Death Bowling - A Case for the Defence

[The_Bunny]

Would be bloody hilarious though, Brad Haddin on from both ends with 2 sixes up his sleeve because everyone else is knocked out.

Can't believe we are actually discussing this

 

[Flem274*]

Maybe the question we should ask is what do we want ODIs to be?

Are they meant to be miniature tests or an extended T20 where the focus is on a good highlights package and bringing the casuals in? Or do we want them to be something completely different?

I love a good ODI but I miss the days where every ODI felt important. The 2001 VB series with Aussie, SA and NZ spoiled me.

On a related note, I even love the "boring" middle overs when they're done right. A quality spinner or middle overs bowler trying to tie down batsmen looking to rotate the strike with a bunch of awesome fielders is great. Some part time hack backed up by a team who can't field going through the motions is awful though.

But when we know what we want ODIs to be we'll be able to make the right death overs rules. ATM it's extended T20.

 

[Spikey]

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.

Couldn't it be argued that more overs for the specialist bowlers makes for better preparation for the WC anyway? More quality overs for batsman to face and make their WC claims, more overs for bowlers to do the same, less overs for Nic Maddinson to bowl.

 

[Spikey]

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.

YEah I think so. Then they kept it for the 2 (?) seasons afterwards, and chopped it when C9 started hosting it

(Maybe C9 asked them to change it so the over rates would be fine....)

 

[Jono]

1) How is getting out not a crucial mistake? 2) How is a mistake crucial if it doesn't lead to the loss of a wicket?

a) because sometimes you can make no mistake whatsoever and get out; and
b) in any case I was being a smartarse

 

[Cabinet96]

Maybe the question we should ask is what do we want ODIs to be?

Are they meant to be miniature tests or an extended T20 where the focus is on a good highlights package and bringing the casuals in? Or do we want them to be something completely different?

I love a good ODI but I miss the days where every ODI felt important. The 2001 VB series with Aussie, SA and NZ spoiled me.

On a related note, I even love the "boring" middle overs when they're done right. A quality spinner or middle overs bowler trying to tie down batsmen looking to rotate the strike with a bunch of awesome fielders is great. Some part time hack backed up by a team who can't field going through the motions is awful though.

But when we know what we want ODIs to be we'll be able to make the right death overs rules. ATM it's extended T20.

Neither. I like ODI's as a sort of half and half. I think a lot of people want to make it more like tests, with quality bowlers trying to take wickets in the middle with attacking fields (probably a lot of CW), or T20's, just a batting slug fest really (talking Bleed Blue types here).

One of my favourite features of ODI's is definitely the interesting tactical things though. Having a range of bowling quality makes it interesting. When can you sneak a part timer in, and when do you save your gun bowler for? And similarly, how does the batting team treat each individual bowler. Similarly with team selection you've got debates about team balance etc.

 

[Riggins]

Couldn't it be argued that more overs for the specialist bowlers makes for better preparation for the WC anyway? More quality overs for batsman to face and make their WC claims, more overs for bowlers to do the same, less overs for Nic Maddinson to bowl.

Yeah I definitely know what you mean, but I can understand why they went back to the 'natural' format. They'll face plenty of talentless stiffs bowling like Maddinson during the tournament anyway.

 

[Jono]

One of my favourite features of ODI's is definitely the interesting tactical things though. Having a range of bowling quality makes it interesting. When can you sneak a part timer in, and when do you save your gun bowler for? And similarly, how does the batting team treat each individual bowler. Similarly with team selection you've got debates about team balance etc.

Ever noticed how the mexican waves never start in the 5th over, nor the 45th? Just the middle overs.

Listen to the people. They're spuds, but they still matter.

 

[cnerd123]

Maybe the question we should ask is what do we want ODIs to be?

Are they meant to be miniature tests or an extended T20 where the focus is on a good highlights package and bringing the casuals in? Or do we want them to be something completely different?

I love a good ODI but I miss the days where every ODI felt important. The 2001 VB series with Aussie, SA and NZ spoiled me.

