Proposals to radically change Test Cricket

[Athlai]

Who has the record for most stumpings? Or most stumpings per match on average? I wonder what the decline would be over the years.

 

[SJS]

Who has the record for most stumpings? Or most stumpings per match on average? I wonder what the decline would be over the years.

Oldfield, almost 1 per Test ... and for more than 50 Test matches !!

 

[fredfertang]

I certainly remember when I started watching cricket that the likes of Alan Knott, Bob Taylor, Wasim Bari, and Farokh Engineer seemed infallible – even Rod Marsh did but as he was nicknamed Iron Gloves I doubt that he was. My suspicion is that the current crop of keeper/batsmen are not as poor as we sometimes think – the cameras now are so much better and magnify keeping errors and the commentators are infinitely less forgiving than in days of yore.

Overall I think any playing substitutes idea is a dangerous one as it starts to change the character of the game – taken to its logical conclusion I wouldn’t like to see a bunch of specialists on a bench with captains being able to perm any 11 from, say 16 (but why not 30), to suit the state of the game.

 

[SJS]

I certainly remember when I started watching cricket that the likes of Alan Knott, Bob Taylor, Wasim Bari, and Farokh Engineer seemed infallible – even Rod Marsh did but as he was nicknamed Iron Gloves I doubt that he was. My suspicion is that the current crop of keeper/batsmen are not as poor as we sometimes think – the cameras now are so much better and magnify keeping errors and the commentators are infinitely less forgiving than in days of yore.

Overall I think any playing substitutes idea is a dangerous one as it starts to change the character of the game – taken to its logical conclusion I wouldn’t like to see a bunch of specialists on a bench with captains being able to perm any 11 from, say 16 (but why not 30), to suit the state of the game.

I know where you are coming from.

You will notice that a lot of my proposal radical and somewhat over-the-top are intentionally so. There was a time when the players themselves and at least many captains would take corrective measures and in other cases the authorities tried to intervene and put things in track so that the game prospered and all that was best in it was kept intact.

Over the last few decades, commercial interests have ensured that no one is now looking at anything and the only way anything can be done is by making changes in the laws, the game, anything.

This exercise is serious to the extent of the problems it raises, and slightly tongue in cheek as far as remedies are concerned.

Why cant we have a specialist wicket keeper if the players can question the umpire's decision and ask for referral. If that is not revolutionary and tradition/norm shattering I dont know what is.

As I said in the beginning, it a list of proposals for the ICC. Well this is the type of stuff ICC understands. This is the kind of stuff the new bosses of the game seem to find 'doable' and even closet traditionalists like Mr Gavaskar may support

 

[SJS]

Proposal # 7 - LBW Law. Remove the bit in the law that requires the batsman to be hit within the stump line (point of contact) for a ball coming in from outside the off stump to be declared leg before. Let him be out if the ball is pitching on the stumps or to the off side of it and if the umpire feels it was going to hit the stumps if not stopped by the batsman's person, irrespective of whether or not he was offering a stroke.

Why should a batsman who has misjudged where the ball was going to finally end up be treated differently from another batsman who played and missed at the same delivery?

The fact is that both did not get a bat to the ball and both would have been bowled if there bodies had not stopped the ball before that.

It will tilt the scales a bit in favour of the bowler. Will encourage bowlers to pitch outside the off stump and cultivate off spin or off cutters of in-swing.

Batsmen will, hopefully improve their skills to counter it and in any event more efforts will be made to play the ball.

 

[Goughy]

Id be more in favour of getting rid of the LBW law than those changes.

I have played 2 'proper' games without LBW and they were 2 of the most enjoyable I have ever played in.

I dont like judgement calls in sport. Im just about ok with the current law but would hate for it to be expanded.

 

[SJS]

Why cant we have a specialist wicket keeper if the players can question the umpire's decision and ask for referral. If that is not revolutionary and tradition/norm shattering I dont know what is.

And not just that, we have (although in another format), the batsmen dictating when the fielders can be brought in, even if only for five overs. WOW.

 

[SJS]

Id be more in favour of getting rid of the LBW law than those changes.

