2 innings ODIs?

[sledger]

exactly my point. it gets the attention 1st then they dicide whether to stay for it or not and obviously it's worth while but at 1st look they don't know that or if it didn't look appealing it may not even get that 1st look. This may be a bad analogy but lets see, it's like the phrase *** sells- you see ***y singers etc it gets your attention to even give their music a chance then you decide whether or not you like it or not.

Well yeah, granted, I accept that, but what you are suggesting regarding the rule changes aren't really applicable to such a theory, as in order to have a clue about what the rules actually meant, you would already have to have grasped a decent standard of the game, and would have in all liklehood made up your mind as to whether or not it was for you.

 

[LA ICE-E]

How does it make it more even? As I have pointed out on numerous occasions previously, the batsman failing to hit the ball does not make any contest uneven. For the last time, a bowler is penalised when he bowls a no ball, because that is an action through which he can gain an unfair advantage, the batsman can gain no advantage from playing and missing, so why on would it make it at all even to penalise him for trying to score runs?!

now were gonna go it circles. the batsmen would be encouraged to not play rash shots without giving it a thought.

 

[sledger]

now were gonna go it circles. the batsmen would be encouraged to not play rash shots without giving it a thought.

But him playing rash shots would in fact be an advantage to the bowler in itself, so why penalise him further?

 

[LA ICE-E]

Well yeah, granted, I accept that, but what you are suggesting regarding the rule changes aren't really applicable to such a theory, as in order to have a clue about what the rules actually meant, you would already have to have grasped a decent standard of the game, and would have in all liklehood made up your mind as to whether or not it was for you.

you see it looks interesting, looks fun, looks exciting then you try to learn about the game after which you decide if you like it or not.

 

[sledger]

you see it looks interesting, looks fun, looks exciting then you try to learn about the game after which you decide if you like it or not.

Perhaps, but what you suggested was that it would be a hook to get people who would not normally be interested to actually take a look at the game in the first place, which isn't valid imo.

For example if you walked up to someone in the street in lets say.....somewhere in Russia, or anywhere else in the world that has no major affiliations with cricket and said "hey did you hear about that new rule regarding play and misses and the new 2 innings formats in ODIs?" they probably would not give a monkey's.

 

[LA ICE-E]

But him playing rash shots would in fact be an advantage to the bowler in itself, so why penalise him further?

because far to often it doesn't and bowlers are smacked around a lot. and there's raining 4's and 6's. it's like bowling a no ball gives the batsmen an advantage (try to look at it in this point of view, 'cause i get what you're saying) by the batsmen getting some free runs without any worries of getting out why penalize the bowler further with a free hit? to encourage the stoppage of no balls and the other way to encourage the stoppage of the rash shots.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Perhaps, but what you suggested was that it would be a hook to get people who would not normally be interested to actually take a look at the game in the first place, which isn't valid imo.

For example if you walked up to someone in the street in lets say.....somewhere in Russia, or anywhere else in the world that has no major affiliations with cricket and said "hey did you hear about that new rule regarding play and misses and the new 2 innings formats in ODIs?" they probably would not give a monkey's.

oh no, you're mixing up 2 suggestions together. the color clothing flood lights intensity glory etc would get someone like me to look at it 'cause it looks interesting and then i found out i actually like it. People who wouldn't like it isn't going to like it because of the 1st attraction but the attraction will get people who would like it but hasn't given it the consideration because say there wasn't this attraction.

they might not get into it like that but say you're learning about cricket without know how ODI's are now, they might like how the whole concept including the split and the play and misses goes. And not that we should turn our backs on people that like it now but how do we know we wouldn't like it then we have tried it yet. It's like the powerplay thing a lot of people were against it but now some actually like it. A lot of people were against ODi's in the beginning while majority of cricket fans like it. A lof of people don't like 20/20's right now but that will eventually change to I'm guessing. Thing is we can't be sure if we'll like it or not if we don't give it a chance.

 

[sledger]

because far to often it doesn't and bowlers are smacked around a lot. and there's raining 4's and 6's. it's like bowling a no ball gives the batsmen an advantage (try to look at it in this point of view, 'cause i get what you're saying) by the batsmen getting some free runs without any worries of getting out why penalize the bowler further with a free hit? to encourage the stoppage of no balls and the other way to encourage the stoppage of the rash shots.

Believe it or not this is actually one of the things about limited overs cricket that appeals the most to a lot of people, restricting this would probably actually turn people off cricket rather than bring in new fans.

And to the rest of it....yes....punishing the batsman for playing and missing may stop rash shots....but for what purpose? To stop the bowlers feelings being hurt? Bowlers are there to be hit, to suggest a batsman should be punished for trying to hit one for six doesnt make any sense to me whatsoever.

 

[sledger]

oh no, you're mixing up 2 suggestions together. the color clothing flood lights intensity glory etc would get someone like me to look at it 'cause it looks interesting and then i found out i actually like it. People who wouldn't like it isn't going to like it because of the 1st attraction but the attraction will get people who would like it but hasn't given it the consideration because say there wasn't this attraction.

they might not get into it like that but say you're learning about cricket without know how ODI's are now, they might like how the whole concept including the split and the play and misses goes.

