Lokomotiv's Proposed Changes to Cricket

[Maximas]

He did reference 'having similar problems on a rugby league forum' which made me wonder whether he was legit, but I really don't think so

 

[Lokomotiv]

He did reference 'having similar problems on a rugby league forum' which made me wonder whether he was legit, but I really don't think so

Well, I am not a troll. Since I am new to Cricket (I am from Japan, a Baseball country), some of my ideas will be looked bizarre. However I am always serious.
I have attended several YB40 games, WCL games, and watched T20 games on TV, but I have never attended/watched a Test. So my understanding of Test is superficial, I know.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Well, I am not a troll. Since I am new to Cricket (I am from Japan, a Baseball country), some of my ideas will be looked bizarre. However I am always serious.
I have attended several YB40 games, WCL games, and watched T20 games on TV, but I have never attended/watched a Test. So my understanding of Test is superficial, I know.

Welcome to a greater understanding of cricket then. Only being relatively new here myself I'm not sure I'm who should tell you, but it's all test talk here unless otherwise specified.

 

[Maximas]

Well, I am not a troll. Since I am new to Cricket (I am from Japan, a Baseball country), some of my ideas will be looked bizarre. However I am always serious.
I have attended several YB40 games, WCL games, and watched T20 games on TV, but I have never attended/watched a Test. So my understanding of Test is superficial, I know.

If that's true, then fine, but that's no excuse for doing the same things over despite being told to do otherwise a hundred times. Most of your questions can be answered in 2 minutes on google and your suggestions are nightmare fuel for cricket fans and I'm not the first to say this, so if you are as serious as you claim you would probably take our advice, but seeing as you don't I'm inclined to think you are baiting us.

 

[Adders]

but I have never attended/watched a Test. So my understanding of Test is superficial, I know.

And as I've said to you before, spend some time watching and appreciating test cricket before trying to fix it. Then you may be in a position to make comment on it.

This forum is full of enthusiasts, we like the game.....no one here thinks test crickets needs to be sped up, not many think that draws (in most cases) are a problem. Test cricket is a very very unique sport, it is not to everyones liking and I'm sure the majority of the world would not understand at all how people like us can sit for 5 days straight enthralled and when the result does end up a draw declare we've just witnessed one of the greatest sporting events ever..........but we understand, because we appreciate it for what it is.

I've never watched a baseball game, I've never had any inclination to..........but I also have never gone onto a baseball forum telling folk there who have spent years watching and loving their game how it should be more like cricket.

 

[Howe_zat]

He's repeated his backstory so many times now. It's as though it's been practised in front of a mirror.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Some interesting points. The toss abolishment is something that I wouldn't be completely against, I think it has merits in theory.
DL use in a test match is not something I agree with, on the face of it. What's your basis behind the DL use? It would destroy something like 10 overs left in a match with only 2-3 wickets in hand. That's a good test match that a team effectively loses in essence. Or am I as usual missing the point?

Well that's basically the point. You wouldn't get draws and even if a team manages to "save the match" with wickets in hand, if they are chasing a much larger target that they would probably not reach then they "lose" the match. It makes sense from a pragmatic point of view but you will lose that one aspect of Test cricket, the part where teams have to bowl the other side out twice to win.

 

[dermo]

hi loko,

could you provide a visual presentation explaining your suggestions? perhaps some kind of video?

 

[Howe_zat]

hi loko,

could you provide a visual presentation explaining your suggestions? perhaps some kind of video?

To be fair to him, at least loko's posts are his own.

 

[dermo]

To be fair to him, at least loko's posts are his own.

Well, I am not a troll. Since I am new to Cricketweb some of my ideas will be looked bizarre. However I am always serious.

 

[uvelocity]

To be fair to him, at least loko's posts are his own.

 

[Adders]

Well that's basically the point. You wouldn't get draws and even if a team manages to "save the match" with wickets in hand, if they are chasing a much larger target that they would probably not reach then they "lose" the match. It makes sense from a pragmatic point of view but you will lose that one aspect of Test cricket, the part where teams have to bowl the other side out twice to win.

It is not that "one aspect" of test cricket.........it is the fundamental point of the whole game mate.

Test cricket is all about both skills, not how many runs you make. Score a gazillions runs in your two batting innings, it should not win you a test match unless your bowlers back you up and are good enough to take 20 wickets......they invented limited overs cricket for people that don't have the appreciation for this.

These threads are getting ****ing tiresome. I come here to discuss cricket with like minded people who share a common interest in test cricket.........go some place else if you can't comprehend why a team that survives the last overs of a test match with 1 wicket in hand even if they are 300 runs behind draws the game. FMD.

For the record - I am not advocating bore draws played out on roads where the bowlers don't have a chance.......that's a whole different debate.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It is not that "one aspect" of test cricket.........it is the fundamental point of the whole game mate.

Test cricket is all about both skills, not how many runs you make. Score a gazillions runs in your two batting innings, it should not win you a test match unless your bowlers back you up and are good enough to take 20 wickets......they invented limited overs cricket for people that don't have the appreciation for this.

These threads are getting ****ing tiresome. I come here to discuss cricket with like minded people who share a common interest in test cricket.........go some place else if you can't comprehend why a team that survives the last overs of a test match with 1 wicket in hand even if they are 300 runs behind draws the game. FMD.

For the record - I am not advocating bore draws played out on roads where the bowlers don't have a chance.......that's a whole different debate.

Bro it wasn't my idea, I think it's stupid too. I was just clarifying what he meant to say. So calm down son.

 

[Adders]

Bro it wasn't my idea, I think it's stupid too. I was just clarifying what he meant to say. So calm down son.

Well that's basically the point. You wouldn't get draws and even if a team manages to "save the match" with wickets in hand, if they are chasing a much larger target that they would probably not reach then they "lose" the match. It makes sense from a pragmatic point of view

It makes no sense from any point of view.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It makes no sense from any point of view.

Obviously it does, because people like this have been suggesting it.

 

[Lokomotiv]

Some interesting points. The toss abolishment is something that I wouldn't be completely against, I think it has merits in theory.
DL use in a test match is not something I agree with, on the face of it. What's your basis behind the DL use? It would destroy something like 10 overs left in a match with only 2-3 wickets in hand. That's a good test match that a team effectively loses in essence. Or am I as usual missing the point?

To be honest, I do not understand the DL Method Calculator well. I asked my friend (a Cricket mad, Essex fan) about that, but he answered "That is quite complicated".

 

[Maximas]

It combines wickets remaining, balls remaining and runs needed to come up with a 'par' score that the batting side needs to be at at the end of every over in case the rain starts. It wouldn't work in tests because there is no limited overs in tests - you can bat as long as you like which means the side chasing might not have a fair amount of overs to chase their runs, so they shouldn't be penalised by losing the match

 

[Red]

Here are the facts so we're all clear

- Test cricket doesn't need to be changed at all. Ever.
- You can do what you like to ODIs or T20s if it makes you happy.

 

[Lokomotiv]

Here are the facts so we're all clear

- Test cricket doesn't need to be changed at all. Ever.
- You can do what you like to ODIs or T20s if it makes you happy.

According to the Laws of Cricket, the number of balls of 1 over is 6 or 8. So is it possible to make 1 over 8 balls in Tests?

 

[Adders]

Obviously it does, because people like this have been suggesting it.

Have a look at the posts of the "people like this".......he has also suggested cricket use round bats like baseball.

Seriously mods, time to do something about these Locko threads...........beyond unfunny now surely??