ODI Rule Changes

[Richard]

What I'm saying though is that, in addition to the number of runs Bradman scored, the rate at which he scored them at times put Australia into a position to win games they had no business winning, and also scared the opposition into batting longer than they would otherwise have needed to do in order to deny him the time to overall their total. He won more games for his team than would have been the case had he scored at say 2 runs per over instead of 4.

Your argument about why a slower player can be preferable to a higher scoring one only makes sense if you're arguing that in attempting to score fast, you compromise your defence to an extent. Its like an extra degree of difficulty in what you are doing. You don't deserve credit if you compromise your defence to the point that you get out cheaply, but if you are good enough to compromise your defence in favour of attack AND STILL be good enough to keep your wicket intact, that's a harder thing to achieve than just defending. That's why I rate players I judge can or did do so higher than those that didn't.

I don't think that's fair really. Attacking and defending is equally difficult IMO. And whichever comes naturally to you is what you're likely to play.

Some players can play in an attacking way without risk; for some, to play defensively would be risky. Each player has different strengths, and those strengths make-up whether he's best served to attack or defend (or rather, where on the scale he's best placed).

I've never, ever liked the attack > defence stereotype in cricket, and that's the best explanation I can offer for it.

Your Bradman point is quite valid - averaging 99.94 and being a dominant presence is better than averaging 99.94 and being someone who worries only through his undismissability rather than both.

But either of them are still phenominal and both would be better than anything anyone else has come close to.

 

[Matt79]

I've never, ever liked the attack > defence stereotype in cricket, and that's the best explanation I can offer for it.

Fair enough, its a personal preference and there are different things all of us enjoy about this game - that's why Test cricket is so great, there are so many aspects to enjoy. But if attack>defence is a stereotype, its a stereotype that has a considerable basis in fact. When you boil it down to the "microeconomic" level, there's no point containing a batsman if you can dismiss him, and there's no point defending a ball if you can score off it.

 

[Matt79]

I don't think that's fair really. Attacking and defending is equally difficult IMO. And whichever comes naturally to you is what you're likely to play.

And a player who can do both with equal or near equal alacrity is a superior player to one who has a pronounced preference for one or the other. As I alluded to before, I'm not championing Afridi here, what makes guys like Richards special is that he could obviously do both extremely well.

 

[Richard]

I think the Headleys, Hammonds, Soberses, Tendulkars and 10 or 20 other names all could too. In fact, I know beyond a doubt they could.

It just wasn't as inherant in them as it is in the likes of IVAR and Adam Craig Gilchrist and one or two others. They attacked with less murderousness, even though I'd be astonished if one single person would hesitate to label Tendulkar a "strokeplayer".

I mean, I watched Tendulkar earlier on in his career and, well, as I say, the impregnability of him was every bit as awesome to me as the destructive-torpedo effect that someone like Gilchrist can have, and that was surely identical to that which Vivian Richards conjured-up.

 

[Richard]

Fair enough, its a personal preference and there are different things all of us enjoy about this game - that's why Test cricket is so great, there are so many aspects to enjoy. But if attack>defence is a stereotype, its a stereotype that has a considerable basis in fact. When you boil it down to the "microeconomic" level, there's no point containing a batsman if you can dismiss him, and there's no point defending a ball if you can score off it.

No. But without being able to do the other, there is no point being able to do one either.

 

[slugger]

talk about running off in ya own direction..

your point is not valid about a bowler being slogged more.. if he was elected as the specialist bowler in the game.. why would a capt give the ball to the bowler thats been nocked around a bit.. in most inns these always some one going for more, there always seems to be a bowler a batsmen has taking a liking too. If that was the case and you had to use said player at most he will only need to complete 7 overs. and you seem to forget that there is 10 overs less to score off now.

look at the aust vs india.
because m clark batted for aust. he would at most only allowed to bowl 7 overs not the 9
same with b.lee. also hopes. this left sr clarke m.johnson and g.hogg to be alloted the maximum. all 3 of those player eco-rates were accpt for a bowler. and top of that m.clark took his 1 wicket in his 7th over lol..

but hey its all too radical and wouldnt assume any one on cricketweb to like the ideas.. let alone the icc...

 

[Richard]

Most of us on CricketWeb want to see cricket, not something that takes a few bits from cricket and implements a load of wacky, silly ideas to make something that vaguely resembles cricket and doesn't really feel like cricket, therefore attracting those who don't really like cricket.

We have Twenty20 for that, after all.

 

[slugger]

a load of wacky, silly ideas
.

alittle harsh.. wacky is adding 2 extra stumps to restrict the batsmen from playing ATTACKING shots and improve the bowlers ECO RATE. after reading most your post that would probably be the sort of game youd appreciate.

edit: spelling

 

[Richard]

alittle harsh.. wacky is adding 2 extra stumps to restrict the batsmen from playing ATTACKING shots and improve the bowlers ECO RATE. after reading most your post that would probably be the sort of game youd appreciate.

