No runners ever and yes to UDRS

[Spark]

Aren't you taking a massive, massive risk then though?

If he has an even slightly off day or a batsman gets overly settled against him, you're mega****ed (as then their best batsmen are cashing in against your meh bowlers while they're OK batsmen are going OK against your good bowlers). Will your batting save you?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Because you don't have two spinners worth picking? The idea, I assume, is so that teams can both stack up their batting to the max, AND keep their best three or four bowlers in irrespective of batting ability, therefore eliminating annoying half-arsed trundlers and dart-throwers who can bat.

 

[Furball]

All for it. Would've been awesome if they got this rule in when Murali was still playing at an ATG level.

One consequence of this rule change will be that quality spinners will be more valuable in ODI cricket than quality pacers.

Not necessarily - someone like Malinga who's awesome at the death will now be even more value because he can bowl 6 or 7 overs at the start of the innings and won't need taking off to keep overs in hand.

 

[Spark]

Because you don't have two spinners worth picking? The idea, I assume, is so that teams can both stack up their batting to the max, AND keep their best three or four bowlers in irrespective of batting ability, therefore eliminating annoying half-arsed trundlers and dart-throwers who can bat.

So basically moving it back in favour of "proper" cricketers. Really looking forward to what could happen if this rule change were implemented.

 

[silentstriker]

Hey, let's not change a rule that will improve the game because of one player, and because SS doesn't like it.

The only way to improve ODIs is by not playing any. Barring that, I'm for all changes that minimizes their workload so they can be fitter and healthier for Tests.

 

[BoyBrumby]

What are people's thoughts of removing bowling restrictions for ODI cricket (seems to have gone under the radar in this thread).

Vettori could bowl 25 overs in a ODI

Personally I'm for it.

I would be too. It'd certainly liven things up in the shorter term at the very least whilst selectors decided what constituted the best XI when five bowlers is no longer the bare minimum.

I think it's a reasonable guess that a quality spinner's worth would increase considerably as it's entirely possible one could bowl 20 overs.

Might be worth making a separate thread avec poll.

 

[Uppercut]

They should definitely remove the ten overs per bowler restriction. Been ranting about that for years.

 

[Daemon]

Maybe reach a compromise of 15 overs apiece? 3 main bowlers and 1 all rounder for the 50 overs

 

[BoyBrumby]

Maybe reach a compromise of 15 overs apiece? 3 main bowlers and 1 all rounder for the 50 overs

I'd still prefer a complete removal of all bowling restrictions, myself. I think it would give more tactical scope for selectors and captains.

I personally doubt many teams would ever go for less than four specialists very often, with the possible exception of India, whose strength is very obviously their batting, & Bangladesh, whose batting all-rounders aren't really much worse than their nominal specialist bowlers.

 

[slugger]

the easiest way to solve the problem is to limit the number of wickets to 8. once the 8th wicket is down the batting innings stops. (or 50 overs completed) what ever occurs fist. as per normal rule.. therefore 9-10-11 are not required to bat therefore all teams can basically pick 3 specialist bowlers.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Don't like the idea of removing over restrictions. Having over restrictions makes the captain think strategically about how to set his bowling and as a result better captains make clever changes that have provided wickets. I also don't like the fact that 2 or 3 bowlers will share the entire workload and it gives the team that has 1 or 2 good bowlers an advantage over a team that has 4 to 5 good bowlers.

 

[GIMH]

I think we might have beaten Bangladesh in the WC without the 10-over restriction. Without checking the scorecard, I think we were in control when Swann had to hang it up (although I know he got hit about in his final over).

So if it helps England, then I'm for it, obviously.

 

[Spark]

I certainly think it'll make low-scoring games really, really interesting - and more common - if a team can rely exclusively on their best bowlers.

 

[Howe_zat]

If it stops Luke Wright from being picked I 100% approve.

 

[GIMH]

I never thought of that.

Stop this rule immediately!

 

[Daemon]

I certainly think it'll make low-scoring games really, really interesting - and more common - if a team can rely exclusively on their best bowlers.

But by removing the 4th and 5th bowlers you'll have two extra batsmen so you may not have low-scoring totals at all. It all evens out eventually. For those saying they want to see less off the Yardy's and the Jadeja's, be prepared to see a couple of sloggers find their way into the national teams as well. (Although I honestly wouldn't mind that, I imagine quite a few people would)

 

[Top_Cat]

Think the 'problem' of good bowlers soaking up overs would sort itself out over time, tbh. Quicks already miss ODI's for workload reasons and they only bowl 10 overs so bowling more than that is only going to increase their risk of injury/burn-out.

Dunno if we'll see spinners bowling too many more than 10 unless they're gunning it either. Spinners are only economical because they generally bowl between 15-40, when fielders are usually the furthest away from the bat. Change that and their usefulness can diminish awfully quickly.

Think we'll only see bowlers bowling 10+ and fewer specialist bowlers in very exceptional circumstances. Depends on the conditions too.

 

[smash84]

Think the 'problem' of good bowlers soaking up overs would sort itself out over time, tbh. Quicks already miss ODI's for workload reasons and they only bowl 10 overs so bowling more than that is only going to increase their risk of injury/burn-out.

Dunno if we'll see spinners bowling too many more than 10 unless they're gunning it either. Spinners are only economical because they generally bowl between 15-40, when fielders are usually the furthest away from the bat. Change that and their usefulness can diminish awfully quickly.

Think we'll only see bowlers bowling 10+ and fewer specialist bowlers in very exceptional circumstances. Depends on the conditions too.

awta

 

[keeper]

"The level of believability in ball-tracking systems has improved,"

Does this just mean that more people believe in it? If so, this is a pretty irrelevant statement.

Or do they mean they have more evidence that it works. Or that it has actually improved. Hmmm.

Over restrictions? Never thought this an issue but this thread raises some very interesting questions. I'm actually a covert now, needs trying I reckon.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Higher frame per seconds on the video screens, so it allows better tracking of the ball for the hawkeye stuff. I know for sure that they did that in Australia this year for the recently completed Ashes.