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

[Flem274*]

allowing bowlers to bowl as much as they like/can would be sick in the modern game. australia, NZ and SA not having to use their fifth bowler would make them unfair.

fully on board with it.

 

[Jono]

South Africa having to bowl AB de Villiers in the 39th over of a crunch WC semi final was just depressing.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Oh **** yeah if the ICC bring in 2 new balls + 15 overs for each bowler that's be amazing.Might also help the bowling team more even in SC conditions because the relatively good ones can obviously bowl more in case hacks like Dinda are getting destroyed. Gives the bowling captain some more flexibility.

 

[Jono]

We were robbed of a Murali bowling 25 overs in an ODI imo.

 

[Flem274*]

South Africa having to bowl AB de Villiers in the 39th over of a crunch WC semi final was just depressing.

good example but terrible example. that was one of the few times it was a good idea imo. the ultimate troll, and NZ knew it. Elliott refused to bite but Anderson wanted a piece of him so bad but also looked so wary.

 

[Jono]

Haha. The minute AB was bowling in the group stages I cracked it. Saffers had 4 years to plan for this World Cup and their solution was Parnell. Once they realised that was ****ed they were left with Duminy and AB.

Specifically said to a mate "if AB and Duminy are needed to bowl crucial overs in a knock out they're ****ed".

 

[OverratedSanity]

We were robbed of a Murali bowling 25 overs in an ODI imo.

Might also force lazy ****s like Shami to improve their fitness and get better at bowling longer spells because his main problem (apart from being mediocre) is that he gets gassed after his first, usually decent spell, in tests and by the time he gets to his 2nd or third spell he's bowling tripe. He gets away with it in ODIs.

 

[OverratedSanity]

good example but terrible example. that was one of the few times it was a good idea imo. the ultimate troll, and NZ knew it. Elliott refused to bite but Anderson wanted a piece of him so bad but also looked so wary.

Haha yeah they looked scared to try and take him on because they were thinking "What will they say if he somehow gets me out?"

 

[Flem274*]

in the 90s NZ would have bowled chris harris for 20 overs straight. would be glorious trolling.

 

[Dan]

That ABdV spell was genuinely half-decent troll-y medium pace death bowling, tbf. I want more ABdV overs in the modern game, not less!

Still a poor man's Scott Kremerskothen though. Now that guy could play!

 

[GotSpin]

Well the previous criticism Of ODIs is that they were boring in the middle overs. I agree With others in increasing the limit from 10 to 15. More higher quality bowling seems a win win and im suprised that it doesnt get spruked more often

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Haha. The minute AB was bowling in the group stages I cracked it. Saffers had 4 years to plan for this World Cup and their solution was Parnell. Once they realised that was ****ed they were left with Duminy and AB.

Specifically said to a mate "if AB and Duminy are needed to bowl crucial overs in a knock out they're ****ed".

the funny thing is he was actually rather effective. No-one could get him away.

 

[cnerd123]

I'm vehemently against more than 10 overs per bowler.

I love the challenge that finding the right team balance poses to international sides.

I love seeing captains having to juggle their part-time overs in.

I love seeing batting sides pick a bowler to target and another one to see off, and the bowling sides trying to counter that.

All these three aspects are as much a part of limited-overs cricket as good batting and good bowling is. We've had so many great games and great moments that have resulted from these restrictions. It's part of why limited overs cricket is so much more than just an abbreviated version of Test cricket.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I'm vehemently against more than 10 overs per bowler.

I love the challenge that finding the right team balance poses to international sides.

I love seeing captains having to juggle their part-time overs in.

I love seeing batting sides pick a bowler to target and another one to see off, and the bowling sides trying to counter that.

All these three aspects are as much a part of limited-overs cricket as good batting and good bowling is. We've had so many great games and great moments that have resulted from these restrictions. It's part of why limited overs cricket is so much more than just an abbreviated version of Test cricket.

Good post.

Allowing bowlers more than 10 overs would just mean teams packing in the extra batsman.

