What should be changed in Cricket?

[Second Spitter]

All T20 cricket should be play over 5 days, with a minimum of 90 overs each day and the batting team getting two turns at bat.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'd like to see all of these given a try, but not necessarily at the same time

a) Return to uncovered wickets
b) Removal of the restriction on fielders behind square on the leg side (but not to encourage a return to Bodyline)
c) Change the lbw law to allow the batsman to be dismissed if the ball pitches outside leg stump
d) Return to the back foot no ball law

Definitely agree with C. Not so much B though. All you're going to do is encourage negative bowling.

 

[vitalogy83]

@fredfertang what's the benefit you see from moving to back to the back foot no ball law?

 

[vitalogy83]

All T20 cricket should be play over 5 days, with a minimum of 90 overs each day and the batting team getting two turns at bat.

I would get behind such a move. Revolutionary.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Do you have any idea how boring cricket will become if you can get out lbw when the ball pitches outside leg? Might be worth looking into where a batsman isn't playing a shot, but even then you'd just have stacked leg side fields and bowling a boring, dry line all day in the hope someone misses one.

Not really though. The ball still has to hit the pad in line with the stumps to be out so it's not like you can bowl from way outside leg and get lbws, unless the batsman isn't offering a shot which we don't want to encourage anyway. We want to encourage batsman to have to play at balls that pitch outside leg from the spinners don't we?

The only difference that allowing outside-leg lbws would make would be not letting the batsmen get away with being beaten by the bowlers as much, and encourage more playing at the ball against the spinners rather than padding it away.

As far as the hypothetical scenario you posted goes, they can do that anyway. Is allowing a slightly higher chance of lbw for straighter balls that pitch only just outside leg really going to make that much difference?

 

[OverratedSanity]

I'm glad you guys aren't in charge of the game.

 

[cnerd123]

From what I've learnt from ICC Umpires, a human in a batting stance will have a blind spot roughly around the area for fullish deliveries outside legstump. (Get into a batting stance and try it out). Therefore, if you could get batsmen out LBW with deliveries that pitched there, it could potentially be a gamebreaking strategy, with fast bowlers bowling around the wicket (or over the wicket to the opposite handed batsmen) and targeting that area.

I don't know if this is true but that's a theory I've heard.


I honestly wouldn't make many changes to the game itself. But I would love to make massive changes to the way cricket is structured, and how it is sold to the fans. You need to have access to a dozen different channels (some of which are region blocked) in order to be able to watch most of the cricket that happens, and if you miss the game live then you basically can't watch it anymore outside of highlight packages. And when you do get to watch it, you have to deal with unprofessional, unprepared commentary teams and intrusive ad breaks. And a complete dearth of meaningful analysis and statistics.

Cricket doesn't make it easy or insightful to watch and we wonder why the sport is dying. Cricket isn't a sport for thrill-a-minute action. It's one for analysis and reflection and studying strategy and trends. But it's trying so hard to market itself as something it isn't, instead of fulling embracing what it is.

Just look how fantastically MLB is run. Cricket and baseball are so similar. Baseball style coverage, access and statistics for cricket would be incredible. Would enhance the viewing experience so much. I guarantee that would bring more fans back into the sport than attempting to play T20s in USA or Shanghai.

 

[TheJediBrah]

From what I've learnt from ICC Umpires, a human in a batting stance will have a blind spot roughly around the area for fullish deliveries outside legstump. (Get into a batting stance and try it out). Therefore, if you could get batsmen out LBW with deliveries that pitched there, it could potentially be a gamebreaking strategy, with fast bowlers bowling around the wicket (or over the wicket to the opposite handed batsmen) and targeting that area.

I don't know if this is true but that's a theory I've heard.


I honestly wouldn't make many changes to the game itself. But I would love to make massive changes to the way cricket is structured, and how it is sold to the fans. You need to have access to a dozen different channels (some of which are region blocked) in order to be able to watch most of the cricket that happens, and if you miss the game live then you basically can't watch it anymore outside of highlight packages. And when you do get to watch it, you have to deal with unprofessional, unprepared commentary teams and intrusive ad breaks. And a complete dearth of meaningful analysis and statistics.

Cricket doesn't make it easy or insightful to watch and we wonder why the sport is dying. Cricket isn't a sport for thrill-a-minute action. It's one for analysis and reflection and studying strategy and trends. But it's trying so hard to market itself as something it isn't, instead of fulling embracing what it is.

Just look how fantastically MLB is run. Cricket and baseball are so similar. Baseball style coverage, access and statistics for cricket would be incredible. Would enhance the viewing experience so much. I guarantee that would bring more fans back into the sport than attempting to play T20s in USA or Shanghai.

