*i'm really sorry about the long opening thread, but gathered the information from planetcricket.com , and the information was scattered through a number of pages.
Before we begin to consider 20/20 as the game of the future check out this format for an idea.
most poeople believe the game of cricket is weighted in the favour of the skipper who wins the toss, if the day is over cast, muggey, full of sun shine, expected rain what ever you know the toss counts, it can put you in a beneficial advantage.
cricket officials have tried to balance this silghtly, by shortening the game, (20-20) this is not the answer.
i have, i think come up with a better system, basically this- once team "A" has got three wrickets, the teams swap and and team "A" begin their run chase, of course when they lose there first three wickets, then team "B" continues to set its target (maybe they still leading maybe they are not) once team "A" has got it's next three wickets, teams swap again. this continues. until both teams have batted their 50 overs out or lost all 10 wickets before the end of their 50 overs. see this systym is based loosely on baseball, it also creates extra excitment as viewer can always guage the progess of a match, no rules are changed or modified.
your team is basically devided into 3 sections. your first 2 sections are 3 wickets your 3rd and last is 4 wickets
the dude all so added examples.
everyone is little unsure of change. lets have a look at the benefits.
-score comparison, through-out game.
-set up creates a constant movement, wave of excitment and emotion for spectator and player.
-the interuptions you speak of, should be seen as part of the strategy of the game.
-conditions will have little to no bearing on out come of match.
I think we have all seen games interupted by rain delay and other un-normal delays, powered lights switching off. etc.
and many times player have returned and continued from we they have left off. test batmen do it all the time hayden and lara don't score 400 in a day.
ODI matches have created some stop-start batting big scores and cnturies. S.Fleming scored a big century against sth africa in a rain interupted world cup match. and just today a.flintoff returned to score a century from a rained off match.
i would like to give you 2 examples, straight from the icc trophey. if it was played under my verision. i have done this many times before and it always looks like it would have been a much more interesting game.
Zim vs Sri Lanka
3/47 13.04 overs. Zim.
3/54 12.0 overs. Sri lanka
6/85 26.05 overs. Zim.
6/152 36.05 overs Sri lanka
now lets stop the game there. Sri-Lanka only need 4 wickets. Zim trail by 67 runs. with 24 overs left in the bank. to be equal with sri lanka using the same amount of overs up 36.05 (10 overs) they need to score approx. 6 runs an over. as you can see the game twist and turns giving both teams a chance to rectify a postion they may have got themselves into. Also the batting order can always be adjusted as the game progesses.
lets have a look at another match.
nz vs Aust
3/49 12.06 overs NZ.
3/99 23.03 overs Aust.
6/79 21.04 overs NZ.
ok lets stop the game here, Aust did,nt lose another wicket, but lets assume they're playing my verision, and i will give Aust the score they would have set according to their runs per over from the 37.2 over they were at 199 which is 5.3 runs an over, if they had continued, they would have set 3/265. Now is'nt this an interesting match. NZ were orginally set in to sit a score, now they are chasing the score. they have 29 overs in the bank 4 wickets in hand to win they require 6.4 runs an over.
thats all i have to say. the format speaks for its self.
I think this guys on a winning formular. if you look at his examples, it clearly demonstrates the fun and exicitement cricket is, there is no need to condense it down, just break it up into smaller parts
*a closer look at an example.
NZ Vs Sth Africa
Top of the 1st. Wkts. Sth Africa.
1/7 (Klusener, 0.4 Ov) , 2/97 (Kirsten, 19.3 Ov) , 3/170 (Cullinan, 36.2 Ov)
Bottom of the 1st Wkts. NZ.
1-30 (Spearman, 6.1 Ov) , 2/60 (Young, 13.2 Ov) , 3/86 (McMillian, 17.5 Ov)
*NZ Trial by 84 Runs, with 32 Overs in the Bank.
Top of the 2nd Wkts Sth Africa.
4/197 ( (Kallis, 42.3 Ov) , 5/199 (Gibbs, 43.6 Ov) , 6/203 (Rhodes, 45.1 Ov)
Bottom of the 2nd Wkts. NZ.
4/89 (Fleming, 18.4 Ov) , 5/122 (Astle, 30.1 Ov) , 6/127 (Cairns, 32.2 Ov)
*NZ Trial 76 Runs, with 18 overs in the Bank.
Top of the Last 4 Wkts.. Sth Africa
7/211 (Cronje, 46.5 Ov) , Final Score.
7/233 (50 Ov)
Bottom of the Last 4 Wkts. NZ.
*NZ would have returned to the crease with C.Harris and A.Parore to open his account. Needing 106 to win with 18 Overs to do it in. 5.08 RPO.
