• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Things that should be changed in cricket

Craig

World Traveller
I discussed my first I would change with Mr M on MSN and told me his rule change. I am sure he will post his.

Anyway this mine:

If a team has a reserve wicket keeper in their squad and if main 'keeper (the one who's playing) gets injuried, then then the reserve 'keeper should come on and replace the injuried one, instead of having some part-timer 'keep wickets, but hasnt done so for a number of years or isnt a specialist.

I see this like goalkeepers in football (soccer), and if your no.1 'keeper gets injuried or sent off, then you are allowed to bring your reserve goalie on (assuming you havent used your three subs up), so why not in cricket?

If Patel gets injuried, India would be better off having Dasgupta come on, then have Dravid 'keep.

Thoughts please.

PS - I wont be on until Boxing Day (when I have finshed being online) so I would like to say for all those out there who celebrate x-mas, have a happy and safe christmas, have a great day, be careful and DONT DRINK AND DRIVE.
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
It is a nonsense that wicket'keepers cannot replace injured keepers.

I'm not sure when this insane rule came in, nor what its purpose was, but if the ICC did it, there must be a perfectly good reason for it

*click* sarcasm mode off

I remember the day when Richard Hadlee felled Bruce French at Lord's - Bill Athey took the gloves for a while.

The great Bob Taylor, two years retired, was representing Cornhill Insurance that day and 'just happened to have hs gloves in the car'. To a tumultuous ovation, he took the field and for a couple of hours, treated the crowd to a virtuoso performance which, for nostalgia value, sticks in the mind more than the rest of the game.

Later, Bobby Parks took over behind the sticks for the duration of the match.

Four keepers, three of them specialists. It did not detract from the game one iota.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Craig said:
I see this like goalkeepers in football (soccer), and if your no.1 'keeper gets injuried or sent off, then you are allowed to bring your reserve goalie on (assuming you havent used your three subs up), so why not in cricket?
Interesting point, and in some cases the batting captain has given dispensation to the fielding side to bring one on.

Can't really compare it to football since the subs there are for tactical purposes and it is very much a squad game, whereas Cricket is still very much 11 vs 11.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
luckyeddie said:
I remember the day when Richard Hadlee felled Bruce French at Lord's - Bill Athey took the gloves for a while.

The great Bob Taylor, two years retired, was representing Cornhill Insurance that day and 'just happened to have hs gloves in the car'. To a tumultuous ovation, he took the field and for a couple of hours, treated the crowd to a virtuoso performance which, for nostalgia value, sticks in the mind more than the rest of the game.

Later, Bobby Parks took over behind the sticks for the duration of the match.

Four keepers, three of them specialists. It did not detract from the game one iota.
A legendary game. I never knew it was against New Zealand, though, I always, for some reason, thought it was West Indies.
 

mavric41

State Vice-Captain
I think the reasoning behind it is that the wicketkeeper is a specialist, just like a bowler or batsman. If either one of those get injured, you can't bring in someone to replace them - the same as a wicketkeeper. You might pick an ordinary keeper who is a great batsman. You bat first, rack up a big score and your 'keeper' gets 'injured' and replaced by your specialist. You then have the best of both worlds. If one of your players is unfortunate enough to get injured, you are then without their skills for the match. The other way is too open to abuse.
 

hourn

U19 Cricketer
mavric41 said:
I think the reasoning behind it is that the wicketkeeper is a specialist, just like a bowler or batsman. If either one of those get injured, you can't bring in someone to replace them - the same as a wicketkeeper. You might pick an ordinary keeper who is a great batsman. You bat first, rack up a big score and your 'keeper' gets 'injured' and replaced by your specialist. You then have the best of both worlds. If one of your players is unfortunate enough to get injured, you are then without their skills for the match. The other way is too open to abuse.
i think you've hit the nail on the head for the reason.

the rule states that the person wicketkeeping must be one of the starting XI, and can not be a replacement fielder.
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
Richard said:
A legendary game. I never knew it was against New Zealand, though, I always, for some reason, thought it was West Indies.
It's possible that I might be wrong - memory isn't my strongest point. Still, it's Christmas Day, I have 3 different whiskies and rum for my entertainment this afternoon and I don't feel capable of managing StatsGuru in my current state so I cannot verify things one way or the other (hic).
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I raise my glass of cider to you. Bon Xmas.
(Don't know how you can enjoy whiskey or rum, personally, but each to his own)
Anyway, I'll be surprised if it turns-out you were wrong.
*Cheers*
 

iamdavid

International Debutant
Richard said:
I raise my glass of cider to you. Bon Xmas.
(Don't know how you can enjoy whiskey or rum, personally, but each to his own)
Anyway, I'll be surprised if it turns-out you were wrong.
*Cheers*
Indeed , I tried some whisky today & it tasted like absolute sh*t for lack of a better term.

