• 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.

What should be changed in Cricket?

the big bambino

International Captain
Can't believe it took this long for someone to point this out.
Well true but that doesn't mean a batsman doesn't play defensively by padding up to balls outside leg knowing they can't be lbw. Its the sort of cynicism that led to the innovation and subsequent modification of the lbw law.
 

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Maybe just for the sake of balance, if you pad up to a ball which hits you within the line and is going on to hit the stumps, you should be given out (even it it pitches outside leg).

Let the rule stand as it is for padding outside the line of stumps, and if any sort of shot is played to a ball pitching outside leg, you are automatically not out.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Bring back pitched up swing and cut and bowled as a predominating form of dismissal. Short-of-a-length stand-the-ball-up-off-the-seam bowling leading to only catches at the wicket is much duller in comparison. Might happen with uncovered pitches, may also need to ban helmets to stop batsmen getting forward all the time.
 

Stapel

International Regular
My objection to modifying the l.b.w. rule to allow deliveries pitching outside leg is rather simpler: that's where the batsman's legs are.
I always thought this was bloody obvious!
Like OS, I am a tad bit surprised........
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
To compensate for bigger bats and give spinners a realistic option of placing fielders in the deep to encourage stroke play against the opportunity of getting a wicket caught in the deep. I'm not sure you could quantify the injury risk and great fielding on the boundary will still occur irrespective of where it is located.
it only takes out the fancy smancy catch the ball toss it up, fall over the line then jump back into the field of play and take a screamer thing you always see these days so i agree that its not a huge loss to great catches on the boundary


but its pretty obvious how much safer is it for fielders to dive near the boundary to stop the ball on the ground when the boundary is a rope not hard hoardings.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Oh, I also like to see the return of this sort of dismissal where a toe end really meant you were stuffed, rather than carrying most of the way. And you had to follow through all the way if you wanted to hit the ball any significant distance.
 

NotMcKenzie

International Debutant
Not as if there are any numbers around, but I'd reckon that the number of people who would be injured by the fence (a stationary obstacle, mind you) would probably be about the same as the number injured diving at the rope, or even just by throwing themselves about elsewhere in the field anyway. There will also be some extra distance to allow people to take diving catches—parallel to the fence—of balls that reach catchable height in the space currently outside the boundary.

Of course, it's not just fences; at English Grounds, we should return to the the old fashioned painted line with the crowd sitting just behind it completely exposed.

And speaking of painted lines, I remember that years ago, the rope—at Australian Grounds anyway—always had a painted line underneath it, and for some reason this seems to have stopped being done; given that it allows the actual position of the boundary to remain obvious if the rope moves, why did this stop?


Anyway, I'd also restore the old fences and scoreboards (where applicable) at Australian Grounds (and maybe de-develop Adelaide to the old shape whilst that's happening).
 
Last edited:

the big bambino

International Captain
it only takes out the fancy smancy catch the ball toss it up, fall over the line then jump back into the field of play and take a screamer thing you always see these days so i agree that its not a huge loss to great catches on the boundary


but its pretty obvious how much safer is it for fielders to dive near the boundary to stop the ball on the ground when the boundary is a rope not hard hoardings.
Actually to clarify I'd like to see the boundary out for test cricket. Leave the rope in for the ltd over stuff where fancy catches and maximums are a big part of the spectacle.

I can't really recall that many injuries in the days before the rope. John Snow? I'm wondering if they can put a protective buffer on the actual fence?
 

NotMcKenzie

International Debutant
I can't really recall that many injuries in the days before the rope. John Snow? I'm wondering if they can put a protective buffer on the actual fence?
Not until they develop flexible light-up advertising hoardings, which are one of my pet hates and another thing I'd do away with.

...


Also get rid of advertising on sight-screens.

And get rid of electronic sight screens, at least at the W.A.C.A. where it seems to fail each test.

And go back to allowing sight-screens to be within the boundaries.
 
Last edited:

Gnske

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Not as if there are any numbers around, but I'd reckon that the number of people who would be injured by the fence (a stationary obstacle, mind you) would probably be about the same as the number injured diving at the rope, or even just by throwing themselves about elsewhere in the field anyway. There will also be some extra distance to allow people to take diving catches—parallel to the fence—of balls that reach catchable height in the space currently outside the boundary.

Of course, it's not just fences; at English Grounds, we should return to the the old fashioned painted line with the crowd sitting just behind it completely exposed.

And speaking of painted lines, I remember that years ago, the rope—at Australian Grounds anyway—always had a painted line underneath it, and for some reason this seems to have stopped being done; given that it allows the actual position of the boundary to remain obvious if the rope moves, why did this stop?


Anyway, I'd also restore the old fences and scoreboards (where applicable) at Australian Grounds (and maybe de-develop Adelaide to the old shape whilst that's happening).
Current Adelaide is comfy as though
 

Spikey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
i think a lot of series should pick up the woman's ashes method of determining a winner
 

StephenZA

Hall of Fame Member
Not until they develop flexible light-up advertising hoardings, which are one of my pet hates and another thing I'd do away with.

...


Also get rid of advertising on sight-screens.

And get rid of electronic sight screens, at least at the W.A.C.A. where it seems to fail each test.

And go back to allowing sight-screens to be within the boundaries.
Interestingly I've seen some of this go away. Its now just a graphic for the TV viewers overlaid on the sight screen. Hopefully becomes common.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Actually to clarify I'd like to see the boundary out for test cricket. Leave the rope in for the ltd over stuff where fancy catches and maximums are a big part of the spectacle.

I can't really recall that many injuries in the days before the rope. John Snow? I'm wondering if they can put a protective buffer on the actual fence?
Imagine this


but with a fence instead of the rope. Regardless of what cushion you put out on the fence, there's no way McCullum would have run that fast and attempted to save that ball from going for four. If he did anyways, you'd need a lot of cushion to stop him getting injured at which point it becomes impractical.

Your problem seems to be with small boundaries, so maybe a minimum boundary size would work better than extending the ropes a few metres.
 

the big bambino

International Captain
Imagine this


but with a fence instead of the rope. Regardless of what cushion you put out on the fence, there's no way McCullum would have run that fast and attempted to save that ball from going for four. If he did anyways, you'd need a lot of cushion to stop him getting injured at which point it becomes impractical.

Your problem seems to be with small boundaries, so maybe a minimum boundary size would work better than extending the ropes a few metres.
That looks like a one dayer so I'd leave the rope out as I mentioned in the first part of my post you quoted. You'd still get the spectacle of the B Mac chase.

If your concern is about injuries then that effort from B Mac occurred with the boundary set by a rope, not the fence. So the potential for injury was still present even though the boundary was defined by a rope. When the boundary was set at the fence players would pull up and give up the chase rather than risk injury. That instinct for preservation plus some sort of buffer on, or just before the fence, should protect the players from incurring what have been historically rare instances of injury anyway.

You'd probably lose spectacles like the BMac chase in tests, but as Ian Smith said in commentary - "you don't want to see that". What you would gain for that loss is a better balance for the bowling/fielding team by offsetting the impact of modern bats. It brings in options for the spinners and also show cases the game's long throwers.

Standardising boundary sizes seems like a good idea on the face of it. But cricket's charm is its differing conditions in each country. I like Australia's big grounds and the challenge they present to players. So I wouldn't want to see standardised grounds as a feature for cricket.
 
Last edited:

Top