On a related note, I even love the "boring" middle overs when they're done right. A quality spinner or middle overs bowler trying to tie down batsmen looking to rotate the strike with a bunch of awesome fielders is great. Some part time hack backed up by a team who can't field going through the motions is awful though.

But when we know what we want ODIs to be we'll be able to make the right death overs rules. ATM it's extended T20.

Very different to T20s IMO.

In T20s, each over carries so much more importance. The compressed format means that, to me, the key players are not the ones who are the most skilful, but the ones who can produce results, no matter how ugly or jammy they look doing it. I see good T20 players as those who have the right temperament. They should have the ability to execute plans under pressure, yet be confident and creative enough to find new ways to score runs/beat the batsmen. Situational awareness, big-game mentality, these are so crucial, the actual skills are almost secondary.

In ODIs there is more breathing space, and players can ease themselves in by bowling an over or two, or playing a few balls. If plans aren't working, there is more time to adapt and change. It allows for a better showcase of a players skills, and the mediocre players get exposed more than they would in T20s.

 

[Cabinet96]

Ever noticed how the mexican waves never start in the 5th over, nor the 45th? Just the middle overs.

Listen to the people. They're spuds, but they still matter.

Nah, I literally couldn't give less of a ****.

FTR Mexican waves happen at a lot of test matches I've been to. Do we get rid of the boring Afternoon session there too?

 

[Cabinet96]

One extra thing, on Saturday England played no part timers and their two best seamers bowled the most overs until the final slog, but Australia still entered it with loads of wickets in hand. Nothing will change till the mindsets change, and on these featherbeds with white balls no captain is going to put men in the slips and up from the boundary because they'd just get smashed, and similarly no batsman is going to take big risks when they can play the percentages, work it around at 5 an over then go big later. Every few years the ICC makes some stupid new rule to try and get rid of the boring middle overs and it never works for those reasons. You either need a bigger overhaul or the one day format or you just have to appreciate ODI's for what they are. Otherwise just stick to the other two formats.

 

[Spikey]

Yeah I definitely know what you mean, but I can understand why they went back to the 'natural' format. They'll face plenty of talentless stiffs bowling like Maddinson during the tournament anyway.

Dont think the Mad Dog would take being called talentless too well tbh


oh i guess we should post this, even if it is Ben Dorries: No Cookies | Fox Sports News, Live Sport, Sports | Fox Sports

 

[Jono]

One extra thing, on Saturday England played no part timers and their two best seamers bowled the most overs until the final slog, but Australia still entered it with loads of wickets in hand. Nothing will change till the mindsets change, and on these featherbeds with white balls no captain is going to put men in the slips and up from the boundary because they'd just get smashed, and similarly no batsman is going to take big risks when they can play the percentages, work it around at 5 an over then go big later. Every few years the ICC makes some stupid new rule to try and get rid of the boring middle overs and it never works for those reasons. You either need a bigger overhaul or the one day format or you just have to appreciate ODI's for what they are. Otherwise just stick to the other two formats.

Just to be clear, giving bowlers more than 10 overs in an ODI (whether you cap it at 13 or whatever or just make it limitless is another debat) isn't a suggestion just to make the middle overs more interesting or the death overs less of a bat-fest. Its just to make the quality of cricket better.

I would do the same for T20s probably, but its a bigger issue in ODIs because filling 10 overs of junk isn't a "happens every now and then" issue. It happens in the great majority of ODIs, which is lame.

 

[Cabinet96]

Fine but that wasn't your initial point or relevant to the OP of the thread. Point taken though. Still not really in favour mind.

 

[Contra]

I am in agreement with those that like the tactical aspects of limited overs cricket, when to save which bowler for what period of the game, which batsmen to send out when etc etc. I think they've just got to restore the balance between bat and ball which is lack at present, otherwise limited overs cricket is still watchable. I personally love it when Dhoni brings on his spin brigade to choke opposition teams on a half decent pitch for spinners. I don't think part timers are bad bowlers necessarily, Yuvraj was as good as any legitimate bowler during the 2011 WC, if you give enough encouragement to the bowler (whether it be more fielders outside the circle or an older ball that grips/reverses, or whatever else) I think they will be good enough to be entertaining.

