Second Spitter
State Vice-Captain
All T20 cricket should be play over 5 days, with a minimum of 90 overs each day and the batting team getting two turns at bat.
Definitely agree with C. Not so much B though. All you're going to do is encourage negative bowling.I'd like to see all of these given a try, but not necessarily at the same time
a) Return to uncovered wickets
b) Removal of the restriction on fielders behind square on the leg side (but not to encourage a return to Bodyline)
c) Change the lbw law to allow the batsman to be dismissed if the ball pitches outside leg stump
d) Return to the back foot no ball law
I would get behind such a move. Revolutionary.All T20 cricket should be play over 5 days, with a minimum of 90 overs each day and the batting team getting two turns at bat.
Not really though. The ball still has to hit the pad in line with the stumps to be out so it's not like you can bowl from way outside leg and get lbws, unless the batsman isn't offering a shot which we don't want to encourage anyway. We want to encourage batsman to have to play at balls that pitch outside leg from the spinners don't we?Do you have any idea how boring cricket will become if you can get out lbw when the ball pitches outside leg? Might be worth looking into where a batsman isn't playing a shot, but even then you'd just have stacked leg side fields and bowling a boring, dry line all day in the hope someone misses one.
You're right to be skeptical, that's a really stupid theory. If you want to test the theory go and bowl full just outside leg-stump to quality batsmen and see what happens.From what I've learnt from ICC Umpires, a human in a batting stance will have a blind spot roughly around the area for fullish deliveries outside legstump. (Get into a batting stance and try it out). Therefore, if you could get batsmen out LBW with deliveries that pitched there, it could potentially be a gamebreaking strategy, with fast bowlers bowling around the wicket (or over the wicket to the opposite handed batsmen) and targeting that area.
I don't know if this is true but that's a theory I've heard.
I honestly wouldn't make many changes to the game itself. But I would love to make massive changes to the way cricket is structured, and how it is sold to the fans. You need to have access to a dozen different channels (some of which are region blocked) in order to be able to watch most of the cricket that happens, and if you miss the game live then you basically can't watch it anymore outside of highlight packages. And when you do get to watch it, you have to deal with unprofessional, unprepared commentary teams and intrusive ad breaks. And a complete dearth of meaningful analysis and statistics.
Cricket doesn't make it easy or insightful to watch and we wonder why the sport is dying. Cricket isn't a sport for thrill-a-minute action. It's one for analysis and reflection and studying strategy and trends. But it's trying so hard to market itself as something it isn't, instead of fulling embracing what it is.
Just look how fantastically MLB is run. Cricket and baseball are so similar. Baseball style coverage, access and statistics for cricket would be incredible. Would enhance the viewing experience so much. I guarantee that would bring more fans back into the sport than attempting to play T20s in USA or Shanghai.
The thing is, there is definitely some sort of blind spot, but its always easy enough to open your stance or move your head slightly to see the ball.You're right to be skeptical, that's a really stupid theory. If you want to test the theory go and bowl full just outside leg-stump to quality batsmen and see what happens.
In all honesty I don't think it's completely stupid. There is definitely somewhat of a "blind spot" but not enough to be determining an lbw lawThe thing is, there is definitely some sort of blind spot, but its always easy enough to open your stance or move your head slightly to see the ball.
I don't know if this theory holds up when speeds reach in excess of 75 mph. I've never faced any bowling that quick. So I'm skeptical, but I want to hear from top batsmen if there is some sort of blindspot there that they acknowledge, and that to face that pace in that area they need to shift from a 'normal' batting stance.
Jarrod Kimber had the idea of a cricket.tv sort of site where you had access to basically any cricket that was being played anywhere..you just had to watch what you wanted..I honestly wouldn't make many changes to the game itself. But I would love to make massive changes to the way cricket is structured, and how it is sold to the fans. You need to have access to a dozen different channels (some of which are region blocked) in order to be able to watch most of the cricket that happens, and if you miss the game live then you basically can't watch it anymore outside of highlight packages. And when you do get to watch it, you have to deal with unprofessional, unprepared commentary teams and intrusive ad breaks. And a complete dearth of meaningful analysis and statistics.
