Powerplays

[6ry4nj]

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.

This makes all the difference in the world. Split innings are not a bad idea, but four twenty-over innings is crazy bad.

Overall, I agree that powerplays are working badly. They worked better in the past, before the rule change, which was a dumb one. But while experimentation can be fun, it's not like 50-over cricket is broken and needs fixing. Unlike T20...

All shorter-innings (not split innings) formats put pressure on 50-over cricket, which it does not need at the best of times. It would be best if we scrapped the lot (all 40-over, all T20, Sixes, "international" Beach Cricket, etc.) at least temporarily, to let 50-over recover the prestige it deserves.

 

[Phen]

The only problem with power-plays is the ICC's opinion that it needs to be changed every six months! They should make up their minds about rules and stick with them.

I think 15 overs of mandatory power-play at the beginning and keeping the batting power-play (captains can use it at any time) would be fine.

----------

Another thing, I can't stand how grounds around the world shorten the boundaries to make it easier to hit sixes! Keep them as big as possible! I remember when seeing a six meant it was a great shot, not a stupid shot that comes off the top edge and flies over the boundary!

 

[qpeedore]

Agreed on that last point. Keep the boundaries deep. I'd like to see more twos and threes run in limited overs cricket. It's not all about flash and bang. Let's see a proper shot go for the maximum.

As to splitting the overs, logistically it just won't work over one day. It just won't. It looks excellent on paper and it gives rise to some amazing though experiments, but it will not work out.

This next idea is a crazy one, but I've heard talk about it from time to time. Give two bowlers the chance to bowl a couple extra overs (12 in all). Two other bowlers can only bowl a maximum of 8, and the last bowler has his full 10.

It often comes up in shortened matches where they say, okay due to the rain, we have 32 overs to bowl, meaning two bowlers have a max of 7 overs, the rest have a max of 6. Add that all up using 5 bowlers and it comes up to the 32.

Why not implement that concept into the full 50? It would give captains and coaches something to really think about. Do you give your strike bowler the 12 even though he's expensive but gets wickets? Or do you give your workhorse the 12 knowing that he won't go for much?

It's confusing with all the numbers (ie 2 get 12, 1 gets 10, 2 get 8), but it's better than giving two bowlers 13 overs each and the rest get 8. That's too much of a discrepancy and puts the focus squarely on the 13-over guys. Plus it also means that two guys will effectively bowl more than half of the innings, which isn't the point.

Just another random idea. I don't think it will ever get much backing, but just like the split-innings ODI idea, it's good to think about. And...they sort of already do it anyway, albeit in shortened matches.

 

[sifter132]

This next idea is a crazy one, but I've heard talk about it from time to time. Give two bowlers the chance to bowl a couple extra overs (12 in all). Two other bowlers can only bowl a maximum of 8, and the last bowler has his full 10.

It often comes up in shortened matches where they say, okay due to the rain, we have 32 overs to bowl, meaning two bowlers have a max of 7 overs, the rest have a max of 6. Add that all up using 5 bowlers and it comes up to the 32.

Why not implement that concept into the full 50? It would give captains and coaches something to really think about. Do you give your strike bowler the 12 even though he's expensive but gets wickets? Or do you give your workhorse the 12 knowing that he won't go for much?

It's confusing with all the numbers (ie 2 get 12, 1 gets 10, 2 get 8), but it's better than giving two bowlers 13 overs each and the rest get 8. That's too much of a discrepancy and puts the focus squarely on the 13-over guys. Plus it also means that two guys will effectively bowl more than half of the innings, which isn't the point.

Just another random idea. I don't think it will ever get much backing, but just like the split-innings ODI idea, it's good to think about. And...they sort of already do it anyway, albeit in shortened matches.

Not crazy at all - in fact basically ALL the ideas raised here were tried in the Australia state one-day competition a couple of years ago. Trouble was that it was too many changes at once. They had the split innings (25 then 20 overs to make 45 in total), they had more than 10 overs for a couple of bowlers, they changed the powerplay rules, i think they even changed the bouncer and wide rules too.

It didn't sit well with fans. The hardcore fans weren't happy with yet MORE tinkering with the game, and the casual fans were utterly confused about the various rules and stipulations that were going on. I personally loved it - split innings was good, giving bowlers more than 10 is one I've been pushing for a lot.

But the real trouble was the Cricket Australia didn't have the gumption to give the rules a decent trial. If they'd said, we'll do it for 3 years and see how it goes, then fans and players would have got used to it. But they gave it one year, fans never got into it and the players never got excited because they saw it as a gimmick that didn't line up with ODI rules - a gimmick that wouldn't last if they didn't support it.

