• 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

Furball

Evil Scotsman
I'm with Jono on this one.

I'd allow bowlers to bowl a maximum of 12 overs. That means that you still need 5 bowlers to get through your 50 overs, and allows teams to be a bit tactical - do you pick 5 genuine bowlers which gives you 10 overs of insurance in case one of them is bowling like a drain/bowling a spinner makes much more sense given the pitch etc, or do you go with 4 and gamble on getting 2 overs out of a part timer?

And it poses a quandry for the batting side as well - logic says go after the part timer and smash them, but what if the "part timer" is someone like Watson and he's got a smart captain who's brought him on to sneak through an over or 2 after Johnson and Starc have rampaged?
 

wellAlbidarned

International Coach
Yeah I think fans of increasing of removing the over limit are mixing up being exciting to watch with effectiveness. Part timers are often used partially because they are equally as effective as more interesting bowlers during the middle overs while offering more batting strength. Removing the over limit probably would just result in one less full time bowler being played.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
With 12 over limits no one's picking 5 bowlers unless one of them is also in their top 6/7 batsman.
Yep I think 12 overs per bowler would result in more part time overs rather than less. If you made it 13 then maybe not but I still don't really think you'd get less. Teams would bat to 10 and bat like a T20 if they thought they could get away with it; there's just a marginal difference between the effectiveness of proper bowlers and toothless but accurate batting allrounders in the middle of the innings.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Given the way this WC has played out, can we now all agree that targeting the stumps is a good thing and not something outdated and old fashioned?
 
Last edited:

Top