ODI rules - going back to the basics

[surendar]

but it's weird. the batsmen don't get told they can only face 60 balls, imagine how much fairer it would be is steyn is bowling brilliantly for his first 4 overs but instead of smith having to call him out the attack because he wants to keep him just in case the opposition get a partnership together in the middle overs or he wants to restrict at the death hen just lets him bowl on. instead of rubbishy players who are sloggers and half decent trundlers you'd get the 6 best batsmen and wicket keeper and the 4 best bowlers.

the tactical element wouldn't be lost, you'd still have to work out if 4 bowlers is enough or play safe and take a 5th but giving teams the decision is another choice they'd make. as it is they're all forced to bowl sub-par bowlers that the batsmen can batter.

ajmal has been unplayable, he could probably bowl 20 overs in a match, why should south africa be given the luxury of avoiding him for 10 when he could be bowling when pakistan would not be given the same luxury if de villiers is hammering them to all corners?

it means more of the best bowlers bowling at the best batsmen, could only be good for the quality of the cricket and would go a little way to make things fairer.

Well, I always believe - only when you have restrictions/rules, human mind starts thinking more on exploring options/strategies making a tough challenge on the situation.

Ajmal bowling 20 overs just sounds similar to allow a batsman to bat twice just because he is the best. Taking wickets & restricting the batsmen in unlimited quota of overs is less challenging for a bowler himself than taking wickets/restricting the runs within a spell of 10 overs, in terms of exploring various tactical options.

 

[CG123]

10 overs/bowler actually looks fine, as the real contest & challenge is to complete that 5th bowler quota for many teams. This has been making the bat vs ball contest interesting till now.

I agree with this, 10 overs is a good restriction. One mistake and a batsman's game is over, while a bowler can still bowl for 10 overs despite making multiple mistakes. Therefore there's nothing wrong with batsmen having the ability to bat for longer than 10 overs, because of the downside of getting out early.

Get rid of the batting powerplay though, and just go back to a 15 over powerplay at the start of the innings. That will gives teams enough time to have a look for several overs, and then still have time to generate a strike rate with the field up.

 

[MUFC1987]

Bring it back to just being one ball. One ball at each end doesn't do any more at the start, whilst providing a harder ball at the end for batsmen to smack wherever they want. When we had just one ball, teams were getting it to reverse later in the game and it was going softer meaning that it's harder to hit.

Let's see if Rohit Sharma can still hit a 6 off a ball that is reverse swinging, softer than a sponger and impossible to see due to being scuffed up by dirt. Then we'd see less runs at the end and the bowlers back in the game.

 

[War]

^^

Exactly and that was next stupid change by the ICC. They claimed that especially in asia the ball was getting too soft etc. How was that ever a serious problem?. Ok many asian teams who had weak 5th bowling options tended to utilize the soft ball to their spinners advantage on dustbowls, but that was no prob.

Overall it was challenging for batsmen to hit a soft ball as you said in the latter overs & it gave quicks the ability to reverse swing the ball too.

 

[surendar]

I guess they changed due to visibility issues for a day/night game in particular? There were many matches in past, where the ball turned so brown in color that it created lot of issues to see the ball under lights. That's what I always thought but not sure.

 

[War]

I guess they changed due to visibility issues for a day/night game in particular? There were many matches in past, where the ball turned so brown in color that it created lot of issues to see the ball under lights. That's what I always thought but not sure.

Yes that was an issue, but teams just used to change the ball and move on with it really, although admittedly at times some Asian teams used to be reluctant to change the ball ha..

----------

Bowl at Boycs : Bowl at Boycs | 'Chanderpaul has been the glue that's kept West Indies going' | Cricket videos, MP3, podcasts, cricket audio | ESPN Cricinfo

Boycott suggesting here that the best bowlers be able to bowl 15 overs. Can certainly live with that. (10:20 - 12:00).

 

[aditya123]

If there is one rule that should be done away with, it is the restriction on the number of overs by a bowler. That would mean sides would`nt get penalized for the lack of an all rounder and will altogether cut down on mediocrity (part time bowlers). It would be a game of specialist batsmen vs specialist bowlers and that would be fun. There would be no more waiting for the quota of 10 overs to finish. How many times in ODI cricket have you seen sides relax once the best bowler of the opposition has finished his quota of 10? Very often.

 

[playkid12]

Changing the bowling rule is interesting, but I think it would lead to too many injuries. Also, cricket is a team sport, and I like the idea of bowlers bowling in packs.

I really doubt if the part timer problem would go away. First of all, even specialist bowlers have off-days, so it would be a good idea to have a few backups that can also bowl a bit in the 11 just in case. Plus, the extra workload of bowling more than 10 overs per match might result in a bowler getting too tired or injured in the middle of his spell, so you'd need part timers to take over.

If anything, India would make it so they have 3 specialist bowlers, each bowling 12-15 overs, and a few part timers to finish it off. It would make no difference. They might bat deeper, if anything.

I think things were fine in the 2003 World Cup. Just go back to those rules, and keep free hits. Get rid of the bouncer limitation. Also, T20s have really affected how aggressive batsmen get in the last 10 overs. Are powerplays really even that necessary?

 

[icyman]

How about a new rule wherein you allow the fielding team to field 2 balls after over no 35.
A new ball from one end
An old ball (the match ball) from the other ?

Champs trophy is great tournament as we say this year when the top 8 teams come together, but i actually feel it should discontinue because the world cup should adapt the C-Trophy format - just add Bangladesh & the best associate to make it a 10 team tournament using the 1992 world cup format or split into two groups of 5.

Let the Champions Trophy continue. However, make it a knock-out like the ones in 1998 and 2000. The knock-out format is more more interesting cause each game is important. It will get done quickly as well and would keep the crowd enthralled for hours.

