ICC allows batting team to choose one Powerplay

[Richard]

I've said it before - much as I do generally enjoy 50-over cricket between well-matched teams as long as the boundaries are of decent length and the pitch isn't a complete runway, it is not as good as the 60-over game.

 

[Furball]

Not sure you don't mean Ian Bradshaw TBH.

SA fan or no SA fan, I hated that moment. There's little I dislike more than seeing an excllent early\mid-innings bowler be forced into bowling at the death and get smashed.

I'm fairly certain it was Powell who landed 4 out of 6 balls on a perfect length, only for Herschelle Gibbs to dispatch each one of the 4 into the stands, including one which damaged the commentary box window.

 

[Richard]

Might well have been both I suppose. As well as both Gibbs and de Villiers with bat in hand.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Basically, it's about having two batsmen at the crease when you take it. The biggest risk about leaving it late is that you have a bowler in there, who may not be able to capitalise on it as well as a batsman would have earlier on in the innings.

Does this mean that there are three out during the powerplays, as there was in the Australian Domestic stuff?

 

[Richard]

There's been 1 Powerplay with 2 out and 1 with 3 out for a while. As I remember, you commented on the probability of this precise outcome being discussed now when the move to put a 3rd fielder out in 1 of the 2 Powerplays was introduced.

 

[nightprowler10]

good news for Team Pakistan...they can take the power play as soon as Afridi comes into bat

What'll they do for the rest of the 29 balls?

 

[pup11]

What'll they do for the rest of the 29 balls?

Haha, awesome.

 

[Uppercut]

I've said it before - much as I do generally enjoy 50-over cricket between well-matched teams as long as the boundaries are of decent length and the pitch isn't a complete runway, it is not as good as the 60-over game.

I think as a game it doesn't really work very well. Hence powerplays had to come in to stop defence from the word go. The problem now is that overs 20-40 are very much an irrelevancy, both teams happy for the run rate to tick along at 4- no more, no less- a problem with the team attitudes rather than the format perhaps, but a problem nonetheless. The only exception is when a top-quality one-day spinner is involved, but teams that haven't got one (all except New Zealand and Sri Lanka, arguably India) tend to pick defensive, tight spinners who can sometimes bat a bit but go at 4 an over regularly with no real threat- Ojha, Swann, Botha. (Also a symptom of horribly flat ODI pitches).

Generally it's caught between trying to appease test-lovers (to whom ODI cricket is utterly incomparable in terms of entertainment) and bring in those who like to see a bit more action. T20 cricket makes little pretence of any similarity to tests, it's a completely different game, and one i find a lot more entertaining than 50-overs. If i had the choice of what to watch, i'd go tests>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>T20>>>ODIs.

 

[Furball]

Might well have been both I suppose. As well as both Gibbs and de Villiers with bat in hand.

Boucher smashed a half century from about 20 balls as well iirc.

 

[pup11]

Ok so do you guys even think that the Powerplays in their current form were making any impact on the ODI game at all, imo they weren't, all they did was give the batting side extra five overs of fielding restrictions to make the most of.

IMO, if ICC really wants to make the Powerplay rule work, then they have to change the way its implied atm, they should make Powerplay mandatory in the following manner:

Powerplay 1: 0-10 overs (Feilding restrictions for the first 10 overs)

Powerplay 2: 11-30 overs (Fielding restrictions of 5 overs anywhere in this block of 20 overs)

Powerplay 3: 31-50 overs (Fielding restrictions of 5 overs anywhere in this block of 20 overs)

The fielding team should be allowed to choose when they want to imply the Powerplays 2 and 3 in those particular two blocks of 20 overs, imo its the best way to utilise the Powerplay rule to good effect.

 

[Migara]

Ok so do you guys even think that the Powerplays in their current form were making any impact on the ODI game at all, imo they weren't, all they did was give the batting side extra five overs of fielding restrictions to make the most of.

