flamy Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 Just play with one ball, please. The 12 overs for a couple of bowlers is a good idea. It is easily implemented.
HippoSucks Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 In that era 250 was a very very good score. Averge of 24 was not that bad in that era. Besides the point is even in that era we could witness whirlwind innings once in a while. Frequency has increased because attitude has changed due to introduction of T20 besides bigger bats, flatter pitches, more innovations etc. When i say attitude the batsman won't go after bowling until the last 2 or 3 overs in that era. Very often first 10 overs would result in 25 for 1 or 30 for 0. Mindset has changed completely. Even in that era srikkanth was able to exhibit you can go hammer and tongs upfront. I don't mean that his average was low, but that it is understandable for an all-rounder to come at #7 and hit 20-25 quick runs. In that era of course big innings did occur, but they were rare. Unlike now where it is becoming common. I think many people would rather watch an ODI match where the first side makes 250 and then the chasing side struggles to get there. It isn't entertaining to watch (or play) matches where every other ball goes to the boundary and 300 is a par score. Some of the "innovative" shots that batsman play nowadays look just like some desperate attempt to hit the ball as hard as you can in any way possible (and then hoping it goes to the boundary, which is will due to such ridiculous grounds). I don't care if we have to demolish the entire T20 format to return to the mindset of scoring slowly.
vvvslaxman Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 I don't mean that his average was low, but that it is understandable for an all-rounder to come at #7 and hit 20-25 quick runs. In that era of course big innings did occur, but they were rare. Unlike now where it is becoming common. I think many people would rather watch an ODI match where the first side makes 250 and then the chasing side struggles to get there. It isn't entertaining to watch (or play) matches where every other ball goes to the boundary and 300 is a par score. Some of the "innovative" shots that batsman play nowadays look just like some desperate attempt to hit the ball as hard as you can in any way possible (and then hoping it goes to the boundary, which is will due to such ridiculous grounds). I don't care if we have to demolish the entire T20 format to return to the mindset of scoring slowly. India did not cross 300 total until mid 90s. India was one of the last country to cross that 300 mark in the one dayer. Since then India crossed 300 plus more than most of the countries. Attitude started changing. Forget about comparison of 80s cricket. Even the period after 2000 can be divided into two. Pre T20 and Post T20. One way you can reduce the impact is by adding one more fielder and have just one ball to start with. This will improve the balance. I don't expect pitches to be bowler friendly. Cricket is a highly commercialized sports now. So they would want full game not teams getting shot out for 130 runs.
jalebi_bhai Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 I think contemporary bowlers are quite pedestrian. If the neutering of reverse-swing has made them so redundant, then maybe they weren't good enough to begin with. The standard has gone down. How many world class bowlers are out there right now? Compare the number with the 90s and 00s. There are barely 10 bowlers these days who you could truly call world class. Now, why is there such a dearth of quality bowlers? Is it because of the rules? Is it because batsmen have evolved? Find the reason for this, you will have partly figured out the problem. I remember that there was an argument going around a few years back that overs 20-40 were too uneventful and that ODIs should either become 40 overs or divided into 4 quarters of 25 overs. The former exists in English county cricket while the latter was tried in Aus domestic. They have discontinued the 4 quarters thing. So what is it that people want? Even contest or 100 overs of entertainment?
NareshK Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 I don't mean that his average was low, but that it is understandable for an all-rounder to come at #7 and hit 20-25 quick runs. In that era of course big innings did occur, but they were rare. Unlike now where it is becoming common. I think many people would rather watch an ODI match where the first side makes 250 and then the chasing side struggles to get there. It isn't entertaining to watch (or play) matches where every other ball goes to the boundary and 300 is a par score. Some of the "innovative" shots that batsman play nowadays look just like some desperate attempt to hit the ball as hard as you can in any way possible (and then hoping it goes to the boundary, which is will due to such ridiculous grounds). I don't care if we have to demolish the entire T20 format to return to the mindset of scoring slowly. You are wrong I'm afraid. Most people would be bored to death watching a slow scoring game. A slow scoring game every once in a while sounds like a breath of fresh air when most sides are scoring 300 but if each game is a slow scoring one, it wont be exciting for most people. Even today when SA were scoring slowly in first 20 overs, most people whom I was watching the game with were getting restless and none of them found it interesting.
