The Future of Cricket: A Gluttonous Runfest? (The 500 barrier?)

[sohum]

The Future of Cricket: A Gluttonous Runfest?

Maybe it's just because I'm a bowler that I don't like ODI cricket then. Anyhow perhaps we had better start another thread for this as whether cricket is becoming too batsman friendly isn't really on topic.

D'accord.

A few points that were brought up. Someone said "so what?" if ODI cricket is becoming batsman dominated. Well, the mixed reaction in the Australia-South Africa thread should be enough to show YOU that people don't appreciate it. YOU may appreciate it, but not everyone does. There are people who still appreciate the beauty of the game.

In sports, there are always two sides to a game--offense and defense. And it is usually offense that is preferred, because we humans like to see things get done. The line is difficult to draw in cricket. But if it had to be drawn, in ODI cricket, I would say batting is offense and bowling is defense. Already, in an ODI game, bowlers come in with a frame of mind to save runs, and not to take wickets.

Run-bloating is not going to be good in the long-run. Already, I, a long-time cricket fanatic, groan when I see a team cross 300 because I know that the pitch is probably so good to bat on that the game will just be a runfest. What do the poor bowlers do? What do records mean? The context of records are being contaminated. How much credit would you give a person who scored a 200 in this match. How would you compare that innings to that of Anwar's 194 or Jayasuriya's 189?

 

[barmyarmy]

It's strange to think about it but when I play cricket games on computer I always prefer bowling to batting as well.
I hate watching England bat - it's tortuous - but I love watching them bowl. I guess I'm just that way inclined.
Pitches which offer nothing to the bowler really frustrate me because that isn't what cricket should be about. Equally I'm not in favour of pitches that have massively uneven bounce and turn a mile on day 1.
Bowlers should have to work for their wickets but they shouldn't get hit for 6 ball after ball for bowling good line and length. For me there is nothing better than seeing the fielding team have a plan and bowl to it and yes, seeing the batsman resist as well.
Whether the plan be to get the man hooking, or tempt him to drive uppishly into the covers or to sneak in a good yorker seeing it come together is what is truely magical about this sport. The 4 deliveries that go away and then the one that comes back in and pins the batsman in front. The ball that goes straight on when the batsman is playing for turn etc etc etc.
I've never watched a Twenty20 game and I find it hard to watch a 50 over game from start to finish but I am constantly enraptured by the beauty and guile of test cricket. Today was a great game, it was about tension, it was about drama but it wasn't about fair fight between bat and ball and without that the game is a lesser sport.

 

[cricket_lover]

It's strange to think about it but when I play cricket games on computer I always prefer bowling to batting as well.
I hate watching England bat - it's tortuous - but I love watching them bowl. I guess I'm just that way inclined.
Pitches which offer nothing to the bowler really frustrate me because that isn't what cricket should be about. Equally I'm not in favour of pitches that have massively uneven bounce and turn a mile on day 1.
Bowlers should have to work for their wickets but they shouldn't get hit for 6 ball after ball for bowling good line and length. For me there is nothing better than seeing the fielding team have a plan and bowl to it and yes, seeing the batsman resist as well.
Whether the plan be to get the man hooking, or tempt him to drive uppishly into the covers or to sneak in a good yorker seeing it come together is what is truely magical about this sport. The 4 deliveries that go away and then the one that comes back in and pins the batsman in front. The ball that goes straight on when the batsman is playing for turn etc etc etc.
I've never watched a Twenty20 game and I find it hard to watch a 50 over game from start to finish but I am constantly enraptured by the beauty and guile of test cricket. Today was a great game, it was about tension, it was about drama but it wasn't about fair fight between bat and ball and without that the game is a lesser sport.

couldn't say that better!

Too much candy is not good for children (for anyone...), too much importance being given to batting will only kill the game.
You can see changes being made by batsmen all around the world. There are few players who are technically great, and having some kind of artistry in them. Yet they get shunned away from the team, and reason? because they cannot score big one's and the inability to pace the innings at a superior rate.
Fair enough for ODI cricket, but these days the point is to attack, attack and attack. It is not that in the past, we lacked big-hitting players. Richards, Kapil, Imran Khan, Cairns, Jayasurya, Tendulkar, Anwar, Waugh brothers, are just a few. They are capable of scoring 40 or 50's in 20 odd balls.

Most of us agree that 1999 WC Semi's was probably the best, why? It was dominated by bat, ball and fielding as well. Cricket is a game of three horses, no matter what type of cricket you are playing, you want all these three horses to take part.
If you want to whack the bowling, why waste precious bowlers? Its time we turn to machines...just use them to bowl, and have a team composed of 11 batsmen.

Its a changing world, agree. People dont' have that much time, agree.

We still plant trees around. These trees will not grow within days, weeks and sometimes even with years! Science and Tech. may well change that, but not to a level where a tree will grow within minutes/hours. Patience is a must in any form of art, cricket is no different.

When you see McGrath vs Tendulkar, it is interesting. Lara vs Murali, interesting. Donald vs Artherton, interesting. Ambrose vs Waugh, interesting.
Today, we neither have that quality bowlers, nor do we have batsmen who are willing to approach the game sensibly.

