I feel like the only person who likes the new ODI format...

[OverratedSanity]

@Dan which comes back to my point about bowling and captaining better. I'm not saying it's easy, far from it, but this is where bowlers and captains need to evolve to try and cope with the realities of the modern game a bit better than they're doing just now.

Well sure, but that just underlines the point of how the game has changed to favour the batsmen and bowlers are the ones who are forced to adapt in a very big way. I mean sure, batsmen have changed their approach too, but that was more a product of them realising "Oh ****, these new rules and restrictions favour us a great deal and if we can improvise and take more risks in the death overs, chances are, with so few fielders outside the circle, the shots have a higher probablity of coming off".

Bowlers have been put on the back foot and forced to come up with.... I don't know, something to combat this. I take issue with this. No rule change should favour one discipline over the other, and force the other one to adapt. Doesn't that seem a tad unfair to you?

 

[Flem274*]

They've got something. Two somethings.

Two new balls.

 

[OverratedSanity]

They've got something. Two somethings.

Two new balls.

Again,that's only an advantage in places where the conditions offer decent swing. You have countries where the new ball will stop swinging far earlier than places like NZ. With no conventional swing, no reverse (disregarding bottlecaps obviously), and the ball remaining hard because it's not 40 overs old, and hence more hittable in the slog overs, bowlers are severly hampered. Add short boundaries, powerplays, monstrous bats, and you're going to have a hrd time convincing me that the scales are still perfectly balanced.

 

[Dan]

Yeah, benefits in New Zealand and benefits in India are two different things.

No surprise we're generally seeing the highest scores racked up in matches in the subcontinent, where traditional swing never occurs anyway and reverse was always the weapon.

 

[Dan]

@Dan which comes back to my point about bowling and captaining better. I'm not saying it's easy, far from it, but this is where bowlers and captains need to evolve to try and cope with the realities of the modern game a bit better than they're doing just now.

You're completely right, but my fear is this logic applies to any number of rule changes that you and I would rightly call idiotic. It's only analytically useful up to a point.

Loko could walk in here with some bizarre "use two stumps, be out after a maiden and wear shorts" rule, and when we point out how incredibly stupid that would be and the ridiculous outcomes involved, then he could point back to "well, play and captain better under my rules and they're fine".

Obviously, the rules are the rules and have to be followed, and as such captains/bowlers need to evolve and adapt. We'll undoubtedly get some awesome cricket under these rules, and the norms of the game will change to reflect the new rules. I'd just prefer to see things swing slightly further back towards the bowler -- they'd still need to adapt to two new balls and only having 4 men out for most of the innings, but I feel an extra outfielder in the final 10 would mean that the slog overs aren't quite so bat-centric in their new balance.

 

[hendrix]

in the subcontinent, where traditional swing never occurs anyway.

Not true at all.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Not true at all.

Obviously hyperbole but you do get his point I hope.

 

[Prince EWS]

You're completely right, but my fear is this logic applies to any number of rule changes that you and I would rightly call idiotic. It's only analytically useful up to a point.

Loko could walk in here with some bizarre "use two stumps, be out after a maiden and wear shorts" rule, and when we point out how incredibly stupid that would be and the ridiculous outcomes involved, then he could point back to "well, play and captain better under my rules and they're fine".

Obviously, the rules are the rules and have to be followed, and as such captains/bowlers need to evolve and adapt. We'll undoubtedly get some awesome cricket under these rules, and the norms of the game will change to reflect the new rules. I'd just prefer to see things swing slightly further back towards the bowler -- they'd still need to adapt to two new balls and only having 4 men out for most of the innings, but I feel an extra outfielder in the final 10 would mean that the slog overs aren't quite so bat-centric in their new balance.

Yeah, I've always been a fan of two new balls. I'd definitely keep that.

And despite being a sceptic originally, I've come around to the new fielding restrictions for most of the innings. I just don't think they make the game better in the last ten overs.

Overall I think the new rules have been a success, but they do need to be tweaked back in the other direction slightly. Most of us here aren't calling for a return to one ball or an abolishment of fielding restrictions. These were good ideas that have largely worked but need fine tuning now that we've seen the unintended consequences (I say 'unintended' confidently because I'm pretty sure the administrators weren't thinking "the last ten overs are the problem with ODIs; fielding restrictions will fix that"; the rule was designed to make the middle overs more interesting).

 

[Furball]

I would be fine with giving fielding captains a 5 over powerplay where they can have 5 outside the circle.

Alternatively I'd scrap the batting powerplay, allow 3 men out between overs 1 and 10, 4 out for 11-40 and 5 out for 41-50.

 

[Prince EWS]

Alternatively I'd scrap the batting powerplay, allow 3 men out between overs 1 and 10, 4 out for 11-40 and 5 out for 41-50.

Yeah this is exactly what I'd do.

