• 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.

Death Bowling - A Case for the Defence

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
Nah I like that genuine allrounders are gold in ODI cricket. They're having decreasing value in Test cricket at the moment because teams need a strong batsman at 6 due to generally strong bowling and weak top order batting.

But they're very valuable in ODI cricket right now and that's cool.

It puts more emphasis on team composition which I like for this form of the game.
 

Migara

International Coach
Is it only me believe that fielding in ODIs have gone down in standards due to small fields, big hits and less people at the boundary? In 90s fielders were very quick across turf, otherwise extra run was for the offer. It just allowed fit teams to dominate unfit ones. Now any unfit **** can hit sixes and block half of the over and score at a SR of 110.
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
Yeah I went to the gym with Angelo Mathews and Thisara Perera last night and they weren't that fit.

Angelo wanted me to sign his tshirt after watching my deadlifts but I didn't have time.
 

Flem274*

123/5
I'm torn, I love allrounders but I also like the idea of removing the over limit.

I think in practice though if you have a Flintoff or a Kallis or Klusener you're going to use them to your advantage and play five bowlers anyway in case someone gets smashed. Hopefully removing the over limit would just whittle out the Bopara's and the Devcich's.
Threads like this are one of the reasons I first joined CW when I was browsing cricket sites years ago. Excellent contributions from everyone here, if I might say.

Having read everyone's posts so far, is the answer really to look more at the line of the attempted ball than the length? I have a natural aversion to thinking that bowling short is generally the way to go at the death, principally because I've always thought it allows the batsman so many options as to where they can hit the ball. Having said that, with only four fielders allowed out, if you miss a Yorker you're toast.

So is the answer that you put all four of your blokes out on the off side and try to bowl a foot wide of off stump, ideally a Yorker, but otherwise generally fullish if you miss, with that protection in place? I really don't see what your other options are at the death as a bowler with only four blokes out tbh. If a bloke wanted to bowl me four slower bouncers an over I'd rather have that than someone aiming full and outside off, but I of course concede the pros can (a) play all around the wicket, and (b) research these things far more than I ever have or likely will.

FWIW (ie, nowt), and without wanting to take the thread down a different tack, I reckon they should revert to five fielders outside the circle for the last ten overs. On an average pitch in a game between two competitive sides, 300 is barely par these days. You wouldn't be a bowler for quids.
Great post. Only thing I'd add is teams have schemes for the wide yorker now. I know he was only bashing a domestic medium pacer, but in the T20 final down here Grant Elliott just kept stepping over and biffing Ellis wherever he liked. It was like a budget version of Amla smoking Johnson and Starc in the test a few years back. It got pretty funny because Ellis just kept going wider until the game was almost being played on the grass and not the pitch.

I'm really looking forward to Elliott getting a chance to try the same plan to world class bowlers in this World Cup to see how it goes.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Nah I like that genuine allrounders are gold in ODI cricket. They're having decreasing value in Test cricket at the moment because teams need a strong batsman at 6 due to generally strong bowling and weak top order batting.

But they're very valuable in ODI cricket right now and that's cool.

It puts more emphasis on team composition which I like for this form of the game.
Put up with a bunch of crud bowling in ODIs 9/10 times just in the hope that eventually a good ODI allrounder will come around?

Nah, cbf. Just have the best bowlers bowl to the best batsmen ffs. That's the point of the sport.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
If allrounders are that great and we want them to be incredibly valuable, then give me one reason why batsmen shouldn't retire? Limiting bowlers to 10 overs but batsmen being able to bat for 50 overs is just a random old rule that everyone has just accepted as "the way it is". If batsmen had to retire or only bat a certain amount of overs etc. allrounders coming in at 6 or 7 would be incredibly valuable too.
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
It's a lovely idea that the best bowlers vs the best batsmen is the point of the sport but it's a massive oversimplification at best and completely false at worst.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Nah its literally the fundamental aspect of the game. Get someone who can bowl, get someone who can bat, have some ****s who no one cares about to sit behind the stumps to stop the ball going down the drain, and have them go up against each other. Literally the most truest thing ever said in the history of the world.
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
If allrounders are that great and we want them to be incredibly valuable, then give me one reason why batsmen shouldn't retire? Limiting bowlers to 10 overs but batsmen being able to bat for 50 overs is just a random old rule that everyone has just accepted as "the way it is". If batsmen had to retire or only bat a certain amount of overs etc. allrounders coming in at 6 or 7 would be incredibly valuable too.
Because batting is not bowling and bowling is not batting.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Because batting is not bowling and bowling is not batting.
Some old bloke with a grey beard many moons ago decided to make something the way it is and we're keeping it that way because one day we'll get another Imran, but until then we;ll cop 500 ODIs of darts in between. And then we realise we don't like darts so we'll make more fielders have to field inside the circle whilst Dale Steyn hangs at fine leg.

Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Cricket is so ****. God damn you hendrix.
 

cnerd123

likes this
Cricket would be so boring if 4 bowlers could bowl the full 50 between them.

Every team's lineup would be the same, there would be to excitement in seeing what balance they go for.

No need to fill in 10 part-time overs makes strategies so much simpler.

No part time filth means no more massive game changing overs, or no more loling when someone like Sanga pulls a filthy longhop to the man in the deep at a crucial stage of the game.

And yea, allrounders will hold less value than bowlers who can bat a bit.

Nah, Cricket needs part-timers. ODIs are fine.
 

Flem274*

123/5
Cricket would still have part timers imo. They're there in tests, and in ODIs the sixth bowler is an important cog because he's your insurance. If teams go with four specialists they'll still need a batsman who can get through some tidy overs otherwise they're ****ed if someone gets collared.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Cricket would be so boring if 4 bowlers could bowl the full 50 between them.

Every team's lineup would be the same, there would be to excitement in seeing what balance they go for.

No need to fill in 10 part-time overs makes strategies so much simpler.

No part time filth means no more massive game changing overs, or no more loling when someone like Sanga pulls a filthy longhop to the man in the deep at a crucial stage of the game.

And yea, allrounders will hold less value than bowlers who can bat a bit.

Nah, Cricket needs part-timers. ODIs are fine.
Wrong but I am sure you know that already.
 
Last edited:

Riggins

International Captain
Cricket would be so boring if 4 bowlers could bowl the full 50 between them.

Every team's lineup would be the same, there would be to excitement in seeing what balance they go for.

No need to fill in 10 part-time overs makes strategies so much simpler.

No part time filth means no more massive game changing overs, or no more loling when someone like Sanga pulls a filthy longhop to the man in the deep at a crucial stage of the game.

And yea, allrounders will hold less value than bowlers who can bat a bit.

Nah, Cricket needs part-timers. ODIs are fine.
People get excited about team balance?
 

cnerd123

likes this
Yes I get excited for team balance and Yes balancing 50 overs from Tahir/Steyn/Morkel/Philander with Duminy for insurance is much easier than requiring 10 overs from each of them with ABDV as your backup. Or you play a spud like Behardien so u have more insurance.

Team balance and working out that 5th bowler is a big part of ODIs and I enjoy it and disagree that its an issue that needs 'fixing'
 
Last edited:

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
I think we'd eventually see teams go with one less bowler if you changed the rules. They go with middle overs jam bowling because they can get away with it; they'd still fill in the middle overs with jam and just bat deeper in a lot of cases IMO. Wouldn't fix it.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Murali bowling 20 over spells and teams having to cop it on the nut instead of just blocking him out and attacking the other hacks would have been so good.

You guys just hate good bowling.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
People get excited about team balance?
:laugh:

Oh man they've got a guy at 7 who can roll his arm over better than the other guy's number 7, very strategic and exciting. Much better than seeing Starc come back in the 30th over and bowl a 5 over spell to a guy on 70 not out with the game on the line.
 

Spikey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Aus domestic allowed more than 10 overs for awhile and then pointlessly stopped it. It's so obviously a worthy addition.
 

Cabinet96

Hall of Fame Member
If allrounders are that great and we want them to be incredibly valuable, then give me one reason why batsmen shouldn't retire? Limiting bowlers to 10 overs but batsmen being able to bat for 50 overs is just a random old rule that everyone has just accepted as "the way it is". If batsmen had to retire or only bat a certain amount of overs etc. allrounders coming in at 6 or 7 would be incredibly valuable too.
Because batsman have to stop batting if they make a crucial mistake...
 

Top