Bowl-Outs

[Chemosit]

Am I the only one that thinks this is a ridiculous way of deciding a match?

If the game must be split not tied, then surely it would be better to give the win to the team with the most wickets - at least that is a reflection of what has gone on in the match. You could go further down this track as well of needed (eg most wickets 'bowled' or most stumpings). You could even do it on dropped catches, anything really rather than the farcical bowl out.

May as well get all the players to spin round looking at the sky holding a stump to their foreheads and see who falls down last.

 

[nightprowler10]

May as well get all the players to spin round looking at the sky holding a stump to their foreheads and see who falls down last.

Haha, I can just see the headlines. "Asif tests positive for equilibrium enhancing drug."

 

[JASON]

I agree its a ridiculous way to decide..but it adds to the thrill of the game.

I also thought Pakistan looked like they really could not be bothered by the bowl out ...I felt they were satisfied they had done enough and the bowl out was farcical or not important to them.....

Heaven forbid the Semi finals or Final from being decided in this manner...

 

[Athlai]

Odd that both international bowl outs so far have ended with one side wiping the floor with the other.

 

[JASON]

Odd that both international bowl outs so far have ended with one side wiping the floor with the other.

Its like the Penalty shoot outs at the end of Soccer World Cup games...you get the feeling one Team has already conceded the game to the other... and they are just going through the motions. (in soccer the Team with one player sent off usually or....along those lines..)

 

[Athlai]

nightprowler just suggested an extra innings style format as opposed to this, as cricket is a game of two parts, batting and bowling (fielding too) wouldn't it make more sense to involve the other part of the game, an extra few overs? Maybe even as few as 2 with 2 bowlers and 4 batsman?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

It's certainly ridiculous. Probably the stupidest and most farcical thing I've ever seen in a game of international cricket. It's not comparable to penalty shootouts, because at least that tests a relevant skill to football, given people do actually take penalties. Nobody bowls at stumps without a batsman in cricket.

 

[Sanz]

Would prefer a tied game. If they really wanted to declare a winner, they should have given it to the team that lost less wickets. This BOWL OUT is a stupid joke in the name of cricket and one of the reasons why I hate Twenty20.

 

[adharcric]

Ridiculous indeed. Most idiotic concept I have ever seen introduced in cricket. I was beginning to appreciate the Twenty20 format but this is pathetic.

 

[IndianByHeart]

This rule is even more disgraceful than Imran Nazir's approach to batting, both should be chucked out of game as soon as possible.

Imagine WC final being decided on hitting stumps!!

 

[SJS]

Haha, I can just see the headlines. "Asif tests positive for equilibrium enhancing drug."

Fabulous !
​

 

[pasag]

Would prefer a tied game. If they really wanted to declare a winner, they should have given it to the team that lost less wickets. This BOWL OUT is a stupid joke in the name of cricket and one of the reasons why I hate Twenty20.

Most 6s I was thinking, but agreed, Bowl Outs are horrible as I posted when it first happened with NZ WI.

 

[Athlai]

I like them for a few reasons

• The pressure they build
• The spectacle that it is, (bowler and wicket keeper in the middle of it all)
• The expressions of the teams and of the fans with every ball that goes down
• The excitement of the make or break moments it creates

But there are better options (a few proper extra time overs) and I would HATE it if it were part of ODI cricket, this is T20. It fits right in with the rest of the things.

 

[anoop4real]

This way of deciding the result is really bad

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

I can actually understand them as a way of deciding a tied knock-out match, but in a group stage like yesterday's game, the tie should be left to stand as it is. Both teams scored an equal amount of runs, therefore the points should be split, just as in an abandoned match.

 

[anoop4real]

Yes man it makes sense...but in a fast game like this ....some decision are needed...i feel it will be easier for further stages also

 

[Jono]

I like them for a few reasons

• The pressure they build
• The spectacle that it is, (bowler and wicket keeper in the middle of it all)
• The expressions of the teams and of the fans with every ball that goes down
• The excitement of the make or break moments it creates

But there are better options (a few proper extra time overs) and I would HATE it if it were part of ODI cricket, this is T20. It fits right in with the rest of the things.

Haha surely you're taking the piss?

Let's go even one step further. Have a batsman hit the ball high in the air, and see if the fielder can catch it. Whichever team catches it the most out of the 5 times wins.

A bowl-out is the worst concept ever. EVER!

 

[Athlai]

Haha surely you're taking the piss?

Let's go even one step further. Have a batsman hit the ball high in the air, and see if the fielder can catch it. Whichever team catches it the most out of the 5 times wins.

A bowl-out is the worst concept ever. EVER!

If it doesn't make me turn off the television then it works TBH.

 

[anoop4real]

Hi hi thats cool ......

 

[Perm]

If it doesn't make me turn off the television then it works TBH.

Agreed, although I can see why almost everybody is criticising it, I'd much prefer the winner to be based on number of wickets lost, or number of sixes hit. But a bowl-off does the job.