mandatory >75m limit for the boundries. Then half hit slogs won't clear the bountries.

Without wanting to divert too much from the opening poster's comments, I'll just comment on those two suggestions. Do you think a different ball from each end is less ridiculous than a ball change midway through the innings? I think that'd be rather confusing swapping the ball at the end of each over (for both players and spectators), whereas the ball change at the end of the 35th over is a pretty logical way of doing things IMO.

As far as boundary limits go, if you put that restriction on New Zealand grounds we'd almost have no grounds left! Some of our grounds used for rugby and cricket (Auckland, Christchurch, Napier, etc) have particularly odd shapes and we simply wouldn't have enough grounds with sufficient capacity to host international cricket if those grounds with boundaries smaller than 75 metres weren't fit for internationals.

 

[Days of Grace]

I find the idea of two balls to be quite interesting and it would be feasible. Just give the ball to the umpire at the end of the over and he can put it in his pocket, I guess.

Making pitches more likely is the best way to solve the problems of the ODI game. One poster above mentioned that having bowlers with 12 over limits might lead to lower scores and thus less spectator interest. I'd argue that if 220 plays 218, that's one hell of a game compared to 330 plays 280.

 

[weldone]

3. Put mandatory >75m limit for the boundries. Then half hit slogs won't clear the bountries.

Agreed, this is needed badly; and for all types of cricket (not only ODIs).

 

[Johnners]

I don't really care about PowerPlays; I'd actually like to see them removed so commentators can stop acting as if they're the only thing worth talking about. If anything I'd like to just see a maximum of three men out for the first 40 overs with two mandatory attacking catching men (determined at the discretion of the umpire and not just by a smaller circle so you can have a short fine or something cheap). Field restrictions for the whole innings bar the death which don't cripple spinners too much but encourage attacking bowling.

I sort of like the twelve over rule in theory, but in practice I don't think it'd work. No matter how few bowlers you actually have to use, teams will always push the boundaries and look to make up overs with part-timers and faux-allrounders to extend their batting lineups and give their top order more freedom to go hard. I think the only way to remove the part-time crap bowling would be to allow twelve overs per bowler as you said but also allow twelve players per side (eleven bat, eleven field), like what is being trialled in the Ryobi Cup at the moment (along with a lot of other innovations with much less promise). Whether or not that takes the game too far away from the essence of cricket is debatable but it's the best way to remove the problem.

Really though I don't think there's too much wrong with it. Complicating it more is probably a bad idea - it needs to get less gimmicky and more straight-forward. At its best ODI cricket could combine some of the genuine Test cricket balance between bat and ball with the convenience you get out of a match that finishes in one day. There's no point trying making it more like Twenty20 because it'll just end up a poor cousin of it.

Very much agree and approve of everything said here. Hate the new format used here in Australia for numerous reasons, but most of all because it's trying too hard to be something that it isn't (Twenty20) and it's over-complicating itself, which makes it much less endearing to the more casual fans (let alone the tragics..).

 

[Migara]

Without wanting to divert too much from the opening poster's comments, I'll just comment on those two suggestions. Do you think a different ball from each end is less ridiculous than a ball change midway through the innings? I think that'd be rather confusing swapping the ball at the end of each over (for both players and spectators), whereas the ball change at the end of the 35th over is a pretty logical way of doing things IMO.

Not at all. It was done with success during late 1980s in AUS. The umpire at each end kept ball of their end with them.

As far as boundary limits go, if you put that restriction on New Zealand grounds we'd almost have no grounds left! Some of our grounds used for rugby and cricket (Auckland, Christchurch, Napier, etc) have particularly odd shapes and we simply wouldn't have enough grounds with sufficient capacity to host international cricket if those grounds with boundaries smaller than 75 metres weren't fit for internationals.

NZ I presume NZ is a larger country than SL, but very sparsely populated than SL too. If we can maintain 80m boundaries in SSC and PSS, in the heart of Colombo, which has one million inhabitants, and and 75m boundary in Asgiriya, Kandy, in hill country where flat land is sparse, I couldn't understand why a country like NZ cannot maintain it. Of course three 80m boundaries and a 70m one is also acceptable

 

[Lostman]

Another change I would make is giving each bowler a maximum of 12 overs instead of 10.
What do you think?

Something way off that I thought about a while back was to allow a bowler an extra over on top of the quota of 10 for every wicket he got.
3 wickets=13 overs etc...

Would lead to some interesting strategies, and means that better bowlers are always in the action. Also would lead to aggressive field placings and captaincy.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Why would anyone want two balls ( I suppose that means one from either end). It'll take the spinners out of the game.

 

[juro]

I really don't see the thrill in games where the scores are abnormally high, eg 300 runs +. 400 runs +, OH DEAR!!

Some of the most exciting games I have seen are where teams struggle to reach 200. Batsmen need to earn their runs. You applaud the singles and the boundaries are spectacular because they are the exception to the rule.

 

[Migara]

Why would anyone want two balls ( I suppose that means one from either end). It'll take the spinners out of the game.

Spinners these days open the bowling. Game has changed. Spinners should learn to do it. I was personally against the two ball method few years back due to the same reason. But spinners have suffered more due to flatter pitches and through the line hitters. Seam movement for the pacemen will mean few of the top are knocked down or at least kept quiet when spinners take the ball. That will help spinners to get more wickets as well.

 

[GotSpin]

Spinners these days open the bowling. Game has changed. Spinners should learn to do it. I was personally against the two ball method few years back due to the same reason. But spinners have suffered more due to flatter pitches and through the line hitters. Seam movement for the pacemen will mean few of the top are knocked down or at least kept quiet when spinners take the ball. That will help spinners to get more wickets as well.

Indeeeeeed

Spinners require better tracks more than anything to prosper.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Why would anyone want two balls ( I suppose that means one from either end). It'll take the spinners out of the game.

Hmm, I guess it actually means that the pacemen might stay involved for longer, but spinners don't mind (in general) bowling with a reasonable new ball. Harder seam, and ball, provides more bounce and spit, rather than a soft, white, battered ball scuffed up for reverse swing later in the innings.

 

[Furball]

Another game, another side using their powerplay in the 45th over. It's all getting very predictable.

That's largely down to unimaginative captaincy rather than any fault with the format. Dhoni is the only captain who immediately springs to mind when I try and think of captains that have actually shown a bit of flexibility and imagination in taking the batting powerplay.