View Full Version : Changes to Playing Conditions at international level
Dunno if it's been spoken of on here yet but there have been a number of changes introduced at international level by the ICC in ODI's and Tests.
The changes to come into effect from tomorrow include:
the batting team choosing one of the 5 over powerplays rather than the fielding team choosing both.
in the 2nd and 3rd powerplays 3 fielders are allowed outside the fielding restriction circle
fielders taking comfort breaks will try to be restricted and kept to a minimum: by allowing only injury and toilet breaks.
the free hit rule will remain in place as well as the mandatory ball change and the end of the 34th over
the game is slowly changing people. not quite sure how any of this is actually going to make the game more interesting - but we'll see what happens.
dr nick
30 Sep 2008, 20:19
get rid of the bloody powerplays
nicko99
30 Sep 2008, 20:53
there are now powerplays in premier cricket (victoria) in all XI's including no-ball free hit which is a joke, and this is just local grade cricket WHAT A JOKE
we have them in grade cricket here in Adelaide: i actually don't mind them, it's more interesting than the old 15 Overs trick.
it's one day cricket though: it's pretty much past it's used by date, it got people back to the game, it revived test cricket 30 or so years ago, what do we do now? we've got Twenty20 - is that the real future of the game? do we replace all ODI's with Twenty20's? Do we make major changes to the one day game? Is reducing the game to 40 overs-a-side the way to go?
all the powerplays are doing is prolonging the game of One Day Cricket. As for the free hits - that is probably the best invention in a long time.
What's the point of powerplays?
Power Plays are good if the batting team can choose when to take them, like we have here, good change i think.
OzBomber
2 Oct 2008, 15:47
And now we've got the 3 refferals per innings in the India Series.
Carl Spackler
5 Oct 2008, 20:28
Here's my idea to revolutionise international cricket:
The Twenty20 Matchplay Handicap
Basically it would be like matchplay golf with the team batting first setting the score and batting for 20 overs, and the other team trying to beat their score in each over.
So if Team A has scored 6 runs in their first over then Team B would need to make 7 runs to win the over.
Scores would be kept close. The "blow out" overs wouldn't destroy games as you can only win one over at a time. Similarly the disastrous "batting collapse" wouldn't ruin the game as you only have to cobble together more defendable overs than the other team to win a match. Tactics would be heightened - which bowlers do you use in which situation. Pretty much every over would have a "run chase" element to it. Something riding on every ball, in the second innings anyway.
The "handicap" element would come in when crappy nations play good nations. Ie Australia gives Bangladesh 3 runs per over, gives the West Indies 1 run per over etc.
Game on.
raikkonen
5 Oct 2008, 20:39
Here's my idea to revolutionise international cricket:
The Twenty20 Matchplay Handicap
Basically it would be like matchplay golf with the team batting first setting the score and batting for 20 overs, and the other team trying to beat their score in each over.
So if Team A has scored 6 runs in their first over then Team B would need to make 7 runs to win the over.
Scores would be kept close. The "blow out" overs wouldn't destroy games as you can only win one over at a time. Similarly the disastrous "batting collapse" wouldn't ruin the game as you only have to cobble together more defendable overs than the other team to win a match. Tactics would be heightened - which bowlers do you use in which situation. Pretty much every over would have a "run chase" element to it. Something riding on every ball, in the second innings anyway.
The "handicap" element would come in when crappy nations play good nations. Ie Australia gives Bangladesh 3 runs per over, gives the West Indies 1 run per over etc.
Game on.
So thats basically like saying you can get more runs than the opposition by "x" amount, and still LOSE? :rolleyes: How bout no thanks!
Carl Spackler
5 Oct 2008, 21:41
So thats basically like saying you can get more runs than the opposition by "x" amount, and still LOSE? :rolleyes: How bout no thanks!You don't have to play then :p
Same as match play golf. You can shoot more off the stick than your opponent and still win. The purest form of the game.
In cricket now you can take more wickets than the other team and lose. Even in tennis you can win more games or points than your opponent and still lose. AFL you can kick less goals than your opposition and still win. Etc.
You don't have to play then :p
Same as match play golf. You can shoot more off the stick than your opponent and still win. The purest form of the game.
In cricket now you can take more wickets than the other team and lose. Even in tennis you can win more games or points than your opponent and still lose. AFL you can kick less goals than your opposition and still win. Etc.
In AFL you might kick less goals, but your score is higher. The point is to kick the highest score, not the most goals. Your proposal is saying you can lose even if you get the highest score.
I don't mind it as a back yard game or something, it would make it fun. But not at a professional level.
How about we scrap the overall score in AFL and whoever wins the most quarters, wins..
Carl Spackler
5 Oct 2008, 22:49
How about we scrap the overall score in AFL and whoever wins the most quarters, wins..
Or how about we only give out 4 points to a team for winning a game, whether they win by 1 point or 100 points. That would be a complete mind blow!