Sachinism Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 An Australian Cricketers' Association (ACA) survey conducted on the future of Twenty20 has raised some interesting suggestions for the shorter format of the game, reports the Sydney Morning Herald. The ideas included using four stumps instead of three and giving a free hit from the first ball a batsman faced. The other innovations the domestic and international players developed were an extra over for bowlers who took a wicket and no leg-byes. A return to the Supersub and technological ideas, including hand-held television screens for umpires to allow them to make faster run-out decisions, were also proposed. "Whilst a lot of players are traditionalists, they are moving down a path of wanting to bring more people to the game," Paul Marsh, the ACA chief executive, said. "What's really important is that whatever innovations are brought in, they don't affect the integrity of the game on the field." In what could be a major move, 41% of Cricket Australia-contracted players expressed their support for wearing shorts during Twenty20 matches, while 82% favoured changing uniform colours. Only 6% felt playing live music during the game would affect their performance. Players were much less excited on the issue of using nicknames on t-shirts - as in the recent Twenty20 international between Australia and New Zealand - and of celebrity players for one-off appearances. The rugby league player Andrew Johns turned out for New South Wales earlier this year. International players had no problems with the use of on-field microphones and in-game interviews. Adam Gilchrist and Andrew Symonds were tagged during the game against New Zealand and 94% were in favour of using microphones while 88% had no issues with batsmen being interviewed right after their dismissal. Link to comment
Sachinism Posted December 19, 2007 Author Share Posted December 19, 2007 dont agree with the 4 stumps idea Link to comment
fineleg Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 No leg byes is good for all forms of the game. If u want runs, touch the ball with ur bat! Byes is ok since it is "keeper" who needed to have caught the ball. Link to comment
Guest BossBhai Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 -- Removed on request of the user -- Link to comment
The Outsider Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 In limited overs cricket, giving an extra over to a bowler who picks up a wicket should be one thing drafted in. Link to comment
chamatkar Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I was laughing over the shorts idea.. while trying to imagine Aus's Twenty20 WC shirts on top... That would be too much to see. I like the idea of doing away with leg-byes.. it gives some more flexibility to the bowler, who has a raw deal in these games. Link to comment
Online Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I hate all the suggestions Link to comment
fineleg Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 In limited overs cricket' date=' giving an extra over to a bowler who picks up a wicket should be one thing drafted in.[/quote'] i agree shwetabh...i like this one too. ps: one issue/disadvantage though... indian batsmen may be at the receiving end more often :P Link to comment
Sachinism Posted December 20, 2007 Author Share Posted December 20, 2007 In limited overs cricket' date=' giving an extra over to a bowler who picks up a wicket should be one thing drafted in.[/quote'] what are batsmen supposed to do instead of playing of a bowler who is causing problems Link to comment
Ram Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Some changes i would like to see, -- No overthrows off direct hits -- Leg byes abolished -- lbw even if the ball pitches outside leg-stump -- no stumpings off wides Link to comment
fineleg Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Some changes i would like to see, -- lbw even if the ball pitches outside leg-stump MM, Disagree. There was a good reason this rule was brought into place I think (correct me if I'm wrong here). To prevent negative bowling, and that is still valid I believe. Link to comment
chanakya Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 Some changes i would like to see, -- lbw even if the ball pitches outside leg-stump -- no stumpings off wides stumping off wides is usualy a result of the bowler reading the batters intension early, so i would still have that Link to comment
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