ODI rule changes

[Richard]

They used to have two balls per innings about 13-14 years ago. Ironically they canned that idea because it resulted in too many low scoring games.

I believe it was a new ball at each end, right from the start, rather than a new ball after 25 overs.

Was this universal? I remember such a thing being discussed a year or two ago on here, but I never knew it had actually been trialled!

 

[Dick Rockett]

Was this universal? I remember such a thing being discussed a year or two ago on here, but I never knew it had actually been trialled!

That I don't know, sorry.

 

[shortpitched713]

Good spinners (the Harbhajans, Dharmasenas and Vettoris) can still bowl economically with a decent field-set and being used at the right time (ie not in the Powerplays and not in the last 10).

Basically though, unless your name is Murali (and often even if it is) your playing a containment game. Of course you would say that thats the role that all bowlers should play, but in the case of most spinners that usually doesn't get them wickets.

 

[Richard]

Exactly.

Most spinners don't spin the ball enough to bowl wicket-taking deliveries on most ODI pitches. They will, occasionally, get a few wickets because batsmen who get tied-down tend to gift their wickets sometimes.

But mostly, being a ODI spinner is about containment, and of the current bowlers Murali is the only exception to that rule. Ideally, obviously, all bowlers should be able to contain but clearly some of the good containing bowlers (Pollock and McGrath for example...) are rather good at taking wickets too.

 

[biased indian]

Exactly.

Most spinners don't spin the ball enough to bowl wicket-taking deliveries on most ODI pitches. They will, occasionally, get a few wickets because batsmen who get tied-down tend to gift their wickets sometimes.

But mostly, being a ODI spinner is about containment, and of the current bowlers Murali is the only exception to that rule. Ideally, obviously, all bowlers should be able to contain but clearly some of the good containing bowlers (Pollock and McGrath for example...) are rather good at taking wickets too.

when you stop giving runs..at least 50% of the time u will get wickets.....

 

[Mahindinho]

I don't think there's too much wrong with the current ODI format. I even like the idea of the three Powerplays (although it really is a sodding awful name for them).

As far as the "boring middle overs" go, well, they can shape a game. For example, that's often where SL bowlers will win or lose a match by keeping it tight and putting pressure on the batsmen.

I do reckon a few things need to be done, though:

1. Move the ropes out. Make the batsmen really work for their fours and sixes. You see some grounds where there's a clear 15 yards between boundary rope and the advertising hoardings. Why? To make cricket "more exciting" with bigger scores. Rubbish.

2. LBWs for balls pitching outside leg stump. This would give leggies another attacking option, and allow the quicks to angle it across the batsmen if so required, while still getting LBW shouts.

I'd like to see pitches with a bit more in them for the bowlers, too, but that's a culture change rather than a rule change.

 

[Richard]

when you stop giving runs..at least 50% of the time u will get wickets.....

Not quite so sure about that-'un. Put simply, some do, some don't. Obviously if a whole team does, wickets will come every time, but there are enough cases of economical bowlers who didn't take that many wickets to suggest it'd probably be about 50\50.

 

[shortpitched713]

when you stop giving runs..at least 50% of the time u will get wickets.....

Why is it then that spinners usually don't end up with the wickets in their analyses?

 

[Nishant]

Not quite so sure about that-'un. Put simply, some do, some don't. Obviously if a whole team does, wickets will come every time, but there are enough cases of economical bowlers who didn't take that many wickets to suggest it'd probably be about 50\50.

Harbhajan in an example of that; u see him usually get 1-35, 1-40....which is gd, but he doesnt have to bowl really well to do that!

I think spinners have that sort of mentality that their role is containement and not about taking wickets. Thats something that may need to change...but not in all cases. its all about balance. If a team has 3 bowlers that concede like 50-60 runs in every match, but are rewarded with 2-3 wickets everytime.....its important to have bowlers that can just contain the batsmen so to reduce he score the opposing side gets!

Its all about bowling in partnerships; if one bowler contains the batsmen and dries up the runs, the other bowler ( who is not too good as containement, maybe) can be the wicket taker!

 

[Richard]

If you've got 2 or 3 bowlers regularly conceding 50-60 runs in 10 overs you're going to struggle big-time unless they're taking 4 or 5 wickets.

 

[biased indian]

If you've got 2 or 3 bowlers regularly conceding 50-60 runs in 10 overs you're going to struggle big-time unless they're taking 4 or 5 wickets.

if u r 3 bowlers conceed 50-60 let take avg 55 means 165 and the other 2 will be less than 50 rite take say 45 each means another 90 that means a score of 255 ...if i can restrict my opposition to 255 in 90% of the wicket we play ODI now a days i will be very very happy hmmmm.........

 

[biased indian]

Why is it then that spinners usually don't end up with the wickets in their analyses?

it simple we dont see a lot of spinners now who are able to restrict the batsmen from scorring runs...either they try for wicket and make mistake or are not good enough to keep them quiet so that batsmen will make a mistake

 

[Richard]

if u r 3 bowlers conceed 50-60 let take avg 55 means 165 and the other 2 will be less than 50 rite take say 45 each means another 90 that means a score of 255 ...if i can restrict my opposition to 255 in 90% of the wicket we play ODI now a days i will be very very happy hmmmm.........

255 is no use if your opponents have a good bowling-attack. You'll lose far more often than you'll win.

 

[shortpitched713]

255 is no use if your opponents have a good bowling-attack. You'll lose far more often than you'll win.

And 255 isn't a large enough total for a team to defend in the field if their up against a good batting lineup. Don't understand what your trying to get at, unless you're saying that 255 is a huge total, which it definitely isn't.

 

[MoxPearl]

So apparently ODI cricket is dieing a slow and painful death.

Says who ?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Says who ?

Arnold the Acrobat.

 

[shortpitched713]

Says who ?

Says people who haven't heard of the subcontinent.

 

[social]

If this has been brought up before, I apologise for not having read the whole thead but my choices relate to the boundary rope

Those of us old enough to remember will recall that the boundary rope was initially introduced as a means of preventing injury to players from sliding into a fence.

However, we are now seeing the ridiculous situation where the rope is brought 30 or more metres in from the fence on some of the bigger grounds (Adelaide, Gabba, MCG, WACA, The Oval, etc)

Such a practice not only changes the fundamental character of the ground (it used to be incredibly rare to see a straight six hit at Adelaide and common to see five runs) but also rewards mis-hits.

I'd like to see the character of grounds preserved by placing a maximum distance of, say, 1.5 metres inside the fence that the rope can be placed.

Secondly, the situation is compounded by awarding six to the batsman if the fielder touches the rope after having taken a catch.

How is that fair?

U used to be able to lean on the fence and claim a catch but now you can dive full length to make a catch on an artificially short boundary, roll over twice with the ball completely under control but be penalised if at the end of it your pinky touches the rope.

Fielding team should not be penalised in situations where a fieldsman clearly has the ball under control before crossing the boundary

 

[marc71178]

Fielding team should not be penalised in situations where a fieldsman clearly has the ball under control before crossing the boundary

If you cross the boundary with ball in hand then you don't have the ball under control within the boundary...

 

[social]

If you cross the boundary with ball in hand then you don't have the ball under control within the boundary...

So if a catch is taken inside the boundary and the player then runs across the rope on his way to the dressing room, he's not in control of the ball?