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

[fredfertang]

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?

 

[Days of Grace]

I always thought a limit of 15 overs would have been good. That would make the bits and pieces cricketer, always a sticking point for me in ODI cricket, obsolete.

 

[Senile Sentry]

That it will render the bits n pieces cricketer is a moot point. Further it will allow teams to stack in the extra genuine batsman, so actually improving the quality of the game. However

 

[watson]

I always thought a limit of 15 overs would have been good. That would make the bits and pieces cricketer, always a sticking point for me in ODI cricket, obsolete.

I tend to agree even though it's sometimes fun to see the 'bits and pieces' bowler get hit around the park. Also, games might become regularly one-sided if bowlers like Joel Garner get to bowl several overs at the beginning and end of each opposition innings.

I think that the most variability can be introduced into the game by turning it into a 'One Day Test Match' where both teams bat twice with each innings lasting 20 overs.

 

[Maximas]

In the Australian List A season last year, they allowed bowlers up to 13 overs, which was good. The point about bits-n-pieces players is good as well, only genuine all-rounders such as James Faulkner would get a game.However this would somewhat take away from players such as Angelo Matthews and JP Duminy, who are class batsmen who edge out others for selection because they can bowl handy overs. However players like Malinga and Narine could possibly dominate if given too many overs, so they must be careful with the rule if they bring it in.

 

[Spikey]

i mean, who wants to see david hussey bowl?

 

[Howe_zat]

A wise move as part of making the 50 overs a challenge to bat through, giving ODIs less of the "diluted T20" tag to shake off

 

[Days of Grace]

I tend to agree even though it's sometimes fun to see the 'bits and pieces' bowler get hit around the park. Also, games might become regularly one-sided if bowlers like Joel Garner get to bowl several overs at the beginning and end of each opposition innings.

I think that the most variability can be introduced into the game by turning it into a 'One Day Test Match' where both teams bat twice with each innings lasting 20 overs.

No, disagree with the 20 over innings. We already have that.

The main advantage of batting 50 overs is that it gives a batsman like Trott the chance to build an innings, thus retaining somewhat the "purity" of the game.

And in the point made about quality bowlers dominating, well, that is what the sport should be all about, isn't it? The best teams with the most quality in their lineups should win most of the time, whilst the underdog will still have its day once in a while.

 

[Senile Sentry]

Define "purity" of the game pls

If it is playing dull, mind numbing cricket @ a SR of 75 on the most helpful of pitches, then I don't want to hear abt it.

 

[Days of Grace]

Purity is playing proper cricket shots instead of slogs, good balls beating the batsmen more than getting tonked for six, batsmen building an innings and accelerating the scoring as they go along, etc.

But, really, if I need to explain that then you must be T20 generation.

 

[Senile Sentry]

Yes, all these things someone like Virat Kohli does at 30% better strike rate.

 

[Days of Grace]

...whilst somehow managing to be 200x the **** that Trott is.

 

[fredfertang]

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.

 

[Senile Sentry]

...whilst somehow managing to be 200x the **** that Trott is.

Better be Ponting than Bell tbh.

 

[watson]

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.

When the batsmen start to nudge 1s and 2s in the 'middle-overs' then it would make sense for the captain to bring back his strike-bowler and add an extra slip or 2. This is because the batsman is defensively minded and therefore unlikely to take a lot of runs off the bowler. However, the bowler has increased his odds of claiming a wicket or 2. If the batsman does choose to call the Captain's bluff and counter-attack the strike-bowler, then he is more likely to get out thus adding more pressure to the batting side. Of course he may start to hit 4s thus giving the opposing Captain a headache...........Yes, I see your point Fred.

 

[Burgey]

Yes, all these things someone like Virat Kohli does at 30% better strike rate.

Lol Kohli.

 

[Days of Grace]

Is there any point to powerplays anymore since it's only one extra fielder inside the circle? Teams are just playing normally now.

 

[NUFAN]

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.

 

[Maximas]

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.

 

[Hurricane]

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.