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
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.
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.
Proudly supporting the world's no 1 spin bowler Rangana Herath and the mighty Sri Lankans!
I even made a domestic thread
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A cricket supporter forever
Member of CW Red and AAAS - Appreciating only the best.
Check out this awesome e-fed:
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.
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.
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 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 09:43 PM.
My rule: "No bowler can bowl more than 30% of the overs."
Number can be rounded up in the rain-reduced matches. E.g., 30% of 24 is 7.2, so round it up to 8.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)