Spikey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
No it doesn't.
Well.
It reduces the incentive for some middle order batsman to develop some dart 'spin bowling'. But that'd be a good thing anyway.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Time to get rid of over limits in short forms of the game?
- Thread starter Debris
- Start date
No it doesn't.
Well.
It reduces the incentive for some middle order batsman to develop some dart 'spin bowling'. But that'd be a good thing anyway.
Agent Nationaux
International Coach
Cabinet96
Global Moderator
As an England fan I'm desperate for one of our good batsmen to be able to bowl a bit of medium pace. Even if it's only as good as Bopara's (who England don't have confidence to make a 5th bowler) I'd be happy.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
I remember we had this discussion previously on CW. I am in extreme support for the idea.
There is no benefit of the viewing public in seeing part-timers bowl when they could easily have the opportunity of seeing an extra 2-3 overs from the best bowlers in the team taking on the best batsmen. That is what the whole sport is about ffs.
There is no benefit of the viewing public in seeing part-timers bowl when they could easily have the opportunity of seeing an extra 2-3 overs from the best bowlers in the team taking on the best batsmen. That is what the whole sport is about ffs.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Getting rid of over limits altogether would be completely ridiculous IMO but I can definitely see merit loosening the restrictions a bit like they've done in Australian domestic cricket.
What we do have to be mindful of, though, is that teams can always benefit from greater batting depth. If we tell teams that they essentially only need four bowlers and they find their fourth bowler is generally just getting milked through the middle overs period, they'll drop that bowler for a specialist later order hitter, bat more aggressively through their innings and use part-timers to do a similar job anyway, like they've learnt to do with their fifth bowler.
Limited overs cricket is contrived by nature so we do have to accept some restrictions on the bowlers to accept what we consider a proper balance, else teams could really stack the batting. I do agree that we've over-regulated to some extent though. Allowing bowlers to bowl 12 instead would be a step in the right direction.
What we do have to be mindful of, though, is that teams can always benefit from greater batting depth. If we tell teams that they essentially only need four bowlers and they find their fourth bowler is generally just getting milked through the middle overs period, they'll drop that bowler for a specialist later order hitter, bat more aggressively through their innings and use part-timers to do a similar job anyway, like they've learnt to do with their fifth bowler.
Limited overs cricket is contrived by nature so we do have to accept some restrictions on the bowlers to accept what we consider a proper balance, else teams could really stack the batting. I do agree that we've over-regulated to some extent though. Allowing bowlers to bowl 12 instead would be a step in the right direction.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
I can understand the reasoning for restrictions, but I wouldn't want it to be like a lot of English league cricket, where there is no restrictions.
Lets say you made it 11 or 12 overs, would be interesting to see exactly how much toll would be taken on the fifth bowler. Probably just try and line them up for 10+ per over, when the fifth bowler was required.
Lets say you made it 11 or 12 overs, would be interesting to see exactly how much toll would be taken on the fifth bowler. Probably just try and line them up for 10+ per over, when the fifth bowler was required.
Cabinet96
Global Moderator
Inclined to agree with Vic. I wouldn't want them to get rid of them completely as you'd get spinners bowling in excess of 20 overs. Allowing a few more overs for the top bowlers would make the batsmen target the 5th bowler more though IMO.
There's little I find more frustrating, as a young fast bowler, than medium pacers bowling 25 overs on the dot while I bowl 4.
There's little I find more frustrating, as a young fast bowler, than medium pacers bowling 25 overs on the dot while I bowl 4.
BoyBrumby
Englishman
It's a legitimate worry, but one could easily make the same argument about first class or test cricket too and teams very rarely stack the batting to such an extent that they only have three specialist bowlers.
In tests the only occasion I can think of is Australia nominally playing Cam White as the specialist spinner on a tour of India.
Coaches generally are far more clued up about workload management too, so if three bowlers would ever have to shoulder the burden of 50 overs between them we'd see a lot more rotation too.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Yeah, but the difference between the effectiveness of part-time accurate dart bowlers in the middle overs of a one dayer and proper bowlers is much less than that of the difference between such bowlers and proper bowlers in First Class cricket. My point was that if teams can get away with it, they will, and often isn't that hard for a batsman who can bowl accurately to do a decent impression of a real bowler in the middle overs of one day cricket. I certainly think attacking the problem by trying to make that sort of bowling less effective makes more sense than removing the need for them, because I think we'd end up with such bowlers anyway as teams would do away with the fourth bowler and extend the batting if they could.
Last edited:
TNT
Banned
One good thing about a team needing five bowlers keeps the need for quality batsmen. If a team could get away with only three or four bowlers then there would be the temptation to stack the side with sloggers knowing that you only need two or three to have a good day. This would make it harder for a genuine batsman to keep his place because the reward for risk by having batsmen like Afridi who are hit and miss becomes a bit more palatable.
NasserFan207
International Vice-Captain
This seems overly complicated. Crowds struggle enough with changing rules in limited overs as is.
Arachnodouche
International Captain
I'm sure you must sound good saying this with the pompous English accent and all, but do you actually talk like this in real life too? That would be so awesome
50 overs are good, add a dimension to the game. Seeing as how most part timers are spinners, it would make more sense to do away with pitches that offer any kind of turn in ODIs. Make them greentops so you can have only the best spinners succeed, and the quick men doing well for a change.
EDIT: Also, have teams nominate their five bowlers for the day at the outset and then give the captains the leverage of giving a couple of them more overs than ten to make up for the out-of-form bowler for the day. You can play with various permutations therein.
I also wonder when this part timer scourge first showed up. Was it the '96 WC, when going berserk at the top first made an appearance? I don't remember trundlers being so heavily involved in the make up before that.
Last edited:
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I think it's time to remove the time limits too, far too restrictive. Should be allowed to play for about 5 days in my opinion. While they're at it they should also remove the over limits for each team. But they could allow each team two innings each.
Debris
International 12th Man
Why stop at 5 days, sounds too restrictive. Surely it makes more sense to allow as much time as needed to complete 2 innings.