Powerplays

[qpeedore]

I'm not going to beat around the bush here. I'll just get into it.

The bowling Powerplay is absolute rubbish, and that's the only word that comes to mind instead of one of the several other alternatives I have in mind that may get me in trouble with the administration team here.

No matter what restrictions you put on a bowling side, they will always take their bowling Powerplay almost as soon as it's available.

The ONLY team that would have used the Powerplay in its original strategic thinking was the New Zealand team, circa World Cup 2007, when Dan "The Man with the Plan" Vettori was captain. He'd often delay his bowling Powerplay until the 20something-th over, when two new batsmen were in the middle and it would be hard for them to hit over the infield and score fast runs. This was back when (I think) both "optional" Powerplays depended on the bowling team.

I get where the ICC is coming from with the whole Powerplay thing. Overs 16-30-odd would just be four singles an over, with the occasional boundary or two to spice things up. People would sleep during that time. Hell, I myself depended on that time to fall asleep. The Powerplays therefore gave, at least in theory, the opportunity for more action.

But a batting team is not going to attack like hell during overs 16-20. That's when practically EVERY international team takes their bowling Powerplay these days. Yes, they will attack, but as far as going for the big shots? Nope, that's for overs 36 to 40...which is also coincidentally when most teams take their batting Powerplay.

I am more frustrated with the concept of a bowling Powerplay than I am with sleeping during the middle overs. 50-over cricket has a place in the international arena. Not a "one day" game of 4 separate innings of 25 overs each. Not a 40 over game. None of that crap.

The game is biased too much toward batsmen as it is.

Not that anyone who has any say in the game will read this, but since the ICC decided to increase the number of "restricted" overs from 15 to 20 (one of their many HORRIBLE decisions in my mind), then how's about this?

Overs 1-15 as it was classically. Two men outside. Two men in catching positions. Slips count as catchers but they don't NEED to be inside the innner inner circle, as is the current rules. The batsmen can only take their batting Powerplay during overs 36-45.

Oh, and if the ICC wants to implement two bouncers an over in ODI cricket from October or November or whenever the hell they change rules every year, how's about allowing a third fielder behind square on the leg side?

Yeah, I'm saying it. Encourage short-pitched bowling. Bodyline was more than just a tactic, it was a political brawl too. But with all the safety gear and whatnot (in the past a frontline bowler would NEVER bowl a bouncer to a fellow bowler, now it's almost encouraged)...yeah, with everything in place about safety, allow the third fielder behind square leg side.

The ICC has all but eliminated front-foot no-balls from ODIs with the free-hit rule. But they need to address a few more key issues. And the Powerplays as they stand currently annoy me way too much to remain silent on the issue.

 

[Satan666]

Couldn't muster up the attention to read the long opening post but I did saw the author mentioning short pitch bowling and noting the Bodyline Series, I do agree here fast bowlers have too much limits on them, ICC needs to adress this genuine fast bowling can be just as entertaining as watching a batsman knock the ball out of the ground.

 

[qpeedore]

I come from the West Indies, man. Appreciating fast bowling is second nature to me.

- Malcolm Marshall -> There are very few people in world cricket who have played for the past 20 years who would not rate him as the best bowler to have ever played the game.

- Joel Garner -> When a West Indian is called Big Bird and gladly accepts that nickname, you know he's that damn good.

- Michael Holding -> Whispering Death. Enough said.

- Courtney Walsh -> The first bowler to go past 500 Test wickets and, as far as I know, the only seamer to have ever done it.

- Curtly Ambrose -> The best WI seamer of the last generation. My favourite cricketer EVER and not a man you'd ever want to cross if he was angry. (Note: At the time when Ambrose and Walsh were winding their careers down they had more Test wickets between the two of them than the entire Australian team, Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath, Jason Gillespie, Brett Lee included...)

Need I say more? Or do I have to point out the recent quicks that we have? Jerome Taylor getting 5 for 12 against England, castling BOTH Kevin Pieterson and Matt Prior during that amazing spell? Jermaine Lawson a few years before that, getting 7 wickets at one of the best grounds for batting in the world, the ARG against the strongest batting lineup at the time in Australia? Before he was UNFAIRLY banned because of a so-called "suspect" action?

Hell, Dwayne Bravo in one of his few moments of actual aggression knocked Kevin Pieterson's helmet off and that helmet took the off stump. Or when he set one of the top-order SA batsmen up with a series of outswingers before bringing one back in to castle him?

