The Future of Cricket

[J.Coney]

i find this on another website, if you read it, it may get those non playing cricket nations interested "baseball meets cricket".

most poeople believe the game of cricket is weighted in the favour of the skipper who wins the toss, if the day is over cast, muggey, full of sun shine, expected rain what ever you know the toss counts, it can put you in a beneficial advantage.

cricket officials have tried to balance this silghtly, by shortening the game, (20-20) this is not the answer.

i have, i think come up with a better system, basically this- once team "A" has got three wrickets, the teams swap and and team "A" begin their run chase, of course when they lose there first three wickets, then team "B" continues to set its target (maybe they still leading maybe they are not) once team "A" has got it's next three wickets, teams swap again. this continues. until both teams have batted their 50 overs out or lost all 10 wickets before the end of their 50 overs. see this systym is based loosely on baseball, it also creates extra excitment as viewer can always guage the progess of a match, no rules are changed or modified.


the dude all so added examples.

everyone is little unsure of change. lets have a look at the benefits.
-score comparison, through-out game.
-set up creates a constant movement, wave of excitment and emotion for spectator and player.
-the interuptions you speak of, should be seen as part of the strategy of the game.
-conditions will have little to no bearing on out come of match.

I think we have all seen games interupted by rain delay and other un-normal delays, powered lights switching off. etc.
and many times player have returned and continued from we they have left off. test batmen do it all the time hayden and lara don't score 400 in a day.

ODI matches have created some stop-start batting big scores and cnturies. S.Fleming scored a big century against sth africa in a rain interupted world cup match. and just today a.flintoff returned to score a century from a rained off match.

i would like to give you 2 examples, straight from the icc trophey. if it was played under my verision. i have done this many times before and it always looks like it would have been a much more interesting game.


Zim vs Sri Lanka
3/47 13.04 overs. Zim.
3/54 12.0 overs. Sri lanka
6/85 26.05 overs. Zim.
6/152 36.05 overs Sri lanka

now lets stop the game there. Sri-Lanka only need 4 wickets. Zim trail by 67 runs. with 24 overs left in the bank. to be equal with sri lanka using the same amount of overs up 36.05 (10 overs) they need to score approx. 6 runs an over. as you can see the game twist and turns giving both teams a chance to rectify a postion they may have got themselves into. Also the batting order can always be adjusted as the game progesses.

lets have a look at another match.

nz vs Aust
3/49 12.06 overs NZ.
3/99 23.03 overs Aust.
6/79 21.04 overs NZ.

ok lets stop the game here, Aust did,nt lose another wicket, but lets assume they're playing my verision, and i will give Aust the score they would have set according to their runs per over from the 37.2 over they were at 199 which is 5.3 runs an over, if they had continued, they would have set 3/265. Now is'nt this an interesting match. NZ were orginally set in to sit a score, now they are chasing the score. they have 29 overs in the bank 4 wickets in hand to win they require 6.4 runs an over.

thats all i have to say. the format speaks for its self.

I think this guys on a winning formular. if you look at his examples, it clearly demonstrates the fun and exicitement cricket is, there is no need to condense it down, just break it up into smaller parts.

 

[m_vaughan]

I actually liked that....Someone please send this to Swordfish Studios, Codemasters and maybe even the ICC.

 

[angryangy]

It's not bad, but I have a few issues

Zim vs Sri Lanka
3/47 13.04 overs. Zim.
3/54 12.0 overs. Sri lanka
6/85 26.05 overs. Zim.
6/152 36.05 overs Sri lanka

now lets stop the game there. Sri-Lanka only need 4 wickets. Zim trail by 67 runs. with 24 overs left in the bank. to be equal with sri lanka using the same amount of overs up 36.05 (10 overs) they need to score approx. 6 runs an over. as you can see the game twist and turns giving both teams a chance to rectify a postion they may have got themselves into. Also the batting order can always be adjusted as the game progesses.

I'm not sure I understand the relevance. There is nothing stopping Zimbabwe attempting to bat out the innings, at less than 6 an over, because Sri Lanka won't be sent in so long as they hold their wickets. Is this important because it is useful information for the viewer?

