Do you ever feel powerplays and fielding restrictions are kind of dumb?

[mr_mister]

It's like - they're literally only to make the game more exciting. They're not a good 'rule' in the sense that they help enhance the level the game is played at or whatever, like DRS for example

 

[marc71178]

Obviously it'd be much better without fielding restrictions and 9 fielders on the boundary...

 

[mr_mister]

much less exciting but no less fair, 6+ runs an over could be easily achieved with 9 fielders on the boundary

 

[marc71178]

How would that be anything resembling proper cricket though? At least fielding restrictions try and get things to look fairly similar to how the game was originally invisaged.

 

[mr_mister]

well obviously teams wouldn't do that all the time because there is certainly a benefit of having in-ring fielders, especially when new batsmen are in.

I don't really think proper cricket should mean one set way of playing it, the game was originally envisaged to have flexibility wasn't it? things like bodyline tactis(whether good or bad) wouldnt have been possible to implement had their not been the freedom to do so

 

[cnerd123]

Test cricket is about taking wickets. Any captain who sets 9 men on the boundary won't bowl any side out.

ODI cricket is about run restriction. 9 men on the boundary could be a game breaking tactic, and make for super dull cricket at times.

Its a fun idea to play with, but I quite like how things are atm

 

[mr_mister]

I just think it's weird that there is a designated 'attacking' period, I don't like how the game screeches to a halt at the start of the 11th over

 

[Howe_zat]

Yeah they're two different things.

Fielding restrictions are necessary in limited overs.

Powerplays aren't really. They're a way of instilling subplots into the narrative of an ODI innings but it's usually so minor (especially in the modern era of batting in which 'powerplay' can be pretty much the mindset of batsmen for the whole innings) as to be a footnote.

 

[fredfertang]

When powerplays were introduced ODIs had become very dull indeed and they did have a positive effect - not so sure they're still necessary now though

 

[Shady Slim]

i always get confused who the "powerplay" actually supports because some teams bowl better in it and others bat better in it

 

[Burgey]

I remember an odi at the scg in 79-80 when England refused to play with fielding restrictions and Mike Brearley put all 10 fielders including the keeper on the boundary.

I think restrictions have influenced the game enormously tbh. Batting has generally become more aggressive in test matches on the back of a decades of Lo cricket being played. The aggressiveness of that batting is at least in part (I think a large part) due to fielding restrictions and batsmen being more inventive and also playing more shots in the air together with an extra emphasis on piercing gaps

 

[AndrewB]

I remember an odi at the scg in 79-80 when England refused to play with fielding restrictions and Mike Brearley put all 10 fielders including the keeper on the boundary.

For one ball.

 

[listento_me]

It's like - they're literally only to make the game more exciting. They're not a good 'rule' in the sense that they help enhance the level the game is played at or whatever, like DRS for example

I don't think so. With fielding restrictions, bowlers and captains have to be smarter as well as the batsman. He can try and be gung ho but then haul out a catch in the outfield. So, when handled correctly, there is a fine interplay between all facets of the game.

Btw, whats the new rules regarding power plays? Are the throughout the innings? I don't like that. There should be phases.

 

[mr_mister]

Yeah it seems overs 11-40 are now 4 players max outside the ring no ifs no buts

 

[Burgey]

For one ball.

Does that in some way detract from the point?