2 innings ODIs?

[sledger]

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

 

[Lillian Thomson]

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]

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

No a victory for the bowler is a wicket but the game has lost it's balance so much that playing and missing is now counted as a victory for the bowler. That way it would discourage the batsmen from just madly slogging.

 

[sledger]

No a victory for the bowler is a wicket but the game has lost it's balance so much that playing and missing is now counted as a victory for the bowler. That way it would discourage the batsmen from just madly slogging.

What a load of rubbish, a play and a miss has always been considered a win for a bowler.

 

[LA ICE-E]

What a load of rubbish, a play and a miss has always been considered a win for a bowler.

with no real reward for the bowler.

 

[sledger]

with no real reward for the bowler.

And none for the batsman.

 

[LA ICE-E]

And none for the batsman.

but when the bowler messes up the batsmen is rewarded in turn when the batsmen messes up the bowler should be rewarded.

 

[sledger]

Well if a batsman takes a huge swing and misses the ball, that will dent his confidence and concentation and give the bowler a huge psycologial boost. Not conceding any runs and unsettling the batsman is ample reward for any bowler.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Well if a batsman takes a huge swing and misses the ball, that will dent his confidence and concentation and give the bowler a huge psycologial boost. Not conceding any runs and unsettling the batsman is ample reward for any bowler.

and a no ball give a batsmen the relief that he's not out in that delivery and gets them a run and an extra ball. Now to add a free hit to that? to discourage no balls? in return a batsmen should then be discouraged from madly swinging in the same manner.

 

[sledger]

No, you seem to be incapable of comprehending what is actually a very simple point, i'm out.

 

[LA ICE-E]

No, you seem to be incapable of comprehending what is actually a very simple point, i'm out.

i got your point, from your point of view. It's just that you haven't looked at it from my point of view. which is about being fair/getting even.

 

[sledger]

i got your point, from your point of view. It's just that you haven't looked at it from my point of view. which is about being fair/getting even.

I have, and decided it was wrong. I just fail to see why a batsman should be penalised for something from which he cannot benefit. And fail to see why you think that because a bowler is penalised for something that he can take great benefit from, a batsman should suffer from something...the bowler also takes benefit from.

 

[LA ICE-E]

I have, and decided it was wrong. I just fail to see why a batsman should be penalised for something from which he cannot benefit. And fail to see why you think that because a bowler is penalised for something that he can take great benefit from, a batsman should suffer from something...the bowler also takes benefit from.

but a bowler doesn't benefit from it 'cause it doesn't count. To penalize that you add 1 run plus every other run that is scored. But to discourage it you added free hit. the batsmen doesn't technically benefit from the swing and a miss just like a bowler doesn't technically from a no ball but like a bowler would benefit greatly if it was allowed to give them an advantage, swinging and slogging gives the batsmen an advantage without anything discouraging it. Look at it from a different point of view.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

I always thought about adding a new ball (mandatory) after 25 overs in a 50 over game would be enough imo. It should stop teams filling a batting line up with 'bits and pieces' players as well as liven up the middle 'boring' overs. It would also solve the problem of the white ball going bad and getting changed randomly which surely isnt fair.

 

[Dasa]

Ffs Richard, it isn't your place to decide who is and isn't a cricket fan.

 

[LA ICE-E]

I always thought about adding a new ball (mandatory) after 25 overs in a 50 over game would be enough imo. It should stop teams filling a batting line up with 'bits and pieces' players as well as liven up the middle 'boring' overs. It would also solve the problem of the white ball going bad and getting changed randomly which surely isnt fair.

i think they already do around the 35th over/

 

[sledger]

swinging and slogging gives the batsmen an advantage

Yeah...generally that is how a lot of runs are scored....why a batsman should be penalised this I don't know.

 

[Richard]

Ffs Richard, it isn't your place to decide who is and isn't a cricket fan.

It's my place to decide what I consider to be one though, and I don't consider a cricket fan to be someone who just wants to watch lots of boundaries.

TBH, too, I'm surprised if anyone else does.

 

[Richard]

I always thought about adding a new ball (mandatory) after 25 overs in a 50 over game would be enough imo. It should stop teams filling a batting line up with 'bits and pieces' players as well as liven up the middle 'boring' overs. It would also solve the problem of the white ball going bad and getting changed randomly which surely isnt fair.

Something vaguely similar was once tried in some competition, I forget which, where a new-ball was used from each end. TBH, I'd prefer that to a new-ball at 25. Of course, currently we have the mandatory 35-over ball-change.

Thing is, though, the "filling-up with bits-and-pieces players" is every bit as much an untrue stereotype as the "21-40 overs = boring" stuff.

 

[Richard]

otherwise there wouldn't be that stereo type.

Umm... yeah, there would be.

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's not punishing them - it's encouraging them to stop bowling no-balls, which is a huge benefit to bowlers. No-balls and swing-and-misses are not remotely comparable.

it was radical for cricket. How would the game have been better without WSC? in white kits, no floodlight, players not being paid enough?

There's no such thing as "paid enough", there's always the potential for wages to rise. No-one needs floodlights, coloured clothing or white balls, they're purely cosmetic things. The game would be little different had they never come along, it'd just look slightly different.

Um then cricket should still be bowling underarm 'cause that's the conservative way.

If that were the way, that'd be the way. And I'm sure we'd still have a game many enjoyed.

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.

ODIs are always treated as the second most important thing by the vast majority of those who like Test cricket.