Also, I doubt batting order would be affected much, because generally only lesser batsman can be promoted up the order. To me this would seem only truly useful to stay a collapse, ie, two quick wickets fall, so a tailender is sent in to save a batsman, in the hope that the momentum will be reversed in the next session.

nz vs Aust
3/49 12.06 overs NZ.
3/99 23.03 overs Aust.
6/79 21.04 overs NZ.

ok lets stop the game here, Aust did,nt lose another wicket, but lets assume they're playing my verision, and i will give Aust the score they would have set according to their runs per over from the 37.2 over they were at 199 which is 5.3 runs an over, if they had continued, they would have set 3/265. Now is'nt this an interesting match. NZ were orginally set in to sit a score, now they are chasing the score. they have 29 overs in the bank 4 wickets in hand to win they require 6.4 runs an over.

So, whereas in the actual game Aus only needed 199, but now they have an opportunity to go on to some collossal score and in return, NZ need about 200 runs from it's tail end. In practice, I'd wager NZ would be quickly bowled out for far less than 200. But, all is good, so long as NZ are put to shame, right?

I feel this format takes momentum away from the fielding side. Often in rain delays you see a batting side leave the field in trouble and then the batsmen come out consolidated and resolved. A shining example of this was Thornley and MacGill's partnership in the Pura cup this month. Without the opportunity to sit and rethink the gameplan, WA could easily have grabbed that one last wicket. Instead it took them 43 overs and the pair added 151 for the final wicket.

Of course, in between batting, the batsmen will be fielding rather than sitting in the dressing rooms, but it still breaks the momentum.

The last thing is what happens after 9 wickets? Would the fielding side get an opportunity to knock over number 10 or have to bat out it's innings first? If the final wicket has to wait, could the last man carry his bat? (that would be so cool)

Very interesting idea though.

 

[sachinisgod]

i think that some formats like Twenty20 and the NZ FC Super something are good for converting ppl to cricket followers but to think that these or one of these can take place of an ODI is stretching it too far...ODI's have their own importance...and if ICC replaces ODI cricket with these new formats then they would perhaps be driving more ppl away than bringing in...

I think if cricket needs to be made more interesting then the new laws soon going to come up in FC cricket will be a better method, some of them are as follows:
1) A team will consist of 12 players, 11 can field and 11 can bat (not necessarily the same 11)...bring in some specialist keeper India
2) In case of dismissals like catches - the catcher can run out the other batsman too...so in effect two dismissals can happen in one delivery
3) The batting captain gets to choose which overs he wants the field in and which overs he wants it out - 15 overs in 3 such demanded sets of 5...

these are fairly interesting changes...enuf to keep the presently following followers to keep it up...

 

[J.Coney]

this idea was posted in another web site by a guy called "slugger" sounds american.

i understand your batting team is broken up into 3 sets of wicket. your 2 1st sets are 3 wickets and your last is 4 wickets.
Originally Posted by J.Coney

Originally Posted by J.Coney

Zim vs Sri Lanka
3/47 13.04 overs. Zim.
3/54 12.0 overs. Sri lanka
6/85 26.05 overs. Zim.
6/152 36.05 overs Sri lanka

now lets stop the game there. Sri-Lanka only need 4 wickets. Zim trail by 67 runs. with 24 overs left in the bank. to be equal with sri lanka using the same amount of overs up 36.05 (10 overs) they need to score approx. 6 runs an over. as you can see the game twist and turns giving both teams a chance to rectify a postion they may have got themselves into. Also the batting order can always be adjusted as the game progesses.

RE: the zimbabwe vs sri lanka example. What the guy means is zimbabwe can now set the target but currently they are in the deficit, however the bonus is zimbabwe can guage their progess because they now know what point of the match their score should be at by the 36th over. sri lanka where at (156/6 at the 36th over.) So when they do or if they do reach that 156 they are now in the credit and setting the final score for sri lanka to chase down. zim. only need one good partnership to get to the 156 mark, with what wickets and overs they have left will set the final score for sri lanka to chase, but what ever "it" is zimbabwe know sri lanka have 14 overs in the bank and 4 wickets in hand to do this.

what i like about this version most of all is it's a mini test match. with the glamour and party of an odi. it's an odi with no boring middle bit. which i believe the icc are trying to rectify, to get the game played in more countries. with countries raised on a baseball diet it wont take them to long to get hooked on this verision.

