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

[Flem274*]

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.

 

[Furball]

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.

 

[Furball]

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.

 

[honestbharani]

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..

 

[Cabinet96]

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.

 

[Maximas]

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.

 

[hendrix]

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.

 

[TumTum]

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.

 

[Spark]

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.

 

[Days of Grace]

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.

 

[doesitmatter]

To make it bowler friendly or the way ODI is played 3 things can be done 1) no restriction on bouncers 2) Looking at the CT there is a clear difference between the pitches prepared for Test(more bowler friendly) and for ODIs..So the suggestion make pitches which has something in it for the bowlers then watch the batsman 3) Don't listen to the TV people..one of the main reason why ODIs or for that matter every form has become batting friendly is TV..TV likes match to go the distance , lots of runs etc..

 

[Maximas]

To make it bowler friendly or the way ODI is played 3 things can be done 1) no restriction on bouncers 2) Looking at the CT there is a clear difference between the pitches prepared for Test(more bowler friendly) and for ODIs..So the suggestion make pitches which has something in it for the bowlers then watch the batsman 3) Don't listen to the TV people..one of the main reason why ODIs or for that matter every form has become batting friendly is TV..TV likes match to go the distance , lots of runs etc..

You're right about TV people, I can't count the number of times they say a very flat pitch is a "good pitch", even though the contest is clearly not even between bat and ball.