Time to get rid of over limits in short forms of the game?

[Debris]

I have been trying to think of a reason why the limit on the number of overs in ODIs and T20s is a good idea and can't really see one. There are several negatives from my point of view

It forces teams to weaken the batting line-up as you need really need 6 players who can bowl. It can also affect the bowling line-up as now you can't afford to have too many bowlers who cannot bat. This often results in teams picking 'reverse all-rounders' (trademark by Dazinho) who should be nowhere near the national side.

Great bowlers can be batted around. I have lost count of the times where batsmen are just blocking out a great bowler so they can attack the lesser bowlers. It feels kind of flat when a bowler is taken off because he is running out of overs to bowl.

You get the unedifying spectacle of some part-timer bowler being carted round by the batsman. As a cricket fan, I want to see the best batsmen facing the best bowlers and not that garbage. Who wants to watch Viv Richards bowl when you could be watching Malcolm Marshall or Joel Garner?

Maybe I am missing something. Anyone have any reasons why over limits are a good idea?

 

[Daemon]

At school level I'd say it's so others get a chance instead of the premier spinner just bowling all the overs

 

[ankitj]

Leave it as it is. It's an interesting constraint for the captains to manage within.

 

[smash84]

At school level I'd say it's so others get a chance instead of the premier spinner just bowling all the overs

 

[smash84]

somewhat agree with Ankit and debris both.

In the sense that the max allotted overs should be 15 instead of 10

 

[Red]

Initially it was probably so limited overs games resembled tests, by forcing captains into using 5 bowlers, as you would do in a test.

I don't mind it the way it is, but I also wouldn't mind if they made it that teams only had to use four bowlers rather than five:

3 bowlers bowl 12 overs

1 nominated 'premier' bowler can bowl 14.


The other possibility (which negates negative bowling), is that a bowler can only continue to bowl beyond his ten overs is if he has a wicket (maybe each wicket "buys" him two more overs). Gets complicated though.

 

[Dazinho]

Initially it was probably so limited overs games resembled tests, by forcing captains into using 5 bowlers, as you would do in a test.

I don't mind it the way it is, but I also wouldn't mind if they made it that teams only had to use four bowlers rather than five:

3 bowlers bowl 12 overs

1 nominated 'premier' bowler can bowl 14.


The other possibility (which negates negative bowling), is that a bowler can only continue to bowl beyond his ten overs is if he has a wicket (maybe each wicket "buys" him two more overs). Gets complicated though.

Flattered that something I came up with has entered the CricketWeb lexicon. Looks like 'Reverse All-Rounders' are here to stay.

One of the positive aspects with the current format in ODIs is that it evens the game up somewhat and increases the risk of upsets. I appreciate that beyond a certain point it becomes a total lottery, so there's a valid question.

Maybe increasing the maximum per bowler to 11 from 10 would cover most of the angles - this would leave six overs instead of ten for the captain to 'find' from somewhere and also remove the convenient symetry of bowlers delivering even numbers of overs.

To some extent, this evens out the situation while delivering more of 'elite vs elite' as per the OP's understandable wishes.

It would also mean fewer RARs in the game, which can only be a good thing!!

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I agree with Debris. Hate the fact that teams have to get rid of a batsman in order to accommodate an extra bowler. No wonder Pakistan is **** in this format at the moment.

 

[NUFAN]

In Australian domestic cricket bowlers are allowed to bowl 13 overs in an innings now. It definitely adds something to the game, as you can't just block out the best bowler.

10 seems more balanced, but the system we have in place domestically might be worth a go in the stale ODI format.

 

[Debris]

somewhat agree with Ankit and debris both.

In the sense that the max allotted overs should be 15 instead of 10

That would get rid of most of the issues I have. It might end up be effectively no limit because it would be fairly rare for a captain to want to bowl one bowler more than that.

 

[Cabinet96]

I kinda like it how it is tbh. It adds a spectacle to the game, when you know that you're best bowler only has a few overs left when a game is tight. The captains are forced to decide whether to go in for the kill with their best bowler, or delay him for the end. If you take away restrictions, the best bowler would just bowl all the way through that period.