IMO, if ICC really wants to make the Powerplay rule work, then they have to change the way its implied atm, they should make Powerplay mandatory in the following manner:

Powerplay 1: 0-10 overs (Feilding restrictions for the first 10 overs)

Powerplay 2: 11-30 overs (Fielding restrictions of 5 overs anywhere in this block of 20 overs)

Powerplay 3: 31-50 overs (Fielding restrictions of 5 overs anywhere in this block of 20 overs)

The fielding team should be allowed to choose when they want to imply the Powerplays 2 and 3 in those particular two blocks of 20 overs, imo its the best way to utilise the Powerplay rule to good effect.

It's basically rubbish I think. This will tak spinners out of ODIs more and more. If batting team wants to decide the 3rd power play, it should be before 40th over IMO. Then you have to have a minimum distance for the boundries, and pitches should not be flat. Every flat pitch should raise an inquiry as a unsuitable pitch (why only for batsmen?). I like the state of pitches in England or Sri Lanka. Never helps batsmen, bowlers are most of the time on top. On these pitches of course these new things could be tried. But on Aussie and Indian roads, even this powerplay business is not acceptable.

Or they should bring back the super sub, so teams can have 6 bowlers and 6 batsmen.

 

[Richard]

I think as a game it doesn't really work very well. Hence powerplays had to come in to stop defence from the word go. The problem now is that overs 20-40 are very much an irrelevancy, both teams happy for the run rate to tick along at 4- no more, no less- a problem with the team attitudes rather than the format perhaps, but a problem nonetheless. The only exception is when a top-quality one-day spinner is involved, but teams that haven't got one (all except New Zealand and Sri Lanka, arguably India) tend to pick defensive, tight spinners who can sometimes bat a bit but go at 4 an over regularly with no real threat- Ojha, Swann, Botha. (Also a symptom of horribly flat ODI pitches).

I'd say top-quality really accurate seamers (Gavin Larsen being one of the best examples) are the best thing, rather than a Dharmasena, Murali, Vettori or Swann. The 20-40 overs are only not-particularly-interesting IMO when both teams settle for mediocrity - ie, 4.5-an-over or so. A good bowling attack should be trying to restrict batsmen to 3.5-an-over or less. Not neccessarily trying to take wickets by bowling wicket-taking balls (that comes through containment if you're good enough and the batsmen don't feel 3.5-an-over is enough). I don't care if it's attacking or defensive - really good defensive bowling in overs 1-40 (or so), whether Powerplay or non-Powerplay, with batsmen trying to work ways to counter it, is excellent ODI cricket IMO and stuff I enjoy far, far more than 340-plays-210 or the sort of stuff where you get 120 in the Powerplays, 80 in the last 10 and 90 in the non-Powerplay 1-40.

Captains not trying to stop singles often enough when good accurate bowlers are bowling is another large problem at the current time - presumably symptomatic of the fact that there's so many poor bowlers around it's often an ill-advised tactic.

Generally it's caught between trying to appease test-lovers (to whom ODI cricket is utterly incomparable in terms of entertainment) and bring in those who like to see a bit more action. T20 cricket makes little pretence of any similarity to tests, it's a completely different game, and one i find a lot more entertaining than 50-overs. If i had the choice of what to watch, i'd go tests>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>T20>>>ODIs.

Yeah there's too much "the fans want to see fours and sixes", undoubtedly. Well, the cricket fans (ie, those who like Tests) don't, in general - they want to see good-quality cricket. And TBH, I disagree that the more attack, the better the game. The best games are a balance between attack and defence IMO.

 

[pup11]

It's basically rubbish I think. This will tak spinners out of ODIs more and more. If batting team wants to decide the 3rd power play, it should be before 40th over IMO. Then you have to have a minimum distance for the boundries, and pitches should not be flat. Every flat pitch should raise an inquiry as a unsuitable pitch (why only for batsmen?). I like the state of pitches in England or Sri Lanka. Never helps batsmen, bowlers are most of the time on top. On these pitches of course these new things could be tried. But on Aussie and Indian roads, even this powerplay business is not acceptable.

Or they should bring back the super sub, so teams can have 6 bowlers and 6 batsmen.

