What parts of the game would you like to see return to modern cricket?

[josephina]

Potentially the law could be changed for reverse shots, but I can't see an argument for anything else.

Yes it would change the balance between bat and ball. What is wrong with that? Having less draws is a good thing.

Bowlers will bowl at the stumps. What is wrong with that?

Batters have a bat. They should be using it instead of their pads.

If bowlers bowl outside leg, batters just need to open up their stance. Warnie bowling people around the legs was exciting. Batters just playing with their pads was boring. Surely it is more interesting if LBW was in play.

As to whether batters are hit in line, I doubt batters will just pad up to balls outside off knowing they could be out LBW.

I think what you are saying is if it is harder for batters they will become more defensive which is boring. With that logic we should make it even harder to get batters out to make the game more interesting.

I still think making tests limited overs is the best way to make them more interesting.

 

[SteveNZ]

Only in my opinion - which is all it ever is - I just don't think it's solving a problem, in regards to the lbw law. It probably creates more - all of a sudden, the whole book on batting technique is out the window.

I don't think batters would become more defensive - they'd become sitting ducks if they did. I just think it would completely change the fabric of the game, so it didn't resemble anything like what it is now. The amount of reviews would be off the charts. How the hell do you, as an umpire, work out if a guy propping forward to an off-spinner well outside off is hitting, given it just makes contact with pad first before bat? And if DRS says it is, how does that sit with us?

As for Tests, I wouldn't be a fan of them being limited overs. If you're saying they're 80 overs (for example), a situation like India's reply to 46 and our 406 last week would have been different. I love there being the opportunity for a team to grind out an innings, to either crawl back into a game or bat the other side out of it. I think you lose a significant amount to Test cricket if, instead, you force a team to bat reasonably aggressively most of the time.

Could name a bunch of Tests that would have been far different if they were limited overs. Faf's epic knock on debut in Perth, Mark Greatbatch also in Perth 89, and a whole lot of others that would have been completely different. OK, no doubt, you'd get some that might have got results, but the way the game is going, teams might bring that aggression as a by-product of T20.

 

[JBMAC]

Can't agree with those. We lose one over from rain and there is no result?

As to DRS, the moment your team gets a dud decision, you will be the first person asking for DRS.

Not in your wildest dreams

 

[Ali TT]

Yes it would change the balance between bat and ball. What is wrong with that? Having less draws is a good thing.

Bowlers will bowl at the stumps. What is wrong with that?

Batters have a bat. They should be using it instead of their pads.

If bowlers bowl outside leg, batters just need to open up their stance. Warnie bowling people around the legs was exciting. Batters just playing with their pads was boring. Surely it is more interesting if LBW was in play.

As to whether batters are hit in line, I doubt batters will just pad up to balls outside off knowing they could be out LBW.

I think what you are saying is if it is harder for batters they will become more defensive which is boring. With that logic we should make it even harder to get batters out to make the game more interesting.

I still think making tests limited overs is the best way to make them more interesting.

The proportion of draws in modern day tests is at historically low levels. https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/...and-the-feasibility-of-four-day-tests-1215504

 

[OverratedSanity]

DRS works perfectly fine. Why on earth would anyone want to go back?

 

[josephina]

As for Tests, I wouldn't be a fan of them being limited overs. If you're saying they're 80 overs (for example), a situation like India's reply to 46 and our 406 last week would have been different. I love there being the opportunity for a team to grind out an innings, to either crawl back into a game or bat the other side out of it. I think you lose a significant amount to Test cricket if, instead, you force a team to bat reasonably aggressively most of the time.

If it was 160 overs per side, if India used 40 in the first innings, they still have 120 for the second innings.

 

[sledger]

Super subs

 

[josephina]

I don't think batters would become more defensive - they'd become sitting ducks if they did. I just think it would completely change the fabric of the game, so it didn't resemble anything like what it is now. The amount of reviews would be off the charts. How the hell do you, as an umpire, work out if a guy propping forward to an off-spinner well outside off is hitting, given it just makes contact with pad first before bat? And if DRS says it is, how does that sit with us?

Already umpires must make a decision if contact was outside off and no stroke played.

If teams are limited to 3 unsuccessful DRS appeals per innings they will use them wisely.

I cannot see any logic in the rule about hitting in line with the stumps. If you are left arm around, hitting in line with the stumps will go down leg. Hitting outside the line is more likely to hit the stumps. The only logic is wanting to encourage betters to play a stroke when they are hit in line. Marginal benefit.

 

[sledger]

I'd rather do away with on field umpires altogether than do away with DRS tbh.

 

[honestbharani]

The only thing I can think of is go back to the 1 ball for ODI cricket. Most other things feel like the game has evolved with the times and/or progressed.

 

[Coronis]

I'd rather do away with on field umpires altogether than do away with DRS tbh.

@JBMAC

 

[capt_Luffy]

Just use the bat bro!!! It's not that difficult bro!!

 

[Daemon]

I miss the days when a tied super over was decided by the boundary count

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

West Indies on top

 

[SteveNZ]

Already umpires must make a decision if contact was outside off and no stroke played.

