Death Bowling - A Case for the Defence

[sledger]

Picking the right team is a matter of skill. Typical that Jono of all people wants to ditch anything that would require a modicum of thoughtfulness.

 

[cnerd123]

In Test cricket the team aspect of cricket comes in due to the extreme length of the game. Sri Lanka could just bowl all day with Murali and Vaas, but that's physically impossible and they'd break down, forcing the other bowlers in the team to step in. Similarly batting for long periods of time is extremely draining, and if as side wants to bat 100 overs they will inevitably need to rely on other batsmen to contribute.

In One Day cricket, you could very feasibly have Vaas and Murali bowl the majority of the 50 overs, with maybe some fill in from Jayasuriya and the likes to give them a breather. You don't need the other bowlers in team to contribute. You don't even need other bowlers. You will still need batsmen, as the need to score runs quickly causes wickets to fall, so while its quite easy for 2 batsmen to bat out 50 overs physically, it is extremely difficult for them to do so while also attempting to set a competitive score.

Limiting the number of overs per bowler put the emphasis the team aspect of cricket.

Occasionally your two best bowlers will knock over a side quickly and you won't need other bowlers, and your two best batsmen will click and you won't need the other batsmen. But those instances are rare and are a result of exceptional skill. For the large part, OD cricket has been pretty well designed to allow the best team to win, and not the best players. Much like Test cricket.

 

[Spark]

Dunno about that. More likely is it simply makes teams more likely to load up with batsmen.

 

[sledger]

Dunno about that. More likely is it simply makes teams more likely to load up with batsmen.

Haha, this is why the super sub rule was just the ****test thing ever.

 

[Uppercut]

This is a really great thread, but having stopped watching cricket religiously three years ago it's a bit depressing that commentators are still constantly banging on about yorkers at the death. This is the type of analysis that should have bled into mainstream coverage years ago.

 

[Goughy]

Its not about picking 5 specialist bowlers. Why should I see the 5th best bowler when the best fast bowler is capable of bowling more but just because of a random rule invented years ago that reeks of an older dated era, I can't see him bowl. Rohit Sharma doesn't need to retire, he can bat on to 260. But fmd Mitch Johnson can't bowl more than 60 balls.

****ing ****test rule in cricket. We've tried super subs, fielding restrictions and powerplays, two new balls. But just letting the best players in the world play more. Nah **** that's a bridge too far.

It is a good point. I would be in favour watching the class bowlers bowl more rather than seeing a couple of fill in bowlers bleed the excitement from the game.

 

[sledger]

You should encourage teams to pick more bowlers then imo.

 

[Goughy]

You should encourage teams to pick more bowlers then imo.

Even if you do that then you are still going to see the 5th best bowler bowl 10 overs rather than have the top 1&2 bowl more. Id rather the sport showcase its premier players by allowing them to bowl more overs. 10 overs is an artificial limit that people have fallen in love with. As for the strategic aspect, you still have that. No reason why 5 bowlers bowling 10 should be the way to go forward just because it has been that way in the past. If you want strategy why not 10 bowlers bowling 5? Managing multiple spells of 4 bowlers is a captaincy challenge greater than the current one of having certain bowlers bowl early and late and hiding others in the middle.

There has been so much fukerage with the playing rules in ODIs without, as Jono said, the obvious one of allowing the better bowlers to bowl more overs.

 

[sledger]

The amount of overs you are allowed to bowl ought to be inversely proportionate to your place in the batting order imo (which has to be finalised and set in stone at the start of the match).

The opening bat can bowl 15 overs, and whoever is batting at number 11 can bowl 1.

 

[Daemon]

Designated wicketkeeper can bowl unlimited number of overs but he must not remove his pads when bowling

 

[sledger]

Gloves must not be removed either, but he is allowed to bend his elbow as much as he wants.

 

[Daemon]

Agreed. However imo the box must be removed prior to bowling (to be handed over to the umpire along with sweaters/shades/hats)

 

[Furball]

It is a good point. I would be in favour watching the class bowlers bowl more rather than seeing a couple of fill in bowlers bleed the excitement from the game.

That's been one of the benefits of the 4 out rule. Part timers are a dying breed because they just get smashed.

I don't think fielding has evolved enough for bowling teams.

 

[Cabinet96]

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.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

this thread should be compulsory reading

 

[Goughy]

That's been one of the benefits of the 4 out rule. Part timers are a dying breed because they just get smashed.

I don't think fielding has evolved enough for bowling teams.

Are they really though? We may be moving towards this but they are alive and well so far in this WC. Every major nation seems to still use them as a bowling option.

 

[Adders]

I like this suggestion from Jono.

And you don't have to go as far as having no restrictions at all on the number of overs your bowlers can bowl, just up the limit to 13 or even 15 so a side doesn't have to make up any overs from a 5th option. Having the the best bowlers with 3 or 5 more overs up their sleeves would have a huge impact on the game in terms of readdressing the balance between bat and ball.

Make it happen.

 

[Grumpy]

Legalise tampering if you want to readdress the balance

 

[Adders]

Legalise tampering if you want to readdress the balance

I'm all for a lot of lenience afforded when it comes to ball tampering, but I don't think you can just legalise it............there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Plus with the 2 new balls I think any ball tampering would have to be fairly severe to make reverse swing an appreciable weapon.

But as Jono said, allowing the better bowlers to bowl more overs is more than just giving something back to the bowling side, it's also about the spectacle of the game. Who wouldn't rather watch an extra 5 overs of Jimmy instead of Ravi ****ing Bopara for eg??

 

[Migara]

Yorkers has to be revolutionised. The current issue with yorkers is that it tend to travel both on off and on the leg. Bowling very wide of the crease round the wicket and pitching it just outside leg would be a difficult ball with finlrg, square leg, third man and mid wicket at the boundary. The akward angle means to play to the leg it has to be playing across the line ALWAYS. And this will open up the short ball, once again pitched outside leg and aimed to hit the batsman. Unless the batsman pull it through straight mid wicket or move to leg and play over off side (which will be a challenge) it has to be played behind the wicket. The change of length will make setting up for a shot very difficult.