Cricket Player Manager
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 32
Like Tree2Likes

Thread: How about a change in the way limited overs cricket is played?

  1. #16
    Cricket Web Staff Member Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    41,972
    Quote Originally Posted by Senile Sentry View Post
    Yes, all these things someone like Virat Kohli does at 30% better strike rate.
    Lol Kohli.

  2. #17
    International Vice-Captain Days of Grace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Takasaki, Japan
    Posts
    4,584
    Is there any point to powerplays anymore since it's only one extra fielder inside the circle? Teams are just playing normally now.
    Greatest Ever Test XI: JB Hobbs, L Hutton, DG Bradman (c), IVA Richards, BC Lara, GS Sobers, AC Gilchrist (wk), Imran Khan, RJ Hadlee, MD Marshall, SK Warne 12th man: M Muralitharan


    Favorite XI: WG Grace, VT Trumper, IVA Richards, DCS Compton, FMM Worrell (c), AC Gilchrist (wk), CL Cairns, SK Warne, FS Trueman, SE Bond, T Richardson 12th man: H Larwood

    "Neither of them will have an international cricket acareer past 2016."
    Brocky on Martin Guptill and Ish Sodhi. 20/11/2014.

  3. #18
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,370
    Fred, I know you have extensive knowledge of this great game, but have you ever had any funny looks when you've told people you like Crivket?

    I think the one day format is pretty decent at the moment and its good to see meaningless one day matches occurring less frequently these days. I quite like 10 overs per bowler - means the captains need to really think when to bowl the best bowlers and if team selection isn't good or someone is having an off day, teams can be punished which is what I like.
    NRL Tipping Champion 2014

    Over 0.2: Putland to Nevill, OUT, no run, full ball swings in late to crash into his pads. Nevill is almost falling over trying to get bat on it but can't. Huge shout for LBW and Umpire Martell eventually raises the finger! P.Nevill - lbw b:Putland 0 (1 ball, 1 minute).

  4. #19
    International Captain Maximas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Footmarks
    Posts
    6,397
    The problems associated with the middle overs in one day cricket would be averted if there were more captains like McCullum and less captains like Dhoni.
    There are two colours in my head

    Sugarealm


  5. #20
    International Coach Hurricane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Don't be jealous of the Georgie Pie super smash
    Posts
    10,295
    I played in a league where half the games were 45 overs no bower restrictions and the other half were 40 overs 8 overs per bowler.

    In one 45 over match we brought on a medium pacer for the first over and he bowled through the inning. That helped our team the other team didn't enjoy it.
    Quote Originally Posted by HeathDavisSpeed View Post
    I got great enjoyment in going to the game and shouting "WHY THE **** ISN'T THIS GAME BEING PLAYED AT THE BASIN?!>!?!?" to reasonably significant cheers from the sparse crowd
    Proudly against the bring back Bennett movement since he is injury prone and won't last 5 days.

  6. #21
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Flem274*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ksfls;fsl;lsFJg/s
    Posts
    29,053
    No over restrictions would also give more room for teams to play with the structure of their sides. Current rules mean you must have an allrounder or you're going to be short on either batting or bowling. It allows allrounders who otherwise wouldn't make the side to play or it allows batsmen to toy with part timers, though I do love it when part timers troll batsmen.

    No over restrictions would mean teams can revert to the 6-1-4 structure if it suits them, quality allrounders would actually be even more rewarding since if desired the team could still use the 6-1-4 split and bat extra deep, and it still leaves the option of part time trolling if the skipper wants.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Jeets doesn't really deserve to be bowling.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Well yeah Tendy is probably better than Bradman, but Bradman was 70 years ago, if he grew up in the modern era he'd still easily be the best. Though he wasn't, can understand the argument for Tendy even though I don't agree.
    Proudly supporting Central Districts
    RIP Craig Walsh

  7. #22
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    #banblocky
    Posts
    20,360
    I like the fact that there's still just about a place in an ODI side for a guy who's decent at both suits.

  8. #23
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    #banblocky
    Posts
    20,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Days of Grace View Post
    Is there any point to powerplays anymore since it's only one extra fielder inside the circle? Teams are just playing normally now.
    If the opposition batsmen are smashing you all over the place the last thing I'd want as a fielding captain is being told that for the next 5 overs I need to commit more fielders into the circle.

    I think the current regulations in ODI cricket are brilliant. Where the game's being let down is by Kookaburra seemingly being unable to manufacture a ball that does anything other than go gun barrel straight.

  9. #24
    Hall of Fame Member honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    15,695
    Quote Originally Posted by fredfertang View Post
    There has always been a limit on the number of overs that a bowler can bowl in ODIs/List A matches. I don't ever recall that being seriously questioned, but why not? There's no limit on how long a batsman can bat for, so why should there be a limit on a bowler?

    I suspect the reason the rule originated to prevent the likes of Derek Underwood and Tom Cartwright bowling all afternoon and tying batsmen down in the days when the limited overs stuff began - now batting technique has had almost half a century to develop isn't the rule obsolete? and wouldn't these matches be much more interesting if bowlers could bowl as many overs as their captains wanted them to?

    The best suggestion of something like this that I had come across was actually by a poster here at CW.. He suggested that bowlers be given a maximum of 10 overs + 1 over for every wicket they get.. This actually encourages captain to attack with his best bowlers and adds a dynamic that frankly seems a lot more interesting than something like a batting powerplay..
    We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.
    A cricket supporter forever

    Member of CW Red and AAAS - Appreciating only the best.