If teams are limited to 3 unsuccessful DRS appeals per innings they will use them wisely.

I cannot see any logic in the rule about hitting in line with the stumps. If you are left arm around, hitting in line with the stumps will go down leg. Hitting outside the line is more likely to hit the stumps. The only logic is wanting to encourage betters to play a stroke when they are hit in line. Marginal benefit.

Yep, true, they do make a decision on that. Steve Smith knows all about that at present. I think his head would actually fall off if the law went your way and he was given out in DRS not playing a shot. That's not a bad thing.

If you were a left arm around, all of a sudden you're probably going to bowl well wide of the crease, try to angle it in and hit the pads en route to the stumps. Hell, you'd do that over the wicket, especially, too. I just think it will markedly remove the desire for bowlers to want to bowl for any other dismissal than lbw. It becomes French cricket - the main aim is to hit the legs. Even if batsmen are encouraged to play shots, they're going to miss one reasonably frequently - especially balls coming from their leg side - and to me, you completely change the fabric of our game technique and strategy wise if you bring your law in. I don't see the need, nor do I wish that to happen. And I (was) a bowler.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yep, true, they do make a decision on that. Steve Smith knows all about that at present. I think his head would actually fall off if the law went your way and he was given out in DRS not playing a shot. That's not a bad thing.

If you were a left arm around, all of a sudden you're probably going to bowl well wide of the crease, try to angle it in and hit the pads en route to the stumps. Hell, you'd do that over the wicket, especially, too. I just think it will markedly remove the desire for bowlers to want to bowl for any other dismissal than lbw. It becomes French cricket - the main aim is to hit the legs. Even if batsmen are encouraged to play shots, they're going to miss one reasonably frequently - especially balls coming from their leg side - and to me, you completely change the fabric of our game technique and strategy wise if you bring your law in. I don't see the need, nor do I wish that to happen. And I (was) a bowler.

I would just add to that, when a bowler bowls round, the ball is somewhat in a blind spot for the batsman. It's genuinely hard to track it. Not to mention it's much easier to score a ball in the offside down the leg than vice versa. A bowler bowling the same boring ball round the stumps attacking leg with 7 fielders in the leg side is straight nightmare material. Averaging 25 will be considered ATG stuff and batters with a strong offside will just be out the game. For context, it means Sarfaraz Khan will all of a sudden be a better batsman to than Williamson. Hell, he probably will be the best batsman in the world (alongside Smith, Goat for a reason). This is genuinely some of the worst and out of touch with reality idea regarding the game I ever heard. My only solace if ICC ever tried to implement it, all the boards will just leave ICC and form a new board and take away the law making rights from MCC.

 

[Red]

No loud music between overs or intrusive PA advertising at test match grounds, and full white clothing with no advertising for tests.

 

[Daemon]

Yes lets make tests even less financially viable

Agree on the **** music though

 

[josephina]

I would just add to that, when a bowler bowls round, the ball is somewhat in a blind spot for the batsman. It's genuinely hard to track it. Not to mention it's much easier to score a ball in the offside down the leg than vice versa. A bowler bowling the same boring ball round the stumps attacking leg with 7 fielders in the leg side is straight nightmare material. Averaging 25 will be considered ATG stuff and batters with a strong offside will just be out the game. For context, it means Sarfaraz Khan will all of a sudden be a better batsman to than Williamson. Hell, he probably will be the best batsman in the world (alongside Smith, Goat for a reason). This is genuinely some of the worst and out of touch with reality idea regarding the game I ever heard. My only solace if ICC ever tried to implement it, all the boards will just leave ICC and form a new board and take away the law making rights from MCC.

I don't believe there is a blindspot if a right arm bowls around the wicket to a right hander. There is nothing stopping the batter from opening their stance Chanderpaul style.

If scoring is restricted to the onside, authorities could amend the laws to restrict the number of onside fielders. Has been done before.

I find it odd anyone could criticize a bowler aiming at the stumps. Isn't that what the game intended them to do? Far more boring is short pitched bowling nowhere near the stumps.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I don't believe there is a blindspot if a right arm bowls around the wicket to a right hander. There is nothing stopping the batter from opening their stance Chanderpaul style.

If scoring is restricted to the onside, authorities could amend the laws to restrict the number of onside fielders. Has been done before.

I find it odd anyone could criticize a bowler aiming at the stumps. Isn't that what the game intended them to do? Far more boring is short pitched bowling nowhere near the stumps.

Okay let's go point by point.....

Have you ever batted against a leg spinner? Stand in the normal stance and try to move your neck along the leg side. Much harder to do.

Common sense is stopping most batters from batting like Chanderpaul. His stance was a freak and one of a kind natural. Telling a 14 year old boy with a strong offside to switch his stance to that is loathsome, to say the least.

That's actually somehow worse. No runs can be scored in the offside but fielders have to stand there the whole day. They might as well wait in the dressing room. I find it odd you have no problems with field restrictions but want to change the lbw law so drastically.

Are you serious that you find good short balls aimed at the chest boring??