ODI Rule Changes

[slugger]

isnt test cricket theoretically 4 quaters. that begin and end at the fall of the 10th wicket or a declaration.

i just think the odi needs to adopt a quater system. because its 40 overs youve lost 10 overs. so i thought about giving a team less wickets to play with and in essence creatte the specialist bowler by removal of that wicket. it would create a new dynamic.. this player doesnt need to be identified b4 commence of play. thus giving thae capt a a chance to make a decision during play.. in nz case you might assume its bond or vettori.. but what if styris is after 7 overs taken 3 for nothing.. he bats around 4-5 in the order. the other teams gonna try and get him to have to pad up in the first 20 overs. or tempt the nz capt to have to make that decision is styris in this case gonna be more useful as the special bowler or as a batsmen..

the prob with 50 odi is its a well read script .. you need to implemt change that creates a different game each time.. first split it into quaters and second add the specilaist bowler ingredient.

** i dont know of any game played out under my complete idea.. but i do believe games have been played in quaters if the teams agree.

 

[NUFAN]

As I've said in a previous thread, I used to play in a comp with that format mentioned above.

EDIT - I mean the quarters, not the 10 batsmen and specialist bowler crap.

 

[Richard]

I would like to see a rule change that would allow one bowler to bowl 12 overs per innings.

another rule change, no runners for injured batters. Either run or go off.

I reckon for every wicket a bowler takes, they should be allowed to bowl another over. 0 wickets - 10 over max. 1 wicket - 11 over match. 6 wickets, bowl sixteen overs my son.

Nah, that'd be too much innovation IMO. And it'd potentially disadvantage, not advantage, bowlers, as they'd have more overs so have more odds of being slogged.

I actually think no-runners would be a good change for any form of cricket. Rarely does using a runner actually help a batsman at all, he's almost invariably far better going off and resuming when he's improved. Batsmen rarely last long when they're injured badly enough to need a runner. If they're so unfit they can't even resume, they're much best off to go off and take the not-out, as there's next to no chance you'll score many if you're so badly injured you can't resume later in an innings.

 

[Matt79]

Nah, that'd be too much innovation IMO. And it'd potentially disadvantage, not advantage, bowlers, as they'd have more overs so have more odds of being slogged.

I actually think no-runners would be a good change for any form of cricket. Rarely does using a runner actually help a batsman at all, he's almost invariably far better going off and resuming when he's improved. Batsmen rarely last long when they're injured badly enough to need a runner. If they're so unfit they can't even resume, they're much best off to go off and take the not-out, as there's next to no chance you'll score many if you're so badly injured you can't resume later in an innings.

Team sport played for wins, not your average or E/R, fer cryin out loud!

 

[Richard]

And a bowler having a good economy-rate and a batsman scoring runs will help his team...

C'mon, isn't that obvious?

In any case, there are circumstances where games are already long-lost, and players can and should play for themsevles.

 

[Matt79]

And a bowler having a good economy-rate and a batsman scoring runs will help his team...

C'mon, isn't that obvious?

In any case, there are circumstances where games are already long-lost, and players can and should play for themsevles.

As a by product of helping his team, never the other way around.

 

[Richard]

Not at all. Bradman put it best: "if my team want me to go in and lose my wicket so they can win the game, well I'll be quite happy to do that" *wry smile* "if, on the other hand, they want me to get runs, then I try to get as many runs as I can".

Scoring runs can never be bad for your team. Scoring runs helps your team, and it helps your average. There's no point trying to separate the two.

 

[Matt79]

Dhoni's innings yesterday didn't help his team - him playing for his 50 helped no-one but his average. He had a slim chance to win the game by attacking and he failed to do so - and thus deserves little credit for his 50.

Scoring runs can't be bad, true. Occupying the crease but not scoring runs can help your team a great deal less than scoring runs in that time, and can cost them the chance to press for a win because there is limited time available, and you never know when that time will be further reduced by rain/light/whatever. Using the "scoring runs can't be bad" theory, why not give preference to someone who will score at 3-4 runs per over rather than 1-2, as that will put you in the position to press for wins more often?

And again, you keep on equating being an attacking player to losing/throwing away your wicket. I'm not advocating the selection of Afridi here - rather I'm saying that what made Richards so special was his ability to be a devastatingly attacking batsman AND still make shedloads of runs - something that puts him ahead of the other great batsmen of his time.

 

[Matt79]

Not at all. Bradman put it best: "if my team want me to go in and lose my wicket so they can win the game, well I'll be quite happy to do that" *wry smile* "if, on the other hand, they want me to get runs, then I try to get as many runs as I can".

Scoring runs can never be bad for your team. Scoring runs helps your team, and it helps your average. There's no point trying to separate the two.

