Goodbye to runners

[GIMH]

Balanced argument?

Have you not read my posts before? Pfft.

 

[four_or_six]

I don't think you can make such a blanket statement.

Say the match was Brisbane 2010. The team is Australia. The batsmen is Hussey, the bowler is Johnson. Which one has the greater effect if gone? Without Hussey, Australia might lose that game. Without Johnson? Hmmm.

A part-time bowler has a better chance of filling in effectively than the batsman's replacement....

Edit - @ GI Dickoe

Australia would have done better if Katich had locked Johnson in a cupboard for the whole match.

 

[Cevno]

On a general level. I'd certainly not have Zaheer Khan as a model of fitness anyway considering the number of times he breaks down.

My main point of contention is the external/internal injury bias. Under the previous system, we did not have runners allowed for internal problems such as cramps due to not wanting to reward unfit ****s for being unfit ****s but the external injury rule also does the same to a lesser extent.

What i was disagreeing with was you saying that a Super fit person won't have as many injuries.
I was just making the point that it does not always work that way and sometimes injury proneness comes naturally say a Gambhir or a Zaheer versus more unfit Ranatunga and Powar.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

If a bowler gets injured it's tough luck and the team has to just adapt to it. Don't see why it should be any different for batsmen.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Balanced argument?

Have you not read my posts before? Pfft.

I'd say all your posts about Jono are fair and balanced

 

[Cevno]

So two wrongs make a right in that sense?

@Spacemonkey

 

[Prince EWS]

Is weird though.
What will that achieve other than eliminate reverse swing mostly?

They've already all-but rubbed out reverse swing in ODIs with the mandatory ball change.

I like two new balls. It's not a first for ODI cricket either; it's been done before.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Why is the ICC hell bent on trying to eliminate reverse swing. Most of our bowlers are old ball bowlers, so I guess that's bad news for us.

 

[Andre]

Why is the ICC hell bent on trying to eliminate reverse swing. Most of our bowlers are old ball bowlers, so I guess that's bad news for us.

It will still take place. A lot of bowlers now are that highly skilled that they can reverse the ball that is about 20 overs old, and even less if conditions suit.

2 balls much better scenario than the stoopid changing of balls at 35 overs IMO.

 

[Athlai]

Runners rule is rubbish.

 

[Teja.]

Praveen Kumar certainly likes the new ball rule change.

 

[vcs]

Praveen Kumar certainly likes the new ball rule change.

Haha yeah. We don't even have to consider playing the likes of Ishant/Sree/Nehra in ODIs any more as Praveen's duration of effectiveness goes up with this rule change. Death overs are still a problem though..

 

[biased indian]

They've already all-but rubbed out reverse swing in ODIs with the mandatory ball change.

I like two new balls. It's not a first for ODI cricket either; it's been done before.

the ball currently being replaced is a 34 over old ball rt ?

 

[biased indian]

I don't think you can make such a blanket statement.

Say the match was Brisbane 2010. The team is Australia. The batsmen is Hussey, the bowler is Johnson. Which one has the greater effect if gone? Without Hussey, Australia might lose that game. Without Johnson? Hmmm.

A part-time bowler has a better chance of filling in effectively than the batsman's replacement....

Edit - @ GI Dickoe

there is another version of the same ..say England is playing India in the first test and a flash news is showing that one of England's top player is injured after toss..who would you rather like that to be Cook or Anderson ?

 

[Spark]

the ball currently being replaced is a 34 over old ball rt ?

Old but obviously without any work on it to shine one side, so it's basically as good (or as bad) as a new ball as far as reverse is concerned.

 

[Bun]

What about the effect on spinners? I know the age of T20s have adapted them to bowling with the new ball, but the practise isn't going to get any fillip with this rule change imho.

 

[Nate]

I always thought introducing a new ball in the 25th over made sense. Stops the "boring middle overs" as well.

 

[Spark]

That's assuming captains set the fields to suit...

 

[Son Of Coco]

I wonder how many years Arjuna Ranatunga's career would've been shortened by if this was the rule? He always adhered to the rule, "No Running". Would've been the darling of the local swimming pool owners.

 

[benchmark00]

I always thought introducing a new ball in the 25th over made sense. Stops the "boring middle overs" as well.

That has merit, but you'd find yourself with spinners having to generally bowl at the death, because those 'middle overs' would be bowled by the new ball bowlers, because although it's not uncommon for a spinner to bowl with the new ball, it can be an expensive excercise and certainly not as effective as if you bowl them with an older ball.