Well right ok, that makes more sense, and I can see what you are getting at, I just don't agree, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree over that point.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Believe it or not this is actually one of the things about limited overs cricket that appeals the most to a lot of people, restricting this would probably actually turn people off cricket rather than bring in new fans.

And to the rest of it....yes....punishing the batsman for playing and missing may stop rash shots....but for what purpose? To stop the bowlers feelings being hurt? Bowlers are there to be hit, to suggest a batsman should be punished for trying to hit one for six doesnt make any sense to me whatsoever.

yeah but when there's so many of them it just becomes something of the norm and isn't going to be given so much glory 4 and 6's are going to be like odi's. Plus it would encourage getting boundaries playing cricket shots. For the purpose keep the balance even between the ball and the bat.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Well right ok, that makes more sense, and I can see what you are getting at, I just don't agree, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree over that point.

nothing wrong with that.

 

[Richard]

I never suggested that, but it would look rather boring at 1st look. There's a thing call presentation and how it looks to the eyes. It's part of the presentation. Something good presented badly wouldn't receive as much interest as something presented well. It would change how cricket presents itself to people not yet into the game,

No, not really. No-one is going to get interested in cricket because of the colour of the clothing.

There's way more teams now than there were when cricket started.

No gains of territory in the best-part-of 80 years, however.

And cricket is in some sense unrecognizable from the 18th century etc.

It's pretty much instantly recongiseable from the start of the 20th, though. Virtually all changes have been pretty minute ones.

 

[LA ICE-E]

No, not really. No-one is going to get interested in cricket because of the colour of the clothing.

No gains of territory in the best-part-of 80 years, however.

It's pretty much instantly recongiseable from the start of the 20th, though. Virtually all changes have been pretty minute ones.

Like I said not just because of it but if it doesn't even look appealing at first it doesn't get the 1st look.

Afghanistan, Nepal, Argentina if you gave a damn about anything other the the elite part of cricket you'd know there's a lot of countries like that.

But if you go by tradition and conservatively then those changes shouldn't have happened in the 1st place which would make cricket unrecognizable so saying conservative and no radicalness is the way to go isn't always true even for cricket.

 

[Richard]

Like I said not just because of it but if it doesn't even look appealing at first it doesn't get the 1st look.

And it doesn't get the 2nd look afterwards even if it does look "appealing" (which it's highly debatable whether the colour of the ball and clothing make it do).

Afghanistan, Nepal, Argentina if you gave a damn about anything other the the elite part of cricket you'd know there's a lot of countries like that.

I think not somehow.

But if you go by tradition and conservatively then those changes shouldn't have happened in the 1st place which would make cricket unrecognizable so saying conservative and no radicalness is the way to go isn't always true even for cricket.

No "shouldn't" or "should" about it. If they hadn't happened I'm sure people would still enjoy the game. They have, and people still enjoy if after they have.

 

[LA ICE-E]

And it doesn't get the 2nd look afterwards even if it does look "appealing" (which it's highly debatable whether the colour of the ball and clothing make it do).

I think not somehow.

No "shouldn't" or "should" about it. If they hadn't happened I'm sure people would still enjoy the game. They have, and people still enjoy if after they have.

Um did you miss the part I was explaining to sledger? And not just because of the color clothing but that plays a part. I rewrite the color clothing flood lights intensity glory etc would get someone like me to look at it 'cause it looks interesting and then i found out i actually like it. People who wouldn't like it isn't going to like it because of the 1st attraction but the attraction will get people who would like it but hasn't given it the consideration because say there wasn't this attraction.

Well I think you're ignorant of that somehow.

If it were to go conservatively it shouldn't have but it did. People might have still enjoyed the game(which i doubt) it still wouldn't be the same and so there was indeed some radical changes and which imo were big improvements through those radical changes. Radical changes happened before and it may as well happen again. A lot of people were against ODi's in the beginning while majority of cricket fans like it now. A lof of people don't like 20/20's right now but that will eventually change to I'm guessing. Thing is we can't be sure if we'll like it or not if we don't give it a chance.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Thing is we can't be sure if we'll like it or not if we don't give it a chance.

President Bush is considering declaring war on Ethiopia for that very reason.

 

[LA ICE-E]

President Bush is considering declaring war on Ethiopia for that very reason.

ha ha very funny, not really.War - SPORT? yeah you're so smart.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

ha ha very funny, not really.War - SPORT? yeah you're so smart.

If you were smart you might by now have grasped that only about three people have even bothered wasting any of their life on this nonsense and they've all told you it's utter crap, yet you insist on continually recycling it. Just let it go while you still have a shred a dignity.....................oops, too late.

 

[Jamee999]

President Bush is considering declaring war on Ethiopia for that very reason.

Reductio ad absurdum

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Reductio ad absurdum

Let me guess, last week at school you learned all about the ostriches that can't fly even though they're birds and have been just dying to use your newly acquired "knowledge" on the forum.