• 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

Cabinet96

Cabinet96

Hall of Fame Member
Oh and team strategy is definitely interesting. Not just in this particular case or this particular sport. Don't care if it's nerdy.
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
Prince EWS said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yea this. You'll see sides pick two seamers to use the new ball/bowl in the death, their best spinner to wheel away 15-20 overs once the shine is off, and then a whole bunch of jammy part-timers to run through their overs. Sides who have a Corey Anderson or Shakib Al Hasan in their side might have that solid 4th bowling option, otherwise it's just gonna be more of the same with higher scores due to more batting depth.
 
Riggins

Riggins

International Captain
Spikey said:
Aus domestic allowed more than 10 overs for awhile and then pointlessly stopped it. It's so obviously a worthy addition.
Click to expand...
I understand them stopping it when they're trying to set up preparation for the world cup or whatever, but yeah it was much better.
 
Cabinet96

Cabinet96

Hall of Fame Member
Riggins said:
New rule. Getting hit for a six is treated like bowling beamers. You've got one up your sleeve and then you're off.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was thinking you'd have to kick bowlers out for sixes or something like that for it to be similar. Otherwise the whole argument is just awful cevnoing.

That would be amazing though. You could risk trying to hit the best bowlers for sixes early on and potentially have part-timers at the death.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Cabinet96 said:
Yeah, I was thinking you'd have to kick bowlers out for sixes or something like that for it to be similar. Otherwise the whole argument is just awful cevnoing.

That would be amazing though. You could risk trying to hit the best bowlers for sixes early on and potentially have part-timers at the death.
Click to expand...
What would happen if the bowling team was all out though?
 
vic_orthdox

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
The additional overs rule was brought in during the split innings trial, wasn't it? The ridiculous thing was that as well as increasing the overs, you also had 12 players so teams would wind up with specialist batsmen at nine, that was overkill.

But in effect it worked pretty well because teams began targeting specialist bowlers to take down, not just the fifth.
 
Jono

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
***** said:
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'
Click to expand...
You just hate abilities, but seem to like bowlers with no ability.
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
I think it's great for developmental and domestic cricket to have 4 bowlers bowl all 50, but at the International level part of the challenge is finding players and building a team that's well balanced. 10 overs per bowler ensures you need a strong team to win a match, and a strong squad to win a tournament, instead of relying on a handful of star players.
 
Cabinet96

Cabinet96

Hall of Fame Member
The_Bunny said:
If they let the other team hit 33 sixes off them they can just lose the game and ODI status with it imo
Click to expand...
It's actually more likely than you think though because half of them will be off part timers. I guess you'd just have to keep the last two bowlers on or the two most expensive ones.
 
vic_orthdox

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Cabinet96 said:
Some very good posts in this thread. Another point I'll add is that teams like England study this religiously. They have access to heaps of video footage and data that we don't see. As a general rule I'd be much more inclined to trust the people who analyse it intensely than people like Boycott, Botham and ****ing Hayden, who clearly just have their beliefs from years ago which they'll never change. I thought England's plans were OK on Saturday. Huge square boundaries and a guy like Maxwell who can hit a half volley or low full toss pretty much anywhere he wants. The only thing I didn't really like about their plan was that it featured one sort of go to ball and I think you need quite a few you're capable of performing to make sure you don't get too predictable, but as has been mentioned it's hard to do that without changing the field due to only 4 men out. My major gripe isn't really their plans though it's the fact they're really rigid and the players and captain are seemingly incapable of changing them if it's not working. Quite early on in the last 10 it was clear that short of a length slower balls were getting belted and the only real thing that changed was that Anderson bowled a few attempted yorkers and Finn bowled quick(ish) short stuff. It's the sort of thing someone like Cook got slaughtered for, not being able to think on his feet and only being able to read the scripted plan. But when it's someone the likes of KP desperately called to captain and someone we've been told is a genius (more or less) there's clearly something more to it.
Click to expand...
On that last paragraph, yup - the captain changes, the bowlers don't, the results don't. It's the bowlers responsibility under pressure, he can't explain what he is going to do every ball to the captain.

England have been studying it hard, but sometimes you feel like they are doing what's proven to be effective and not working out a way to be effective now. Smith and Maxwelll with their hands, and Marsh (six five) or Faulkner (wood chopping swing) are probably some of the most suited players to counter the short slower stuff around at the death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top