I also think it causes a much more interesting balance issue for teams.

 

[uvelocity]

In Australian domestic cricket bowlers are allowed to bowl 13 overs in an innings now. It definitely adds something to the game, as you can't just block out the best bowler.

10 seems more balanced, but the system we have in place domestically might be worth a go in the stale ODI format.

only 2 allowed 13 overs iirc

 

[GIMH]

IMO the limit should be 5

 

[Debris]

IMO the limit should be 5

And batsmen should be forced to retire after batting 10 overs.

 

[Spikey]

Should have happened ages ago. I don't see what benefit forcing weaker bowlers and weaker batsmen to play has on the game. The reason ODI's stop dead after the 15th over mark is because bowlers more or less stop trying to take wickets, that's partly 'cause you've got the ****ty bowlers on. If Saeed Ajmal is good enough to bowl 25 overs let him do so. Further more, I find it astonishing that there isn't a massive group of people trying to lobby the ICC to change it

Initially it was probably so limited overs games resembled tests, by forcing captains into using 5 bowlers, as you would do in a test.

Huh? I mean, Warne, McGrath, Gillespie, Lee. Holding, Marshall, Garner, Walsh/Croft. Anderson, Broad, Swann, Bres/Trem etc

 

[BoyBrumby]

I vaguely recall this being discussed before on CW. As then I'm in favour. Skipping gaily through the meadows of the bleedin' obvious as I am, spectators want to see the best versus the best and forcing sides to pick a fifth (semi-)serious bowling option dilutes this ideal considerably.

It would also give selectors and captains more of an input into the match result; captains won't have to worry about bowling out their best bowlers' allocation and selectors wouldn't have to consider so much the merits of (say) Ravi Bopara's mediums versus Sammy Patel's SLA.

 

[Spark]

Agree with those who suggest trialling what we have going here at the int'l level

 

[Hurricane]

From my perspective NZ has been relatively good at producing dibbly dobbler fifth and sixth bowling options who can also bat a bit. So this proposal would take away from one of the few advantages we have.

Also I don't really want Tim Southee bowling 12-14 overs. I think it will place more wear and tear on him and possibly lead to injury and burn out.

Personally I don't watch ODIs to watch a top notch competition between bat and ball. I just watch it to see stroke play. I watch test matches to see the world's best bowlers in action. I don't think you can fully express yourself as a bowler in an ODI anyway. You have to bowl conservatively to avoid being smacked and you can't really go after wickets to an extent.
ODIs are a batsman game and should be maintained as such.
But I place a caveat on my answer by saying I am a batsman so just enjoy watching batsman in general.

 

[tooextracool]

Not a fan of this. It reduces the incentive of anyone wanting to be an all-rounder and will basically result in sides packing their sides with batsmen.The idea of tampering with the ODI game is something that is rather pointless and if anything makes the situation even more dire.. The reason why the ODI game isnt as enjoyable anymore is because it has run its course, and changing the rules every 12 months is just not going to help.Whether ODI cricket passes the baton to T20 now or or in 10 years, mark my words it will happen and the game will be better for it.

 

[Debris]

Not a fan of this. It reduces the incentive of anyone wanting to be an all-rounder and will basically result in sides packing their sides with batsmen.The idea of tampering with the ODI game is something that is rather pointless and if anything makes the situation even more dire.. The reason why the ODI game isnt as enjoyable anymore is because it has run its course, and changing the rules every 12 months is just not going to help.Whether ODI cricket passes the baton to T20 now or or in 10 years, mark my words it will happen and the game will be better for it.

I was also suggesting getting rid of the over restrictions in T20, btw.

I don't see this process getting rid of quality all-rounders. A side will still need four front-line bowlers as I can't really see a side bowling the same bowler from an end for 25 overs. They will still want at least one of them to be a decent batsman. Having options in your side will still be an advantage as long as they are quality options.