"Since October 2008 (starting from the one-day series between New Zealand and Bangladesh) rules have been changed. Now the batting team decides when to introduce either the second or the third Powerplay during their innings."
The normal system, which works juuuuuuuust fine when there's no interruption of an in-progress 50 overs, is 10 overs of compulsory Powerplay in the first 10 overs, 5 chosen by the fielding side and 5 chosen by the batting side.
They went off after 14 overs. Had the break not happened, there'd have been 1 over left of the fielding-chosen Powerplay with 5 overs of batting-chosen remaining. However, because the things were changed after they had already happened, it was adjudged India had taken a Powerplay.
As a wise man once said, teams that are easily outclassed in the longer versions tend to do well over twenty overs.>.>
Hopefully the game doesn't turn into some 20-30 over contest cuz that would be lame.
By some quirk. both sides PP were reduced, with 9 overs PP1, 4 overs PP2, and 4 batting PP. However, India had already reached the 15th over, so they have started their bloc of batting PP by 1 over, without them knowing, so had to utilise the remaining 3 overs. I knw it sounds crazy. Better thing would be to make the second PP bloc = 5 overs, and the batting pp = 3 overs. That way India could have had a say when to take PP for them.
Wise men's quotes always find a place in my signature,As a wise man once said, teams that are easily outclassed in the longer versions tend to do well over twenty overs.
Winning combination?? Ha Ha my foot. He was part of the squad when the Indians won the CB series, and but for him, they had no chance.
I think that is a big shout. The rules have only been like that for a short period. Im not sure we can say with any confidence that it is a good addition.
Poor usage of a term by me. 'Purity' is probably the wrong word.
He's referring to Gambhir-Sehwag at the top of the order, which is the very successful combination for India in tests, India in ODIs when Tendulkar decides not to play, Delhi in Ranji and the Delhi daredevils in the IPL. And has a good chance or remaining so for quite a few years. Added to the fact that Tendulkar's a better middle-order player than either of them, i don't think putting him straight back at the top is the right call.
Yea, while I would agree if it was Tests, I think ODIs, if they are to be viable, constantly need to change as the format (in the opinion of many, including me) is very stagnant. I've not been a fan of limited overs cricket, ODI or T20, but there's no doubt it drives the finances of the game, so I can understand why they are trying to keep it more relevant in the days of T20. If and when T20 takes over, I think some people are worried that it won't be as lucrative.
Tendulkar-Sehwag combo is as good as Gambhir-Sehwag.
Yep. But by how much we have to see. Good thing is Sehwag and Gambhir operated at enough pace (above 6) and when that is taken in the context of a 50 over game reduced, can provide a big boost to the Indian total.
Yeesh, that'd be a tough cookie. India need another 20 runs in 3 overs to make that happen.
Yeah, the fact that the commentators never comprehend this fact really grinds my gears. Unless D/L comes into play AGAIN between now and the end of India's innings, the number of wickets lost is of absolutely no consequence (unless it's 10, obviously).