Should the Batting Powerplay be compulsory?

[vcs]

Problem then is that a) it makes it easier for other teams bowling at India and b) a lot of India's batsmen didn't exactly cover themselves in glory in South Africa.

Our batsmen certainly won't pile up 275+ in every game and our reliance on Tendulkar and Kohli will increase. But we did get to a WC final in SA losing only to the eventual champions during the event, even though it was a long time back..

Anyway, relatively bowler-friendly wickets in India won't look anything like the ones in SA in terms of pace and bounce, it would be more like the one we saw when India played Australia in the warmup game.

The problem with making bowler-friendly wickets in ODIs is that, all too often, one team gets to have the best of the conditions and it leaves a slightly bitter taste in the mouth. That doesn't tend to happen in Test cricket because the match is over five days. The easy solution is to prepare a road that lasts 100 overs.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

What I love about cricket is that it's probably the most uncertain, strategic and pressured sport in the world because it contains so much variety. So by taking more and more decisions away from the teams and instead making them compulsory like fielding restrictions and power plays, reduces the uncertainty, pressure and doesn't allow strategically superior teams to benefit.

 

[Jarquis]

It's a perfect example of road of a pitch TBH. Those pitches kill the game. I'd take tied game of 238 runs over a 338 run one any day of the week.

Why? Personally I don't care what the scores are, close competitive cricket is great regardless. If the game was 400 vs 400 it'd be considered a great game and if it was 118 vs 118 it would too in my eyes.

 

[Burgey]

You shouldn't have to take it in a block. Makes players think more.

 

[Burgey]

I hope the pitches offer a bit more to the bowlers as the tournament progresses. I don't think playing on pitches like this is in India's best interests, it ruthlessly exposes their mediocre attack.

What will pitches with more in them do to their strength, which is their batting?

 

[vcs]

What will pitches with more in them do to their strength, which is their batting?

See #21.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Someone said on Sunday's commentary (might have been Shastri) that had Dhoni brought the field in of his own volition when they were forced to come in for the batting PP he'd have been called a genius.

I think they should be compulsory, but it's amazing how often they seem to benefit the fielding side more. Who'd have thought taking wickets rather than stopping runs would have been an effective tactic, eh?

As a related aside, if the fielding side opt not to take the bowling PP in overs 11-15, can the batting PP be called before it? Can't ever recall it happening.

 

[Howe_zat]

As a related aside, if the fielding side opt not to take the bowling PP in overs 11-15, can the batting PP be called before it? Can't ever recall it happening.

Found the current rules here. Seems bowling PP doesn't have to be before batting, but the 41st over at the latest if neither side claims it. (section 41.2)

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

I would really like to see some imagination shown with this.

Say a side is 90/0 after 10 overs and the fielding captain elects not to take the bowling PP. The batting captain can take the batting PP and avoid losing momentum. So often have sides got off to such starts and then lose all the momentum after having to change the game plan. Also by taking the batting PP before the bowling PP, you put all the pressure back on the fielding captain. Does he take it after the 15 over when the batting team are 130/0?

The problem with the way batting PP is used is that there is no imagination shown what so ever, it's predictable and captains can sort out a bowling plan before the match even starts. If you do something out of the ordinary, then you can mess with that game plan.

 

[Cruxdude]

Really love the Batting power play rule. Makes the game awesomely dynamic and works both ways. Still remember the Albie Morkel innings in Australia where they were so behind the required rate in both the games and suddenly won it. And the India England match who would have thought it would be a tie when Strauss and Bell were batting. With the batting power play there were no easy singles and then batsmen new to the crease had to hit out.

They should be compulsory.

 

[marc71178]

I think they should be compulsory, but it's amazing how often they seem to benefit the fielding side more.

Indeed. On Sunday I said to my mate that we shouldn't take the PP until as late as possible owing to how badly we bat during it - but then again the over before the PP we'd lost the momentum to a degree so maybe it was the right time to take it?

Artificial though it is, it does add to the game.

 

[Jono]

They shouldn't be compulsory for the batting team. I think them not being compulsory wouldn't necessarily take away any excitement from the game, or the strategy.

Firstly, it'll be uncommon for teams to actually be advantaged to not take the batting PP at all during the innings. The England game was an example, but a rare one. And when it occurs, there would be debate as to whether it should or shouldn't.

 

[Bun]

Really love the Batting power play rule. Makes the game awesomely dynamic and works both ways. Still remember the Albie Morkel innings in Australia where they were so behind the required rate in both the games and suddenly won it. And the India England match who would have thought it would be a tie when Strauss and Bell were batting. With the batting power play there were no easy singles and then batsmen new to the crease had to hit out.

They should be compulsory.

This.

To the haters, deal with it.

 

[Borges]

As it stands now, we have 10 overs of mandatory power play, 5 overs of compulsory batting power play, 5 overs of compulsory fielding power play, and zero to 30 overs of 'optional' fielding power play.

If the batting power play is made optional, and the batting side does not take it because is it clearly disadvantageous for them to do so, a good fielding captain will just bring the fielders up, and it would still be a power play in everything but name.

Perhaps not making it compulsory is a good idea; it might encourage captains to think on their feet rather than just follow pre-planned strategies.

 

[Debris]

It should be compulsory.

I'm surprised more teams don't take it from overs 15-20, giving you one 20 over PP. Saves the trouble of having to start hitting again.

You also have a good chance of having top-order batsman in who are used to batting under PP conditions.

 

[Jono]

Really love the Batting power play rule. Makes the game awesomely dynamic and works both ways. Still remember the Albie Morkel innings in Australia where they were so behind the required rate in both the games and suddenly won it. And the India England match who would have thought it would be a tie when Strauss and Bell were batting. With the batting power play there were no easy singles and then batsmen new to the crease had to hit out.

They should be compulsory.

This.

To the haters, deal with it.

Uhh, missing the point. No one is saying the batting team can't have the power play. But if it is not in their best interests to do so, why should htey have to?

Regarding no easy singles, Dhoni could have just brought in the field for ****'s sake. Instead he fluked it by being lucky that England had to call the powerplay and then choked.

 

[Furball]

As a related aside, if the fielding side opt not to take the bowling PP in overs 11-15, can the batting PP be called before it? Can't ever recall it happening.

I think the West Indies did it in one of the ODIs last time we went out there. Gayle went ****ing crazy in the first 10 overs (IIRC he was on 70 or 80 odd after 10), England didn't call the bowling PP so Gayle called the batting one.

 

[Uppercut]

It would need to be an extremely rare and bizarre circumstance for not taking the batting powerplay at any stage to be the right strategy. So I don't think it makes any difference whether it's compulsory or not.

 

[Shri]

Remember the time when terms like powerplay, free hit, beamer etc. used to be alien? Just remembered.

 

[irottev]

I don't see much reason to make it optional myself. Field up always seems better IMO.