 

[Jono]

Restore bat-ball balance in ODIs, says ESPNcricinfo's panel | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

Two of the big talking points of this World Cup have been the field restrictions that allow only four fielders outside the circle in non-Powerplay overs and the two new balls. Both have resulted in higher scores. Chappell wanted most of the restrictions removed thus allowing the captains to captain the sides and not the regulations. There was also an agreement that bowlers be allowed to more than 10 overs with a restriction on a certain number of overs to be bowled by five bowlers so that teams don't stack their teams up with eight batsmen and just three bowlers.

...

"As far as the overs are concerned I'd like something as simple as: 'Five bowlers have got to bowl 25 overs and the rest of them the captain makes up however he wants.' If he has got someone bowling well, he can bowl 14, 15, whatever he can fit in. The reason I say that is, you would hope if you have got better bowlers he will attack. Whereas if he has got lesser bowlers and he is having to bowl them for 10 overs then he is more likely to be defending. It will encourage more imaginative captaincy if you allow the better bowlers to bowl more overs. It's also a captain's gut feel, who is bowling well today.

"If I was a current captain, I'd say to the ICC, 'If you want to captain this bloody team, you come and captain it. Allow me to captain. Don't try to captain with your bloody regulations.'"

 

[Furball]

Which completely ignores the impact a good bowling attack had on the tournament. It's not a coincidence that the 2 best bowling sides competed in the final, with the next best 2 being the defeated semi finalists.

 

[Cric123]

I think they've got it mostly right. More than anything else I'd like to see bats regulated. I don't mind the power game that exists now, but it really pisses me off when a mistake like an ugly top edge is rewarded with a six. It's not right.

I love the power game. However, it should be the batsmen that generate the power, not the bats. As someone mentioned in another thread, I think we need to ensure we play at least the international game with minimum boundary distance of 80 metres to all sides. If some grounds are aren't able to accomodate those distances then they need to be put on hold and until they are fit for purpose. Bats need to be regulated. They should all be made with normal wood, without any artifical alements blended in to increase thier power, and of course, thickness needs to be regulated to ensure the sweet spot is focussed in the middle. I don't know but I personally don't rate Glenn Maxwell at all. I think he will be found out soon. He benefits from these modern bats so much.

I really don't have time for guys who bowl at 80-83MPH. Its nice to see countries like New Zeland focussing on producing bowlers at 90MPH.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I love the power game. However, it should be the batsmen that generate the power, not the bats. As someone mentioned in another thread, I think we need to ensure we play at least the international game with minimum boundary distance of 80 metres to all sides. If some grounds are aren't able to accomodate those distances then they need to be put on hold and until they are fit for purpose. Bats need to be regulated. They should all be made with normal wood, without any artifical alements blended in to increase thier power, and of course, thickness needs to be regulated to ensure the sweet spot is focussed in the middle. I don't know but I personally don't rate Glenn Maxwell at all. I think he will be found out soon. He benefits from these modern bats so much.

I really don't have time for guys who bowl at 80-83MPH. Its nice to see countries like New Zeland focussing on producing bowlers at 90MPH.

Lol you picked the one guy who doesn't benefit from "modern bats" much at all. He doesn't even hit that many sixes, relatively speaking, he scores quickly due to always managing to pick gaps and hit over the infield.

Of the Australians, Finch, Warner, Faulkner would all be better examples of guys who benefit from powerful bats (not that they aren't powerful guys).

 

[Antihippy]

Wouldn't making 80m minimum for all sides get rid of nearly every cricket ground around the world?

Don't even think the MCG fits this criteria.

 

[Spark]

Lol you picked the one guy who doesn't benefit from "modern bats" much at all. He doesn't even hit that many sixes, relatively speaking, he scores quickly due to always managing to pick gaps and hit over the infield.

Of the Australians, Finch, Warner, Faulkner would all be better examples of guys who benefit from powerful bats (not that they aren't powerful guys).

Yeah I had a good chuckle when Maxwell was listed there. Worst example.