New balls from both ends in ODIs

[6ry4nj]

I think spinners usually like harder ball, easier to grip. I don't think it would affect a lot. As currently the ball is changed at 34th over anyway.

The ball change at 34 overs is for another ball that is 34 overs old! It doesn't make any difference to hardness, turn etc. - it's purely for visibility reasons.

This is a dumb idea. For now I refuse to believe they're actually gonna do it. It's starting to look like they release dumb ideas now and again, purely to distract people from them going back on the last dumb idea they released (ie. non-qualifiable 2015 World Cup)

 

[BKB1991]

Um, excuse me for sounding like an absolute idiot, but I really dont get this rule. Care to explain anyone?

 

[shravi]

Um, excuse me for sounding like an absolute idiot, but I really dont get this rule. Care to explain anyone?

End #1: Ball #1
End #2: Ball #2

 

[Cricketman]

This rule is stupid. Death over bowling and the role of spinners will be virtually history.

 

[Ollie_H]

The ball change at 34 overs is for another ball that is 34 overs old! It doesn't make any difference to hardness, turn etc. - it's purely for visibility reasons.

34 over old ball that has been refurbished so polished up and all that jazz. So it's a fake 34 over old ball cos whilst it may have been used for that amount of time, it won't perform or look like it.

 

[sifter132]

I think they just polish up the T20 balls a bit don't they? So they are really 20 over balls that get introduced at the 34 over mark. So by the end of 50 overs you'd have a 36 over old ball (20 overs originally + 16 overs of use). So yeah, they are a bit harder than the balls they replace, it's mentioned often by captains.

This rule is stupid. Death over bowling and the role of spinners will be virtually history.

I don't see why. Death over bowling doesn't change whether you are using a 35 over old ball or a 25 overs old ball (watch T20 and tell me that death bowling is dead because the balls are only 20 overs old). You might get less reverse at the end with these new rules. But maybe you'll get more because the team will get 25 overs with the same ball and will be able to work on it throughout the innings, unlike the current rule where you get thrown a random ball 15 overs before the end - that doesn't help reverse much...But anyway even if the ball does reverse less, then that arguably means that your death bowling will need to be even better than it used to be.

As for spinners, well who knows?? Spinners didn't have problems bowling with the new ball in the last world cup. They might get used in slightly different circumstances but I'd be surprised if spinners stopped being picked just because the balls are going to be slightly newer.

 

[Chewie]

34 over old ball that has been refurbished so polished up and all that jazz. So it's a fake 34 over old ball cos whilst it may have been used for that amount of time, it won't perform or look like it.

I was of the understanding that they only do that for balls that have been used for more than 34 overs so that it performs like it had been used for 34 overs. Similarly for balls that hadn't been used for 34 overs, they roughen them up a bit.

 

[angryangy]

You do see balls reversing for 5 to 10 overs before the mandatory change. I think it all works out about the same in that regard, but it's funny to think that many are worried about reverse and perhaps not noticing that new ball bowling is at much greater risk of dying. Reverse swing is usually a bit of a Pyrrhic victory; to get the ball to reverse the bowlers usually endure some punishment from the batsmen while the ball erodes. If you get 3 or 4 wickets with the new ball, you don't necessarily need to be saved at the death and if it's because they were able to get 10 overs of new ball swing, then what's the big deal?

As for spin, the short answer is no. Completely unfounded fears, akin to what was said about Twenty20 being the death of spinners.

 

[Owzat]

I'd like to see each bowling side get two (new) balls at the start of an innings in TESTS, to use as they see fit.

Not so sure it will improve ODIs, better pitches that produce a better contest between bat and ball would be a better way forward. Sounds to me like someone recognised ODIs favoured the batting too much and is doing something (token) to redress the balance

 

[darthlewis1]

Correct me if I'm wrong but this decision is for visability reasons so why not use pink or orange balls? They're just as easy to see compared to the white ball and they don't get as scuffed up as the white ball. I use orange balls when I play in coloured clothing and you can see it perfectly in the latter over's despite being quite scuffed up.

 

[BKB1991]

End #1: Ball #1
End #2: Ball #2

So basically they get a new ball at over 1 and then another new ball at over 2? Over 3 they bowl with ball 1 and over 2 with ball 2?

 

[Paki007]

yUP!

i think real pacy bowlers like Tait(who's the only one now) Will enjoy bowling according to this rule but for being a Pakistani i don't think it's gonna help us because We heavily depend on Reverse swing and As Akhtar retired and Aamir is banned we hardly have a real fast bowler

----------

The only change that i liked in recent time is the Super sub rule.I loved that rule.Can anybody tell me why that rule was Dismissed? I hardly saw Pakistan Playing With Super Sub

 

[Owzat]

Correct me if I'm wrong but this decision is for visability reasons

Batsmen don't seem to have much problem seeing the ball when scoring 300+ which is getting to be about par if not already par.

Can't be a fielding visability problem, I don't recall too many instances where they lose sight of the ball.

 

[aussie1st]

This should be better than changing the ball after the 34th over mark. Now the fielding side knows if they can get reverse swing early then it will go all the way through.

 

[Owzat]

Correct me if I'm wrong but this decision is for visability reasons so why not use pink or orange balls?

I caught a bit of 'reasoning' the other day, can't remember if it was TV or radio. They were saying one of the reasons is to try and redress the balance between bat and ball, a variety of pitches instead of batting friendly ones might go a long way towards that - and a few changes to the rules that don't favour the batting side like powerplays.

Leave a bit more grass on the pitches and make them with more variable bounce, make boundaries longer, revert to the RED ball which there doesn't seem to have been huge problems seeing during Tests where the ball isn't usually changed for 80 overs, reduce fielding restrictions and problems solved.

The problem for me is mentality of the powers that be, thinking that to make cricket entertaining you need sixes and fours and totals of 300+ Best contests for me in any form of cricket are where runs are earned, where batsmen play and miss and the ball doesn't fly all over the place with fielders forceably inside the ring. All it needs is some movement in delivery and the game becomes way more interesting, get tailenders in batting more and with the choice of hanging around to try and grind out an extra 10-15 runs or have a bash and try to add 30+ runs in the same short remaining time.

Some will argue better bowling pitches mean easy wickets for bowlers, but they still have to bowl well and the fielding side has to take its catches. Batsmen earn their runs, none of this run a ball a lot of the time. Give me the choice between a batting pair swinging the ball away for fours and sixes on the way to 90/0 and a lot of edges and streaky runs as the batting side gets to 45/3 off the same number of overs and I'd take the latter for entertainment. Save the sixes and fours for those who love T20 who've probably only taken a bit of time away from their x-box to see what new shots they want to emulate