 

[War]

If there is one rule that should be done away with, it is the restriction on the number of overs by a bowler. That would mean sides would`nt get penalized for the lack of an all rounder and will altogether cut down on mediocrity (part time bowlers). It would be a game of specialist batsmen vs specialist bowlers and that would be fun. There would be no more waiting for the quota of 10 overs to finish. How many times in ODI cricket have you seen sides relax once the best bowler of the opposition has finished his quota of 10? Very often.

Yes agreed, but just to clarify are you advocating a total elimination of the restrictions of bowlers?. Because what i was thinking is just to allow two of any teams best bowlers to bowl more than 10 overs (12 or 15), while still having the the mandatory 10 for other bowlers.

Those extra overs from a team's top two bowlers would then make up for teams having to use part-timers to fill in those overs.

 

[War]

Let the Champions Trophy continue. However, make it a knock-out like the ones in 1998 and 2000. The knock-out format is more more interesting cause each game is important. It will get done quickly as well and would keep the crowd enthralled for hours.

Hmm well i must admit i always found that initial champions trophy format a bit weird although it was indeed gripping due to the fact that you lose one game & your out.

But i think you might be onto something here and it could work, especially using the 2000 tournament format.

- Instead of the 11 teams of 2000, we could say use 12 (10 test playing nations + two associates in Ireland & Afghanistan for eg)

- 4 knockout games in the "play-off or pre-quarter final stage"
- 4 quarter finals
- semi's & final

And i'd guess the top 8 nations who would slip into to play in the play-off stage, depend on their ranking in their ODI table. So this might inadvertently help to give bilateral ODI series some context because the big sides would know they have such a tournament coming up & would surely want to avoid the play-off phase ha. So yea good suggestion

 

[aditya123]

Yes agreed, but just to clarify are you advocating a total elimination of the restrictions of bowlers?. Because what i was thinking is just to allow two of any teams best bowlers to bowl more than 10 overs (12 or 15), while still having the the mandatory 10 for other bowlers.

Those extra overs from a team's top two bowlers would then make up for teams having to use part-timers to fill in those overs.

Why not do away with the restriction altogether. You don`t have rules where batsmen can only face 80 deliveries, so why impose it on the bowlers. In any case, even if there were no restrictions, I don`t see any bowler bowling more than 15 overs. Plus, it allows the bowlers to set up a batsman which under current limitations is`nt possible.

 

[icyman]

Good point aditya.

I would also advocate the elimination of the batting powerplay. Instead introduce a fielding powerplay wherein you allow the fielding captain to set his field whichever way he wants.(no restrictions on the outside/inside ring).
Additionally, let him bring back his strike bowlers during this time.
E.g If Malinga has already his 10 overs. Allow the fielding captain to bring him back during the powerplay for 2 more overs. This would give more control to the bowlers.

 

[War]

Why not do away with the restriction altogether. You don`t have rules where batsmen can only face 80 deliveries, so why impose it on the bowlers. In any case, even if there were no restrictions, I don`t see any bowler bowling more than 15 overs. Plus, it allows the bowlers to set up a batsman which under current limitations is`nt possible.

I see what you are saying, but to be fair one of the beauties of ODIs since the inception has been that limited overs aspect on bowlers. When top ODI teams in the formats history that have lets say 5 top bowlers i.e

AUS (McGrath, Lee, Gillespie, Warne/Hogg, Symonds/Harvey)

SA crica 99 (Donald, Pollock, Klusener, Kallis, Elworthy, Boje)

PAK late 90s (Wasim, Akhtar, Razzaq, Mahmood, Saqlain)

Modern PAK (Irfan, Junaid, Gul, Ajmal, Afridi, Hafeez)

SRI 2007 WC (Vass, Malinga, Fernando, Murali, Jayasuriya)

Any combo of the windies 4-prong of the 80s

Modern full-strength S Africa (Steyn, Morkel, Tsotobe/Parnell, McLaren, Kallis, Tahir)

These sides were/are always able to keep the best of batting sides quiet on general batsmen friendly pitches, even with all of the 10 over restrictions on bowlers.

Of course all teams don't always have 5 strong ODI options, most times just 4 & that's where the part-timers comes in. But India won a world cup & got to a final with just 4 bowlers & getting away with a below par 5th bowling option too.

So that's why i reckon to help teams that don't have the 5 strong bowling options, allow the 12-15 bowlers for two bowlers, therefore these teams can bowl two of their stronger 4-bowlers for those extra overs. This would aid them immensely in not having to use part-time options so much.

 

[saif258]

a little off topic but since every ones ranting i might join in too.

format of the cricket world cup.of the various formats tried i had some clear favourites to some really good.but inarguably the worst format has been selected.the 2011 wc format is again being used in the 2015 wc.90%of the entire tornament matches are useless.
there are only 3 matches for a team of use.the qf,sf and the final.the reason icc give for this is because it was a success.well if it was then india going all the way in india was a maor factor with many others like good matches and all.the format had nothing to do with it.
1.after 4 groups with 3 0r 4 teams in each(hardly two matches per team b4 super eights)then super eights./sixes.wont be too long.infact same no of matches as the current format only expect most matches are usefull.
2.
3.after 2 groups 0f 5/6/7 super eights or sixes.moght be a little long.
4.
5.
.
.99.current useless format.long and useless.
cricket s most imp trophy is in trouble.champions trophy is finished and 7 match series pretty useless(5 match series between top teams ind-sa(in sa) eng-aus ind-aus)or 3 match and tri series are good.crickets best balanced format odis seem to be in trouble(and the contest between bat and ball is becoming a joke)