Are the bats just too big?

[Hellgood]

As far as the gameplay goes, I'd like to see the laws on leg side wides relaxed. That's a huge advantage no one really talks about. As a bowler you've basically got a channel between the wide marker on the crease outside off stump and leg stump where you can pitch the ball. Stray a millimetre down the leg side and it's called wide, while the batsman can move in any direction around the crease. As a batsman you can back away towards leg to free the arms to hit through the off side, or you can move towards off to get behind the ball and hit it towards the on side. I'd like to see the bowler able to bowl down the leg side
(within the markers obviously) without being penalised. Set a strong off side field, bowl outside off then bowl down leg if the batsman moves across and you'd slow the scoring.

Yes, it would be interesting to see what the result of a trial of this at a domestic level would yield. The fear is that it would encourage negative tactics with Johan Botha or Michael Yardy types spearing the ball a foot outside leg to a legside field making for a very unattractive game of cricket to watch. I guess that it could be countered by asking what's stopping bowlers doing the same thing outside off stump now. And the answer to that is 1) the ability of the batsman 2) the fine margin of error between a perfect wideish yorker and a wide and 3) bowling a ball exactly where you want it every single time is a skill that absolutely nobody possesses regardless of the boasting of club cricketers that they could do a better job than the pros. So it's probably time to give it a brief trial and re-evaluate.

Probably my favourite spell of bowling is Glenn McGrath at Lords in the 2005 Ashes. The ball was darting all over the place, and the batsman did well to even find the edge.

Oh shit yeah. That was simply stunning. Will never forget how shocked Flintoff looked after one jagged back in off the slope taking out his off peg. The best day of test cricket I have ever witnessed.

 

[The Passenger]

Amazing spell from McGrath. Won't ever forget that one. Still only feels like a few years ago he was running around on the field, but he is over 8 years retired from test cricket and is closer to his 50th birthday than his 45th.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

I didn't think the two balls thing was intended to help the bowlers, I thought it was purely because the ball always had to be changed around 35-40 overs due to losing its colour.

 

[The Speaker]

I didn't think the two balls thing was intended to help the bowlers, I thought it was purely because the ball always had to be changed around 35-40 overs due to losing its colour.

It's a solution to that problem that was also meant to help the bowlers, as the ball will swing for longer. But what it means is that the ball stays hard longer, and the harder the ball, the easier it is to score boundaries.

This means that, from overs 35-50, the ball won't be moving, will be hard, and there won't be many fielders able to stop boundaries.

 

[Damon_3388]

The six Broad hit against Bangladesh sums it up. No way did he hit that competently enough to deserve six.

The entire shape/dimensions of the Adelaide Oval playing surface is ridiculous, before you factor in playing on an off-centre pitch. They had a perfect opportunity to make it a "normal" sized playing surface when they re-built the stadium, and they did widen the playing surface somewhat, but they still bizarrely maintain the skinny sides, when they really should have made it at least 180mx150m between the fences (MCG is 173.6m x 148.4m by comparison), instead of the 183mx134m is actually is.

Ideally, you'd have the playing surface actually be 180mx170m, meaning that it's not only big enough for football, but if a cricket pitch is placed in the centre, and boundaries are roped in 10m from the fence at the sides, and 15m from the fence at either end (to allow for sight screens), then you've got a roped area of 150mx150m for cricket, meaning you've got to hit it 75m in any direction to reach or clear the rope. Fair and uniform IMO.

 

[Moonwatcher]

There have been 5 losing scores of 300 or more in this World Cup.

• West Indies 7/304 v Ireland
• England 6/309 v Sri Lanka
• Scotland 8/318 v Bangladesh
• Zimbabwe 326 v Ireland
• Sri Lanka 312 v Australia

ah well i dont know what the commentators were on about then

It was the second time a chasing side has made 300 and lost the match in this tournament, both occurred on consecutive days.

