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.
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....
Ian Botham, Freddie Flintoff, Kevin Pietersen, Brian Laudrup, Gazza and Daniela Hantuchova....a fan of you all FOREVER!!!
Can't wait to see Australia field a crap leg-spinner like Hollland or Hohns again.....
Congratulations to Daniela Hantuchova on her 3rd career title....
Bob Woolmer 1948-2007..farewell to the best coach England never had...
Arise Sir Beefy....
Pugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble, Grubb...
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.
Time: "Despite its gentlemanly manner, the sport generates tremendous passion in Britain and its former colonies."
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.
If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there will be edits
West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma
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.
I know a place where a royal flush
Can never beat a pair
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.
maybe they should stick an opposition batsman infront of the wicket and see which team winds up with the best result
you should not have bothered trying to read this...
I has got an idea for games resulting in ties:
Each team gets one over each. Six different bowlers bowl the six balls. Batting sides can nominate of course who will face the six balls.
Won't take 20 mintues, me thinks.
The bowl-out is a foolproof way of ensuring a winner and a loser - and if that's the sole purpose it works well - but there was hardly any need for a winner and a loser here. India and Pakistan had both qualified for the Super Eights by then, and there was little purpose in extending the game further. A match which was a superb - and rare - meaningful contest between bat and ball was in the end reduced into the farce of a bowler bowling at the stumps without a batsman guarding it; even Dhoni wasn't too pleased by the concept. The next step could be batsmen hitting a stationary ball and then measuring the distance travelled. If a decisive result is an absolute must - and only then - should there be a need to resort to such gimmicks. Otherwise, cricket - in any form - is better off without it.
SOURCE OF EXCERPT
Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourthcricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006
(Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)