Even Daren Powell had the uncanny knack of picking up an early wicket. Yeah, it was often the only wicket he'd pick up...but...that aside...he gave us something to cheer about early on.

Or perhaps I should remind the Darren Sammy detractors of his 7-for on debut against England? Or his 5-for against Pakistan in Guyana last season? Or the two or three crucial wickets he picks up regularly?

My only problem at the moment is figuring out how they can tame Tino Worst...uh...Best...sorry.

So, yeah...I love bowling in general. Give me 50 all out instead of 600/7 declared any day.

 

[Satan666]

Personally I couldnt care less if you came from Mars or heaven but I do agree.

It remains a mystery as to the reasons Jerome Taylor hasnt played an international match for the nearly two years or so, yes he did seem a genuine pace bowler who could sustain pace at 150kph for the entire day of a Test match with good control also. Australia/Pakistan also have a rich history in fast bowling not only the Windies, great fast bowlers from this area is a thing of the past which the Caribbean people hold on to are the wonderful memories.

One noteworthy thing is a guy named Kemar Roach, in my opinion he is the only genuin pacer in the world, Steyn has dropped his pace a bit and Lee isnt bowling any more. I do not see Roach getting slower in years to come he has a very good action i hope he gets even faster.

 

[Owzat]

Powerplays just make a simple game more complicated than it needs to be by giving the teams more tactics than they need. Just have pre-set fielding restrictions and be done with it.

I also hold the strong view the reviews should not be used as they are, effectively tactics. The point is to get the decision right, let's make sure we get the crucial decisions affecting wickets as right as possible and not depending on whether the fielding side or batsman feels they might try their luck. Fair enough South Africa have been pretty good, but surely a bad decision unchallenged is a mistake and the aim was to not make mistakes?

Powerplays only come with limited overs matches, watch proper cricket instead

 

[aussie1st]

I thought I read somewhere that the ICC were scrapping the bowling powerplay?

 

[sifter132]

^Yes they are. Scrapping the bowling PP, having only 4 outfielders instead of 5, and giving bowlers 2 bouncers per over.

I maintain the bouncer law it useless anyway, because it's a wide if you bowl over the batsman's head ie. small margin for error. Are there any bowlers who can perfectly land 2 bouncers per over between a batsman's shoulders and head? I just think the risk of bowling a wide is too great - that's why bouncers have decreased, not because 1 isn't enough.

The other thing about Powerplays is the boring approach of the batting team. I'd like to see more pinch-hitters. If you lose a wicket just before a PP or in the 1st over or 2, bring out your Perera or Afridi or Swann or whoever - someone who's wicket isn't particularly important and give them license to smack it.

 

[SaiSrini]

I am not averse to the idea of converting ODI's into a mini test match of 4 T20'ish innings. It brings about a new freshness to the ODI format, and will also tackle this problem of the "middle overs snooze". It will be exciting to see one team bat 20 overs, the second team bats 20 overs, then the first team comes back to bat their second set of 20 overs and so on.... This will also greatly reduce the advantage of the toss in conditions where one team has to bat its entire innings under challenging conditions (for e.g. there are venues in the world where batting second under lights becomes extremely difficult). In such cases, both teams fairly will play under those conditions instead of just one team.

A good solution to ODI's will be to split it into a mini-test match.

 

[Satan666]

^^No offence mate but that's the worst, nonsensical post I've seen on this forum.

A very stupid idea, it will do absolutely nothing for cricket.

 

[SaiSrini]

^^No offence mate but that's the worst, nonsensical post I've seen on this forum.

A very stupid idea, it will do absolutely nothing for cricket.

Not that nonsensical. A few people here in this forum have talked about this idea here of splitting ODI's into 4 innings of T20. I think even Australia trialed this idea in their domestic cricket (or did they think of trialing it, I don't remember). Sachin Tendulkar has also expressed his approval for split innings ODI's (not that I am trying to say that his opinion counts for the ultimatum).

It would reduce the advantage gained by winning the toss. It will most probably eliminate the problem of the middle overs. What else do you want? Yes a disadvantage might be that it might look like an overdose of T20 cricket, but then T20 cricket is the flavor of the generation, and you still retain the entertainment of an entire day's cricket, and also bring in the speed of a T20 innings.

