ivanvdm15
International Cricketer
the powerplay rule is kinda stupid to me but it makes sense.
Abhas
Retired Administrator
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2004
- Location
- New Delhi, India
Well, one thing which i don't like is when there is a wide, and four runs, it is shown as 5 wides... i would rather have it as 1 wide, and 4 byes... makes more sense....
sometimes, when the total no. of wides are shown on the TV, the commentators do not regard the extra runs, and if there are say 12 wides, they simply say 12 extra bowls bowled, when it could easily have been just 3 extra balls...
sometimes, when the total no. of wides are shown on the TV, the commentators do not regard the extra runs, and if there are say 12 wides, they simply say 12 extra bowls bowled, when it could easily have been just 3 extra balls...
Skater
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2004
- Profile Flag
- England
Byes count against the wicketkeeper, and if a wide ball goes for four runs it must have been out of both the batsman's and the keeper's reach, so it would be unfair to count them as byes.
Also, when commentators talk about 'extras' they do not mean how many extra balls there have been that were wides, no balls etc., they actually mean how many extra runs have been scored from those types of foul deliveries.
Insomniac
Title Recipient
Yes, but what he means is, if a team bowls lots of wides and noballs, they start saying "extra deliveries", and say how they had to bowl an extra 3 overs, just because of their wides, when in reality they may have bowled just 6 deliveries that were wide, and happened to go to the boundary, meaning they only bowled 1 extra over.
(I just translated what he said, am not necessarily agreeing with what he said
)
(I just translated what he said, am not necessarily agreeing with what he said
)
sohum
Executive member
The wide thing isn't really a rule as much as it is a statistician's preference. I think.
one rule i don't like is bowler only allowed to bowl 2 short bowl in test and 1 in one day.
Let the bowler bowl as many short bowl as he wants. if it over head just give a no bowl straight even in test. It will make cricket even more interesting.
Anyone agree.
:confused:
Let the bowler bowl as many short bowl as he wants. if it over head just give a no bowl straight even in test. It will make cricket even more interesting.
Anyone agree.
:confused:
JamesyJames3
International Coach
Plus if you let a bowler bowl as many short balls as they want, they could do it when their about to get beat in a run chase and turn a game on it's head.
Ridiculous suggestion. Hang your head in shame!
Ridiculous suggestion. Hang your head in shame!
Almost_Austwick
International Captain
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2005
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Been there, done that. Just watch the Windies from the early 70's onwards.
sorry mate i asked for your opinion nothing to be rude about.
I think in early 70's (if i am wrong please correct me) the bodyline attack was bowled. But was there a no bowl if over the head. I think if the bowl is over the head and batsman cannot play than it should be called no bowl. This is my personal opinion noting to fire about.
Almost_Austwick
International Captain
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2005
- Online Cricket Games Owned
sorry mate i asked for your opinion nothing to be rude about.
I think in early 70's (if i am wrong please correct me) the bodyline attack was bowled. But was there a no bowl if over the head. I think if the bowl is over the head and batsman cannot play than it should be called no bowl. This is my personal opinion noting to fire about.
Bodyline was in the 30's and something totally different to what you're thinking of. In essence it was the containment of the batting side through legside bowling, pitched short and aimed at the heart (well the body really).
It was hoped that the batsman would fend the ball away to a number of waiting fielders, lined up just behind square leg.
Personally, I think you're thinking more specifically of the West Indian attack of the 70's and 80's, who would systematically bowl short in order to strike fear into the opposing batsmen. It was not targeted at any one area although it was often relentless.
It was because of this tactic that the number of short balls in an over rule was brought in.
In one way your thinking is correct as it has taken something away from the pace bowlers armoury but in another you're quite wrong, as relentless short pitch bowling gets boring and as JJ3 points out can be used as a negative rather than attacking ploy.
tassietiger
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2005
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Whatever rule was brought in that meant mankadding was not allowed. What's stopping the non-striker from just running down the pitch before the bowler has bowled then?
SciD
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2006
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Then everyone will want to be bowler and batsmen will ahve averages like 14,15 only. Come on man people come in to watch batsmen hitiing 4's and 6's not being hit on head and carried back on stretcher.
Think about poor Bangladesh or Zimbawe against SA, England, Australia or Pakistan. God have mercy on them.
sohum
Executive member
I disagree. I feel a lot of the faster bowlers would just keep bowling this over and over again, and although you can consider it to be a skill, it would definitely be more dangerous and it would evolve batting in the next generations to be off the back foot and hence shots which are delightful to watch (like the drive shots) would be lost.
I wouldn't mind adding one more bouncer per over in ODI's, though. Although I can see how that can be used as a way to get the advantage during a tight run chase.
jordox
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2007
- Online Cricket Games Owned
sorry mate i asked for your opinion nothing to be rude about.
I think in early 70's (if i am wrong please correct me) the bodyline attack was bowled. But was there a no bowl if over the head. I think if the bowl is over the head and batsman cannot play than it should be called no bowl. This is my personal opinion noting to fire about.
hehe, Bodyline in the 1970s.. Ah some people make me smile