You're right to be skeptical, that's a really stupid theory. If you want to test the theory go and bowl full just outside leg-stump to quality batsmen and see what happens.

Also always love hearing about your theories on cricket marketing and coverage. You're gonna change things one day kid.

 

[cnerd123]

You're right to be skeptical, that's a really stupid theory. If you want to test the theory go and bowl full just outside leg-stump to quality batsmen and see what happens.

The thing is, there is definitely some sort of blind spot, but its always easy enough to open your stance or move your head slightly to see the ball.

I don't know if this theory holds up when speeds reach in excess of 75 mph. I've never faced any bowling that quick. So I'm skeptical, but I want to hear from top batsmen if there is some sort of blindspot there that they acknowledge, and that to face that pace in that area they need to shift from a 'normal' batting stance.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The thing is, there is definitely some sort of blind spot, but its always easy enough to open your stance or move your head slightly to see the ball.

I don't know if this theory holds up when speeds reach in excess of 75 mph. I've never faced any bowling that quick. So I'm skeptical, but I want to hear from top batsmen if there is some sort of blindspot there that they acknowledge, and that to face that pace in that area they need to shift from a 'normal' batting stance.

In all honesty I don't think it's completely stupid. There is definitely somewhat of a "blind spot" but not enough to be determining an lbw law

 

[vitalogy83]

I honestly wouldn't make many changes to the game itself. But I would love to make massive changes to the way cricket is structured, and how it is sold to the fans. You need to have access to a dozen different channels (some of which are region blocked) in order to be able to watch most of the cricket that happens, and if you miss the game live then you basically can't watch it anymore outside of highlight packages. And when you do get to watch it, you have to deal with unprofessional, unprepared commentary teams and intrusive ad breaks. And a complete dearth of meaningful analysis and statistics.

Cricket doesn't make it easy or insightful to watch and we wonder why the sport is dying. Cricket isn't a sport for thrill-a-minute action. It's one for analysis and reflection and studying strategy and trends. But it's trying so hard to market itself as something it isn't, instead of fulling embracing what it is.

Just look how fantastically MLB is run. Cricket and baseball are so similar. Baseball style coverage, access and statistics for cricket would be incredible. Would enhance the viewing experience so much. I guarantee that would bring more fans back into the sport than attempting to play T20s in USA or Shanghai.

Jarrod Kimber had the idea of a cricket.tv sort of site where you had access to basically any cricket that was being played anywhere..you just had to watch what you wanted..

I haven't seen MLB at all, so I am interested in learning about how we could superimpose some of the ways they broadcast baseball to cricket..the floor is yours buddy.

 

[S.Kennedy]

If we put uncovered wickets back in place a lot of people would be shocked at the amount of 'all time greats' who are not actually very good batsmen compared to days of olde! Every series would be basically the 2015 Ashes on steroids.

- reduce all of the pointless bilateral rubbish. I just noticed the NZ v WI series has two tests and about a million limited overs matches. If all of the latter were scrapped we could have had another test or two. The 2018 English fixture is packed with meaningless Australian one-days during high summer, with the Indian test series shunted to the autumn. Even this upcoming Ashes has a load of ****** one-dayers chucked on the end.

 

[S.Kennedy]

From what I've learnt from ICC Umpires, a human in a batting stance will have a blind spot roughly around the area for fullish deliveries outside legstump. (Get into a batting stance and try it out). Therefore, if you could get batsmen out LBW with deliveries that pitched there, it could potentially be a gamebreaking strategy, with fast bowlers bowling around the wicket (or over the wicket to the opposite handed batsmen) and targeting that area.

I don't know if this is true but that's a theory I've heard.


I honestly wouldn't make many changes to the game itself. But I would love to make massive changes to the way cricket is structured, and how it is sold to the fans. You need to have access to a dozen different channels (some of which are region blocked) in order to be able to watch most of the cricket that happens, and if you miss the game live then you basically can't watch it anymore outside of highlight packages. And when you do get to watch it, you have to deal with unprofessional, unprepared commentary teams and intrusive ad breaks. And a complete dearth of meaningful analysis and statistics.

Cricket doesn't make it easy or insightful to watch and we wonder why the sport is dying. Cricket isn't a sport for thrill-a-minute action. It's one for analysis and reflection and studying strategy and trends. But it's trying so hard to market itself as something it isn't, instead of fulling embracing what it is.