I have played 2 'proper' games without LBW and they were 2 of the most enjoyable I have ever played in.

You mean you can block with any part of your body, any ball you want and not be declared leg before ?

 

[Prince EWS]

Just to deviate a bit

Proposal # 6: Play specialist wicket keepers only to keep wickets

Let the teams play 12 players one of which would be a specialist wicket keeper who would do nothing but keep wickets. This will allow them to play an extra specialist bowler (or batsman) as the case may be and the specialist keeper will not become a dying species as has been the case for a long time now.

We want the keeper to be more than a slip wearing gloves. Lets have the best keepers compete for the job, be paid equally and be able to rest after the most tiring job in the game is over (except in the unavoidable case of a follow on).

Don't hate this idea TBH. Wouldn't be for it as such, but I can see lots of merit in it.

 

[Goughy]

You mean you can block with any part of your body, any ball you want and not be declared leg before ?

In theory, I guess so. To temper it, maybe if any player is playing a shot to anyball they cant be out LBW. So they have to play rather than kick away.

Take leg byes out and to score runs they have to use the bat.

Id also get back to Mens cricket where bouncers are not limited.

 

[SJS]

In theory, I guess so.

Take leg byes out and to score runs they have to use the bat.

Id also get back to Mens cricket where bouncers are not limited.

I do not see how you could force a result in a tight match if the batsmen just decided to stand in front of the wicket and cover it completely with their pads.

 

[SJS]

I do not see how you could force a result in a tight match if the batsmen just decided to stand in front of the wicket and cover it completely with their pads.

.... besides encouraging batsmen to stand in front of the stumps and just pull at everything as most people who haven't played much decent cricket tend to do. With a little bit of practice that could become your favourite and maybe only needed shot

 

[Son Of Coco]

You could do better. Bowl two overs from each end at a time

Lee and Clarke from either end or Lee and Clarke from one end and Lee and Mitchell Johnson from the other and so on !!

The field changing will be much less, It wil be as much or less than the change for a left to a right handed batsman.

And you have half the number of change of ends as in a 90 over (six ball) system !!

Even better still get 4 players from each end, made up of a 2 x one player on another player's shoulder. They could all bowl at once from one end meaning there'd be 4 balls at a time. You could bowl an 8 ball over in about 3 minutes. Maybe have 4 batsmen at each end to counter the advantage the bowler's would have.

 

[Richard]

Don't hate this idea TBH. Wouldn't be for it as such, but I can see lots of merit in it.

Ditto.

 

[Steulen]

After watching most of the just concluded Lord's Test, I say let's bin the format altogether.

Other than that, rake all pitches before play and make it two-day games max.

 

[SJS]

Actually the Eng vs SA test currently under way seems a good example against this rule as well.

Eng batting first are 593/8d from 156 overs
SA make a hash of their first innings 247 all out in 94 overs

So 250 overs have been expended 200 are to come, and SA would've been left with 120 overs under this rule.

Now SA are 242-1 after 96 overs, still 104 behind - but it appears to have been a good display of cricket and a captain's knock from an oft-maligned Graeme Smith. Not really a boring draw and probably better than 342-8 at this point that might have resulted from a rule like this, though the latter would've forced a result (and the rule done its job).

The modified rule twists things in a different & interesting (not!) way. SA will take, at the current pace, 40 more overs to draw level.
So a test match gets converted to something like a 20-20, except SA get 60% of the overs but will have lost 2 or 3 wickets by the time they draw level.

As for the current England vs SA Test match. we will talk when this match is over.

After watching most of the just concluded Lord's Test, I say let's bin the format altogether.

Other than that, rake all pitches before play and make it two-day games max.

Aha. There we go.

So what would have happened in the Lord's Test under the proposed rule # 2 (I think it was 2).

[B]TEAM	INNINGS	OVERS	RUNS	RATE[/B]
England	1st	156	593	3.80
Safrica	1st	93	247	2.66

At the start of the 3rd innings there are 201 overs left in the match and South Africa are 346 runs behind. If they batted as they actually did, they would draw level in 141 overs (as they did) leaving 60 overs in the game. At this stage they were 346 for 2.