And its ironic you quote Bradman - although we can only estimate his scoring rate based on timing of his innings, all those estimates suggest he scored at around 4 an over, and indeed a notable part of his success would have been based on the DOMINANCE he exerted over bowling attacks facing him.

 

[Matt79]

Especially given when choosing his alltime team, Bradman chose Barry Richards ahead of Sunil Gavaskar primarily on the grounds that Gavaskar scored too slowly - showing what Bradman really thought about the value of attacking players compared to overly defensive types.

 

[Richard]

Dhoni's innings yesterday didn't help his team - him playing for his 50 helped no-one but his average. He had a slim chance to win the game by attacking and he failed to do so - and thus deserves little credit for his 50.

I disagree - he had no realistic chance of winning the game once he lost the rest of the batting-line-up, so might as well have played for himself. Not little chance - no realistic chance. There was as much likelihood of Australia losing from there was there is of me beating Kasparov at chess.

Scoring runs can't be bad, true. Occupying the crease but not scoring runs can help your team a great deal less than scoring runs in that time, and can cost them the chance to press for a win because there is limited time available, and you never know when that time will be further reduced by rain/light/whatever. Using the "scoring runs can't be bad" theory, why not give preference to someone who will score at 3-4 runs per over rather than 1-2, as that will put you in the position to press for wins more often?

I never, ever judge anyone on lost time. Test cricket matches are supposed to last 5 days; it is not a player's fault if they don't. In fact, as I've said before, I'd be only too happy to have something meaning time cannot be lost.

If someone can score equally at a SR of 60 than someone else at a SR of 50, obviously I'll have them. If it's a case of 55 compared to 51, though, I honestly couldn't really care less, it's small enough that there's virtually no chance it'll make a difference.

And again, you keep on equating being an attacking player to losing/throwing away your wicket. I'm not advocating the selection of Afridi here - rather I'm saying that what made Richards so special was his ability to be a devastatingly attacking batsman AND still make shedloads of runs - something that puts him ahead of the other great batsmen of his time.

Yes, but other batsmen made still shedloads more runs than even Richards. I don't mind much if they made them a bit slower, I value the greater chance of a contribution more than I do the greater chance of that contribution coming quickly.

If Richards had averaged 60 he would indeed be the 2nd-best after Bradman, no questions. But he didn't, he averaged 53 (in the significant part of his career - came down to 50 when he played on a bit too long), which while amazing, is certainly not quite as amazing as Sobers, who averaged over 70, through the course of 56 games, and 67 over the course of 67. This, to me, is even more special than a Richards.

 

[The Sean]

This argument seems somehow to have swapped threads.

 

[Matt79]

Any batsman who doesn't factor in the possibility of lost time, unless there's no rain forecast whatsoever, and therefore try to score the required amount of runs as quickly as is sensibly possible, is a poor batsman in my mind. Its not like rain interruptions are uncommon events. That's like saying "pitches should be good, so I never judge anyone who was beaten by a delivery that got assistance off the pitch". The possibility of interruption, especially in England, is a fact of cricketing life and has been since day dot.

I don't care if some batsmen made more runs than Richards. Richards made enough for me to begin to consider the manner in which he made them to be as significant as the difference in the amount of runs he and the alternatives made.

OK, Sobers might be as good as Richards. As I said, it is for me a largely academic question because in both a world-wide alltime XI and a WI alltime XI, I'd always have both, as Sobers is the automatic allrounder selection at 6.

I'm comfortable having Richards ahead of Lara, Weekes, and I guess Headley if it comes to that. Its line ball for me between Richards and Headley and Sobers, but I take Viv ahead of George. And Viv versus a Barrington, its a no contest IMO.

 

[Matt79]

I got horribly confused trying to find it a second ago when I thought of the B.Richards vs Gavaskar point...

 

[Richard]

And its ironic you quote Bradman - although we can only estimate his scoring rate based on timing of his innings, all those estimates suggest he scored at around 4 an over, and indeed a notable part of his success would have been based on the DOMINANCE he exerted over bowling attacks facing him.

I've never said Bradman wasn't a dominant player, but he'd have been no lesser if he'd averaged 99.94 scoring more slowly.

This comment was related to the selfish-oh-no-it's-not nature of cricket.

 

[Matt79]

I've never said Bradman wasn't a dominant player, but he'd have been no lesser if he'd averaged 99.94 scoring more slowly.

This comment was related to the selfish-oh-no-it's-not nature of cricket.

Yeah, he would have been. Its harder to score that many runs at that speed than at a more conventional speed. Hence if he'd been unable to score at the rate he did, he'd have a lesser record.

 

[Richard]

Any batsman who doesn't factor in the possibility of lost time, unless there's no rain forecast whatsoever, and therefore try to score the required amount of runs as quickly as is sensibly possible, is a poor batsman in my mind. Its not like rain interruptions are uncommon events. That's like saying "pitches should be good, so I never judge anyone who was beaten by a delivery that got assistance off the pitch". The possibility of interruption, especially in England, is a fact of cricketing life and has been since day dot.

