ODI Rule Changes

[NUFAN]

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.

It's still a dire rule though.

Is it up to the umpire who suggests whether it's a wild slog or not? What happens if he's about to slog it and in doing so he hits his stumps. Is that considered -1 plus out?

 

[irfan]

I think this rule is no more worse than the whole free hit rubbish after a no-ball, I mean isn't an extra run plus delivery enough.

OK, I have changed my way of implementation of this rule.
If a batsman recklessly swings at a ball and misses and doesn't get out in the process (ie not bowled) then 1 run shall be docked off extras and not the batsman's score. So extras can be negative provided S&M (Slog & Miss) > no-balls, wides, byes, leg-byes. Which is highly unlikely IMHO. So that way the whole team pays for the batsman's mistake, rather than the batsman himself.

Yes, it's up to the umpire to decide to what constitutes a wild swing, there can be a limit based on the extent of the follow through (I.e bat ends up being parallel to the ear.)

 

[NUFAN]

I think this rule is no more worse than the whole free hit rubbish after a no-ball, I mean isn't an extra run plus delivery enough.

OK, I have changed my way of implementation of this rule.
If a batsman recklessly swings at a ball and misses and doesn't get out in the process (ie not bowled) then 1 run shall be docked off extras and not the batsman's score. So extras can be negative provided S&M (Slog & Miss) > no-balls, wides, byes, leg-byes. Which is highly unlikely IMHO. So that way the whole team pays for the batsman's mistake, rather than the batsman himself.

Yes, it's up to the umpire to decide to what constitutes a wild swing, there can be a limit based on the extent of the follow through (I.e bat ends up being parallel to the ear.)

Would love to see what gadget they would come up with on TV to determine whether it's a 'Wild Slog' or not..

BTW I think it is worse then a no ball - a no ball is illegal while a wild slog isn't and shouldn't be.

 

[irfan]

Alright then, what rule do you propose to minimise batsman dominating ODI cricket matches (besides changing the pitch conditions) ??

 

[irfan]

Would love to see what gadget they would come up with on TV to determine whether it's a 'Wild Slog' or not..

BTW I think it is worse then a no ball - a no ball is illegal while a wild slog isn't and shouldn't be.

You're right a wild slog isn't illegal, but it's an ugly part of the game - what point is there watching a batsman trying to slog a fast bowler over cow corner 6 times in an over, missing 5 times only to connect the 6th time. Atleast in baseball, the batsman would have been striked out.

 

[NUFAN]

Alright then, what rule do you propose to minimise batsman dominating ODI cricket matches (besides changing the pitch conditions) ??

Do I have to make a rule?

Who is to say batsmen are dominating currently anyways?

Given the fact that there are 300 balls being bowled and you can make 6 off each balls that gives you a 'handy' score of 1800 - teams only managing about 16% of that each innings. So that means bowlers are restricting batsmen 84% of the total possible target exlcuding no balls and wides. So maybe bowlers are dominating just not as much as before.

 

[irfan]

One-Day Internationals

Highest match aggregates

Team 1 Team 2 Runs Wkts Overs RR Ground Match Date Scorecard
South Africa Australia 872 13 99.5 8.73 Johannesburg 12 Mar 2006 ODI # 2349
New Zealand Australia 696 14 99.3 6.99 Hamilton 20 Feb 2007 ODI # 2527
Pakistan India 693 15 100.0 6.93 Karachi 13 Mar 2004 ODI # 2112
Netherlands Sri Lanka 691 19 98.3 7.01 Amstelveen 4 Jul 2006 ODI # 2390
Australia New Zealand 678 10 100.0 6.78 Perth 28 Jan 2007 ODI # 2488
New Zealand Australia 676 9 98.4 6.85 Auckland 18 Feb 2007 ODI # 2526
Australia South Africa 671 16 98.0 6.84 Basseterre 24 Mar 2007 ODI # 2552
South Africa Zimbabwe 665 9 100.0 6.65 Potchefstroom 20 Sep 2006 ODI # 2420
Pakistan Sri Lanka 664 19 99.4 6.66 Singapore 2 Apr 1996 ODI # 1088
New Zealand Australia 663 15 99.0 6.69 Christchurch 10 Dec 2005 ODI # 2303

Given the fact that the total match aggregate of runs made by both teams seems to be dominated by matches played this century, wouldn't you say batsman are dominating this decade more than the previous or is that just pure coincedence.

 

[Richard]

I think this rule is no more worse than the whole free hit rubbish after a no-ball, I mean isn't an extra run plus delivery enough.

Interesting you mention that - so far that rule has worked exactly as I'd hoped it would, and simply meant bowlers have virtually stopped bowling no-balls. So few bowlers realised the true cost of 2 or 3 - or even 1 - no-ball in a 10-over spell where every dot-ball is a plus.

Now, it seems to me, they do. Let's hope the front-foot no-ball is virtually removed from cricket thanks to this.

BTW, irfan, this thread must surely be a record for most irfan posts in?

 

[NUFAN]

Oh you don't need to show me records to realize that batsmen are scoring at a higher rate now then before. That is because batsmen are smarter now, the mindset has changed and batsmen are playing smarter cricket shots resulting in more runs being scored.

If you want to slow down the scoring. Why not let the 12th man field also..

 

[Richard]

Oh you don't need to show me records to realize that batsmen are scoring at a higher rate now then before. That is because batsmen are smarter now, the mindset has changed and batsmen are playing smarter cricket shots resulting in more runs being scored.

I disagree. You make-out like that's the only or main reason. It isn't IMO - no way. It's a small reason, perhaps responsible to a degree of 10% for the rise in scoring-rates at the 2000 to 2001 sort of time (whereas it was responsible 100% for the previous rise, in the early 1990s). The overwhelming majority of the increase has been due to the drop in bowling standards and ridiculous amount of non-bowler-friendly surfaces.

 

[irfan]

Cricket should be 11 vs. 11 - this was glaringly apparent when the supersub gimmick didn't take off. Just placing extra fielders minimises the effect a captain has on choosing clever field settings. Half of being a good captain on the field is making the best use of the resources available to you.

 

[NUFAN]

Yeah but I was debating rule changes excluding the type of pitch, so I couldn't say the batsmen friendly pitches and I couldn't possibly say teams should pick bowlers who are of equal standard to the bowlers at the start of the century.

 

[NUFAN]

Cricket should be 11 vs. 11 - this was glaringly apparent when the supersub gimmick didn't take off. Just placing extra fielders minimises the effect a captain has on choosing clever field settings. Half of being a good captain on the field is making the best use of the resources available to you.

You asked me a way to make the scores lower. I just told you a way. It's not what I would like to see. I am happy to see scores close to 300. I don't mind the occasional low scoring game though either..

 

[irfan]

So you are happy with the way ODI's are being played now ?
Heavily favoured in terms of batsman with bowlers generally being in damage control.