2 innings ODIs?

[Richard]

Um you might like it but you can't say it's exciting.

Who needs excitement? Things can be interesting without being exciting.

And no that doesn't mean people don't like cricket, cricket is about between bat and ball not about just bowling to keep the run rate down and sticking around for the last 10 overs...And if you were implying that i don't like cricket and just like 4's and 6's well guess what you're wrong. I like to see even battle between bat and ball.

I wasn't implying anyone in particular liked or didn't like anything in particular, simply saying that if you think the stereotypical 21-40-over period is "dull" then you don't like cricket, you just like to see fours and sixes.

um spliting it up wouldn't make it a bash for all, there's is a need for that though which is why there's 20/20.

That comment had nothing to do with the split-of-50-overs proposal.

Me supporting any change? No I support the ones that I think can be given some consideration without being bluntly afraid of it. If it's 20 wickets for 50 overs than that would be shocking and that unlike you suggested I wouldn't support.

I've yet to see a change which you declared a distaste for, and you've advocated some utter shockers.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Who needs excitement? Things can be interesting without being exciting.

I wasn't implying anyone in particular liked or didn't like anything in particular, simply saying that if you think the stereotypical 21-40-over period is "dull" then you don't like cricket, you just like to see fours and sixes.

That comment had nothing to do with the split-of-50-overs proposal.

I've yet to see a change which you declared a distaste for, and you've advocated some utter shockers.

the "dullness" isn't the main part of cricket. dullness isn't the main part of any format of the game. You don't watch test cricket for the dullness of it and I'm pretty sure you don't like just teams batting on and on making 600 runs in an innings and then the other team does the same and it ending in a draw. that's dullness throughout and is not the reason one watches test cricket. You watch for the so many different kinds of situations that happens in it some which provides intense moments and yes it does become exciting which is the best part of it.

um i just said i was against a 2 full innings with 20 wickets thing. I was against the free hit etc, but i'm all for changes that can make something more interesting and make it better than it is now without shifting the balance between the bat and ball, but since the balance has already been shifting towards the bat I'm also for changes that would give the bowlers some advantages to make it even.

 

[Richard]

the "dullness" isn't the main part of cricket. dullness isn't the main part of any format of the game.

Err - and to someone who likes cricket, the 21-40 overs period isn't dull. It's nothing but a stereotype. Anyone who finds the 21-40-over period dull is either a) acting on stereotypes rather than reality or b) isn't a cricket fan.

um i just said i was against a 2 full innings with 20 wickets thing. I was against the free hit etc, but i'm all for changes that can make something more interesting and make it better than it is now without shifting the balance between the bat and ball, but since the balance has already been shifting towards the bat I'm also for changes that would give the bowlers some advantages to make it even.

Haha, against the free-hit - one of the relatively few well-made changes in recent times.

Things which make something more interesting to some make it less interesting to others. There are a great many people who are quite happy with both Test and ODI cricket as it is, though obviously there are many things which could be improved. Radical ideas are rarely anything other than stupid though, and even if they'll bring in people who aren't fans of cricket, they'll turn off those who are.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Err - and to someone who likes cricket, the 21-40 overs period isn't dull. It's nothing but a stereotype. Anyone who finds the 21-40-over period dull is either a) acting on stereotypes rather than reality or b) isn't a cricket fan.

Haha, against the free-hit - one of the relatively few well-made changes in recent times.

Things which make something more interesting to some make it less interesting to others. There are a great many people who are quite happy with both Test and ODI cricket as it is, though obviously there are many things which could be improved. Radical ideas are rarely anything other than stupid though, and even if they'll bring in people who aren't fans of cricket, they'll turn off those who are.

it is a stereotype because not all 21-40 over period in ODi's are "dull" but there are a lot that are.

You may thinks so but I don't you're already punishing the bowlers for overstepping with a no-ball and now punish 'em even more? Why not punish the batsmen for just going there and slogging wilding and when they swing and a miss why are they not being punished?

But anything or at least most things great that has ever happen were seen as radical at 1st until it was eventually accepted. The world series cricket, IPL and it's success etc. Aren't the so called real fans test cricket fans? And guess what if one really liked cricket then no matter what they would still like anything remotely cricket including all the forms of cricket. Otherwise they are a fan of w/e format they like.

 

[sledger]

it is a stereotype because not all 21-40 over period in ODi's are "dull" but there are a lot that are.

examples please.

 

[sledger]

But anything or at least most things great that has ever happen were seen as radical at 1st until it was eventually accepted. The world series cricket, IPL and it's success etc

And tbh I wouldnt say that the IPL is accepted widely.

 

[Richard]

it is a stereotype because not all 21-40 over period in ODi's are "dull" but there are a lot that are.

Not really.