As far as i am concerned this is one way the ICC can kill the unpredictability in the middle overs of an ODI game and this way the powerplay also fulfill a purpose, as you say spinners could be effected by this, then that's where a captain' tactics and how he rotates his bowlers, comes into play, imo it would make the game a bit more interesting, but then i guess its only me who thinks that way.

 

[Richard]

Unfortunately I don't think you're ever going to be able to kill predictability. In time - probably before all that long - it's pretty likely there's going to be a realisation that there's a "best" time to be taking your batting-Powerplay. This won't mean every game goes the same way - it's already far from true that every game went the same way with the 15-over rule, and with the one we currently have. But it will mean there's a notable pattern.

The only way to completely kill predictability would be to have something saying the two Powerplays could not be taken within, say, 10 overs of when it was taken in your last match. This might sound silly, but TBH the whole Powerplay idea sounded pretty silly to me back in early-2005. I can't say it's an idea I'd be terribly keen on currently, but you never know, it might work.

Personally I don't really mind predictability as much as some people apparently do. Though again the extent to which people mind it seems to have been vastly overestimated over the last, say, 8 years. ODI gates haven't fallen in the slightest in that time, regardless of how supposedly predictable the game has been for most of the time.

 

[Uppercut]

I'd say top-quality really accurate seamers (Gavin Larsen being one of the best examples) are the best thing, rather than a Dharmasena, Murali, Vettori or Swann. The 20-40 overs are only not-particularly-interesting IMO when both teams settle for mediocrity - ie, 4.5-an-over or so. A good bowling attack should be trying to restrict batsmen to 3.5-an-over or less. Not neccessarily trying to take wickets by bowling wicket-taking balls (that comes through containment if you're good enough and the batsmen don't feel 3.5-an-over is enough). I don't care if it's attacking or defensive - really good defensive bowling in overs 1-40 (or so), whether Powerplay or non-Powerplay, with batsmen trying to work ways to counter it, is excellent ODI cricket IMO and stuff I enjoy far, far more than 340-plays-210 or the sort of stuff where you get 120 in the Powerplays, 80 in the last 10 and 90 in the non-Powerplay 1-40.

Don't get me wrong, i love to watch Vettori or Murali strangle batsmen into submission in the middle overs of a game. I'm not anti-defensive play per se. What i don't like to see is the fifth-option bowler throw full toss after 60mph half-tracker and have it an irrelevancy due to the field being set for a guaranteed 4-5 an over. When Botha-Philander, Swann-Collingwood and Gayle-Benn come on to bowl, it's time to switch off for an hour or so. Especially since the batsmen isn't going to take them on. That's a big middle-over lull in quality and hence entertainment IMO.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, agree entirely. However, what irritates me is how people use bad-ODI-circumstance (ie, that) then say that Twenty20 is better because the best Twenty20 is supposedly more interesting, then get irate when people mention how rubbish Twenty20 often is when things don't go well in a Twenty20 game too.

 

[nightprowler10]

I think we can all agree that limited overs cricket generally sucks.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Was probably the beginning of sides moving from 2-3-5 sort of tactics to 4 at the back.

Have some old MOTDs of United games from the sixties, the BBC line-ups still showed both teams as playing 2-3-5 then, although it didn't actually play like that, I mean how could it with the scores remaining realistic. For example, Charlton was usually shown as playing up front, and yet he actually played in midfield (or what would be considered midfield today anyway).

This is probably better for the football thread (mods feel free to move it there if you wish), but it's something that's confused me for a while... I mean, the first ever international between England and Scotland was supposedly played with two formations of 1-1-8. Yet it ended 0-0, yet if it was really played with formations of 1-1-8 this should not be possible. Under the old offside law, every one of those 8 forwards would have been offside, as well. Seems to me that teams have never actually played like that, it was just considered as such at the time.

 

[Tom Halsey]

As for the powerplays, a decent idea IMO, should help the middle overs be less dull ideally, though I'm not sure the idea can completely eradicate their dullness on its own.

 

[Precambrian]

Good idea relatively, to decongest the 'boring-hour' that is from 20-35 of single-specialist bowlers.

Would love to see what strategy teams adopt. Anyway, not much bothered about it, as boring as there ODIs have become these days.