Remove powerplays, says Mike Atherton

[khalek]

Mike Atherton thinks powerplays have made ODI cricket very predictable for the batsmen and it should be removed. This is what he had to say:

If captains could place their fielders where they wanted to, rather than where regulations dictate, there is a chance they might start to think again and a chance that one side?s tactics might differ significantly from another?s. If a captain could bowl his best bowler for more than the stipulated ten overs, there is a chance that he would and that attacking cricket played by the best players would become more a feature of a one-day match. Powerplays dictate the pace of the game to batsmen; do without them and watch batsmen take the initiative again.
​

I agree with him totally, PP is interesting only when it's being implemented but when it's over the defensive field settings cause those boring middle overs.

 

[TheGreemSim]

I couldn't care less whether they were there or not tbh.

 

[Brook]

Agree with this, what's the point?

 

[Params7]

1 Powerplay. That's it. The ICC really needs to find some better thing to do than modifying the rules of the most mainstream form of cricket all the freakin' time to the point where they are encouraging press that talks about the death of the 50-50 game mode. How many other sports globally does this happen to? All of this WOULDN'T be happening if England hadn't got beaten 6-1. "We beat them in the Ashes but always get it handed to us in ODI's so lets just scrape the game mode".

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

i agree with the 10 overs bit. I've long thought that all it does is force teams into playing average bits and pieces all-rounders.

ODI was invented as entertainment. what's better: seeing ponting face steyn or seeing cameron white face albie morkel?

 

[Brook]

12 overs each would be fairer. No other restrictions are necessary. It's just confusing.

 

[sifter132]

I think it was Ian Chappell who suggested having a 5 over minimum for bowlers instead of a 10 over maximum. That way Murali could bowl half the overs if they wanted him too.

And I also think it was Chaps who suggested that apart from powerplays there should be NO fielding restrictions eg. you could put 9 guys on the fence if you wanted. I dunno about that one but I like the 5 over minimum idea.

 

[khalek]

I don't like either of those ideas, he even supports the 25 overs ODI idea.

 

[SciD]

Why will you do that.

Its already dying and he wants to kill it completely.

 

[Fatal Shot]

Whatever you say Mike.

 

[Cricketdude]

Maybe 40 over matches without powerplays?

 

[SciD]

Considering only good period in ODI is when powerplay's are on. Very poor idea.

 

[khalek]

There's nothing wrong with the first 10 overs (Mandatory PP with 2 outside the circle) but the 2nd and 3rd PP are rubbish (3 fielders outside the circle) and with that actually starts the boring middle overs.

 

[Cricketman]

I like powerplays. The only thing I think could be better is the way the fielding side implements it. It's usually played right after the 1st one, irrelevant of the situation.

What I would do, especially if I needed wickets, is to relieve the powerplay once it's over and bring a spinner on, a new dimension into the bowling attack and force some defensive play (at least for a while). I'd either wait for a wicket or until I feel there's been a sufficient gap to bring the restrictions back on. The stop-start way of play will make it tougher for the batting team IMO.

 

[manee]

I'm not 100% sure what Atherton is getting at here but I disagree with the idea of 'powerplays'. A mandatory 15 over restriction should be sufficient. The idea of bowling and batting powerplay only serves to confuse the viewer. One powerplay being in the air, does the captaincy remember, and so on, does not help the game as much as it complicates it. The overcomplication of simple issues causes cricket to alienate enough viewers as it is.

The notion of bowlers having no restrictions on an amount of overs could be interesting. However, I feel that ODI cricket is predicated upon creating an even contest over a long period of time and that having one bowler potentially bowl a 20 over spell may just create more one sided contests. However, the jury is still out for me on this one.