Cricketing Queries
- Thread starter age of the fall
- Start date
Papa_Smurf
International Cricketer
So, they won't be No.1? Isn't there more weight to winning a world cup than a meaningless series?
P
pcfan123
Guest
to me it's a meaningless series. It's just another of the overcrowded limited overs tourneys.
Along with Wt20, Champions Trophy, Asia Cup and now the ODI league that is starting, I wouldn't be surprised if the 50 over WC is eventually canceled or massively restructured.
Along with Wt20, Champions Trophy, Asia Cup and now the ODI league that is starting, I wouldn't be surprised if the 50 over WC is eventually canceled or massively restructured.
Last edited by a moderator:
Papa_Smurf
International Cricketer
The 50 over WC, to me, is the most exciting format for ODI's. Only time when they count for something. The new idea of the ODI league just sounds crap 
mohit_dude10
County Cricketer
ODI League would be restricted only to top teams i guess, I'm sure ICC isn't dumb to keep 2 tourneys having all 10 teams fighting it out for championship.
Papa_Smurf
International Cricketer
Still makes it boring and pointless. The whole point of ODI's is for exciting, nail-biting cricket (T20 is not cricket), and the WC provides that with knock-out stage matches (OF,SF,F). Can you imagine how many boring, useless dead-rubbers there would be in a league?
Plus, the whole idea of having the pride of your nation at stake just adds more drama to the WC. That can't be replicated in a drawn-out league
Plus, the whole idea of having the pride of your nation at stake just adds more drama to the WC. That can't be replicated in a drawn-out league
Cricketman
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Location
- USA
After India made the finals of the WC in 2003, they fell to 8th place.
Rankings are weird.
sohum
Executive member
I'm not convinced because you're still breaking the atomicity of the ball. You can't bowl a no-ball without attempting to deliver the ball. For example if you step over the line but don't deliver the ball, it's not a no ball.
Anyhow, it seems like a pretty rare event.
It is, and probably won't happen again for another dozen years. The rules clearly state that the penalty runs from the no-ball are scored before the ball is played by the batsman. That's just how the order works. No-ball takes precedent over wides and dead ball takes precedent over everything. The system works, even if it is confusing.
sohum
Executive member
It works as much as an untested system works. As was clearly evident in this instance, it doesn't really work because by the rule Sehwag's balls faced were incremented whereas the match ended before he faced the ball.
So in reality the system is broken and it only works because that's the rule and this virtually never happens.
Can you get out Hitwicket of a No-ball?
Happened in a match I was playing today and we weren't sure. I said you shouldn't be given out, since the bowler is credited for the wicket. They claimed you should since it's the batsman's error, like a runout.
Happened in a match I was playing today and we weren't sure. I said you shouldn't be given out, since the bowler is credited for the wicket. They claimed you should since it's the batsman's error, like a runout.
sami ullah khan
Panel of Selectors
I am not sure but I think you can't be out hitwicket if the delivery is a noball.
Not out. Can be out hit wicket from a wide, but not a no ball.
It's time frame limited too, so if you were to play a shot, then wait a couple of seconds to see if the ball evades a fielder and then in setting off for the run you slip and break the wicket, it's not out. The dismissal is active when the bowler enters his delivery stride (not just when running up) until the player has finished making his shot.
Gaurav_7
Executive member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2010
- Profile Flag
- India
Ha ha, what a sight that would be! Has it ever happened?