    Check out this awesome e-fed:

    PWE Efed

  10. #25
    Cricketer Of The Year Cabinet96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    9,946
    Quote Originally Posted by fredfertang View Post
    One aspect of the “purity” of the game is maintaining abalance between bat and ball, and a competitive one at that. The one day gamewas on its knees because of the soporific mid-innings period that started becausethe bits and pieces bowlers were largely content to go for a run a ball and thebatsmen were generally happy to score at a run a ball – powerplays have helped,but are far too artificial for my liking, and it would work much better if youhad classier bowlers on and could watch the game being played properly – I thinkyou’d still have to have some fielding restrictions, to provide a way of makingthe bowlers attack the batsman and in turn freeing up some scoring areas forthe batsman, which surely should be the whole point of limited overs cricket.
    I agree to an extent, but I think the stalemate in the middle overs is almost entirely to do with mindsets and hardly at all to do with the quality of bowlers. There have been countless rule changes in ODI's recently to try and reduce the length and extremeness of the middle overs; forcing both the bowling powerplays and batting powerplays to be taken from overs 16-40, instead of the regular 11-15 and 46-50 intervals that they were being used in before, making teams put an extra man inside the circle during non fielding restriction overs and introducing a new ball at both ends to stop the balls going soft too early in the innings. But none of these have really worked because the mindset of the players hasn't really changed. The powerplays are hardly powerplays at all anymore, sides just put three men out and bowl to that field, with the batsman happy to find the gaps in the ring. Even the men inside the circle are right back, so singles can regularly be taken. Only allowing four men outside the circle was definitely a ploy to stop part timers only going for 5-6 an over, but again, it didn't really change the mindset and bowlers just bowl one side of the wicket or one length and stack all their boundary riders in similar areas, with the batsman more than happy to oblige.

    I think in order to change the process of how ODI innings work, rather than artificially bringing in new rules, it's going to take teams changing their attitude to it and doing something different. Keeping the field up in the middle overs and bowling a lot of overs of pace, or even just keeping the field up for spinners. Not many captains do that though, and it'll take quite a lot to buck the trend, in my eyes.

    I've never seen a Ryobi Cup match, as they're not televised in the UK, and I've never got round to doing the stuff required to watch it using different methods, so I don't know how much the 13 overs per bowler rule has changed things there. Would be great if an Australian could give more detail.

    I don't actually hate the middle overs as much as a lot of others though. The fact that it's there shows that there is a place for batsman who can build an innings, and is one of the things that makes it a better test of skill than T20 IMO. I also think it's unrealistic to expect regular boundary hitting for 50 overs. Equally it's probably unrealistic to expect people to be hunting for wickets all the time in 50 over cricket; there's just nothing in the bowlers favour when he's running in to bowl the 30th over of an ODI.
    Dan likes this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem274* View Post
    This English top three are cornflakes. They're not the most exciting thing out but they're pretty effective. Then the middle order are the sugar. Would be too much on their own but added to the cornflakes they add some much needed interest

    When KP returns he will be the banana..

  11. #26
    International Captain Maximas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Footmarks
    Posts
    6,397
    I don't think it made a whole lot of difference, just meant that bowlers having a bad day were given less overs and those having a good day vice versa, massive range of scores in the competition made it difficult to gauge the effect the rule had.

  12. #27
    International Captain hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    7,272
    I actually love the soporific middle overs. It's unique to ODI cricket, and probably unique to the sport in general.

    It's like there's a sort of bargaining process going on. Teams are unsure what to go for. There's a give and take and an interesting atmosphere.

  13. #28
    International Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,374
    Quote Originally Posted by hendrix View Post
    I actually love the soporific middle overs. It's unique to ODI cricket, and probably unique to the sport in general.

    It's like there's a sort of bargaining process going on. Teams are unsure what to go for. There's a give and take and an interesting atmosphere.
    It really is quite simple: Batting side wants to keep wickets till the end so they just play safe and bowling side has to use up the **** bowlers sometime.


    It means that both teams just want to use up the ~20 overs in a game, otherwise it would hurt them severely if they tried something else.

    For example if a bowling side used up all the best bowlers at the start, in the end they would be punished. And it's not like they have a good chance of bowling them out, as pitches in ODI cricket are not wicket taking ones. And a batting side could be bowled out for 220 with aggressive play in middle overs.

    It's just too risky.
    Last edited by TumTum; 15-06-2013 at 10:43 PM.

  14. #29
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    33,013
    Quote Originally Posted by GingerFurball View Post
    If the opposition batsmen are smashing you all over the place the last thing I'd want as a fielding captain is being told that for the next 5 overs I need to commit more fielders into the circle.

    I think the current regulations in ODI cricket are brilliant. Where the game's being let down is by Kookaburra seemingly being unable to manufacture a ball that does anything other than go gun barrel straight.
    Yep, agreed. Personally I think the standard of ODI cricket has, in general, been excellent over the last few years.
    + time's fickle card game ~ with you and i +


    get ready for a broken ****in' arm

  15. #30
    International Vice-Captain Days of Grace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Takasaki, Japan
    Posts
    4,584
    My rule: "No bowler can bowl more than 30% of the overs."

    Simple.

    Number can be rounded up in the rain-reduced matches. E.g., 30% of 24 is 7.2, so round it up to 8.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 51
    Last Post: 27-05-2013, 08:18 AM
  2. Which is your preferred limited overs format?
    By Furball in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: 03-09-2012, 01:46 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 16-11-2011, 01:23 AM
  4. Ajit Agarkar vs Sreesanth in Limited Overs
    By masterblaster in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 19-04-2008, 03:06 PM
  5. Greatest limited overs match ever
    By xanderbiscuits in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 27-04-2007, 10:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •