Bowl-Outs

[Richard]

Bowl-outs are crap (not that I care much if it's in a Twenty20, but I would if it were ever required in a ODI), mainly for the reasons Fuller and JASON mentioned, but does anyone have a better suggestion (aside from number-of-wickets which IMO should be used, but can also be equal so still needs something else after it)?

Not sure about Gelman's idea of most sixes - runs are runs IMO, regardless of denomination and to win a game on that seems to me even worse than winning (or, more significantly, losing) it on a bowl-out.

If there must be a means to force a result, I can't see a better method than a bowl-out. Unless you were to have a complete replay which has its own massive complications (not least time-consuming wise).

 

[Athlai]

Bowl-outs are crap (not that I care much if it's in a Twenty20, but I would if it were ever required in a ODI), mainly for the reasons Fuller and JASON mentioned, but does anyone have a better suggestion (aside from number-of-wickets which IMO should be used, but can also be equal so still needs something else after it)?

Not sure about Gelman's idea of most sixes - runs are runs IMO, regardless of denomination and to win a game on that seems to me even worse than winning (or, more significantly, losing) it on a bowl-out.

If there must be a means to force a result, I can't see a better method than a bowl-out. Unless you were to have a complete replay which has its own massive complications (not least time-consuming wise).

2 extra overs a side, 2-4 batsman, and the most runs scored.

 

[Richard]

Basically... let's play another new game! Two2!

TBH it'd probably be preferable to a bowl-out, but it still has its reductio-ad-absurdum drawbacks.

 

[Athlai]

Basically... let's play another new game! Two2!

They want excitement, we'll give them excitement.

 

[Richard]

Hey, I tell you what, too long, this cricket lark... let's just make it nice and simple... let's have 1 ball from 1 bowler to 1 batsman, and whoever hits it furthest wins.

 

[Athlai]

Hey, I tell you what, too long, this cricket lark... let's just make it nice and simple... let's have 1 ball from 1 bowler to 1 batsman, and whoever hits it furthest wins.

Simpler than that would be just watching a blank screen. Neh?

 

[Chubby Rain]

I like the concept. If bowlers cannot hit the stumps once in 3 tries without a batsman blocking the ball, they need to have another think. It tests the nerves more than anything else. Keep it in the Twenty20 format.

 

[IndianByHeart]

MS Dhoni is the first captain ever to won a match on bowl out and he has clearly shown his dislike towards it .I would be surprise in any captain would come up with a strong support for bowl outs.

 

[Athlai]

MS Dhoni is the first captain ever to won a match on bowl out and he has clearly shown his dislike towards it .I would be surprise in any captain would come up with a strong support for bowl outs.

Stephen Fleming was the first captain to ever win a bowl out. Jeez. This is the second one to ever happen in T20 internationals and first in the WC.

 

[Speersy]

I liked watching it, but I think it should have just been a draw.

My Idea
If its in the knock out rounds then, the team with the highest NRR progresses.
In the case of the Final being drawn, then we can have a bowl off. I some how doubt that would happen more than once every 20 years though.

 

[Athlai]

I liked watching it, but I think it should have just been a draw.

My Idea
If its in the knock out rounds then, the team with the highest NRR progresses.
In the case of the Final being drawn, then we can have a bowl off. I some how doubt that would happen more than once every 20 years though.

It goes down in the record books as a tie, but for tournament purposes (or series purposes) the win goes to the winner of the bowl out, so India came away with 2 tournament points in this case, but otherwise it WAS a tie.

 

[Julian87]

I think a catch out would be the way to go. Boundary style catches with some sort of way to get the same trajectory i=on each ball. 5 players from each team, just like soccer shoot outs and then sudden death after that.

I mean imagine having to catch that ball.

 

[Poker Boy]

Donald and Klusner would have LOVED a bowl out in the 99 WC SF but for a group game it was crap.Just let it be a tie. They've had bowl outs in English domestic cricket for a while when rain has allowed no play. Four examples in the early 90s were Hertfordshire v Derbyshire and Surrey v Oxfordshire in 1991 NWT (in all cases the first named team won) and Derbyshire v Somerset and Warwickshire v Kent in the 1993 and 1994 B&H Cup . The ECB seem less keen on them now - it rained for two days in a Yorkshire v Surey SF in 2002 and instead of a bowl out the ECB bent their own rules and let the game be rearranged. Thought. If you think bowl outs are crap it could be worse. I'm sure there was a B&H game between Middlesex and Worcs where they couldn't play on any of the three days allocated so they had a toss of a coin to decide! (Middx won it). I'm sure a bowl out is preferable to that....

 

[Speersy]

I don't think we need to go down the same path as footall. If there NEEDS to be a winner it should be decided on their ability to play cricket, cause thats what game they are playing, not lawn bowls.

 

[Goughy]

Ive no issue with them being used for an elimination game. But for a group game just split the points.

As a concept it isnt too bad at all. Its just being used as a tie break and there is a cricket related skill involved.

 

[Turbinator]

Ive no issue with them being used for an elimination game. But for a group game just split the points.

As a concept it isnt too bad at all. Its just being used as a tie break and there is a cricket related skill involved.

Completely awta. There IS a cricket related skill involved.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

That's just rubbish. It is absolutely not a test of cricketing skill. There is no part of the game in which bowling and hitting the stumps without a batsman to defend them is required, and in fact the sort of deliveries one might bowl in a bowl off would likely be hit for six under normal circumstances. It really boggles the mind that cricket fans would attempt to defend such a ridiculous concept.

Penalty shootouts are a bad part of football, but they are a necessary evil, and penalty taking is a relevant skill. Bowl offs in cricket are unnecessary, and you may as well decide the game by arm wrestling or a foot race. Both involve abilities which have some connection to being good at cricket, but neither are cricket skills.

And really, the emergence of the bowl-out is testament to the poisonous nature of the attitude surrounding 20/20 - that our game is fundamentally dull and must be artifically hyped up to appeal to fans with short attention spans.

 

[irfan]

If you're gonna have a bowl out you should have some sort of minimum speed limit on how fast you have to bowl the ball (say 100 km/h - spinners have to bowl quicker balls.) I think that way it increases the difficulty component on hitting the stumps as then you can't have something like Powar's rainmakers practically dropping on the stumps.

Only limitation is the availability of the speed gun on all grounds, but if they can afford a six distance measurer they can surely have a speed gun.

 

[The_Bunny]

That's just rubbish. It is absolutely not a test of cricketing skill. There is no part of the game in which bowling and hitting the stumps without a batsman to defend them is required, and in fact the sort of deliveries one might bowl in a bowl off would likely be hit for six under normal circumstances. It really boggles the mind that cricket fans would attempt to defend such a ridiculous concept.

Penalty shootouts are a bad part of football, but they are a necessary evil, and penalty taking is a relevant skill. Bowl offs in cricket are unnecessary, and you may as well decide the game by arm wrestling or a foot race. Both involve abilities which have some connection to being good at cricket, but neither are cricket skills.

And really, the emergence of the bowl-out is testament to the poisonous nature of the attitude surrounding 20/20 - that our game is fundamentally dull and must be artifically hyped up to appeal to fans with short attention spans.

Just imagine.. Mat Hayden v Freddie Flintoff in an arm wrestle for the twenty20 WC

 

[andruid]

maybe they should stick an opposition batsman infront of the wicket and see which team winds up with the best result