The way one day cricket is heading...

[Sidey_87]

I believe it will cost some very good players their careers.
Simon Katich for example, scores at 70 runs per 100 balls, if everyone did that the team would make roughly 210.
Not a bad score in the old days.
But the thing is, these days teams are making 250+ most games.
Kato bats well and makes 95 (140).
What is the point?
When players like Gilly, Hussey, Punter and Symonds all smash 50 (35).
Instead of 95 (140) we are 200 (140), and only 4 down in roughly 24 overs.
These days it doesn't matter how good a batsman you are, it only matters whether you can score quickly.
IMO fielding restrictions, power plays, super subs etc. are ruining the great game.
I'd like to see players try and do that in test cricket.
Symonds failed, Afridi would be the only one who has been successful.
But an average of below 40 isn't great.
Changes to one day cricket have to be made, it's like backyard cricket with a little brother bowling to a big brother at the moment.

[Grimreepah]

Changes to one day cricket have to be made, it's like backyard cricket with a little brother bowling to a big brother at the moment.

Suggestion 1 - Hawkeye for lbws. That way batsmen get punished for missing the freaking ball.

I don't care if there's a 5% margin for error. More accurate than umpires.

Suggestion 2 - Allow bowlers to put all sorts of sun lotion or whatever on the ball, so it swings all over the shop.

[gerta]

Suggestion 2 - Allow bowlers to put all sorts of sun lotion or whatever on the ball, so it swings all over the shop.

Maybe give them back the two white balls... I remember when there used to be two white balls used in a game of cricket, one from each end...

[sting]

Maybe give them back the two white balls... I remember when there used to be two white balls used in a game of cricket, one from each end...

I think the main reason they did that was to avoid the ball getting as discoloured in the later overs . Very rare these days that we don't see a change of ball in the latter overs because of sight problems , so it could be worth bringing back . Wether it would help out the bowlers who knows , a lot of the batsman enjoy the new ball coming onto the bat rather than trying to smash the softer older one .

[RogerC]

Might I remind everyone that Australia made 93 only a few matches ago?

But seriously. It's been a conscious choice made by the international cricketing community (helped along, no doubt, by the media moguls who broadcast and make a lot of money out of the game) to reward the batsman. Shorter boundaries, bigger bats, flatter wickets. Everyone wanted one-day cricket to be exciting, with big hits and fast scoring. Now that we have it, we don't want it?

The likes of McGrath and Warne are almost from another era. The newer breed of bowler really doesn't have the luxury of developing a style that can bamboozle or entice the batsman into a false stroke. Lee just hammers them in, and when he's not getting early wickets he bowls rubbish and head high balls becuase he doesn't have a plan B. And he's the best we have. Bracken can start well if the ball's swinging, but the rest are all stock bowlers, developed to contain batsmen rather than dismiss them.

Nothing will change unless we start to understand the mechanics of the game. Scores of 200-220 ought to be the standard, and bowlers need to start getting rewarded with friendlier pitches. You can't just bowl to limit run-scoring - you need to have the freedom to mix up balls and go after wickets.

[gerta]

i think the size of the grounds is also very important... now that all grounds have ropes a couple of metres inside the boundaries, it makes it soo much easier to hit 4's and 6's...if the ball gets thru the infield its four and if it gets hit in the air it goes for 6....

[Don Draper]

I thought this is what everyone wanted to see?

High scores, breath taking batting with awesome run chases?

This is what I love, run chases of scores 250+. No people are complaining about there is something wrong with it?

They only solution that I can see and same with RogerC, more bowler friendly pitches. It is a bit boring watching Lee just send down thunder bolt after thunder bolt with no variety, hang on he does chuck the odd wide/full toss in.

Also 20/20 seems to have influenced the way ODI cricket is now played. A lot more attacking batting, inventive shots, clearing the boundary more. But its all good, the entertainment is going up and up. Better for the crowd, the crowd likes it more, bigger crowds thus more money :thumbsu:

This is what I have waited to watch, exciting cricket. Leave it be.

-Mav

[Greg Miller= Messiah]

I've always said strike rate is more important than averages in One Day cricket. OD cricket hasnt nbeen heading this way just recently. In 92 world cup Australia had big trouble scoring big score even though their opener Geoff Marsh was scoring centuarys. The fact he was getting them off about 170 balls led to Australia losing a lot of matches simply because it was hard for them to make big scores on the ball with the openers going this slowly. It took them years to realise that player like MArsh and Mark Taylor had no place in the one day side.

