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

[cricket_lover]

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.

Its a different approach to the game now.

Yes, there may not be scores of 400 again for a while, but there are so many take-home points from yesterday's match.

Forget 400, even a score of 300s, which is becoming very common these days won't serve good for cricket.

A decade or two back, scoring low 200's would mean a good total (even on good, batting wickets) because the approach/mentality to the game was different. Bowling was superior, line-length was there, and the approach of the bowlers was to pick up wickets, not block runs.

From 200's, its 300's now and from the trend, 400's are going to come sooner than later.

The bottom line is, it is bad for the game.

People still talk about the Ashes (now..it is test cricket yes, but still cricket is cricket). Ashes was great because of the importance of bat, ball and field.

If cricket is one sided, its no different than baseball.

 

[cricket doctor]

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!

Difference in opinions...

(on 16th Feb 06)
I hope they change the Powerplay such that the batting team is able to choose one block of 5 overs to their advantage!

 

[Indiangod]

Its entertaining when such countries make over 300 runs, but nowadays a lot of countries are able to do it, and they do it often, when will we see the good old days when even 280 was very hard to chase in a passionate atmosphere day-nighter.

 

[andrew_nixon]

I personally think that something needs to be done in ODI cricket to swing the game back to the bowlers.

My idea: Allow the fielding team to take a new ball after 30 overs. Also stops the problem of them having to change the ball due it getting dirty.

 

[usy]

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

Duh, they wanted to win ?

 

[cricket_lover]

I personally think that something needs to be done in ODI cricket to swing the game back to the bowlers.

My idea: Allow the fielding team to take a new ball after 30 overs. Also stops the problem of them having to change the ball due it getting dirty.

new ball may not be of any help if the wicket is not sportive. Most wickets tend to favour batting (lot of them) and with the ball hard, you have an added opportunity.

May be have sportive wickets for all games, making sure no lineancy is given to batting/bowling.
Increase the size, move the ropes back.
Decrease the fielding restrictions to 10 overs or bring back the 15 overs thing.

 

[angryangy]

I personally think that something needs to be done in ODI cricket to swing the game back to the bowlers.

My idea: Allow the fielding team to take a new ball after 30 overs. Also stops the problem of them having to change the ball due it getting dirty.

Yes, something like that. They have to change the ball over anyway, may as well get a freshie. Only downside would be how it affects spin bowling and reverse swing late in the match. As it stands there are too many crappy spinners bowling in ODIs only because they can bat.

 

[sohum]

Hmm, what could they do to adjust the balance? The new ball idea has already been picked out. If the boundary ropes are extended, we need to make sure they don't affect the batsmen adversely too much. The odd 6 is still exciting to watch. Perhaps another thing they could look at is the weight of bats. A lot of limitations are placed on the width and thickness of bats, but the weight is ignored (I think). A lighter bat will not make it as easy to bludgeon the ball out of the ground.