 

[J.Coney]

nz vs Aust
3/49 12.06 overs NZ.
3/99 23.03 overs Aust.
6/79 21.04 overs NZ.

ok lets stop the game here, Aust did,nt lose another wicket, but lets assume they're playing my verision, and i will give Aust the score they would have set according to their runs per over from the 37.2 over they were at 199 which is 5.3 runs an over, if they had continued, they would have set 3/265. Now is'nt this an interesting match. NZ were orginally set in to sit a score, now they are chasing the score. they have 29 overs in the bank 4 wickets in hand to win they require 6.4 runs an over.


So, whereas in the actual game Aus only needed 199, but now they have an opportunity to go on to some collossal score and in return, NZ need about 200 runs from it's tail end. In practice, I'd wager NZ would be quickly bowled out for far less than 200. But, all is good, so long as NZ are put to shame, right?

I re-examined this game what actually happened was nz were sent in, they were all out for 198. Aust lost their 3rd at 99 runs. in slugger verision nz would have returned to the crease and continued from their 3/49. NZ lost its 6 wicket at 79 in the 21st over. the teams would have swapped again and australia continue setting the score from their 99 runs from 23rd over.

in the actual game aust scored that winning 199 in the 37th over, So if your playing slugger's verision nz still have 4 wickets and 29 overs in the bank, so he calculatated from the 37th over what target australia would have set according to the run rate that got them 199 in the 37th over. OR maybe nz got australia next 3 wickets and pulled themselves back into the game, Instead of chasing a giant totalwith their lats 4 wickets from their 21st over.

Anything is possible in slugger's verision his system out weighs a normal odi format 10 times over, set a score then chase a score.

in sluggers verision teams have 3 opportunties to re-examin and rectify the situation.

slugger's game is pretty good, it is always in a constant cycle of movement.

you should all re-do a one day game under sluggers version, chose a game your team lost, you will quickly realise how it may have been possible for you team to get out if it's losing situation.

remember it's 2 sets of 3 wickets then your final 4 wickets.

 

[J.Coney]

NZ Vs Sth Africa

Top of the 1st. Wkts. Sth Africa.
1/7 (Klusener, 0.4 Ov) , 2/97 (Kirsten, 19.3 Ov) , 3/170 (Cullinan, 36.2 Ov)

Bottom of the 1st Wkts. NZ.
1-30 (Spearman, 6.1 Ov) , 2/60 (Young, 13.2 Ov) , 3/86 (McMillian, 17.5 Ov)

*NZ Trial by 84 Runs, with 32 Overs in the Bank.

Top of the 2nd Wkts Sth Africa.
4/197 ( (Kallis, 42.3 Ov) , 5/199 (Gibbs, 43.6 Ov) , 6/203 (Rhodes, 45.1 Ov)

Bottom of the 2nd Wkts. NZ.
4/89 (Fleming, 18.4 Ov) , 5/122 (Astle, 30.1 Ov) , 6/127 (Cairns, 32.2 Ov)

*NZ Trial 76 Runs, with 18 overs in the Bank.

Top of the Last 4 Wkts.. Sth Africa
7/211 (Cronje, 46.5 Ov) , Final Score.
7/233 (50 Ov)

Bottom of the Last 4 Wkts. NZ.
*NZ would have returned to the crease with C.Harris and A.Parore to open his account. Needing 106 to win with 18 Overs to do it in. 5.08 RPO.
Side Points:
*Under this version of the game NZ made a good come back taking the Sth Africa?s 2nd set of wickets for 6 runs.
*However Sth Africa replied and took NZ second set and maintained a healthy lead (76 runs) There could be an option in this game to ask a team to follow on if you maintain a 50 run lead over there score.

In situations like when say Australia lose there 3rd wicket on 170 in the 40th over, Bangaladesh reply and lose their 3 wicket in the 10th over while on 40 runs, Australia can force the follow on because they have a 50 run + lead.



Well there?s a version I did.

Actual game was Sth Africa Vs. NZ 1998. Perth Carlton United Series.
Sth Afica Batted 1st scoring 233 and dismissed NZ in the 45th over for 166.
Sth Africa won by 67 runs.

