Is 400 the new 300?

[Sidhoni]

How about a new rule' date='ball hitting the batsman's body (I.e missing the bat) more than 3 times will mean he's out[/quote'] Do you want another horrible incident?

[adi B]

Do you want another horrible incident?

With a Mooney style helmet(if you saw his helmet) :dontknow:

[Crookbond]

How about a new rule' date='ball hitting the [b']batsman's body (I.e missing the bat) more than 3 times will mean he's out

With a Mooney style helmet(if you saw his helmet) :dontknow:

Mooney's helmet does not cover the batsman's body. :giggle:

[govinda]

low scoreing matches are better than high socreing ones

[Marut]

1985 par score 220 1990 par score 230 1995 par score 235 2000 par score 240 2005 par score 265 2010 par score 270 2015 par score 280 WC average has been around 285 I think. In Australia, it is more like 320 and 240 in NZ.

[velu]

1990's 260 = 1995's 290 = 2000's 320 = 2005's 340 = 2010's 360 = 2015's 380

I am sure pakistan follows different benchmark ! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Marut]

I am sure pakistan follows different benchmark ! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1995 level.

[moniker]

From Cricinfo: Matt Groningen: "How many kids would be watching this world cup and dreaming of being a bowler when they grow up? It's got to the stage where the bat holds so much dominance over the ball that the limited overs game is becoming a mismatched farce. Personally, I find it sad. People want to see a good contest between bat and ball, not an exhibition of which country can swing the hardest."

Kids aspiring to be bowlers should be watching tests for inspiration, not LOIs. Why the hell would you want to be a limited overs bowler?

[Marut]

Kids aspiring to be bowlers should be watching tests for inspiration' date=' not LOIs. Why the hell would you want to be a limited overs bowler?[/quote'] It is all relative. The 90s ODIs had much lesser balance between bat and ball compared to the 70s and 80s. The field restrictions and bouncer rules allowed openers to target 100 off 15 during WC 96, which would have been unthinkable in the 70s or 80s. But we did not stop watching cricket in the 90s because the dominance was shifting towards the batsmen. Infact, more people flocked the stadia to watch Jaya, Sachin and others go after the bowling under friendlier rules.

[Marut]

The high scores are not what makes these ODIs boring these days. They are too one sided, that is why. We have seen lots of 250 chases in the 90s, but why can't teams chase 300 these days? I don't understand this. Scoreboard pressure is not the answer, 250 in the 90s was equal score board pressure and many matches went to the wire those days.

[Forever Indian]

It is all relative. The 90s ODIs had much lesser balance between bat and ball compared to the 70s and 80s. The field restrictions and bouncer rules allowed openers to target 100 off 15 during WC 96' date=' which would have been unthinkable in the 70s or 80s. But we did not stop watching cricket in the 90s because the dominance was shifting towards the batsmen. Infact, more people flocked the stadia to watch Jaya, Sachin and others go after the bowling under friendlier rules.[/quote'] You can skew the game in favour of batsmen or bowlers to some extent but there is a limit which is being crossed here. If the balance is tilted too much in favour of one side then the contest will be killed. As they say - If you have too much sweet, even that will become poison for you!!!

[gaurav92]

New 350 may be, 400 is still a rarity

[adi B]

Mooney's helmet does not cover the batsman's body. :giggle:

pansies :finger:

[Sidhoni]

With a Mooney style helmet(if you saw his helmet) :dontknow:

Yes saw it. Like DM said, it only covers the head.

[Asim]

I am sure pakistan follows different benchmark ! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We are following same pattern, just 15-20 years behind though

[GrandMasterSaxy]

300 is still a decent score among the Test Playing nation. All the 400+ runs have been scored against minnows/out of form team. I bet none of the team will score 400+ during the knockout stage.

[HippoSucks]

300 is still a decent score among the Test Playing nation. All the 400+ runs have been scored against minnows/out of form team. I bet none of the team will score 400+ during the knockout stage.

Against a minnow 280 should be a par score. The minnows don't bowl nearly as bad as you would imagine. Afghanistan was amazing today. Although Warner and Maxwell batted amazingly, they wouldn't have crossed 320 if it weren't for some ridiculous rules (and other batting favorable constructs). Commercialization is ruining cricket. :((

[GrandMasterSaxy]

One of the ex NZ cricketer raised a concern over the bat size (David Warner seem to be using around 50 mm edge) and requested ICC to come up with some regulations.

Against a minnow 280 should be a par score. The minnows don't bowl nearly as bad as you would imagine. Afghanistan was amazing today. Although Warner and Maxwell batted amazingly, they wouldn't have crossed 320 if it weren't for some ridiculous rules (and other batting favorable constructs). Commercialization is ruining cricket. :((

[HippoSucks]

One of the ex NZ cricketer raised a concern over the bat size (David Warner seem to be using around 50 mm edge) and requested ICC to come up with some regulations.

The bats Warner, de Villiers etc wield are ridiculous and they don't allow ball tampering. :haha: What is the difference between the two? I don't see any regulations being enforced at the moment because they are too busy making off money from people who nonstop hitting.

[sweetaskandy]

Good score has gone from 300 to 330. Decent score has become 280-300. When I was young 250 was a BIG score and 300 something rare. Game is unfair now.