25/25/25/25

[SJS]

That's a really silly idea SJS.

I mean there are five specialist fielders in those teams who are doing nothing entertaining at all. Crowds like to see batsmen playing shots and scoring boundaries - having fielders on the field interfering is hardly going to assist that. Why not cut out the deadwood - the boring stuff - and just go with 11 batsmen. The bowling machine can handle the regrettable necessity of some means to propel the ball for the batsmen to hit and we can do away with the anarchronism of the wicket keeper by having a net behind the wicket and a big enough hopper of balls on the bowling machine to last an innings - without having to wait for the one ball to be returned from one end of the pitch to the other.

The only problem is the cricket ball, which besides hurting if it should strike a batsman - thus discouraging entertaining sweeps and reverse sweeps to the quicks, sometimes deviates in the air or off the pitch, making entertaining play impossible. We'll replace the cricket balls with tennis balls, which provide more even bounce and go further when struck by the aluminium bats we'll be introducing.

Brilliant !!!!

 

[Swervy]

if the teams already better wouldn't it be a more even battle if the underdogs won the toss?

why reward the team that hasnt played as well???? You would actually encourage teams to secure a semi final place and then throw the game!!!!

 

[SJS]

Be careful SJS. Someone might just take your words too seriously ... we've seen it happen before.

What do you mean eh ?

Of course I am serious. How can a 57 year old be abything but dead serious or just dead and/or serious

 

[LA ICE-E]

why reward the team that hasnt played as well???? You would actually encourage teams to secure a semi final place and then throw the game!!!!

who said nz or sr didn't play well? the seeds shouldn't be a factor in a game that's crazy. If you want to help the team that's already are winning why not go by the seeds and say they are the winner. odi's with two innings would be something like test but without the best part of it and wouldn't have much of its own. Good teams are able to adapt to conditions. I wouldn't mind two innings 20/20(10/10/10/10) though

 

[pup11]

I don't want to sound like a purist but i really won't like to see anymore tampering with the 50 over game.


I am happy with the way the game is atm, so i don't think any changes are required.




P.S: SJS, seriously mate you can't be serious about all those sort of ideas.

 

[Craig]

No irrelevant 3rd option?

 

[Swervy]

who said nz or sr didn't play well? the seeds shouldn't be a factor in a game that's crazy. If you want to help the team that's already are winning why not go by the seeds and say they are the winner. odi's with two innings would be something like test but without the best part of it and wouldn't have much of its own. Good teams are able to adapt to conditions. I wouldn't mind .two innings 20/20(10/10/10/10) though

its about keeping the Super 8s alive, with teams having something to play for right up to their last game, fighting for an advantage in the semis and final.

For example, the upcoming Sri lanka vs Australia game. Both teams are in the the semis. What really do these teams have to gain from this game? If an advantage could be gained in the semis and final through the result of this game, surely there would be more to play for!

 

[LA ICE-E]

advantage you say? how about that if you finish on top you'll play the worst team and if you perform well you won't have to face the best team there until the finals.

 

[Perm]

No irrelevant 3rd option?

This is a cricket poll, not Off Topic

 

[Swervy]

advantage you say? how about that if you finish on top you'll play the worst team and if you perform well you won't have to face the best team there until the finals.

what about the second and third place semi?

In reality the rankings in the semis at the moment dont really mean that much, but they really would if the top 2 in the semis had the right to choose to field or bat in the semis and the top ranked team in the final had the right to do the same in the final. Its reward for good play throughout the tournament

 

[LA ICE-E]

what about the second and third place semi?

In reality the rankings in the semis at the moment dont really mean that much, but they really would if the top 2 in the semis had the right to choose to field or bat in the semis and the top ranked team in the final had the right to do the same in the final. Its reward for good play throughout the tournament

second and third should be happy that they don't have to play the best team.

It may reward the best teams but it will also make it uneven individual games before even the play begins. Also, you're getting paid what else incentive do you want? there's a extra incentive though- the rankings. Every game counts there so that's you incentive for winning you move up or down and if you are #1 or 2 then you get something like 250,000 grands.

 

[Swervy]

second and third should be happy that they don't have to play the best team.

It may reward the best teams but it will also make it uneven individual games before even the play begins. Also, you're getting paid what else incentive do you want? there's a extra incentive though- the rankings. Every game counts there so that's you incentive for winning you move up or down and if you are #1 or 2 then you get something like 250,000 grands.

the difference between between being ranked 1 in the world and number two in the ICC rankings financially is minimal, its small change compared to the money that is in the game.

I cant see what the problem is in eliminating as much luck as possible in a high professional game

 

[Blaze]

In reality the rankings in the semis at the moment dont really mean that much, but they really would if the top 2 in the semis had the right to choose to field or bat in the semis and the top ranked team in the final had the right to do the same in the final. Its reward for good play throughout the tournament

Seems pretty ridiculous that the team that finished 2nd would get the right to choose to bat or field, if they only finished above the team that came 3rd on Net Run Rate...

 

[Swervy]

Seems pretty ridiculous that the team that finished 2nd would get the right to choose to bat or field, if they only finished above the team that came 3rd on Net Run Rate...

more ridiculous than relying on the toss of a coin????

 

[LA ICE-E]

which is like used in every sport? yes

 

[LA ICE-E]

the difference between between being ranked 1 in the world and number two in the ICC rankings financially is minimal, its small change compared to the money that is in the game.

I cant see what the problem is in eliminating as much luck as possible in a high professional game

no it isn't you get like half the money if your 2nd on the rankings. It's just that luck is a factor somewhat in like every sport. It's part of sport. It's better than giving a team who is better a even more advantage, which makes it an uneven battle from the begging. What is the higher ranked team is not the best team today but still is getting the advantage from start? in a toss you're 50/50 so you don't have a advantage or disadvantage depending on your past even though you might be the better team or worser team today.

 

[Swervy]

which is like used in every sport? yes

can you name one sport where the toss of a coin has such a huge effect on a game like it does in cricket. It doesnt in football (soccer), rugby, American football and so on.

yesterdays SA vs NZ game is the perfect example of the toss of the coin having a major effect on a games outcome

 

[slugger]

please can you name these other sports where a coin toss can carry so much wait in the factor of the out come of a game.

 

[slugger]

 

[andyc]

If you can't win because of poor conditions, then you probably didn't deserve to win at all. Sometimes you get good conditions, sometimes you get bad ones. Suck it up.