It's simply a matter of encouraging the bowlers and making things even. I also don't think the margin when it comes to who a good bowler is as large in ODI's as it is in test cricket. We've seen Steyn, Johnson, etc get hammered on a bad day, which is a lot less likely in test cricket. If you allow for unlimited number of overs and one of your "quality" bowlers has a bad day and you've been 4 bowlers then you're royally screwed.

 

[Jono]

Fine but that wasn't your initial point or relevant to the OP of the thread. Point taken though. Still not really in favour mind.

No it does both. The original post was to help death batting be less ridiculously easy. Having the better bowlers available throughout the match helps that. People then morphed the argument and brought up they like the tactics of the middle overs so I just countered that by explaining that they suck.

 

[Daemon]

No it does both. The original post was to help death batting be less ridiculously easy. Having the better bowlers available throughout the match helps that. People then morphed the argument and brought up they like the tactics of the middle overs so I just countered that by explaining that they suck.

We do see the best death bowlers at the death already though. Well most of the time anyways.

 

[Jono]

We do see the best death bowlers at the death already though. Well most of the time anyways.

With the batsmen having had a free ride for the last 20 overs and being well set.

 

[Jono]

I am in agreement with those that like the tactical aspects of limited overs cricket, when to save which bowler for what period of the game, which batsmen to send out when etc etc. I think they've just got to restore the balance between bat and ball which is lack at present, otherwise limited overs cricket is still watchable. I personally love it when Dhoni brings on his spin brigade to choke opposition teams on a half decent pitch for spinners. I don't think part timers are bad bowlers necessarily, Yuvraj was as good as any legitimate bowler during the 2011 WC, if you give enough encouragement to the bowler (whether it be more fielders outside the circle or an older ball that grips/reverses, or whatever else) I think they will be good enough to be entertaining.

That's a silly point. No one is saying don't bowl spinners on a spinning track. Whether Zaheer could bowl 10 overs or 15 overs in the 2011 WC, Dhoni would have bowled Yuvraj because Yuvraj was bowling well. No one is saying don't bowl good part timers when they are effective.

 

[cnerd123]

Just to be clear, giving bowlers more than 10 overs in an ODI (whether you cap it at 13 or whatever or just make it limitless is another debat) isn't a suggestion just to make the middle overs more interesting or the death overs less of a bat-fest. Its just to make the quality of cricket better.

No it does both. The original post was to help death batting be less ridiculously easy. Having the better bowlers available throughout the match helps that. People then morphed the argument and brought up they like the tactics of the middle overs so I just countered that by explaining that they suck.

'Quality' cricket doesn't necessarily mean more 'Entertaining' cricket, since what aspects of cricket one finds entertaining will vary from fan to fan.

I love the tactical aspect of team composition. I love all the discussions and speculation over whether a side should play 5 bowlers or not. I love that sides have to sacrifice batting depth to avoid bowling rubbish in the middle orders. You sacrifice one department to gain in the other. You can't have the best of both worlds.

I love watching captains trying to figure out when to stuff their 10 overs (sometimes more) of rubbish in. I love watching canny part-timers with their limited skill sets attempt to restrict the runrate against batsmen who want to smash them. And I love watching batsmen who suddenly feel the need to go up three gears just because a part-timer is on.

I love it when part-timers take crucial wickets and bowl match-winning spells.

And I enjoy it when batsmen are milking part-timers for easy runs, because you see that slow-burning power struggle between the batsmen and fielding side skipper. The batsmen want to maximise how many runs they get, but at minimal risk. The captain wants to get as many quiet overs as he can, and doesn't want to give the part-timer for one over too many. What fields and plans does the captain use and how does the batsman respond? When does the batsman decide to finally go for the big shots? When does the captain bring the strike bowler back on? It's wonderful.

If ODI cricket were to adopt your ideas, then in my eyes it would be far less entertaining and a lot more dull.