HippoSucks Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 India did not cross 300 total until mid 90s. India was one of the last country to cross that 300 mark in the one dayer. Since then India crossed 300 plus more than most of the countries. Attitude started changing. Forget about comparison of 80s cricket. Even the period after 2000 can be divided into two. Pre T20 and Post T20. One way you can reduce the impact is by adding one more fielder and have just one ball to start with. This will improve the balance. I don't expect pitches to be bowler friendly. Cricket is a highly commercialized sports now. So they would want full game not teams getting shot out for 130 runs. Hopefully those people realize that by doing this, a lot of long term cricket viewers will eventually stop watching T20s all together. What is worse is that in the same manner the T20 format changed the mentality of the batsman in ODIs, the same is happening to the mentality of batsman in Tests. They're scoring at a run rate of 4 most of the time and I wouldn't be surprised if this increases to 6 in the next few years. The unfortunate part is that I don't see any changes to make all of this less batsman friendly any time soon. In fact, some of the incompetent fools might introduce things to make it even more batsman friendly (e.g. synthetic pitches to even remove some of the home advantage from the bowlers).
HippoSucks Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 You are wrong I'm afraid. Most people would be bored to death watching a slow scoring game. A slow scoring game every once in a while sounds like a breath of fresh air when most sides are scoring 300 but if each game is a slow scoring one, it wont be exciting for most people. Even today when SA were scoring slowly in first 20 overs, most people whom I was watching the game with were getting restless and none of them found it interesting. I guess that is one of the consequences of people becoming more and more impatient nowadays. A lot of the viewers aren't too interested in cricket either, just fascinated by these big (and quick) scores. You can't satisfy both ends of the spectrum, but cricket was going well in the early 2000s. I don't see why they had to implement these changes if there was nothing wrong with the cricket of that era.
NareshK Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 The ideal ODI pitch would be one where a par score is 290-300 but the pitch remains true so the side chasing will have a chance to chase it down. Also, its preposterous to have fielding restrictions in last 10 overs. Batsmen will go after bowlers in last 10 overs anyway, what's the need of making it even tougher for them ?
riya Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 Pitch plays the most part.The rest of the rules wouldn't apply if there is some thing for the bowlers...
vayuu1 Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 The ideal ODI pitch would be one where a par score is 290-300 but the pitch remains true so the side chasing will have a chance to chase it down. Also, its preposterous to have fielding restrictions in last 10 overs. Batsmen will go after bowlers in last 10 overs anyway, what's the need of making it even tougher for them ? I think an ideal pitch should be, where anything from 250 to 280, it brings all skills to the table
zen Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 OZ vs. NZ, the OZ will say the game is bowler friendly :P
rkt.india Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Wasn't a new ball taken in 34th over earlier? That was a for brief period. but even then the first ball used to reverse after 25 overs. We did so well with that. Also, spinners used to be more effective.
rkt.india Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 e (and then hoping it goes to the boundary' date= which is will due to such ridiculous grounds). I don't care if we have to demolish the entire T20 format to return to the mindset of scoring slowly. Grounds were same then too. Bats have become better.
rkt.india Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 I think contemporary bowlers are quite pedestrian. If the neutering of reverse-swing has made them so redundant, then maybe they weren't good enough to begin with. The standard has gone down. How many world class bowlers are out there right now? Compare the number with the 90s and 00s. T How well those world class bowlers would have fared today? No one knows.. They were world class in their era. World class bowlers are not spared today even by tailenders. Comparison of eras is bogus. Game has changed a lot in 20 years, especially, LOIs.
Crookbond Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 How well those world class bowlers would have fared today? No one knows.. They were world class in their era. World class bowlers are not spared today even by tailenders. Comparison of eras is bogus. Game has changed a lot in 20 years' date= especially, LOIs. Not unless ... you are a teen ... who can indulge in .... mental gymnastics ....
jalebi_bhai Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 How well those world class bowlers would have fared today? No one knows.. They were world class in their era. World class bowlers are not spared today even by tailenders. Comparison of eras is bogus. Game has changed a lot in 20 years' date=' especially, LOIs.[/quote'] Who do you think would've struggled?
termination Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Do away with batting power plays after first 10 overs.
HippoSucks Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 Ban helmets. People like Johnson and Steyn can be intimidating enough with helmets and padding. We don't want to make this game even more dangerous.
rkt.india Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 Not unless ... you are a teen ... who can indulge in .... mental gymnastics .... I said this for ODIs. ODI cricket was still in its infancy in 80s, so, those stats are not relevant in today's. You think they would have had economy in 3 today like they had back then. It is like comparing test cricket of 1900 to today. people say how bowlers in 80s good, batsman could not score against them. Batting mentality at that time was completely different.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now