Side Points:
*Under this version of the game NZ made a good come back taking the Sth Africa’s 2nd set of wickets for 6 runs.
*However Sth Africa replied and took NZ second set and maintained a healthy lead (76 runs) There could be an option in this game to ask a team to follow on if you maintain a 50 run lead over there score.
In situations like when say Australia lose there 3rd wicket on 170 in the 40th over, Bangaladesh reply and lose their 3 wicket in the 10th over while on 40 runs, Australia can force the follow on because they have a 50 run + lead.
i agree people, you can't really say yah or nah. until the game is actually played out, under those rules.
However the format really does balance the game ie wheather. it brings the bowlers into the game, you always hear the commentators saying all they need is a wicket or two and they back in this, in this format they are actually back "in this", it also highlights a real team feel, as a player you'll always be involved and spectators and fans are constantly riding a rollercoaster so to speak, batsmen are out in the middle adjusting to the situation and also having a real sense of where the score should be, do you send a batsmen in to be a "pinch hitter" sri lanka use to do this, but in this version it really does have a purpose, while you have a batsmen who well be the back bone of the innings , who will atleast still come out to bat in the 2nd fall of wickets if not the last. australia would have someone like Hayden for this NZ would have Fleming.
I would just like to add one solution for games that are going to start to look messing and lop-sided, also this will help countries understand some of the options in a test match.
that if a team has a 75 run lead over there oppostions score before they lose there 3 wicket they have the option to continue to bat.
if a team is unable to get within 75 runs before they lose their 3rd wicket of their oppostions score their oppostion can inforce a follow on.
examples below.
example1
Team A.
3/133 22nd over
Team B has to score more than 58 before they lose their 3rd wicket so they are not forced to follow on.
Team B.
3/97 17th over (trail by 36 runs)
This is straight swap, neither captain can inforce any rule.
example 2
Team A.
3/29 9th over
Team B have a great opportunity here if the can surpass team A's score by 75 run + before they lose their 3rd wicket, they could if they want continue to bat.
Team B
3/117 33rd over (lead by 88 runs)
Team B if they want could continue to bat. or swap.
What would you do?
example 3
Team A
3/152 33rd over.
Team B
3/66 17th over (trail by 86 runs)
Team A has the option to inforce the follow on, or swap.
What would you do?
Before we begin to consider 20/20 as the game of the future check out this format for an idea.
most poeople believe the game of cricket is weighted in the favour of the skipper who wins the toss, if the day is over cast, muggey, full of sun shine, expected rain what ever you know the toss counts, it can put you in a beneficial advantage.
cricket officials have tried to balance this silghtly, by shortening the game, (20-20) this is not the answer.
i have, i think come up with a better system, basically this- once team "A" has got three wrickets, the teams swap and and team "A" begin their run chase, of course when they lose there first three wickets, then team "B" continues to set its target (maybe they still leading maybe they are not) once team "A" has got it's next three wickets, teams swap again. this continues. until both teams have batted their 50 overs out or lost all 10 wickets before the end of their 50 overs. see this systym is based loosely on baseball, it also creates extra excitment as viewer can always guage the progess of a match, no rules are changed or modified.
your team is basically devided into 3 sections. your first 2 sections are 3 wickets your 3rd and last is 4 wickets
the dude all so added examples.
everyone is little unsure of change. lets have a look at the benefits.
-score comparison, through-out game.
-set up creates a constant movement, wave of excitment and emotion for spectator and player.
-the interuptions you speak of, should be seen as part of the strategy of the game.
-conditions will have little to no bearing on out come of match.
I think we have all seen games interupted by rain delay and other un-normal delays, powered lights switching off. etc.
and many times player have returned and continued from we they have left off. test batmen do it all the time hayden and lara don't score 400 in a day.
ODI matches have created some stop-start batting big scores and cnturies. S.Fleming scored a big century against sth africa in a rain interupted world cup match. and just today a.flintoff returned to score a century from a rained off match.
i would like to give you 2 examples, straight from the icc trophey. if it was played under my verision. i have done this many times before and it always looks like it would have been a much more interesting game.
Zim vs Sri Lanka
3/47 13.04 overs. Zim.
3/54 12.0 overs. Sri lanka
6/85 26.05 overs. Zim.
6/152 36.05 overs Sri lanka
now lets stop the game there. Sri-Lanka only need 4 wickets. Zim trail by 67 runs. with 24 overs left in the bank. to be equal with sri lanka using the same amount of overs up 36.05 (10 overs) they need to score approx. 6 runs an over. as you can see the game twist and turns giving both teams a chance to rectify a postion they may have got themselves into. Also the batting order can always be adjusted as the game progesses.
lets have a look at another match.
nz vs Aust
3/49 12.06 overs NZ.