It's the same with the ICC ODI rules, they come up with new ideas every year, but try them out in ODIs, not in lower level competitions. Of course some ideas won't work, and then the next year they have to revise the playing conditions again. I'd love to see them come out next year and say 'these are the rules we are using in the 2015 World Cup - locked in'. Do proper research, not just ex-players sitting round the table saying 'hey 2 bouncers would be good for bowlers'. TRY 2 bouncers in a competition somewhere - SEE if it works.

 

[qpeedore]

I'm all for giving the bowlers two bouncers in the over, provided that they allow a third fielder behind square on the leg side. I said that before. It's time to let go of Bodyline. Yes, packing the leg side field is unfair. But only TWO men? Geez, if you have a deep fine leg and a man slightly backward of square on the boundary that's...nothing.

Will some captains "abuse" it and put in a leg slip, leg gully, and backward square, thus encouraging short bowling? Of course. But in this day and age where there are rules preventing all but those at the highest level to bat without a helmet, why not just do it? I mean, Under-15, 17, 21, etc makes it mandatory for batsmen to be fully protected no matter what type of bowler they face. I expect a rule to come into play very soon about keepers standing up to the stumps as well, given Boucher's unfortunate injury (prayers are with you for a full recovery, man, I'm backing you to come back and get that thousand even if you make duck and drop five other catches).

As far as wides...it's really tough. I personally like the wide calls as they are in ODI cricket. The recently concluded WI/NZ series had some pretty awesome umpiring decisions. I think only one or two decisions were outright wrong after referral, and also, I loved the way they called the wides. There were a couple of balls down the leg side in the fourth and fifth ODI that just shaved leg stump. Ordinarily they would be called wide immediately. Except that the batsman had moved before the ball was delivered, and the bowler (hopefully) intentionally adjusted to prevent him from scoring. If he was standing still all the time he could have definitely hit the ball. In addition to that, there were some alleged dubious non-wides off of reverse sweeps. I fully agree with the umpires' calls in those instances, and I have my reasons for that.

What I do not like is umpires just calling wide whenever the ball is outside of the lines, even though the bat clearly passed below the ball and contact could have been made. What if the ball took the top edge? Is it a wide and out then?

The problem is this...if a batsman moves BEFORE the ball is released and the bowler deliberately bowls it wider...is it still a wide? If the batsman moves AFTER the ball is released but could have hit it in his normal stance...is it still a wide? Confusing, isn't it?

And I understand why things have not been trialled for longer. It just has not caught on well with most fans. I say most and mean it in every sense of the word. The dedicated fans just want to see cricket. But they are very much in the minority. Most fans are just those who know a bit about the game, and go to matches to have a good time rather than get into the intricacies of what's actually going on.

To sum up the general thoughts on this topic so far...

The changes:
2 bouncers an over
3 men behind square on the leg side allowed
allow two bowlers more than 10 overs
STOP BRINGING THE BOUNDARIES IN SIGNIFICANTLY FOR LIMITED OVERS
the first 15 overs comprise the mandatory Powerplay, WITH the catching restrictions in place (two men must be in catching positions at all times)
the batting side gets a 5 over block as their batting Powerplay, not taken after the 45th over
consider trialling split innings for a longer period to see what the dynamics of the matches are like

At the end of everything, cricket is all about statistics. But nothing can be statistically significant without a large sample size and the ability to reproduce the results.

I'm fed up of the ICC constantly changing the rules of ODI cricket. You want the 50-over format to survive? Then stop..uh...messing (yeah, that's a G-rated word)...messing with the game.

Supersubs? Didn't work.

Two bowling Powerplays? Didn't work.

Changing the ball after 34 overs? Didn't work.

Two new balls, one from either end? Won't work. Pick a new colour. Allan Stanford is in jail at the moment, but maybe his orange ball had some merit. Sorry, Dutch.

Short boundaries? NOT WORKING.

Oh, and coincidentally...Tino Best in the Test squad over Fidel Edwards? Definitely will never work.

 

[Aislabie]

Disagree with you on the last point - Fidel Edwards was a Test quality bowler in 2004, but not any more.

Other than that, I think most of your points have merit.

 

[Ahmad94]

Disagree with you on the last point - Fidel Edwards was a Test quality bowler in 2004, but not any more.

Other than that, I think most of your points have merit.

I was going to say pretty much the same thing, he is an amazing bowler in his day, not any more