Goodbye to runners

[Himannv]

Don't see the need for this. If there's abuse of the system of allowing runners then stop the abuse, don't scrap the system.

This. Nothing wrong with the system in place. Abusing the system is the obvious problem here.

 

[Nate]

Nah, so happy with it. Never, ever have understood the point of runners. If you're not fit enough to run, you're not fit enough to bat. You don't see bowlers charging in on a Vespa when they've done a hammy.

 

[Spark]

Besides which if Katman () was able to hobble his way to 43 with a busted Achilles, it certainly isn't impossible for many injuries to be batted through.

 

[Top_Cat]

No way is losing a bowler to an injury as disadvantageous to a side as losing a batter. Many reasons but the obvious one is that losing a bowler, you lose some ability to take a limited number of wickets (10) but in losing a batter, you lose one prick's ability to score a potentially unlimited number of runs. Potentially it's worse in LO matches; losing a bowler means you have to find a maximum of 10 overs elsewhere (in practice, unless they do a Gough and pull out in the first over, less than that) but you lose a lot more if a batter hobbles off. This aside from the fact you have a new guy at the crease factors (far more unsettling coming out to that than having to bowl some overs), etc.

It won't change for that reason.

 

[silentstriker]

I'm a bit torn. But if this means another way of taking a wicket in cricket is now fast bowlers aiming straight for the batsman and causing them injuries, I'm all for it.

 

[silentstriker]

No way is losing a bowler to an injury as disadvantageous to a side as losing a batter. Many reasons but the obvious one is that losing a bowler, you lose some ability to take a limited number of wickets (10) but in losing a batter, you lose one prick's ability to score a potentially unlimited number of runs. The effect is less in LO matches, of course.

It won't change for that reason.

Ok but on average a single bowler bowls a greater percentage of his teams overs and takes a greater percentage of a teams wickets than a batsman in terms of a percentage of his teams runs. I'd much rather lose a single batsman than a single bowler in an innings in the vast majority of cases since the bowling loss will now affect every other bowler and quite possibly make everyone else less effective. The batting lineup will suffer but not nearly as much, on average.

 

[silentstriker]

Err is this on tests or ODI? Rereading your post it seems you are talking about Odis and I'm talking tests. Is this change for Odis only?

 

[Top_Cat]

lol, play some cricket FFS.

In all seriousness, I don't think you can really understand the effect of losing one vs the other unless you do.

 

[centurymaker]

Ok but on average a single bowler bowls a greater percentage of his teams overs and takes a greater percentage of a teams wickets than a batsman in terms of a percentage of his teams runs. I'd much rather lose a single batsman than a single bowler in an innings in the vast majority of cases since the bowling loss will now affect every other bowler and quite possibly make everyone else less effective. The batting lineup will suffer but not nearly as much, on average.

this.

losing a bowler is worse than losing a batsman.

 

[Top_Cat]

Ok but on average a single bowler bowls a greater percentage of his teams overs and takes a greater percentage of a teams wickets than a batsman in terms of a percentage of his teams runs. I'd much rather lose a single batsman than a single bowler in an innings in the vast majority of cases since the bowling loss will now affect every other bowler and quite possibly make everyone else less effective. The batting lineup will suffer but not nearly as much, on average.

haha, seriously? There's only 10 wickets to take vs potentially tons of runs. If you divide up 10 wickets amongst 4 specialist bowlers vs (potentially) hundreds of runs amongst 6 specialist batters, of course losing a bowler looks worse if you compare the %'s!

 

[Spark]

Playing three bowlers wrecks your balance though. Have to get a lot more overs out of your part timers and fifth options which is a problem if you don't have Kallis or Watson.

 

[silentstriker]

haha, seriously? There's only 10 wickets to take vs potentially tons of runs. If you divide up 10 wickets amongst 4 specialist bowlers vs (potentially) hundreds of runs amongst 6 specialist batters, of course losing a bowler looks worse if you compare the %'s. But in reality, the situation is the opposite.

Taking an extra wicket wicket also stops these "hundreds of runs" though. Also in average a batsman doesn't score "hundreds of runs" just like on average a bowler won't take 8 wickets. You're not comparing the scenario where VVS scored 281 vs when ishant took zero wickets...you're looking at it on the whole, assuming a batsman scoring an average number of runs and a bowler bowling his average number of overs for whatever his average wicket tally is.

 

[Top_Cat]

I get it but losing a batter isn't just losing the runs they might make, it's the run-on effect of getting a new batter and settled which is way worse, especially if they get out and the next guy has to do the same and then the next guy......etc. Far more destabilising to a team than having to make up some extra overs.

 

[Andre]

I reckon the way runners have gone with cramps etc. (and the Arjuna affect) they have become a blight on the game. Intitially I thought this was a great idea. I can see the problems that might arise when you have someone genuienly injured thoguh, and the disadvantage that comes if an opening bat tears a hamstring in the first session of a Test, for example.

Wondering if having an independant medico at the games to assess injuries and if a play needs a runner might be a sensible way forward to decide.

I do agree, however, that a runner should never be given for cramps - cramps are a fitness issue.

 

[GotSpin]

I reckon the way runners have gone with cramps etc. (and the Arjuna affect) they have become a blight on the game. Intitially I thought this was a great idea. I can see the problems that might arise when you have someone genuienly injured thoguh, and the disadvantage that comes if an opening bat tears a hamstring in the first session of a Test, for example.

Wondering if having an independant medico at the games to assess injuries and if a play needs a runner might be a sensible way forward to decide.

I do agree, however, that a runner should never be given for cramps - cramps are a fitness issue.

It does make the game look a little 'soft' when you have batsmen pulling up short fitness wise and deciding to call out a runner who is much faster

The hilarious mix ups will be missed though

 

[Cevno]

Even if losing a bowler is a loss ,how does making sure you lose a batsman too in case on injury make it any fairer?
When in fact one of the main reasons given for the super sub rule at the time was that it will help cover injuries and thus help reduce the luck quotient.

 

[Jarquis]

I get it but losing a batter isn't just losing the runs they might make, it's the run-on effect of getting a new batter and settled which is way worse, especially if they get out and the next guy has to do the same and then the next guy......etc. Far more destabilising to a team than having to make up some extra overs.

The equivalent would be if a front line bowler goes down crocked and then a team has to rely on a bunch of part timers to get through the overs which basically results in free, low risk runs for the opposition and allows the batsman to get his eye in.

Anyway, this isn't saying you automatically lose a batsman at all. Batsmen walking to the crease with a runner is probably less likely than a frontline bowler going down in his first over ffs. There's nothing to say a batsman can't, y'know, just bat through what ever niggle he has.

 

[vcs]

The equivalent would be if a front line bowler goes down crocked and then a team has to rely on a bunch of part timers to get through the overs which basically results in free, low risk runs for the opposition and allows the batsman to get his eye in.

Anyway, this isn't saying you automatically lose a batsman at all. Batsmen walking to the crease with a runner is probably less likely than a frontline bowler going down in his first over ffs. There's nothing to say a batsman can't, y'know, just bat through what ever niggle he has.

In Test cricket, definitely. No need for batsmen to run between wickets at all. Would be fun to watch actually if it happened.

 

[Teja.]

For the sake of argument, It could be said that a player in military shape would be less likely to pick up an external injury on the field compared to an extremely unfit player. So under the previous system, wouldn't we be benefiting unfit cricketers on a general level by providing runners for external injuries?

I think this is a great move, personally.

 

[Bun]

A good decision...

you get injured in between? Hard luck...