 

[Maximas]

'Don't wanna get smashed in the last 10? Get them out earlier'

Nah sorry but the best cricket to watch is when there's a contest, these fielding restrictions combined with the other factors are killing that contest from overs 35 onwards a little too often, I mean by all means a good foundation should lead to a chance at prosperity later but leaving bowlers with very few options and no margin for error while batsmen can miss-hit sixes is too much, and these constant big scores can often make the result very predictable from early in the chase.

Although having said that these conditions have also opened up those weird games where the team batting last looks hopelessly out of the run chase about halfway through but then some jammy and sustained hitting for a while has them roaring back into contention, nothing better than watching that.

 

[Furball]

Yeah this is exactly what I'd do.

Is there actual data for how much run rates have been affected by the rule changes, or is the "it's waaaay too hard for bowlers now" a possible misconception based on confirmation bias?

 

[Maximas]

I'm sure I remember seeing a stat about how the average run rate in the last 10 overs of this world cup blew that of the previous three out of the water, may have been fairly early in the tournament though

 

[Furball]

I'm sure I remember seeing a stat about how the average run rate in the last 10 overs of this world cup blew that of the previous three out of the water, may have been fairly early in the tournament though

Which would be a poor way of comparing because it takes a tiny sample of games played in vastly different conditions years apart.

For instance, I don't remember massive scores being the norm at the Champions Trophy 2 years ago, but at the same time I'm not sure if the fielding restrictions had been applied then, and if they had, teams hadn't had the chance to properly adapt to them (which funnily enough brings me back my "teams need to adapt better to the rules" point.)

 

[OverratedSanity]

The very fact that we've had 4 double centuries in four years and had the fastest century record broken twice in two years should be evidence enough that the scales have tipped. (yeah yeah I know ab is a freak and all but still) . If someone can pull out the stats I'm sure it would reflect how runrates have gone through the roof.

 

[Maximas]

Which would be a poor way of comparing because it takes a tiny sample of games played in vastly different conditions years apart.

For instance, I don't remember massive scores being the norm at the Champions Trophy 2 years ago, but at the same time I'm not sure if the fielding restrictions had been applied then, and if they had, teams hadn't had the chance to properly adapt to them (which funnily enough brings me back my "teams need to adapt better to the rules" point.)

I find England is in many ways the most bowler-friendly country to play ODI cricket.

More of note with the WC stat was that there was consistency among the rest (around 7 an over) and then this WC came in with about 10, can be attributed partly to other factors for sure and this isn't a perfect stat by any means but I think there is evidence to suggest this theory isn't simply a fallacy

 

[G.I.Joe]

I don't like the new rules but I do think they're not solely to blame for the high scores. Batsmen simply have a different mentality these days.

The Champions Trophy not having massive scores isn't necessarily a case of batsmen having not adapted to the new rules. It could simply be a case of too many wickets falling before the 40th over due to the bowler-friendly conditions and teams therefore not having enough ammunition to launch the final assault.

 

[Days of Grace]

Just stop with the powerplays altogether (I always thought 'Powerplays' sounded so American) and allow a maximum of 5 fielders outside the circle at all times, from the first ball to the last. The good captains will realize how important wickets are up front and will bring fielders in anyway, especially at the start.

Or make it compulsory for the fielding team to have at least one catcher in at all times.

At the very least allow 5 fielders outside the circle in the final 10.

 

[Furball]

I don't like the new rules but I do think they're not solely to blame for the high scores. Batsmen simply have a different mentality these days.

The Champions Trophy not having massive scores isn't necessarily a case of batsmen having not adapted to the new rules. It could simply be a case of too many wickets falling before the 40th over due to the bowler-friendly conditions and teams therefore not having enough ammunition to launch the final assault.

So in other words, playing ODIs in bowler friendly conditions under the new regulations might actually be making batting harder?

I think there's still some tweaking that needs to be done here and there. But overall I think the ODI format is much, much better now than it's ever been in my time watching cricket. Overs 15-40 used to be an absolute snore fest of junk part time dart throwers angling the ball in at batsmen content to milk singles before launching at the end, it was complete trash to watch. At times it was if the captains had mutually agreed that "look ok we'll bowl David Hussey and Ravi Bopara if you play nice and don't hit them for more than 6 an over" - **** to watch. Who the **** wants to see Chris Gayle shuffle in still in his sunnies and hurl down overs worth of straight breaks?

IMO the new rules reward more aggressive cricket - and I'm not just talking about the batting here, New Zealand have been the most aggressive side in the field that I've watched and it's helped them reach the final - and the cricket's much more watchable as a result. More big hits, more swing, more risk taking, more wickets, more fun. How can you not like that?

 

[G.I.Joe]

I don't like the new rules because they take reverse swing out of the game and the four fielders outside the ring is a bad idea in itself. They're suited to conditions which aid fast bowlers; one can only imagine the carnage if this WC were played in Asia instead with these rules.

I had qualms about spinners being disadvantaged too, but they seem to have adapted to bowling with the new ball, which is fine.