Just look how fantastically MLB is run. Cricket and baseball are so similar. Baseball style coverage, access and statistics for cricket would be incredible. Would enhance the viewing experience so much. I guarantee that would bring more fans back into the sport than attempting to play T20s in USA or Shanghai.

Amen to the tv one, but Englishmen will certainly be banned from using it due to our greedy paywalling companies and the ECB idiots!! You know what I predict happening in England soon? Pay-per-view cricket. Pay your £19 for the Ashes. It is inevitable really when you look at the track record of sky.

 

[Starfighter]

The change I'd like to see is taking away the boundary rope in favour of the fence.

This.

And go back to the pre-2000 rule where the ball actually had to clear to barrier to count as a boundary. Would save quite a bit of time on replays about whether the fielder touched the rope or the ball hit it on the full etc. It was an absolutely moronic change to make in the first place.

@fredfertang what's the benefit you see from moving to back to the back foot no ball law?

The main benefit is that it gives the umpire more time to watch the ball and allows the call to made earlier. Although this is slightly offset by having to move one's vision further - you'll notice that umpires in older matches often stand further back and more side on, and move into position.

It allows the bowler to get a little closer to the batsmen. This would unfairly advantage very tall bowlers but it does encourage bowling side on to get maximum reach, which would be an aesthetic improvement over modern seam bowling robots. And of course it would deter modern batsmen who camp out on the front foot all the time.
It also spreads out the impact on the popping crease, meaning footholds are shallower, which saves bowlers' knees.

The main issue would be interpretation. It seems that some have considered that a fair delivery is determined by the position of the back foot at contact, and at release by others (to the extent that I've seen people declare that a bowler should be no-balled for lifting their foot, even though it remained behind the crease). The former interpretation is the easier to judge and more useful.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

More than 2 fielders behind square on the leg side.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

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. To be hit on the legs outside off, on the other hand, one has to actually move one's legs across the pitch into the line of the delivery. I've seen video, as an example of this sort of thing, of left-handed batsmen being given out to Curtley Ambrose when the ball was pitching outside leg, and bowling to opposite-handed batsmen in longer forms may become quite negative.

Also, my interpretation of a limit on bat sizes, which would be something like 30 mm at the edge, and 45 mm at the distance 1"–1 1/4" in from the edge (or an equivalent fraction for a smaller bat size), or something along those lines. Possibly, a greater limitation at the toe as well. This way you can still have as deep a middle as you want, but you have to actually be able to hit the ball there in order to take advantage of it.

Forbidding the batman from withdrawing one the bowler has entered his delivery stride.

Pre-match pitch-rolling limit.

 

[fredfertang]

@fredfertang what's the benefit you see from moving to back to the back foot no ball law?

I must admit that no balls do annoy me if for no other reason than they are just so unnecessary - but the cases where batsmen are dismissed and then called back for a front foot no ball the umpire missed are what really hack me off - I didn't mind so much to start with because I thought bowlers would learn, but they don't seem to have. So what I'd like to see is a system like hawk eye making an infallible early call which gives a batsman a free hit, on the basis that bowlers might take some notice of being slapped around

The uncovered wicket thing I'd just like to see again - I have a couple of memories of Derek Underwood exploiting them but that's all - at the end of the day though the rules changed to preserve the balance between bat and ball and to stop games becoming lotteries, but fascinating ones nonetheless - as for the leg side fielding restrictions I'm too young to have seen a quality off spinner/inswinger bowling to an old fashioned leg trap, but would really like to - again though I'd concede the rules changed for a reason and that many more people find attritional battles tedious than enjoy them.

The leg side lbws were something Bradman advocated, and I'd like to see for that reason alone - back in the bad days of the 80s it was put forward as a way to get leg spinners back in the game, although of course Warne amply demonstrated they didn't necessarily need that

 

[OverratedSanity]

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. To be hit on the legs outside off, on the other hand, one has to actually move one's legs across the pitch into the line of the delivery. I've seen video, as an example of this sort of thing, of left-handed batsmen being given out to Curtley Ambrose when the ball was pitching outside leg, and bowling to opposite-handed batsmen in longer forms may become quite negative.

Can't believe it took this long for someone to point this out.

 

[Daemon]

The change I'd like to see is taking away the boundary rope in favour of the fence.

Why on earth would you want this? Would put the fielders at a higher risk of injury and we'd see fewer awesome diving stops and catches on the boundary.

A larger minimum boundary size would be better.

 

[the big bambino]

Why on earth would you want this? Would put the fielders at a higher risk of injury and we'd see fewer awesome diving stops and catches on the boundary.

A larger minimum boundary size would be better.

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.