Cricket doesn't make it easy or insightful to watch and we wonder why the sport is dying. Cricket isn't a sport for thrill-a-minute action. It's one for analysis and reflection and studying strategy and trends. But it's trying so hard to market itself as something it isn't, instead of fulling embracing what it is.
Just look how fantastically MLB is run. Cricket and baseball are so similar. Baseball style coverage, access and statistics for cricket would be incredible. Would enhance the viewing experience so much. I guarantee that would bring more fans back into the sport than attempting to play T20s in USA or Shanghai.
Amen to the tv one, but Englishmen will certainly be banned from using it due to our greedy paywalling companies and the ECB idiots!! You know what I predict happening in England soon? Pay-per-view cricket. Pay your £19 for the Ashes. It is inevitable really when you look at the track record of sky.From what I've learnt from ICC Umpires, a human in a batting stance will have a blind spot roughly around the area for fullish deliveries outside legstump. (Get into a batting stance and try it out). Therefore, if you could get batsmen out LBW with deliveries that pitched there, it could potentially be a gamebreaking strategy, with fast bowlers bowling around the wicket (or over the wicket to the opposite handed batsmen) and targeting that area.
I don't know if this is true but that's a theory I've heard.
I honestly wouldn't make many changes to the game itself. But I would love to make massive changes to the way cricket is structured, and how it is sold to the fans. You need to have access to a dozen different channels (some of which are region blocked) in order to be able to watch most of the cricket that happens, and if you miss the game live then you basically can't watch it anymore outside of highlight packages. And when you do get to watch it, you have to deal with unprofessional, unprepared commentary teams and intrusive ad breaks. And a complete dearth of meaningful analysis and statistics.
Cricket doesn't make it easy or insightful to watch and we wonder why the sport is dying. Cricket isn't a sport for thrill-a-minute action. It's one for analysis and reflection and studying strategy and trends. But it's trying so hard to market itself as something it isn't, instead of fulling embracing what it is.
Just look how fantastically MLB is run. Cricket and baseball are so similar. Baseball style coverage, access and statistics for cricket would be incredible. Would enhance the viewing experience so much. I guarantee that would bring more fans back into the sport than attempting to play T20s in USA or Shanghai.
This.The change I'd like to see is taking away the boundary rope in favour of the fence.
The main benefit is that it gives the umpire more time to watch the ball and allows the call to made earlier. Although this is slightly offset by having to move one's vision further - you'll notice that umpires in older matches often stand further back and more side on, and move into position.@fredfertang what's the benefit you see from moving to back to the back foot no ball law?
I must admit that no balls do annoy me if for no other reason than they are just so unnecessary - but the cases where batsmen are dismissed and then called back for a front foot no ball the umpire missed are what really hack me off - I didn't mind so much to start with because I thought bowlers would learn, but they don't seem to have. So what I'd like to see is a system like hawk eye making an infallible early call which gives a batsman a free hit, on the basis that bowlers might take some notice of being slapped around@fredfertang what's the benefit you see from moving to back to the back foot no ball law?
Can't believe it took this long for someone to point this out.My objection to modifying the l.b.w. rule to allow deliveries pitching outside leg is rather simpler: that's where the batsman's legs are. To be hit on the legs outside off, on the other hand, one has to actually move one's legs across the pitch into the line of the delivery. I've seen video, as an example of this sort of thing, of left-handed batsmen being given out to Curtley Ambrose when the ball was pitching outside leg, and bowling to opposite-handed batsmen in longer forms may become quite negative.
Why on earth would you want this? Would put the fielders at a higher risk of injury and we'd see fewer awesome diving stops and catches on the boundary.The change I'd like to see is taking away the boundary rope in favour of the fence.
To compensate for bigger bats and give spinners a realistic option of placing fielders in the deep to encourage stroke play against the opportunity of getting a wicket caught in the deep. I'm not sure you could quantify the injury risk and great fielding on the boundary will still occur irrespective of where it is located.Why on earth would you want this? Would put the fielders at a higher risk of injury and we'd see fewer awesome diving stops and catches on the boundary.
A larger minimum boundary size would be better.