I feel like the only person who likes the new ODI format...

[Prince EWS]

I really like the two new ball rule. Aside from what has been said, changing the ball to another old ball has always just seemed like a complete farce to me. Whether it was the compulsory 35 over change or the unspoken rule of changing the ball some time between then and then the 45th over due to poor visibility. bringing out an old ball every single game just reeked of potentially game changing variables. If you want to get rid of the two new balls rule I think you really just have to cop the fact that the ball is going to be hard to see towards the end and play with it anyway.. and I think I'd rather have two new balls than that.

The new fielding restrictions have created unintended consequences though. They were brought in to liven up the middle overs period, and I think they've done that to some extent, but they've made bowling at the death way too hard. I think an easy change would be to just not have them apply in the last ten. Overs 41-50 would be a special period where you could have five out, a bit like how you can only have three out in the first ten.

 

[Shady Slim]

agreed

 

[Pothas]

Yeah two new balls is great but hate the fielding regulations. PEWS suggestion is a good one in truth I would just scrap it all together. In fact I would get rid of powerplays as well.

 

[Justo]

Why not give the fielding side their own 5 over powerplay where they can have 5 fielders outside the circle? If things are starting to get out of hand they can use it to try slow things down or snag a wicket in the deep. Gives the fielding team something extra to think about without changing the balance too much from the current setup.

 

[ankitj]

Kiwi posters out of control at this stage.

 

[Dan]

Cribb you bastard, beating me to my own idea.

 

[harsh.ag]

There is only one problem with "it rewards good bowling" - it does not. It rewards ****ing great bowling, like Starc and Boult. It usually destroys good bowling , which didn't used to happen earlier.

 

[OverratedSanity]

There is only one problem with "it rewards good bowling" - it does not. It rewards ****ing great bowling, like Starc and Boult. It usually destroys good bowling , which didn't used to happen earlier.

Yeah, pretty accurate for mine.

 

[hendrix]

There is only one problem with "it rewards good bowling" - it does not. It rewards ****ing great bowling, like Starc and Boult. It usually destroys good bowling , which didn't used to happen earlier.

Disagree.

Before this world cup, noone was rating Wahab Riaz, Mohammed Shami, Rubel Hossain, or even Trent Boult in ODIs. None of them are great bowlers. Trent's a superb Test bowler, and that's where the difference is - wicket taking bowling is rewarded under the new rules.

I would rather have Trent Boult as a force in ODI cricket than Kyle Mills - as much as I love Old Man River.

 

[weldone]

I think 5 fielders outside the ring should be allowed in last 10 overs.

 

[harsh.ag]

Disagree.

Before this world cup, noone was rating Wahab Riaz, Mohammed Shami, Rubel Hossain, or even Trent Boult in ODIs. None of them are great bowlers. Trent's a superb Test bowler, and that's where the difference is - wicket taking bowling is rewarded under the new rules.

I would rather have Trent Boult as a force in ODI cricket than Kyle Mills - as much as I love Old Man River.

Not great bowlers, hendrix, but great bowling. Anyone who bowls great, as Wahab and Rubel and Boult and Shami have.

 

[hendrix]

Not great bowlers, hendrix, but great bowling. Anyone who bowls great, as Wahab and Rubel and Boult and Shami have.

It's a bit chicken and egg though, isn't it?

2 new balls allows them to bowl great spells.

 

[Furball]

It's funny how the 'not enough fielders outside the circle' whinge usually comes up when an ATG batsman like de Villiers goes ****ing tonto. At no point during New Zealand's chase was I thinking '**** me this will be easy, if only South Africa could stick one more man out things would be more balanced.'

I love the new rules and I wouldn't change them a bit. Worried about set batsmen going nuts in the last 10? Get them out before then. Bowlers and fielding captains need to adapt to the new realities of ODI cricket and bowl and select accordingly. That means selecting proper bowlers who can take wickets in the middle overs and giving them the fields to do so instead of just leaving 4 in the circle and throwing the ball to some dart thrower to keep the run rate below 5.

 

[Flem274*]

Yup, and there is still room for the run restrictors as well. Daniel Vettori is as good as ever, so there is no reason why we can't see another Chris Harris or Ian Harvey.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It's funny how the 'not enough fielders outside the circle' whinge usually comes up when an ATG batsman like de Villiers goes ****ing tonto.

Meh, simply not true. We whinge about it pretty much constantly.

 

[Furball]

Worth pointing out as well that when the modern batsman goes nuts then unless you're planning on putting the extra fielder in the crowd he's not going to make much difference.

 

[Furball]

Meh, simply not true. We whinge about it pretty much constantly.

I must have skipped over all those posts in the match thread yesterday.

 

[Pothas]

Worth pointing out as well that when the modern batsman goes nuts then unless you're planning on putting the extra fielder in the crowd he's not going to make much difference.

Which is more reason for changing the rule back if anything. Special players like AB will still be more than capable of dong their thing.

 

[Dan]

It's funny how the 'not enough fielders outside the circle' whinge usually comes up when an ATG batsman like de Villiers goes ****ing tonto. At no point during New Zealand's chase was I thinking '**** me this will be easy, if only South Africa could stick one more man out things would be more balanced.'

Worth pointing out as well that when the modern batsman goes nuts then unless you're planning on putting the extra fielder in the crowd he's not going to make much difference.

I don't think that the disadvantage of only being allowed 4 back is in terms of direct run restriction or outfield catching, it's in how predictable the bowler becomes as a result of the field that's being set. With four men out you can barely cover the scoring areas for the ball you're planning to bowl, let alone keep a guy back elsewhere to put some doubt in the batsman's mind as to where the ball is aimed.

I mean, as good as AB de Villiers is, I think we're all aware that when he sweeps a Jason Holder wide full toss for six over fine leg, he's done so because he's known what was going to be bowled at him and has premeditated accordingly. He's not playing that shot by picking up the line and length, then choosing to go for fine leg, then executing.


If you can only have 4 men back, you need all of them covering the likely scoring areas -- you plan on bowling a bouncer, you put out a Fine Leg, Third Man, Deep Square and a Sweeper on whichever side you feel is most necessary. The batsman then knows that he's not getting it in his half. Sure, the bowler can double bluff, but if the batsman gets anything at all on the double-bluffed full delivery, he's beaten the infield and has a guaranteed boundary.

If you have the 5th man available, you can cover the major scoring areas for the ball you're planning, and still keep an extra man back that gives you a safe-ish secondary option. Instead of the field limiting the bowler to the bouncer as a safe option, you can keep long on back to provide a yorker as a genuine option for that ball. With the field suggesting two possible options for the bowler, instead of one, it then becomes harder for the batsman to premeditate without taking a far greater risk than they do now.

 

[Furball]

@Dan which comes back to my point about bowling and captaining better. I'm not saying it's easy, far from it, but this is where bowlers and captains need to evolve to try and cope with the realities of the modern game a bit better than they're doing just now.