Fewer fielding restrictions, more free-hits on cards

[BeautifulGame]

Removing the batting Powerplay and allowing five fielders outside the circle between overs 41 and 50 were among the major suggestions made by the ICC's cricket committee that met in Mumbai over the weekend. The committee also suggested a free-hit for all no balls in ODI and T20s, and not just for the front-foot calls. The recommendations made during the meeting were subject to the approval of chief executive's committee (CEC) that will meet in Barbados during the ICC's annual conference week from June 22 to 26. The committee suggested the changes as it felt that fielding teams were at times left with limited defensive options. The alterations suggested, if ratified, would mean there would be two fielders outside the circle for the first 10 overs , four for the next 30 and five for the last 10 overs. The doing away of the batting Powerplay meant only one block of 10-over Powerplay remained, two less than in the 2011 World Cup. Additionally, the requirement of placing two fielders in catching positions in the first 10 overs has also been relaxed. On the topic of the balance between bat and ball, the committee discussed the size of bats, the boundaries and the durability of white ball and concluded that although the ICC will not introduce any regulations on the bat size, it will provide inputs for the consultation process ahead of MCC's redrafting of laws in 2017. Reviewing the reports from the first-class matches played with pink balls, the committee asked Test-playing nations to identify opportunities and make provisions for play to extend later into the day. The idea of four-day Tests, however, was rejected. http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/877741.html

[HippoSucks]

No need for more free hits... Less stringent fielding restrictions are great.

[horizonspeaks]

So spinners would be more active in the tail overs.

[HippoSucks]

The rate at which rules are changing is ridiculous though. Makes comparing of players who played in this era more difficult, let alone over different generations.

[Precambrian]

The rate at which rules are changing is ridiculous though. Makes comparing of players who played in this era more difficult' date=' let alone over different generations.[/quote'] No need to compare players across generations, that's the underlying theme. Make cricket a spectator sport, not something driven y stupid stats. Twenty twenty is so great in that, reduce stats to periphery... Make it a real sport. ****ing averages, hundreds, Bal blah

[HippoSucks]

No need to compare players across generations, that's the underlying theme. Make cricket a spectator sport, not something driven y stupid stats. Twenty twenty is so great in that, reduce stats to periphery... Make it a real sport. ****ing averages, hundreds, Bal blah

That's a terrible defense. Even if you aren't comparing players specifically, you have to know how a current player is performing relative to the standards of the 90s. Otherwise you would have people averaging in 60s in this generation and we wouldn't know how to rate them if rules change every year. It is difficult to rate or compare players by just watching them play, especially if you haven't seen players from past generations play.

[Precambrian]

That's a terrible defense. Even if you aren't comparing players specifically, you have to know how a current player is performing relative to the standards of the 90s. Otherwise you would have people averaging in 60s in this generation and we wouldn't know how to rate them if rules change every year. It is difficult to rate or compare players by just watching them play, especially if you haven't seen players from past generations play.

Why should a player be compared against standards of the 90s? People need to be compared with peers. How they perform against each other. In exams, you get compared with your peers and ranks are awarded. People don't take someone's resume, then apply a factor to it and compare that with someone who passed a few decades earlier. :haha: This whole chat of 'oh but people starts averaging in the 60s' is like socialist and marxist attitude at its worst - how dare people average more than a threshold. Only stats - nutters believe in such stupid stuff. Let cricket become an uncomplicated spectator sport. People want to watch and enjoy sports. Not get lost in silly numbers. Cricket needs to evolve with the times. A big chunk of people who follow cricket today are T20 lovers. Out of that a big chunk are people who give a rats ass these statistics. They just want to enjoy cricket, not compare Rohit Sharma's average with Dhoni's average and then apply a factor and conclude Rohit is a better bat. I am extremely happy that T20s have brought the sense of 'team sport' back into cricket. Results count, individual efforts don't at the end of the day.

[Precambrian]

And the rise of IPL and T20s have reduced the nincompoop ultra crap "Player A vs Player B" comparison shitfests to a trickle. Yes, yours truly also have put such threads before, when in my stupid younger days used to believe cricket was a stats driven sport. Just watch and enjoy. It's a microcosm of our life, chaos, brilliance, mistakes, heroism, villainry, all in a very small period of time - instead of getting lost in statistics, why can't we effin enjoy the glory of it? On topic, I think the IPL and T20 leagues have shown that powerplays don't really count. If you are good, you are going to score at any period. doing away with batting powerplay can prove to be counter intituitve as well.

[HippoSucks]

Why should a player be compared against standards of the 90s? People need to be compared with peers. How they perform against each other. In exams, you get compared with your peers and ranks are awarded. People don't take someone's resume, then apply a factor to it and compare that with someone who passed a few decades earlier. :haha: This whole chat of 'oh but people starts averaging in the 60s' is like socialist and marxist attitude at its worst - how dare people average more than a threshold. Only stats - nutters believe in such stupid stuff. Let cricket become an uncomplicated spectator sport. People want to watch and enjoy sports. Not get lost in silly numbers. Cricket needs to evolve with the times. A big chunk of people who follow cricket today are T20 lovers. Out of that a big chunk are people who give a rats ass these statistics. They just want to enjoy cricket, not compare Rohit Sharma's average with Dhoni's average and then apply a factor and conclude Rohit is a better bat. I am extremely happy that T20s have brought the sense of 'team sport' back into cricket. Results count, individual efforts don't at the end of the day.

Cricket would be pretty boring just as a spectator's sport if you ask me. Just watching cricket is much more boring than discussing performances of players, comparing their abilities etc. Even in other more popular sports like football statistics are often compared.

[fineleg]

IPL and T20 :hysterical: http://indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=326245