 

[angryangy]

Aus vs Ind WC 2003 Final
Aus 2/359 (50.0)
Ind 234 (39.2)

No getting out of that one for India there

 

[J.Coney]

angryangy Aus vs Ind WC 2003 Finaangryangy Aus vs Ind WC 2003 Final
Aus 2/359 (50.0)
Ind 234 (39.2)

l

thats a great example of a team playing well. australia never surrended their 3rd wkt. however it is interesting to note australia were 2/129 in the 20th over, the door was half way open for India to halt the momentum.

well angryangry you must be an aussie supporter, you find a game aussie won easy, find one you lost.

 

[angryangy]

I found a famous game...
But I think it highlights the fact that if the side batting first is in an advantageous position (ie batting in favourable conditions, etc) it is hard to shake them.

If the Aussies have to loose for it to work, I don't think this will work too well. :P

Nah, I think it's very interesting but also not foolproof. Would love to see some real statistics produced rather than ones derived from ODIs.

 

[sohum]

I am fascinated by this idea but it still requires a lot of work to be done. I like the way the wickets dictate the momentum of the game (don't they always?) but this format puts a lot of impetus on the bowlers. Having said that, the batsmen will also be under significant pressure because this version really allows you to have a slash-bang type of innings. Since you are spending mini-sessions out there, you probably won't be looking to get stuck in for too long.

The major problems that need to be ironed out are obviously related to the whole format collapsing if there is a failure to lose wickets (hehe...my respect for bowlers shows, doesn't it?). Then it will translate into a an old-style ODI. Also there will be problems when considering rain-affected matches and the fielding restrictions. Would the first 15 overs be restrictions or what? I guess that could stay.

Looking at the steaming progress the ICC has made with new regulations, there is probably not much hope for such a system to come into place any time soon. But it would be great if cricket-developing countries (like USA, Netherlands, Kenya, Bangladesh) try out this system--outside the ICC's regulation if need be--and see how popular it is. And also if it works. It'll definitely be interesting because no one will be able to settle into a rhythm.

Meanwhile, the ICC's delay in introducing double-plays and spread out restrictions in cricket is quite baffling. I do not think there is any major problems there, and if not completely, they should try to use them in some tours. Talking theory is one thing--but actually practicing it is different. Apart from this, another thing is the 3rd Umpire-LBW decisions. Whatever happened with that?

 

[J.Coney]

i agree people, you can't really say yah or nah. until the game is actually played out, under those rules.

However the format really does balance the game ie wheather. it brings the bowlers into the game, you always hear the commentators saying all they need is a wicket or two and they back in this, in this format they are actually back "in this", it also highlights a real team feel, as a player you'll always be involved and spectators and fans are constantly riding a rollercoaster so to speak, batsmen are out in the middle adjusting to the situation and also having a real sense of where the score should be, do you send a batsmen in to be a "pinch hitter" sri lanka use to do this, but in this version it really does have a purpose, while you have a batsmen who well be the back bone of the innings , who will atleast still come out to bat in the 2nd fall of wickets if not the last. australia would have someone like Hayden for this NZ would have Fleming.

I would just like to add one solution for games that are going to start to look messing and lop-sided, also this will help countries understand some of the options in a test match.

that if a team has a 75 run lead over there oppostions score before they lose there 3 wicket they have the option to continue to bat.

if a team is unable to get within 75 runs before they lose their 3rd wicket of their oppostions score their oppostion can inforce a follow on.

examples below.

example1
Team A.
3/133 22nd over
Team B has to score more than 58 before they lose their 3rd wicket so they are not forced to follow on.
Team B.
3/97 17th over (trail by 36 runs)
This is straight swap, neither captain can inforce any rule.

example 2
Team A.
3/29 9th over
Team B have a great opportunity here if the can surpass team A's score by 75 run + before they lose their 3rd wicket, they could if they want continue to bat.
Team B
3/117 33rd over (lead by 88 runs)
Team B if they want could continue to bat. or swap.

What would you do?

example 3
Team A
3/152 33rd over.

Team B
3/66 17th over (trail by 86 runs)

Team A has the option to inforce the follow on, or swap.

What would you do?

 

[sohum]

When I have some time, I am going to try this out at home. :P Indoor cricket. Just to see if it becomes much more exciting. Ha ha.