Good obs, Einstein - that would make cricket so much better.

 

[FBU]

I reckon for every wicket a bowler takes, they should be allowed to bowl another over. 0 wickets - 10 over max. 1 wicket - 11 over match. 6 wickets, bowl sixteen overs my son.

That's a good idea so I doubt it will ever happen.

 

[irfan]

A couple of ideas I like to see implemented.

1. If a batsman makes a wild swing at the ball and doesn't connect than he should be penalised 1 run each time he does it. I mean if a bowler is penalised 1 run + extra deliveries for no-balls/wides why can't a batsman. The umpire will decide what constitutes a wild swing and a miss as opposed to a play and a miss.
It will force batsman to play more proper cricket shots and not go willy nilly at every ball in the first/last 10 overs. Should tilt the balance back to the bowler's slightly.

2. Hayden not allowed to score in the V between mid-off and mid-on. Double runs if he scores in the V behind the wicket. Self-explanatory, really.

 

[Richard]

An idea I'd like to see implemented.

If a batsman makes a wild swing at the ball and doesn't connect than he should be penalised 1 run each time he does it. I mean if a bowler is penalised 1 run + extra deliveries for no-balls/wides why can't a batsman. The umpire will decide what constitutes a wild swing and a miss as opposed to a play and a miss.
It will force batsman to play more proper cricket shots and not go willy nilly at every ball in the first/last 10 overs. Should tilt the balance back to the bowler's slightly.

Haha. If it was plausible, I'd love it TBH.

(TBH, though, I'll have to apologise for saying TBH to you, because I know how you hate it TBH)`

 

[Prince EWS]

A couple of ideas I like to see implemented.

1. If a batsman makes a wild swing at the ball and doesn't connect than he should be penalised 1 run each time he does it. I mean if a bowler is penalised 1 run + extra deliveries for no-balls/wides why can't a batsman. The umpire will decide what constitutes a wild swing and a miss as opposed to a play and a miss.
It will force batsman to play more proper cricket shots and not go willy nilly at every ball in the first/last 10 overs. Should tilt the balance back to the bowler's slightly.

2. Hayden not allowed to score in the V between mid-off and mid-on. Self-explanatory, really.

Nah, no run penalties. The batsman should just be out IMO.

Plays-and-misses would obviously be a totally different matter though.

 

[irfan]

Nah, no run penalties. The batsman should just be out IMO.

Plays-and-misses would obviously be a totally different matter though.

Awwwww. But then we can have batsman who have negative averages.

 

[NUFAN]

Awwwww. But then we can have batsman who have negative averages.

Imagine if Australia play Bermuda and Australia get out Bermuda in 24 overs for 82.

Australia are 1/83 off 13 overs, but we have to keep playing just in case our batsmen do a wild swing at every ball and end up losing!

 

[irfan]

Aaah. I should have said that the wild swing-run docked thing should only be applied if the target hasn't been overhauled yet. In your example, Australia have already won as they have reached the target of 83.

 

[NUFAN]

Aaah. I should have said that the wild swing-run docked thing should only be applied if the target hasn't been overhauled yet. In your example, Australia have already won as they have reached the target of 83.

So if a batsmen does a wild slog and misses and the ball hits him in the jatz crackers and he managers to scramble a single the score reads: -1 to the batsman, +1 to extras for a total of 0 runs..

 

[irfan]

So if a batsmen does a wild slog and misses and the ball hits him in the jatz crackers and he managers to scramble a single the score reads: -1 to the batsman, +1 to extras for a total of 0 runs..

Just quietly, if a batsman got hit in the 'jatz crackers' I'd think he'd have much bigger things to worry about than just how many leg-byes he managed to run of the said delivery.

Yes you're right the total is 0 runs, in the situation you described above.

One more note, the wild slog thing doesn't apply to wides as the ball is too wide to play a legitimate cricket shot.

 

[NUFAN]

Just quietly, if a batsman got hit in the 'jatz crackers' I'd think he'd have much bigger things to worry about than just how many leg-byes he managed to run of the said delivery.

Yes you're right the total is 0 runs, in the situation you described above.

One more note, the wild slog thing doesn't apply to wides as the ball is too wide to play a legitimate cricket shot.

Imagine a batsmen reaches his 100 then does a wild swing and then reaches his 100 then does a wild swing and so on..

How about a wild swing off a no ball? 1 run off the batsmen 1 extra to the total?

 

[irfan]

Imagine a batsmen reaches his 100 then does a wild swing and then reaches his 100 then does a wild swing and so on..

How about a wild swing off a no ball? 1 run off the batsmen 1 extra to the total?

Yep pretty much. I'd doubt the batsman will actually oscillate between scores if the rule was enforced. If he's sensible he'd do it once then try to play proper shots for a while thereafter. Remember the proportion of time that a proper batsman actually attempts a reckless swing is probably less than 10% and not once every couple balls as you're analogy seems to suggest.