Merry Christmas to all of you who celebrate it :)
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I don't celebrate Christmas but I celebrate Xmas.
There are many like me in this *hu-hum* great country.
 

anzac

International Debutant
Although I know I've said this in an earlier thread, I'd like to see the teams be able to use their 12th man as a replacement for injured players - regardless of wether it be for a specialist position or not!

IMO we are seeing a fair number of matches with the outcome being determined as much by injuries to specialist players (particularly bowlers), as opposed to any positive or winning performance by the opposition.

IMO when a team looses a bowler then they are basically forced to defend for the remainder of the match in an effort to 'save' the game. This is a distinct disadvantage particularly if you have only selected 4 bowlers in your lineup to start with, as used to be the rule of thumb!

Me I want to see a proper contest between 2 teams on the field, so I would allow the 12th man to replace a specialist. This would probably lead to the selection of more 'allrounders' as 12th man as opposed to an out & out specialist, but so what IMO if it keeps the game a 'fair' contest.


8D
 

Magrat Garlick

Global Moderator
luckyeddie said:
It's possible that I might be wrong - memory isn't my strongest point. Still, it's Christmas Day, I have 3 different whiskies and rum for my entertainment this afternoon and I don't feel capable of managing StatsGuru in my current state so I cannot verify things one way or the other (hic).
Could this be the Test in question?

At least French retired hurt in this one...the only one he retired in. He never played WI either. Bobby Parks never played a Test, according to cricinfo, but they don't list replacements so...
 

SpaceMonkey

International Debutant
anzac said:
Although I know I've said this in an earlier thread, I'd like to see the teams be able to use their 12th man as a replacement for injured players - regardless of wether it be for a specialist position or not!

IMO we are seeing a fair number of matches with the outcome being determined as much by injuries to specialist players (particularly bowlers), as opposed to any positive or winning performance by the opposition.

IMO when a team looses a bowler then they are basically forced to defend for the remainder of the match in an effort to 'save' the game. This is a distinct disadvantage particularly if you have only selected 4 bowlers in your lineup to start with, as used to be the rule of thumb!

Me I want to see a proper contest between 2 teams on the field, so I would allow the 12th man to replace a specialist. This would probably lead to the selection of more 'allrounders' as 12th man as opposed to an out & out specialist, but so what IMO if it keeps the game a 'fair' contest.


8D
The thing you have to be careful about is players 'faking injury' so they can be replaced by say a spin bowler in the 4th innings etc.
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
Good thread...Things I would change about cricket...

1/ Obviously the rules have to be slackened regarding, say a batsman getting injured, why cant another batsman come on ?(Recent example being Gayle v RSA)

2/ Every problem with video umpiring and dissent would be solved, simply if a batsman given out to a shocker could be sent back into bat by a third umpire (not at the request of anyone else)

3/ Players and boards should be allowed to have more oppertuinity for sposorship and advertising.... More kit advertising should be allowed for test matches, this would make sponsorship more attractive and would help out cash strapped boards (and counties)

4/ Grounds in England should have grass banks like they do in South Africa and New Zealand! I know the climate may not be suitable, but they seem to manage it in Derby... Nothing is better than having a barbeque or playing a game of cricket while watching a test match... And they are far more attractive than the bucket seats, especially when they paint them awful colours.

5/ Lords..(Lets ban banners, hooters, fun) Nuke the place, anything.. Ive been there a couple of times, and the place is expensive, arrogant, stuffy, hard to get to and unfriendly (a bit like the city surrounding it).. Its a shame that it is the natural home of cricket, id rather be at a place where they actually make an effort like Durham or Derby in recent times..
 

Bazza

International 12th Man
I disagree about injuries. The current rules are already abused regarding substitute fielders.

I think video umpiring should be looked at and I like the idea of lbw using HawkEye (runs and hides), but I thought Lord's was excellent. Expensive, but great.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Langeveldt said:
Every problem with video umpiring and dissent would be solved, simply if a batsman given out to a shocker could be sent back into bat by a third umpire (not at the request of anyone else)
Until the 3rd Umpire is guaranteed 100% correct, this won't happen.
 

Top