They would then have to play 36 of the 60 overs remaining and try to put up as many runs as they could. With a score of 346 for 2, Amla at 73 not out and Kallis at 10 not out with eight wickets in hand they should surely be expected to score pretty quickly in the 36 overs left and leave an enticing target for England to try and chase in the 24 overs left.

England with not much of a chance to lose all ten wickets could make an effort.

Surely this would be better than what actually happened.

South Africa played another 25 overs scored a miserable 47 more runs - 47 in 25 overs !!! losing the wicket of Kallis in the process till Amla , thankfully for the suffering spectators, reached his century and everyone was put out of their misery by mutual consent.

 

[fredfertang]

Proposal # 7 - LBW Law. Remove the bit in the law that requires the batsman to be hit within the stump line (point of contact) for a ball coming in from outside the off stump to be declared leg before. Let him be out if the ball is pitching on the stumps or to the off side of it and if the umpire feels it was going to hit the stumps if not stopped by the batsman's person, irrespective of whether or not he was offering a stroke.

I would certainly prefer this to the extra stump idea but wouldn't tinker with the laws relating to getting out unless the balance between bat and ball moved too far in favour of the batsman - mind you a few more featherbeds like at Lords for the last Test and both might be needed - and an inch off the width of the bat too!

 

[SJS]

Proposal # 7 : Bring back leg-theory. Allow more fielders behind square but if they are going to be more than two. do not allow more than one outside the 30 yard circle. This will allow bowlers to attack the batsmen on the leg side but with just one fielder in the deep, a batsman who can hook will have the opportunity to score runs.

With the bats as they are, the batsmen should, if they can hook, get plenty of runs if just one man is in the deep on the leg side.

Let the umpires be the judge for negative cricket as they are even today, if it is used by the fielding side only to prevent the batsman from playing as was done by Nasser and Giles.

 

[fredfertang]

Proposal # 7 : Bring back leg-theory. Allow more fielders behind square but if they are going to be more than two. do not allow more than one outside the 30 yard circle. This will allow bowlers to attack the batsmen on the leg side but with just one fielder in the deep, a batsman who can hook will have the opportunity to score runs.

With the bats as they are, the batsmen should, if they can hook, get plenty of runs if just one man is in the deep on the leg side.

Let the umpires be the judge for negative cricket as they are even today.

Do you mean the tedious sort of leg theory as practised by the likes of Warwick Armstrong which tended to result in maiden after maiden or are you suggesting that as batsmen now have proper protective equipment that a latter day Jardine could launch a bodyline style attack with no limit on bouncers?

I think the latter would be exciting at Test Level - this current South African attack bowling it at Flintoff and Pieterson for example but for all the reasons it was outlawed in the first place (mainly the when its bowled on the village green someone dies type arguments) its a non-starter for me

 

[SJS]

Do you mean the tedious sort of leg theory as practised by the likes of Warwick Armstrong which tended to result in maiden after maiden or are you suggesting that as batsmen now have proper protective equipment that a latter day Jardine could launch a bodyline style attack with no limit on bouncers?

I think the latter would be exciting at Test Level - this current South African attack bowling it at Flintoff and Pieterson for example but for all the reasons it was outlawed in the first place (mainly the when its bowled on the village green someone dies type arguments) its a non-starter for me

I firmly believe the batsmen are equipped today to tackle this. What can happen is that bouncers will be bowled too high for the batsman to get a good enough blade on them but surely that can be managed by minor adjustments in what is allowed at what height and at what frequency as exists for bouncers and over the shoulders deliveries in one form of the game or the other.

I have no doubt that if properly handled, this can become a very exciting change for the game. If you tie your fielders down to the legside, and there is a restriction on how many bouncers you can bowl, the batsman will have some idea of what is coming.

If the bowler tries to bowl differently since the batsman is expecting a bouncer on the body, he will be handicapped because there will be more gaps elsewhere in the field because of the fielders, used up in the leg trap.

Maybe the legside wide can be treated slightly differently (not suggesting anywhere near as harshly as in odi's) so as to contain the menace of negative tactics although that may not be required since without fielders in the deep (bar one) the batsman should put away anything within reasonable reach for runs.