[GoSydneySwans]

I remember I used to always be really interested as to whether Australia could get over 300, and I'd be really impressed if we did. Now we do it two innings out of three, and 300+ scores are chaseable anyway, it really doesn't give me the same excitement it used to.

[Sidey_87]

I remember I used to always be really interested as to whether Australia could get over 300, and I'd be really impressed if we did. Now we do it two innings out of three, and 300+ scores are chaseable anyway, it really doesn't give me the same excitement it used to.
I agree, a run a ball should be one of the great achievements, but instead teams are now expected to score at a run a ball, the boundaries don't mean as much any more.
Bring the bowlers back into the game.

[pluga_4]

I've always said strike rate is more important than averages in One Day cricket. OD cricket hasnt nbeen heading this way just recently. In 92 world cup Australia had big trouble scoring big score even though their opener Geoff Marsh was scoring centuarys. The fact he was getting them off about 170 balls led to Australia losing a lot of matches simply because it was hard for them to make big scores on the ball with the openers going this slowly. It took them years to realise that player like MArsh and Mark Taylor had no place in the one day side.

ummmmmm we won 8 out of 9 times that geoff marsh scored a ton :rolleyes:

[The_Eagles]

ummmmmm we won 8 out of 9 times that geoff marsh scored a ton :rolleyes:
hmm well now im confused

[Black Thunder]

The bowlers need to be given more of an opportunity to show off their talents.

One-Day Cricket and in particular 20/20 cricket could ruin bowling stocks around the world for a long time because quite frankly, who'd wanna be a bowler now?? Theo nly reason i bowl is cause i can't bat. If i was a good bat and bowler i would definately give up the bowling and concentrate on the batting.

Even in lower grade cricket the wickets are like roads, lightning outfields, and 300+ scores are not uncommon and chasing down 300+ is not uncommon. When i first moved into senior cricket about 5 years ago if the team batting first scored 300 on the first day, they won or drew at worst.

Now if you score 300 you've gotta bowl extremely well to stop the opposition bringing that total up in reply.

At the end of the day t's been done for the broadcasters - their catering to the lowest common demonitor. And this is big hits, lots of runs, lots of sixes and record breaking scores. But i think in the end the quality of bowling around the world could become so poor that it could be the absolute detriment of cricket, including test cricket.

it could become poor for the following reasons:
- flatter wickets
- faster outfields
- smaller grounds
- influence of shorter versions
- influence of young people wanting to be batsman, not bowlers

[Copernicus]

The problem we face is that it may become detrimental to the Test matches, and this is something that needs to be looked at. Perhaps in the future players will be developed to specialise in either Tests or One dayers, in order to preserve the various qualities we seek in each form of the game. It would be rather crap indeed if the runfests of the one day form begin to reduce the capabilities and varieties of bowler in the Test match arena. As it is, these days it seems as though the batsman has the upper hand in the test arena also, though not to the same extent as they dominate one-day games (with the odd exception, like Australia's 93 the other week).

[manmountain]

No restrictions on bouncers. Batsmen can too easily just jump on the front foot and have a swing with little fear of copping a short one (aside from the odd Bing beamer!).

If there was no restriction on bouncers, bowlers would have another weapon in their arsenal, especially to players like Clarke, Symonds, who don't play the pull/hook particularly well, but have all the other shots (I know they are capable pullers/hookers, but in the ODI's it's usually a chest high ball - a genuine bouncer at their scone would test them out a bit more). If a player knows they can cop a ball at their head, they aren't as keen to get on the front foot, and then the front foot shots are also put under a bit more pressure.

[Don Draper]

No restrictions on bouncers. Batsmen can too easily just jump on the front foot and have a swing with little fear of copping a short one (aside from the odd Bing beamer!).



Restrictions that they have are good, maybe 2 an over maximum would be an improvement. But if there was no restriction we would get the negative bowling that occurs all too often. Bouncer after Bouncer, just like the West Indian team of the 1980s. Just boring.

-Mav

[RogerC]

What's interesting also is that the fielding has improved monumentally in the last 15 or so years. Not only are the fielders faster around the outfield and better at chasing down attempted boundaries, but so many more of them are accurate when throwing at the stumps. They're probably saving 30-40 runs an innings there alone.

That lends even more weight to the idea that bowlers are getting a raw deal.

[Power21]

I agree, a run a ball should be one of the great achievements, but instead teams are now expected to score at a run a ball, the boundaries don't mean as much any more.
Bring the bowlers back into the game.

It just shows the one-day game is just a hit and giggle joke basically, the only series i care about is the worldcup.

[Cooldude]

They have to do something about their bats as well

Top edges go for six, toe-enders go for six