T20 - Changes Needed

[Fred Tetanus]

I think we'd all agree that I'm spot on when I say T20 is fast becoming a bore-fest where the script is all too predictable. Either the batting side belts the fielding side into oblivion or they lose a few early wickets and struggle the whole time as a result. It's time to change things up! What rule changes would you like to see? Throw up some ideas.

First one is an absolute must and that is all players (other than the wicket keeper) are required to bowl 2 overs each. Rules around injuries TBA.

 

[Victor Ian]

Simple way to make it more interesting. Play it over 5 days, 2 innings each.

 

[fredfertang]

I think we'd all agree that I'm spot on when I say T20 is fast becoming a bore-fest where the script is all too predictable. Either the batting side belts the fielding side into oblivion or they lose a few early wickets and struggle the whole time as a result. It's time to change things up! What rule changes would you like to see? Throw up some ideas.

First one is an absolute must and that is all players (other than the wicket keeper) are required to bowl 2 overs each. Rules around injuries TBA.

That's a beer match

 

[Bijed]

Just throwing out ideas as they pop in to my head here, no real thoughts as to whether they'd be good changes or not:

• Maximum of 3 overs per bowler

• Sixes are worth 8 instead

 

[listento_me]

I honestly don't believe there need to be any rule changes to the format. What needs to change is the quality of wickets. T20 was built as a batsman's game because the ICC believes new fans arrive to watch batsmen, which is the case in a handful of matches if the likes of Gale, Afridi, KP were/are around but T20 through up a surprise: spinners started stealing the show. Yet most organisers, still believing that sixes are the only thing that draw crowds have tried to flatten pitches out even further.

The big Bash last season was of a high quality because of more parity between bat and ball and the first season of PSL was also pretty good. The English t20 league, lacking the stars of other tournaments has actually produced some great displays of batting AND bowling throughout matches and provided a more even keel.

So, good wickets, not rule changes.

 

[Red]

Just throwing out ideas as they pop in to my head here, no real thoughts as to whether they'd be good changes or not:

• Maximum of 3 overs per bowler

• Sixes are worth 8 instead

Or as an alternative, bowlers can bowl unlimited overs. So each bowler can bowl up to ten overs.

 

[Red]

- Make the grounds bigger...all the way to the boundary.

- Reward bowling that is controlled...if a team fails to hit a boundary in 8 or 10 balls then the batsman on strike for that 8th (10th) ball is given out.

 

[honestbharani]

Its simple enough. Just reward wicket taking bowling. Allow 1 over more than the limit for every wicket a bowler takes. That will introduce so much of strategy to the game. Try it out in some of the T20 leagues and slowly get it into international cricket for both LO formats.

 

[cnerd123]

I like T20

What's the problem with it? Why must we have changes?

I think we'd all agree that I'm spot on when I say T20 is fast becoming a bore-fest where the script is all too predictable. Either the batting side belts the fielding side into oblivion or they lose a few early wickets and struggle the whole time as a result.

I don't agree with this

 

[SteveNZ]

If there's ever an issue, it's pitches. I'm not a T20 fan, but for those who are - 120 v 115 is sickening. So fix those, and your product is fine.

From there, your marketing and TV production team does the rest. The Big Bash is so well presented and marketed, whereas our Fast Food Super Wallop is largely ****.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yeah, good wickets/conditions make all the difference. Some good swing early on helps the attractiveness of it too.

 

[Fred Tetanus]

I don't agree with this

I'm relieved to hear this. It means I'm on the right track.

 

[S.Kennedy]

I don't really like t20 so I'm probably the wrong person to ask. I quite like our blast.

 

[vic_orthdox]

First thing I'd change, if you are going to show average, show the average number of balls faced as well.

E.g. if your average is 20 at a SR of 150, then put the graphic up as "20 (13)"...

(Have I got my maths right?)

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think T20 is fine. Any of the changes suggested here wouldn't really help at all, and probably just make it worse IMO.

As far as the showing stats thing goes, I hate that they show dot balls in bowlers figures, it just looks weird. Also it used to annoy me that they show economy rates instead of averages for bowlers but I've made my peace with that and can see the logic behind it.

 

[cnerd123]

Yea I think the critical stats for a batsman are:

- Strike Rate / Run Rate (where you take a batsman's strike rate over 6 balls instead of over a 100)
- Average Length of Innings (balls faced)
- Boundary %
- Dot Ball %

And for a bowler I'd like:

- Economy Rate
- Strike Rate
- Dot Ball %

And ofcourse the usual matches played/runs scored/wickets taken is all useful too.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I still think batting average is as important a stat as any.

definitely more so than dot ball% or boundary%

 

[cnerd123]

I still think batting average is as important a stat as any.

definitely more so than dot ball% or boundary%

I think T20 is so short that the the Batting Average skew between top order and lower order players is too great to mean anything. Plus not-outs tend to be so much more prevalent.

I think ultimately those other stats mean more; and besides, with Strike Rate/Run Rate and Average Length of Innings, you get all the info you get from the batting average anyways.

 

[Blocky]

Ultimately, I don't think T20 adds anything to the international game. I think it should become domestic only and become a marquee situation where players from all over the world get together in leagues to boost the local coffers and get some eyes on domestic talent. I'd bin it from the international game and focus on Tests + ODI at international level.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think T20 is so short that the the Batting Average skew between top order and lower order players is too great to mean anything. Plus not-outs tend to be so much more prevalent.

I think ultimately those other stats mean more; and besides, with Strike Rate/Run Rate and Average Length of Innings, you get all the info you get from the batting average anyways.

Yeah but that's just adding pointless stats. Why do you need "balls per innings"? Just give the average. It's more relevant anyway. The best players are still the ones with the highest averages, but not necessarily the ones with the highest strike rates IMO.