You may thinks so but I don't you're already punishing the bowlers for overstepping with a no-ball and now punish 'em even more? Why not punish the batsmen for just going there and slogging wilding and when they swing and a miss why are they not being punished?

Bowlers were already punished for no-balls pre-free-hit. They conceded a run and had to bowl an extra delivery. However, this wasn't enough. Many bowlers didn't make the effort to cut it out, as they did not take it seriously enough. The free-hit has already concentrated minds wonderfully in the very short time it's been around in ODIs. With any luck, the no-ball will be almost completely removed from cricket in time, maybe soon. I always said that the free-hit was something that should favour bowlers. And it looks like, fortunately, that's the way it's gone.

But anything or at least most things great that has ever happen were seen as radical at 1st until it was eventually accepted. The world series cricket, IPL and it's success etc. Aren't the so called real fans test cricket fans? And guess what if one really liked cricket then no matter what they would still like anything remotely cricket including all the forms of cricket. Otherwise they are a fan of w/e format they like.

The IPL wasn't especially radical. WSC was, and the game would be so much better if it'd never happened. Matthew Engel once put it well as far as I'm concerned: "every true cricket lover is, in a sense, a conservative". Liberalism and radicalism has no place in the cricket fan. If you want that sort of stuff, go watch another game.

 

[LA ICE-E]

And tbh I wouldnt say that the IPL is accepted widely.

not yet.

 

[sledger]

not yet.

Then you using it as an example doesnt make any sense.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Not really.

Bowlers were already punished for no-balls pre-free-hit. They conceded a run and had to bowl an extra delivery. However, this wasn't enough. Many bowlers didn't make the effort to cut it out, as they did not take it seriously enough. The free-hit has already concentrated minds wonderfully in the very short time it's been around in ODIs. With any luck, the no-ball will be almost completely removed from cricket in time, maybe soon. I always said that the free-hit was something that should favour bowlers. And it looks like, fortunately, that's the way it's gone.

The IPL wasn't especially radical. WSC was, and the game would be so much better if it'd never happened. Matthew Engel once put it well: "every true cricket lover is, in a sense, a conservative". Liberalism and radicalism has no place in the cricket fan. If you want that sort of stuff, go watch another game.

otherwise there wouldn't be that stereo type.

exactly my point they were punished already and now that's punishing even more. If it's so great why not bring that into tests to? Plus if you're gonna punish the bowlers why not punish the batmen for swing and a miss?

it was radical for cricket. How would the game have been better without WSC? in white kits, no floodlight, players not being paid enough? Um then cricket should still be bowling underarm 'cause that's the conservative way. And it does which is why there's real cricket fans that like all the forms of the game and one day cricket are not done in the conseravtive way. Yeah that's the spirit, this is how the game will survive huh.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Then you using it as an example doesnt make any sense.

because you'll see the transition happen yourself in real time, well it's already happening.

 

[sledger]

exactly my point they were punished already and now that's punishing even more. If it's so great why not bring that into tests to? Plus if you're gonna punish the bowlers why not punish the batmen for swing and a miss?

Why should you? The Batsman does not gain anything from swinging and missing. But yet a bowler could gain substantially from overstepping the line.

 

[sledger]

it was radical for cricket. How would the game have been better without WSC? in white kits, no floodlight, players not being paid enough? Um then cricket should still be bowling underarm 'cause that's the conservative way. And it does which is why there's real cricket fans that like all the forms of the game and one day cricket are not done in the conseravtive way. Yeah that's the spirit, this is how the game will survive huh.

Dire.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Why should you? The Batsman does not gain anything from swinging and missing. But yet a bowler could gain substantially from overstepping the line.

the batsman does gain for madly slogging and swigging as in 20/20 which shifts the balance between bat and ball.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Dire.

no you saying dire without anything backing it up is dire.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I'm going to be really radical here and suggest that next time you're going to post stupid ideas you stick your face in a bucket of manure instead.

 

[sledger]

the batsman does gain for madly slogging and swigging as in 20/20 which shifts the balance between bat and ball.

Not if he doesnt hit the ball it doesnt.

 

[LA ICE-E]

I'm going to be really radical here and suggest that next time you're going to post stupid ideas you stick your face in a bucket of manure instead.

I'll do what the **** i want. Unlike you I can think for myself and dont have to do things 'cause"it's always done that way" which why americans do everything our way. And I'm proud of that, but you know what if you feel like it go **** YOURSELF. Or does the queen needs to tell you to go **** YOURSELF?

no offense intended to anyone else

 

[LA ICE-E]

Not if he doesnt hit the ball it doesnt.

that taking that approach does and swing and a miss happens because of taking that approach a lot which should be then be punished if it's fair to have free hits.

 

[sledger]

that taking that approach does and swing and a miss happens because of taking that approach a lot which should be then be punished if it's fair to have free hits.

Why? I fail to see how this is at all valid, a batsman playing and missing is a victory for the bowler!