• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

***Official***THE FINAL- India vs Australia - November 19th - Narendra Modi Stadium, Ahmedabad (D/N)

Bahnz

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
I don't think it's that big of an issue though. The main rule I want changed in ODI's is the 10 over bowling limit. Get rid of that and I think you have the opportunity for a much higher standard of cricket, and a much better balance between bat and ball through the middle overs.
 
Anthony Clayden

Anthony Clayden

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Bahnz,

Would you retain any limits? I can see sides stacking the batting, For instance, Australia would have gone in with Warne/McGrath and some part timers.
 
Athlai

Athlai

Not Terrible
Bahnz said:
I don't think it's that big of an issue though. The main rule I want changed in ODI's is the 10 over bowling limit. Get rid of that and I think you have the opportunity for a much higher standard of cricket, and a much better balance between bat and ball through the middle overs.
Click to expand...
Nah hate this. The balance between bat and ball in the middle overs is already pretty good. Its only the first 20 overs and the last 10-15 that take the piss

I know you literally boil at the part timers having a go but it applies to everyone so it's solid. (I do tend to get annoyed at how stupidly "remaining overs" apply in DLS situations though)
 
S

SteveNZ

Cricketer Of The Year
Yeah...or you get a raging turner in the sub-continent, they pick two (at a push 3) spinners, a keeper-bat and the rest top order batsmen.
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Athlai said:
Nah hate this. The balance between bat and ball in the middle overs is already pretty good. Its only the first 20 overs and the last 10-15 that take the piss

I know you literally boil at the part timers having a go but it applies to everyone so it's solid. (I do tend to get annoyed at how stupidly "remaining overs" apply in DLS situations though)
Click to expand...
Kind of agree with Bahnz tbf. I like the idea of long spells by spinners for example and not have lesser bowlers having to bowl just cause the teams 'need somebody'. Maybe make the maximum overs to 15 if you don't want unlimited. It will make the balance between bat and ball better in the shorter formats.
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
No Athlai is right that's a terrible idea

The tactics and team balance needed to get overs out of a 5th or 6th bowler is an important part of the game.
 
social

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Stick to red ball if you want to see bowlers deliver lots of overs

Simple answer is to only have one ball but administrators want bat to dominate
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
silentstriker said:
Why? The greatest bowling attack in history was four bowlers coming at you with no respite offered. The quality of cricket was top tier.
Click to expand...
For Test cricket definitely. But the all-rounders and tactics around fitting in your bowlers is a vital part of ODI cricket IMO
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Yeah every team needing at least 5 bowlers is such a basic fabric of LO cricket. Maybe allow more overs based on wickets, an old idea I had seen suggested in CW (mabe it was @vic_orthdox who suggested that), but other than that, I wont tamper with this aspect too much.
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
TheJediBrah said:
For Test cricket definitely. But the all-rounders and tactics around fitting in your bowlers is a vital part of ODI cricket IMO
Click to expand...
But should it be? The format is dying outside of WC. People barely play it. Needs pretty significant changes if you don’t want to scrap it altogether. If you do want to scrap it, that’s fine too but if it’s gonna survive, something has to give.
 
Daemon

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Nah I think the approach was fine. We kept losing wickets just as it was time to up the ante.

We could have still won with 240 on the board anyways, but Rahul getting out early would’ve meant certain defeat. Ideally he should’ve rotated the strike better but that’s a big weakness of his and you gotta make do with what you have.
 
J

Jumno

First Class Debutant
Sunil1z said:
And so has Gambhir and directly called KL Rahul a coward View attachment 38282
Click to expand...
Tbf at 47-3, they should have really have done better with the bowling resources they had

I think they brought on the spinners way too early, should've held them back to bowl the important 20-35 overs and should have been more attacking

By the time 20 overs had gone, the spinners already bowled three overs each
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top