No runners ever and yes to UDRS

[four_or_six]

Definitely I wouldn't want to see the bowling restrictions go, I like seeing players with all-round skills who wouldn't otherwise be picked, be it bowlers that bat or vice versa. I think it makes the game more interesting to watch from a tactical point of view too, to see how the captain can balance the bowlers through the innings.

If I want to watch Swann, Jimmy and Broad bowl all day, I can watch a test match.

 

[Jono]

Don't like the idea of removing over restrictions. Having over restrictions makes the captain think strategically about how to set his bowling and as a result better captains make clever changes that have provided wickets. I also don't like the fact that 2 or 3 bowlers will share the entire workload and it gives the team that has 1 or 2 good bowlers an advantage over a team that has 4 to 5 good bowlers.

So you're saying test cricket doesn't involve clever captaincy then?

Of course it does. This will result in more attacking fields from captains as they have better bowlers. Then the true smart captains arrive, rather than "spread the field and hope the batsman holes out"

 

[Jono]

Definitely I wouldn't want to see the bowling restrictions go, I like seeing players with all-round skills who wouldn't otherwise be picked, be it bowlers that bat or vice versa. I think it makes the game more interesting to watch from a tactical point of view too, to see how the captain can balance the bowlers through the innings.

If I want to watch Swann, Jimmy and Broad bowl all day, I can watch a test match.

Are you honestly saying you tune into ODI cricket to watch Yardy and Bopara bowl, and to see what fields Strauss sets to them?

You don't tune in to see Swann and Anderson?

Odd.

 

[four_or_six]

Are you honestly saying you tune into ODI cricket to watch Yardy and Bopara bowl, and to see what fields Strauss sets to them?

You don't tune in to see Swann and Anderson?

Odd.

Hmm... I'm not sure I'd put it that way, it's not what I meant. But I watch for the overall package that is different from tests. I enjoy, for example, batsmen constructing an innings where they see off the better bowlers and then hit out against the weaker. Or watching how Strauss manages to get 10 overs out of Collingwood and Yardy without damaging the overall performance in the field. I also think ODIs are a great way to get young all-rounders into international cricket, which IMO is a good thing.

I don't really see the point in having three bowlers and a maybe a part-timer, with batting down to eight/nine. It seems like there's a couple of players who aren't actually going to contribute anything. I have watched club cricket where there's no bowling restrictions, and sometimes one person has bowled all or most of the overs from one end and it's not only boring, but two or three players on the team do nothing at all.

 

[salman85]

I wouldn't want the overs restrictions to go either.If you do that,you're ruining the essence of limited overs cricket.The overs restriction,even the fielders restrictions,should stay.You could perhaps tweak the restrictions,for example 2 bowlers bowl bowl a maximum of 15 overs and the rest bowl a maximum of 10,or 1 bowler can bowl a maximum of 20 overs whereas the rest have to bowl a maximum of 10,but their should be a restriction.

four_or_six is correct.I do enjoy the tactical outcome of an ODI game where a captain has to manage each bowler's overs correctly and when he uses them.Removing that restriction would take a major gloss off the limited overs game IMO.

Limited Overs Cricket - Everything Is Limited.

Simple and Sweet.

 

[Howe_zat]

I think ODI cricket needs its own style, and if trying to get through 10 overs of Mike Yardy is what that brings than so be it. Removing the bowling restrictions would further expose it as the poor man's Test.

 

[four_or_six]

An ODI is still the best day out at the cricket. /broken record.

 

[vcs]

Some interesting points from four_or_six here.

 

[Borges]

I think ODI cricket needs its own style, and if trying to get through 10 overs of Mike Yardy is what that brings than so be it. Removing the bowling restrictions would further expose it as the poor man's Test.

It is already the thoroughly impoverished man's test cricket. In F50, T20 etc, the F or T does not stand for FC or Test Cricket respectively.

If you really love the restricted forms of cricket (with the restrictions imposed on skill), then restrict the maximum number of balls that a batsman can face to sixty. That will at least make it an even contest between bat and ball. As a bonus, you can enjoy watching Paul Collingwood bowl his full (restricted) quota in tandem with Mike Yardy.

 

[Blaze 18]

Don't like the idea of removing over restrictions. Having over restrictions makes the captain think strategically about how to set his bowling and as a result better captains make clever changes that have provided wickets. I also don't like the fact that 2 or 3 bowlers will share the entire workload and it gives the team that has 1 or 2 good bowlers an advantage over a team that has 4 to 5 good bowlers.

Definitely I wouldn't want to see the bowling restrictions go, I like seeing players with all-round skills who wouldn't otherwise be picked, be it bowlers that bat or vice versa. I think it makes the game more interesting to watch from a tactical point of view too, to see how the captain can balance the bowlers through the innings.

If I want to watch Swann, Jimmy and Broad bowl all day, I can watch a test match.

I wouldn't want the overs restrictions to go either.If you do that,you're ruining the essence of limited overs cricket.The overs restriction,even the fielders restrictions,should stay.You could perhaps tweak the restrictions,for example 2 bowlers bowl bowl a maximum of 15 overs and the rest bowl a maximum of 10,or 1 bowler can bowl a maximum of 20 overs whereas the rest have to bowl a maximum of 10,but their should be a restriction.

four_or_six is correct.I do enjoy the tactical outcome of an ODI game where a captain has to manage each bowler's overs correctly and when he uses them.Removing that restriction would take a major gloss off the limited overs game IMO.

Limited Overs Cricket - Everything Is Limited.

Simple and Sweet.

Agree with the above.