 

[Satan666]

I am aware Sachin is one of the first to talk about it, it was foolish then and is still foolish now.

So youre a supporter of T20 cricket? Even though its runining test cricket? Youre a sad soul, the T20 empire would fall soon, test cricket forever.

 

[Owzat]

I am not averse to the idea of converting ODI's into a mini test match of 4 T20'ish innings. It brings about a new freshness to the ODI format, and will also tackle this problem of the "middle overs snooze". It will be exciting to see one team bat 20 overs, the second team bats 20 overs, then the first team comes back to bat their second set of 20 overs and so on.... This will also greatly reduce the advantage of the toss in conditions where one team has to bat its entire innings under challenging conditions (for e.g. there are venues in the world where batting second under lights becomes extremely difficult). In such cases, both teams fairly will play under those conditions instead of just one team.

A good solution to ODI's will be to split it into a mini-test match.

Not sure it would take off. The only reason the "middle overs" are regarded as dull is because sides have it in their mind they attack early and late and so conserve wickets for the late onslaught.

Having fielding restrictions to encourage sides to attack more from overs 1 through 50 would be better than having a stop-start one dayer. Not that it really matters if the middle overs are relatively slow, so what!?!? Two innings would just be too much in my opinion, too much scope for variation in scores between the four, and also how would D/L work there? When would you have a "game"?

I think it's too complicated a solution where simplicity would work so much better, or no solution is needed. I'd much rather they restricted the field, made the pitches more bowler friendly so batsmen are encouraged to attack the bowling or get out. Even if not many runs are scored at any given stage it would still be fascinating, the problem is these days too many people 'think' a lot of runs = a lot of fun. Cricket is a contest first and foremost, sides doing what they need to in order to win.

 

[War]

Ye power-plays are dumb, they should have never changed it from the first 15-overs restriction.

The ICC over-exaggerated the suggested need to improve the 16-40 overs "boring period" as they termed it, when essentially that period was not really ever boring.

When top class teams play ODIs as in world cups and champions trophy that never occurs. Its only when in during those useless bilateral ODI series, that this tends to happen.

Bring back the first 15-overs restriction, keep the two new-balls, decrease the number of useless ODI series and everything will be fine.

 

[sifter132]

I am not averse to the idea of converting ODI's into a mini test match of 4 T20'ish innings. It brings about a new freshness to the ODI format, and will also tackle this problem of the "middle overs snooze". It will be exciting to see one team bat 20 overs, the second team bats 20 overs, then the first team comes back to bat their second set of 20 overs and so on.... This will also greatly reduce the advantage of the toss in conditions where one team has to bat its entire innings under challenging conditions (for e.g. there are venues in the world where batting second under lights becomes extremely difficult). In such cases, both teams fairly will play under those conditions instead of just one team.

A good solution to ODI's will be to split it into a mini-test match.

I like the splitting idea, but I don't think the innings should restart, carry on where you left off. That way batsmen can build bigger scores, an innings can ebb and flow, and it won't be 40 overs of slogging because they have 20 wickets in hand.

Anyway, you mentioned that the toss advantage would lessen, the other advantage of splitting the innings is the rain rules. At the moment you get stupid scenarios where everyone KNOWS it's going to rain later in the day, yet they try and make team A bat for 50 overs, even if team B's innings would probably be rained out.

 

[SaiSrini]

I am aware Sachin is one of the first to talk about it, it was foolish then and is still foolish now.

So youre a supporter of T20 cricket? Even though its runining test cricket? Youre a sad soul, the T20 empire would fall soon, test cricket forever.

T20 cricket is not bad. Its not ruining test cricket. In fact, I think T20 has livened up test cricket. Its another matter that the authorities don't give the proper conditions required for classical test cricket to be played in countries like India, the subcontinent, etc.

----------

I like the splitting idea, but I don't think the innings should restart, carry on where you left off. That way batsmen can build bigger scores, an innings can ebb and flow, and it won't be 40 overs of slogging because they have 20 wickets in hand.

Anyway, you mentioned that the toss advantage would lessen, the other advantage of splitting the innings is the rain rules. At the moment you get stupid scenarios where everyone KNOWS it's going to rain later in the day, yet they try and make team A bat for 50 overs, even if team B's innings would probably be rained out.

Yes, not a restart of the innings. That would be boring, and the possibility of building a big innings will be lost. Teams can start off from where they left.