• 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.

***Official***Semi-Final #1- India vs New Zealand - November 15th - Wankhede, Mumbai (D/N)

Neil Young

State Vice-Captain
Whose fault is that? Nobody's!

In fact you can blame ICC....for making teams use 2 new balls. It was fine with just 1 ball but they couldn't tolerate India winning the WC in 2011 and changed all the rules in Oct 2011. They had to make the game more pacer friendly to hurt subcontinental sides. Since that change, there's never been more than 1 Asian side the semis.

Who has benefited the most from that? New Zealand ofcourse, making two finals. So suck it up, now that the shoe is on the other foot and the same 2 ball advantage is helping India and not Sena side.
How's Auckland doing?
 

straw man

Hall of Fame Member
That's better #intent from Williamson. I don't disagree with his leaving vs Shami plus Bumrah but now needs to attack like he did vs Pakistan.
 

Adorable Asshole

International Regular
Whose fault is that? Nobody's

In fact you can blame ICC....for making teams use 2 new balls.

It was fine with just 1 ball but they couldn't tolerate India winning the WC in 2011 and changed all the rules in Oct 2011. They had to make the game more pacer friendly which hurt subcontinental sides. Since that change, there's never been more than 1 Asian side the semis.

Who has benefited the most from the changes in ODI cricket more than a decade ago? New Zealand ofcourse, who made two finals in WCs.

So suck it up now, now that the shoe is on the other foot and the same 2 ball advantage is helping India and not a Sena side.
I thought they just wanted to make the game more casual friendly( read batting friendly). 2 new ball killed reverse swing which drastically reduced the effectiveness of pace bowling.
 

Neil Young

State Vice-Captain
I thought they just wanted to make the game more casual friendly( read batting friendly). 2 new ball killed reverse swing which drastically reduced the effectiveness of pace bowling.
They need to redress the balance. Surely even the casual observer has not been taken in by this procession of one sided games.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I thought they just wanted to make the game more casual friendly( read batting friendly). 2 new ball killed reverse swing which drastically reduced the effectiveness of pace bowling.
I’m hearing this a lot lately but I really don’t remember much reverse swing happening in the one-ball ODI era. As I remember it the extra new ball was introduced to make things easier for the bowlers? Have I got that wrong?
 

Top