Yes, it might get more crowd in, more money and thus filling the pockets of the makers. But money isn't everything, is it?

I would rather watch the 99 match, 5 times than watch yesterday's match (no matter how close/great it is) twice.

 

[SaiSrini]

I agree! Bowlers are being treated unfairly in this shorter version of the game! The playing field needs to be level. Yes, if you get a few games where the batsmen score 300-330, its ok. but 434 and a successful chase of it is nasty...

introduction of powerplays has added more bad fuel to the fire!

 

[Stephen Bailey]

Agree with everything Colin said. I personally don't mind the odd big (or in this case massive) scoring game every now and then, but it's becoming too common for my liking. This game could ruin the rest of Mick Lewis' career depending on how he reacts to what's happened. The message that came up on the big scoreboard would be the one that really hurt I imagine. Alright, Lewis isn't a great bowler, but he's not as bad as he was made to look today.

 

[cricket_lover]

Yep.
Thank god they are removing the new ODI rules.

 

[langerrox]

Yeh personaly, i prefer to see 300 scores or 250 scores, That was just crazy, I didn't really enjoy that match, It doesn't feel good to be smacked for runs on both supporters, I hope this isj ust a once off

 

[sohum]

True, but there were a few members on the Aus-Rsa thread who didn't like the match because they couldn't believe the Aussies could lose after posting 434. I think that is the incorrect attitude to take. On that sort of wicket, if one team can score 434, why can't another. There were no really superb batting performances, where a guy dominated on a difficult pitch.

 

[irottev]

I agree. Powerplays were unnecessary additions.

 

[aussie1st]

The 500 barrier?

BATTING greats Steve Waugh and Barry Richards believe cricket has seen the start of a new era of super-scoring. And it's an era Richards fears will ruin the game.

Both men say the 872 runs that flowed in Australia's one-day loss to South Africa will be the start of a trend that will lead to the game's first 500-run total.

But Richards believes the imbalance between bat and ball is a major concern.

"I'm pretty sure it will end up being bad for the game," former South Africa batsman Richards said.

"There is such a propensity for hitting boundaries that bowlers have been taken out of the game.

"It will only be six months and we'll see 1000 runs scored in a one-day game.

"The skill has been taken out of cricket. As a cricket person it is very boring because the bowlers have no chance. All the rule changes, the power plays and things, have just made the game so much in favour of batsmen.

"The small grounds are like saying to Tiger Woods 'play on a 4000m course'

"He might keep shooting 49 but what does it really mean?"

Waugh believes crowds will enjoy the high scoring, which he feels is inevitable.

"That's what happens when a barrier is broken in cricket," Waugh said.

"Now that the floodgates are open I think you will see more scores of 400 and I can't see why some team won't score 500.

"Teams are starting to stack their sides with batsmen and I can see that becoming more frequent and games just becoming batathons. The crowds will love it and television will as well.

"Bowlers are going to be like accessories in the game.

"It's like when we started to score 300 a day in Tests.

"Once a barrier is broken players know it can be done and then it is done more regularly. Bats are bigger, boundary ropes have come in and there is no doubt Twenty20 cricket has made players aware of how to play bigger shots."

http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,18455887-23212,00.html


Geez these guys are quick although I was thinking about that 500 barrier and how we could have broke it after breaking the 400 That would be a big ask, it would requrie a batter at least getting 200 maybe even 300 You wouldn't be allowed too many slow patches either.

 

[andrew_nixon]

500 barrier is a long way off. It's only happened 6 times in minor cricket. (Example: http://uk.cricinfo.com/link_to_data...CC-4TH-XI_QHG-4TH-XI_DERDEKL-A_02JUN2002.html)

700 and 800 have been crossed in minor 55 over matches, but they were rigged.

 

[barmyarmy]

Kinda similar to this thread to be honest. I'll merge them.

 

[aussie1st]

500 barrier is a long way off. It's only happened 6 times in minor cricket. (Example: http://uk.cricinfo.com/link_to_data...CC-4TH-XI_QHG-4TH-XI_DERDEKL-A_02JUN2002.html)

700 and 800 have been crossed in minor 55 over matches, but they were rigged.

That 500 was in 40 overs too. I don't think we are even close to that.
First up we need the first ever 200 in ODI before thinking about the 500. And of course getting use to scoring in the 400.

 

[andrew_nixon]

First up we need the first ever 200 in ODI before thinking about the 500. And of course getting use to scoring in the 400.

I think it's important to note that yesterday was a complete one-off. When Sri Lanka scored more than 950 in a test in 1997, people were asking when the 1000 barrier would be crossed and no team has been close in the nine years since.

 

[BigCrickNan]

I think it's important to note that yesterday was a complete one-off. When Sri Lanka scored more than 950 in a test in 1997, people were asking when the 1000 barrier would be crossed and no team has been close in the nine years since.

Ye I agree, this probably won't happen again for the next couple of years. One question is, why the hell did they declare??