And I think it's about time we stopped it being so, I hate it when overs are lost from cricket matches.

I'd guess, outside England and New Zealand and maybe South Africa at some times of year, though, that rain interruptions are very uncommon indeed. So long as you're playing at the right time of year you can pretty much be certain there's no chance in the subcontinent, and in the non-Guyanese parts of West Indies, and I can't remember that many matches in Australia disrupted by rain either.

Personally, I don't judge a batsman to have done poorly when a delivery beats him, though. Don't see why anyone would. Not because pitches should be good - in fact, quite the opposite.

I don't care if some batsmen made more runs than Richards. Richards made enough for me to begin to consider the manner in which he made them to be as significant as the difference in the amount of runs he and the alternatives made.

OK, Sobers might be as good as Richards. As I said, it is for me a largely academic question because in both a world-wide alltime XI and a WI alltime XI, I'd always have both, as Sobers is the automatic allrounder selection at 6.

I'm comfortable having Richards ahead of Lara, Weekes, and I guess Headley if it comes to that. Its line ball for me between Richards and Headley and Sobers, but I take Viv ahead of George. And Viv versus a Barrington, its a no contest IMO.

Well, fair noof, that's your choice, but I'd always thought Headley is almost out-of-hand considered the greatest of all WIndian batsmen, by WIndians at least. I certainly always have. Have never remotely considered the notion that IVAR was better. Weekes has always been something of a wonder to me, too. Barrington too - I just cannot fathom how people can average 58 in Tests. Far more astonishing to me than being a dominant player.

I guess we're all different.

On Sobers, though, I really do wish people would judge Sobers purely as a batsman, as well as as an all-rounder. He's pretty astonishing, all things considered.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, he would have been. Its harder to score that many runs at that speed than at a more conventional speed. Hence if he'd been unable to score at the rate he did, he'd have a lesser record.

I honestly can't get my head around this one. There's something in what you're saying, undoubtedly, but I don't believe it'd have been impossible for Bradman to have scored as often as he did at lower strike-rates.

 

[Matt79]

What I'm saying though is that, in addition to the number of runs Bradman scored, the rate at which he scored them at times put Australia into a position to win games they had no business winning, and also scared the opposition into batting longer than they would otherwise have needed to do in order to deny him the time to overall their total. He won more games for his team than would have been the case had he scored at say 2 runs per over instead of 4.

Your argument about why a slower player can be preferable to a higher scoring one only makes sense if you're arguing that in attempting to score fast, you compromise your defence to an extent. Its like an extra degree of difficulty in what you are doing. You don't deserve credit if you compromise your defence to the point that you get out cheaply, but if you are good enough to compromise your defence in favour of attack AND STILL be good enough to keep your wicket intact, that's a harder thing to achieve than just defending. That's why I rate players I judge can or did do so higher than those that didn't.

 

[Matt79]

And I think it's about time we stopped it being so, I hate it when overs are lost from cricket matches.

Any practical suggestions as to how we achieve that feat? Untimed tests?

I'd guess, outside England and New Zealand and maybe South Africa at some times of year, though, that rain interruptions are very uncommon indeed. So long as you're playing at the right time of year you can pretty much be certain there's no chance in the subcontinent, and in the non-Guyanese parts of West Indies, and I can't remember that many matches in Australia disrupted by rain either.

Meh, apart from Australia in the last few years (in the midst of the worst drought in our recorded history) rain always plays a part in a season at some point. If the forecast suggests any possibility of rain during the course of the match, a smart player should consider that as a factor.

Personally, I don't judge a batsman to have done poorly when a delivery beats him, though. Don't see why anyone would. Not because pitches should be good - in fact, quite the opposite.

What I meant is that batsmen don't bat in a bubble, they have to be responsive to the conditions, and likely weather interruptions is a major variable condition.

Well, fair noof, that's your choice, but I'd always thought Headley is almost out-of-hand considered the greatest of all WIndian batsmen, by WIndians at least. I certainly always have. Have never remotely considered the notion that IVAR was better. Weekes has always been something of a wonder to me, too. Barrington too - I just cannot fathom how people can average 58 in Tests. Far more astonishing to me than being a dominant player.

I guess we're all different.

Think I answered why I don't agree in my previous post on Bradman.

On Sobers, though, I really do wish people would judge Sobers purely as a batsman, as well as as an all-rounder. He's pretty astonishing, all things considered.

Agreed that his record as a batsman is remarkable. If it makes you feel better, when Adharcric did his lists where people nominated the top 25 in order, Sobers was voted the number 2 of all time IIRC. But I don't see that also considering his bowling and fielding takes away from that at all.