 

[Blaze 18]

If you really love the restricted forms of cricket (with the restrictions imposed on skill), then restrict the maximum number of balls that a batsman can face to sixty.

It's not like a batsman can keeping batting. There are various ways of dismissing a batsman after all, and a batsman's innings may end in the very first over itself. A bowler is at least guaranteed a fixed number of balls.

 

[Jono]

But that is the same with all forms of cricket.

His point is, in ODIs Tendulkar can bat 50 overs and score 200 runs, but Dale Steyn only has 60 balls. If he has 90 balls you see more of Steyn vs. Tendulkar, and perhaps (I stress perhaps) Tendulkar doesn't get to 200.

Either way it has been shown time and time again that the middle overs is when the majority of cricket fans, and even just ODI fans, get bored. It is no coincidence that this is when the part-timers are on.

And to those people saying allrounders will not be selected, on what basis are you saying that?

 

[smash84]

I think genuine all rounders by their very definition would get selected in any team won't they???

At any rate most of the players that have been considered genuine all rounders would get into their national sides on the strength of just their stronger discipline

 

[smash84]

btw with UDRS you won't get such decisions lol

YouTube - Funny Gatting Wicket Pak v Eng 1987 Tour

lol @ Gatting's reaction.....too good

 

[salman85]

But that is the same with all forms of cricket.

His point is, in ODIs Tendulkar can bat 50 overs and score 200 runs, but Dale Steyn only has 60 balls. If he has 90 balls you see more of Steyn vs. Tendulkar, and perhaps (I stress perhaps) Tendulkar doesn't get to 200.

Either way it has been shown time and time again that the middle overs is when the majority of cricket fans, and even just ODI fans, get bored. It is no coincidence that this is when the part-timers are on.

And to those people saying allrounders will not be selected, on what basis are you saying that?

The tendulkar vs Steyn logic doesn't apply here.An individual batsman is always likely to face more balls than an individual bowler bowls.It's true in all forms of cricket.A batsman has the choice to rotate the strike and face who he wants,whereas a bowler has no such choice.He has to bowl to whoever is at the striker's end.

Also,the middle orders of a cricket match don't generate as much excitement because of fielding captains switch to a defensive mode to neutralize the big hitting of the first and last 10 overs.Not because of the part timers having a bowl.Plus the part timers logic doesn't apply to every team.A lot of teams have specialist bowlers in the middle orders.Also,it's not like the middle overs have all part timers.At most,you have 1 part timer bowling and a lot of times even he doesn't finish his complete quota of overs.

Plus,the part-timeer argument is flawed because a lot of supposed part-timers,are actually pretty decent ODI bowlers,even though they may be useless in Test Matches.

 

[Blaze 18]

The tendulkar vs Steyn logic doesn't apply here.An individual batsman is always likely to face more balls than an individual bowler bowls.It's true in all forms of cricket.A batsman has the choice to rotate the strike and face who he wants,whereas a bowler has no such choice.He has to bowl to whoever is at the striker's end.

Also,the middle orders of a cricket match don't generate as much excitement because of fielding captains switch to a defensive mode to neutralize the big hitting of the first and last 10 overs.Not because of the part timers having a bowl.Plus the part timers logic doesn't apply to every team.A lot of teams have specialist bowlers in the middle orders.Also,it's not like the middle overs have all part timers.At most,you have 1 part timer bowling and a lot of times even he doesn't finish his complete quota of overs.

Plus,the part-timeer argument is flawed because a lot of supposed part-timers,are actually pretty decent ODI bowlers,even though they may be useless in Test Matches.

Yeah, agree with this. Such a rule change will only help teams with average bowling attacks. India will have Yousuf Pathan at eight and have Zaheer, Harbhajan and Yuvraj bowl fifty overs between them. Is that what we want to watch?

 

[Blaze 18]

But that is the same with all forms of cricket.

His point is, in ODIs Tendulkar can bat 50 overs and score 200 runs, but Dale Steyn only has 60 balls.

Yeah he can bat fifty overs, but equally, he can be dismissed on the first ball as well. If restrictions for bowlers have to be removed, then there should be ways of getting bowlers out as well. For example, if you hit a bowler for X number of runs in Y number of overs, or if he concedes more than two fours in one over, he's 'out' (i.e, he can't bowl for the rest of the game).

 

[ankitj]

btw with UDRS you won't get such decisions lol

YouTube - Funny Gatting Wicket Pak v Eng 1987 Tour

lol @ Gatting's reaction.....too good

Finger seems to have gone up before the fielders appealed.

 

[Jono]

Yeah he can bat fifty overs, but equally, he can be dismissed on the first ball as well. If restrictions for bowlers have to be removed, then there should be ways of getting bowlers out as well. For example, if you hit a bowler for X number of runs in Y number of overs, or if he concedes more than two fours in one over, he's 'out' (i.e, he can't bowl for the rest of the game).

What on Earth...?

You can't get a bowler "out" in any form of the game. So that metaphor does not work.

In test cricket, a batsman can bat for 5 days in theory unless they are dismissed. A bowler can bowl for 5 days in theory.

In ODI cricket, why not have a batsman being able to bat for 50 overs unless they are dismissed, and a bowler be able to bowl for 50 overs (i.e. 25 overs)?

If people think teams will actually go in with two bowlers they are seriously mistaken.

You will see 4 bowlers bowl 50 overs more often then 4 bowlers and 2 part-timers bowl 50 overs. That is seriously a good thing.

And can people please let me know which part-timers are good bowlers. I mean GOOD bowlers, not just good bowlers by part-time standards.

 

[Nate]

Haha, I love that Gatting video.