3/99 23.03 overs Aust.
6/79 21.04 overs NZ.
ok lets stop the game here, Aust did,nt lose another wicket, but lets assume they're playing my verision, and i will give Aust the score they would have set according to their runs per over from the 37.2 over they were at 199 which is 5.3 runs an over, if they had continued, they would have set 3/265. Now is'nt this an interesting match. NZ were orginally set in to sit a score, now they are chasing the score. they have 29 overs in the bank 4 wickets in hand to win they require 6.4 runs an over.
thats all i have to say. the format speaks for its self.
I think this guys on a winning formular. if you look at his examples, it clearly demonstrates the fun and exicitement cricket is, there is no need to condense it down, just break it up into smaller parts
*a closer look at an example.
NZ Vs Sth Africa
Top of the 1st. Wkts. Sth Africa.
1/7 (Klusener, 0.4 Ov) , 2/97 (Kirsten, 19.3 Ov) , 3/170 (Cullinan, 36.2 Ov)
Bottom of the 1st Wkts. NZ.
1-30 (Spearman, 6.1 Ov) , 2/60 (Young, 13.2 Ov) , 3/86 (McMillian, 17.5 Ov)
*NZ Trial by 84 Runs, with 32 Overs in the Bank.
Top of the 2nd Wkts Sth Africa.
4/197 ( (Kallis, 42.3 Ov) , 5/199 (Gibbs, 43.6 Ov) , 6/203 (Rhodes, 45.1 Ov)
Bottom of the 2nd Wkts. NZ.
4/89 (Fleming, 18.4 Ov) , 5/122 (Astle, 30.1 Ov) , 6/127 (Cairns, 32.2 Ov)
*NZ Trial 76 Runs, with 18 overs in the Bank.
Top of the Last 4 Wkts.. Sth Africa
7/211 (Cronje, 46.5 Ov) , Final Score.
7/233 (50 Ov)
Bottom of the Last 4 Wkts. NZ.
*NZ would have returned to the crease with C.Harris and A.Parore to open his account. Needing 106 to win with 18 Overs to do it in. 5.08 RPO.
Side Points:
*Under this version of the game NZ made a good come back taking the Sth Africa’s 2nd set of wickets for 6 runs.
*However Sth Africa replied and took NZ second set and maintained a healthy lead (76 runs) There could be an option in this game to ask a team to follow on if you maintain a 50 run lead over there score.
In situations like when say Australia lose there 3rd wicket on 170 in the 40th over, Bangaladesh reply and lose their 3 wicket in the 10th over while on 40 runs, Australia can force the follow on because they have a 50 run + lead.
i agree people, you can't really say yah or nah. until the game is actually played out, under those rules.
However the format really does balance the game ie wheather. it brings the bowlers into the game, you always hear the commentators saying all they need is a wicket or two and they back in this, in this format they are actually back "in this", it also highlights a real team feel, as a player you'll always be involved and spectators and fans are constantly riding a rollercoaster so to speak, batsmen are out in the middle adjusting to the situation and also having a real sense of where the score should be, do you send a batsmen in to be a "pinch hitter" sri lanka use to do this, but in this version it really does have a purpose, while you have a batsmen who well be the back bone of the innings , who will atleast still come out to bat in the 2nd fall of wickets if not the last. australia would have someone like Hayden for this NZ would have Fleming.
I would just like to add one solution for games that are going to start to look messing and lop-sided, also this will help countries understand some of the options in a test match.
that if a team has a 75 run lead over there oppostions score before they lose there 3 wicket they have the option to continue to bat.
if a team is unable to get within 75 runs before they lose their 3rd wicket of their oppostions score their oppostion can inforce a follow on.
examples below.
example1
Team A.
3/133 22nd over
Team B has to score more than 58 before they lose their 3rd wicket so they are not forced to follow on.
Team B.
3/97 17th over (trail by 36 runs)
This is straight swap, neither captain can inforce any rule.
example 2
Team A.
3/29 9th over
Team B have a great opportunity here if the can surpass team A's score by 75 run + before they lose their 3rd wicket, they could if they want continue to bat.
Team B
3/117 33rd over (lead by 88 runs)
Team B if they want could continue to bat. or swap.
What would you do?
example 3
Team A
3/152 33rd over.
Team B
3/66 17th over (trail by 86 runs)
Team A has the option to inforce the follow on, or swap.
What would you do?
