10 overs in 50 overs

[Lokomotiv]

In ODI, a Bowler can bowl only 10 overs in 50 overs.
There should be same limitations in First Class Cricket, including Tests.
One Bowler can bowl only 10 overs in the 1st 50 overs. The same Bowler can bowl only 10 overs in the next 50 overs. The same continues.

 

[fredfertang]

Why?

 

[Red]

In ODI, a Bowler can bowl only 10 overs in 50 overs.
There should be same limitations in First Class Cricket, including Tests.
One Bowler can bowl only 10 overs in the 1st 50 overs. The same Bowler can bowl only 10 overs in the next 50 overs. The same continues.

How do you manage to keep thinking of this revolutionary stuff?

The inner workings of your brain must be something to behold.

 

[fredfertang]

When I saw the OP I hoped Loko might be questioning why it is that in a limited overs match no bowler can deliver more than 20% of the overs, a rule that hasn't changed since 1964, and which I think is well worthy of debate. Instead he has come up with what I think is his silliest idea yet, and that's quite an achievement in the face of some stiff competition

 

[Red]

When I saw the OP I hoped Loko might be questioning why it is that in a limited overs match no bowler can deliver more than 20% of the overs, a rule that hasn't changed since 1964, and which I think is well worthy of debate. Instead he has come up with what I think is his silliest idea yet, and that's quite an achievement in the face of some stiff competition

Agreed, there is a good argument for a LO team to only require four bowlers. That said, I like the selection challenge needing 5 bowlers poses.

 

[fredfertang]

I think there should have to be five bowlers, but I'd like it to be a limit of 12 overs per bowler in a 50 over match - would give the captains many more options, and a lot more to think about

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I really hate this rule in ODI's because it reduces the quality of cricket. It means teams select bits and pieces players just to fill in the numbers. If this rule was removed, we'd get to see proper batsmen and bowlers, thus improving the quality of the ODI matches.

 

[SteveNZ]

I really hate this rule in ODI's because it reduces the quality of cricket. It means teams select bits and pieces players just to fill in the numbers. If this rule was removed, we'd get to see proper batsmen and bowlers, thus improving the quality of the ODI matches.

Can't agree with this - ODIs are boring enough as it is without having a Murali bowl 20+ overs of an innings. I'm a bowler at heart and keen to see a redress of how heavily the format is weighted towards the bat, but a balancing of a side and seeing a captain squeeze 5-10-15 overs out of 5th-6th bowling options is all part and parcel of it. Imagine it on the sub-continent - you'd pick 8-9 frontline batsmen, and top the rest up with spin and maybe a seamer if you needed to. Not attractive cricket for mine

12 overs probably isn't a bad yell.

 

[the big bambino]

What Fred said.

 

[Lokomotiv]

I really hate this rule in ODI's because it reduces the quality of cricket.

Maybe you are right, but without the rule of limitation, Cricket could become a Baseball-like sport with the system of the rotation of pitchers.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

In ODI, a Bowler can bowl only 10 overs in 50 overs.
There should be same limitations in First Class Cricket, including Tests.
One Bowler can bowl only 10 overs in the 1st 50 overs. The same Bowler can bowl only 10 overs in the next 50 overs. The same continues.

Are you Zaheer Khan?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Are you Zaheer Khan?

Loko just wants cricket to be more like baseball.

 

[Hurricane]

I don't want tim southee bowling 12 overs in an ODI - as I reckon the consistent workload over a series could lead to injury. I wouldn't care about NMac being allowed to bowl 12 overs however.

 

[Days of Grace]

How about just reducing the number of overs the team has to bowl from 50 to 40 but keeping the 10 over limit for bowlers? The recently prolific article writer Martin Crowe had a piece on that in cricinfo last month.

The ideal test match attack is four main bowlers, one or two of which will bowl more than the other two or three, with a 5th bowler to fill in some overs and perhaps chip in with a couple of wickets.

The ODI game places too much importance on the 5th bowler, thus diluting the overall team quality in batting and bowling.

 

[kyear2]

When I saw the OP I hoped Loko might be questioning why it is that in a limited overs match no bowler can deliver more than 20% of the overs, a rule that hasn't changed since 1964, and which I think is well worthy of debate. Instead he has come up with what I think is his silliest idea yet, and that's quite an achievement in the face of some stiff competition

Can't agree with this - ODIs are boring enough as it is without having a Murali bowl 20+ overs of an innings. I'm a bowler at heart and keen to see a redress of how heavily the format is weighted towards the bat, but a balancing of a side and seeing a captain squeeze 5-10-15 overs out of 5th-6th bowling options is all part and parcel of it. Imagine it on the sub-continent - you'd pick 8-9 frontline batsmen, and top the rest up with spin and maybe a seamer if you needed to. Not attractive cricket for mine

12 overs probably isn't a bad yell.

But if a Murali had to bowl more than 10 overs it would lead to more interesting cricket, because batsman wouldn't be able to play him out in ODI's and just look to attack the 5th bowler (which leads to the dead middle overs in odi's when the spinner comes on) they would be forced to take him on as well, and as a result either more runs or more wickets. m ore excitement either way.

Twelve overs though isn't a bad idea for 4 or even just any two of the bowlers.

 

[SteveNZ]

But if a Murali had to bowl more than 10 overs it would lead to more interesting cricket, because batsman wouldn't be able to play him out in ODI's and just look to attack the 5th bowler (which leads to the dead middle overs in odi's when the spinner comes on) they would be forced to take him on as well, and as a result either more runs or more wickets. m ore excitement either way.

Twelve overs though isn't a bad idea for 4 or even just any two of the bowlers.

Not everyone used to play him out, I remember him going for 99 off 10 in an ODI in Australia, and I seem to recall Vettori being offered even more respect than Murali gained.

The middle overs are the dead wood in ODIs, and I don't see that the 5th bowler is the issue given it's quite likely any attacking of him would be done through the middle too, given he wouldn't open the bowling, bowl in powerplays or at the death.

12 overs, as I said, doesn't sound bad to me but I don't think it would breathe life into ODI cricket, or even change it much at all. Until they find a way to play it in 3 hrs, it's on a downward spiral of relevancy (and if some countries continue to insist on painful 7-match series')

 

[Red]

Cricket could become a Baseball-like sport .

And we don't want that., eh Loko?

 

[Esperance]

htis is a good idea. i will give the a OP a tentative +1.

 

[Lokomotiv]

And we don't want that., eh Loko?

Of course we do not. Professional Baseball is crazy--6 games in a week! So there is rotation of starting pitchers, and there are closers.

 

[benchmark00]

Can't pitchers in baseball throw 4 balls intentionally? (I've heard of it happening but never actually seen it occur in a game)