• 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.

Simplest method to make test cricket competitive

Mr Miyagi

Mr Miyagi

Banned
TheJediBrah said:
You're still ignoring the actual point.
Click to expand...
If you say so. But to be totally honest, I think you're missing mine and Ritter's point that 12 on 12 everytime is better than 12 vs 11 over 2/3 of the time with 11 on 11 in the remainder.

I don't feel nor think that the game needs that level of intrigue at the coin toss. And if that's what some fans want, they should just bet money on the game rather than have the teams forced to bet (against their will till they agreed not to play under the rule) so heavily on a coin toss.

But that is just me. 11 on 11, 12 on 12, I prefer the former, but happy with either, just spare me from 12 vs 11 over 2/3 of the time due to the toss of a coin.
 
Last edited:
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Mr Miyagi said:
If you say so. But to be totally honest, I think you're missing mine and Ritter's point that 12 on 12 everytime is better than 12 vs 11 over 2/3 of the time with 11 on 11 in the remainder.

I don't feel nor think that the game needs that level of intrigue at the coin toss. And if that's what some fans want, they should just bet money on the game rather than have the teams forced to bet (against their will till they agreed not to play under the rule) so heavily on a coin toss.

But that is just me.
Click to expand...
Lol how are you still doing it? You've made same irrelevant point like a dozen times now. No one's arguing that the toss didn't affect it. That was never the main point. I can't believe I'm still explaining this to you.
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
It's not that what you're saying is dumb or wrong, it's not, it's true, it's just tiresome and uninteresting because you keep repeating it over and over and over. Why do you do that? Is it because i keep replying? And you just ignore what i say and use it as an opportunity to repeat yourself?
 
Mr Miyagi

Mr Miyagi

Banned
TheJediBrah said:
It's not that what you're saying is dumb or wrong, it's not, it's true, it's just tiresome and uninteresting because you keep repeating it over and over and over. Why do you do that? Is it because i keep replying? And you just ignore what i say and use it as an opportunity to repeat yourself?
Click to expand...
TheJediBrah said:
tbh you've lost me with all this.

Bat first --> at innings break replace batsman who's not going to bowl anyway with all-rounder --> get an extra bowler (AR) for 2nd innings
Bowl first --> at innings break replace bowler who can't really bat with an all-rounder --> get an extra bat (AR) for 2nd innings

Which one are you thinking has a big advantage?
Click to expand...

;)
 
Last edited:
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yep this is pointless. You genuinely don't dont read or understand a single thing that is said to you do you
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Lol @ 12 players per side being the "shock" part of the new plan. It's been around forever at all tiers of domestic cricket. That's just ignorant journalism
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
R!TTER said:
Though I have no idea why they think that 5 ball overs is better than 6 :wacko:
Click to expand...
They decided it make each innings go for 100 balls at the start, and now they're trying to find a way to make that work. Five balls overs makes a lot more sense than their original plan of having 15 six-ball overs and one ten-ball over.
 
R

R!TTER

State Regular
Prince EWS said:
They decided it make each innings go for 100 balls at the start, and now they're trying to find a way to make that work. Five balls overs makes a lot more sense than their original plan of having 15 six-ball overs and one ten-ball over.
Click to expand...
Oh, is that so. Do you still have the imperial system in the UK & not metric?
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
If you're doing 100 balls just go the whole hog and get rid of overs completely. Let captains pick who bowls each and every individual ball. Cap it at 20 balls per player, but let them bowl it for an entire spell if they wish. Play from just one end. In fact, the team winning the toss can pick whether they bat or bowl plus which end from, and the other team has to play from the other end.

I'd watch this
 
Black_Warrior

Black_Warrior

Cricketer Of The Year
Xuhaib said:
Forget about gimmicks like toss removal or pitches standardisation just make it mandatory that all visiting teams play 3 full F.C. matches as warmup before the series starts and watch results improve to no end.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Yeah easier said than done. The international calendar just does not allow that kind of time. Plus the money involved in extended stay and accomodation is something very few cricket boards barring the Big 3 would be prepared to dish out. Pakistan went early to England in 2016 and PCB spent extra money on that which not many people within PCB were too happy with..which explains why Pakistan never did that on their tours of NZ or Australia.
 
MagicPoopShovel

MagicPoopShovel

U19 12th Man
So I read on Cricinfo that the ECB actually discussed getting rid of the LBW for The 100. Looks like they ditched that idea but bloody hell.

Maybe I am not understanding all the nuances of why the ECB are pitching this but are they this desperate for a new audience? Sounds like all they really need to do is get some cricket on FTA?
 
Starfighter

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
MagicPoopShovel said:
Maybe I am not understanding all the nuances of why the ECB are pitching this but are they this desperate for a new audience?
Click to expand...
They're desperate for a quick buck.

Sounds like all they really need to do is get some cricket on FTA?
Click to expand...
Less quick buck this way. Just look at Cricket Australia putting all the LOIs on Fox for slightly more money. It's all about the quick buck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top