First week thoughts

[_Ed_]

Yeah, for sure. But I'd like more than two examples in 15 games. Probably just being greedy though.

 

[BigBrother]

Yeah, for sure. But I'd like more than two examples in 15 games. Probably just being greedy though.

Tbh, all the the talk is right. ODIs have been batsman haven since the start of this century and the gap has only gotten wider with years. It's expecting a lot to consistently ask much of bowlers almost anywhere now.

 

[_Ed_]

Tbh, all the the talk is right. ODIa have been batter haven since the start of this century and the gap has only gotten wider with years. It's expecting too much to ask too much of bowlers almost anywhere now.

Yeah, exactly.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

If I had to do a "teams looking the strongest thing"

Australia
New Zealand

India

South Africa

Sri Lanka
England

West Indies
Pakistan
Ireland

Zimbabwe
Bangladesh

Afghanistan
Scotland
UAE

The scary thing is I'd go along with that, just shows the gulf in class in the sides though as England were butchered by the Aussies and NZ and should still make it to the quarters and depending on the draw may even have a decent chance of a semi final place despite being an ordinary side.

 

[TNT]

Agree, surely there's some rule in fine print about the captain named in each squad having to remain so, unless of course they're injured or rested for the said match.

My line of thinking was why name your best player as captain when he is the one who gets suspended. If ABD does get suspended in this WC then in the next WC I would think that some teams may name a dummy captain to protect their best player coming into the series.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Simplest solution is to let the team they face next name the player they want suspended. Absolutely fool proof.

 

[Antihippy]

edit: ah whoops.

 

[TNT]

Simplest solution is to let the team they face next name the player they want suspended. Absolutely fool proof.

But is that in the best interests of cricket, who wants to go to a match and miss out on seeing the best player. That's not the best way to promote cricket.

 

[marc71178]

But crawling over rates are?

 

[Cabinet96]

yeah but everyone was still complaining about how lame it was at the time

Some people just don't like cricket even when they pretend they do. Like those who are always complaining there's too much cricket, and basically spend the entirety of every world cup commenting on how long it is.

 

[GIMH]

Can't believe there was a discussion about wicket hauls. everybody knows the ONLY thing that matters to an ODI bowler is economy

Yes I'm mimicking a poster who's not been here for five years what's your point

 

[GIMH]

Some people just don't like cricket even when they pretend they do. Like those who are always complaining there's too much cricket, and basically spend the entirety of every world cup commenting on how long it is.

I don't think there's too much cricket but tbf I do think the WC is too long

 

[TNT]

But crawling over rates are?

Well the faster the over rate equals lower quality cricket , that's been proven. You could not play the best eight fastest bowlers in a match now days because you would have to suspend one of the captains.

 

[marc71178]

How has that been proven?

 

[cnerd123]

You didn't read TNT's thesis on the issue? For shame.

 

[TNT]

How has that been proven?

Because teams bring on part time bowlers to improve the over rate, they don't bring on their best bowlers. There was never any complaining about the quality of the WI ODI team when they couldent bowl their overs in time.

But the overriding evidence is that teams still fail to bowl their overs on time.

 

[Smudge]

Can't believe there was a discussion about wicket hauls. everybody knows the ONLY thing that matters to an ODI bowler is economy

Yes I'm mimicking a poster who's not been here for five years what's your point

Leave Buddhmeister out of this.

 

[marc71178]

Because teams bring on part time bowlers to improve the over rate, they don't bring on their best bowlers.

What, so spinners are now part timers?

So when SL brought on Murali they weren't bringing on their best bowler?

 

[TNT]

What, so spinners are now part timers?

So when SL brought on Murali they weren't bringing on their best bowler?

I don't know if you watch much ODI cricket but SL didn't bring Murali on to speed up the match. If a team has to bowl a player to get through the overs instead of bowling a player they want to then the team is not playing to its full potential. Over rates are to satisfy TV scheduling not to improve cricket. Spectators don't complain about over rates, they are just happy to watch the match unfold, its the broadcasters that have problems with over rates and have forced the ICC to suspend players for upsetting TV schedules.

 

[marc71178]

The over rate demands are not strenuous and over rates are a problem in all forms of cricket - 50 overs in 3 and a half hours should never be exceeded by any team, let alone 90 in 6 hours which frequently becomes 87-88 in 6 and a half.