 

[Moonwatcher]

The entire shape/dimensions of the Adelaide Oval playing surface is ridiculous, before you factor in playing on an off-centre pitch. They had a perfect opportunity to make it a "normal" sized playing surface when they re-built the stadium, and they did widen the playing surface somewhat, but they still bizarrely maintain the skinny sides, when they really should have made it at least 180mx150m between the fences (MCG is 173.6m x 148.4m by comparison), instead of the 183mx134m is actually is.

Ideally, you'd have the playing surface actually be 180mx170m, meaning that it's not only big enough for football, but if a cricket pitch is placed in the centre, and boundaries are roped in 10m from the fence at the sides, and 15m from the fence at either end (to allow for sight screens), then you've got a roped area of 150mx150m for cricket, meaning you've got to hit it 75m in any direction to reach or clear the rope. Fair and uniform IMO.

The short side boundaries are part of the unique conditions at AO. I think it is good to keep as much of the uniqueness as possible.

 

[Damon_3388]

The short side boundaries are part of the unique conditions at AO. I think it is good to keep as much of the uniqueness as possible.

Yeah but should that uniqueness be maintained at the expense of the integrity of the sport? Most people discount runs scored on Adelaide Oval because of the short boundaries (and the pitch), don't they? Wouldn't you prefer not to have any conditions placed upon scores made or results there?

I don't think anyone would really pine for the short side boundaries if they went. They're not at all "iconic" like the scoreboard or the fig trees outside the ground.

 

[Moonwatcher]

Yeah but should that uniqueness be maintained at the expense of the integrity of the sport? Most people discount runs scored on Adelaide Oval because of the short boundaries (and the pitch), don't they? Wouldn't you prefer not to have any conditions placed upon scores made or results there?

I don't think anyone would really pine for the short side boundaries if they went. They're not at all "iconic" like the scoreboard or the fig trees outside the ground.

There would be more grounds that put the integrity of the sport at risk than don't.

 

[Damon_3388]

There would be more grounds that put the integrity of the sport at risk than don't.

And they had the opportunity to fix that with AO, to iron out that "flaw" in its make-up, and almost create the perfect cricket and football playing area, in size and shape. It was a rare chance for an established ground to have it's dimensions significantly altered (because usually you'd have existing stands and seating preventing it), yet in true Adelaide half-assedness, they only went from 190m x 125m to the present 183m x 134m.

 

[UnitedWarrior93]

Thick bat or not, batsmen who can hit a ball will do so regardless, so I really don't think its an issue. I've seen guys at my club with thin bats absolutely smoke them out of the park.

 

[CheekyMonkey]

the bats are fine, its the balls that are the problem; they are way too big.

shrinking the cricket balls would make it more difficult for the batsmen to play their shots. this would also restore the balance between bat and ball. batsmen nowadays are walking out there and literally seeing it like a football.

perhaps they could replace the leather ball with a golf ball, it flies around a lot faster and causes some serious damage after contact. you definitely won't see any of this 'let me strut down the wicket and hit you inside out for 4 because i'm so good' crap...oh no. strut down to a golf ball, and boom...golf ball to the face. let's see you hit that one, prick. the bowler would have all the power, and the crowds would love it.

 

[The Passenger]

I have a feeling you a being facetious but playing with golf balls is not the answer for a multitude of reasons. Even reducing the size of the ball fractionally would be weird for a lot of bowlers..

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Thick bat or not, batsmen who can hit a ball will do so regardless, so I really don't think its an issue. I've seen guys at my club with thin bats absolutely smoke them out of the park.

No one has a problem with a good batsman playing a good shot. It's the average batsmen playing mistimed shots that shouldn't be going to the fence.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

It's not just the bats. It's the very good pitches, 2 new balls and increased skill in batsmen due to more professionalism and 20Twenty cricket. The secret is to somehow make pitches that are very flat so batsmen can trust the surface but there is also grip for spinners and seamers and a little bit of swing out. That would mean really good pitches with a a fair bit of juice in them. I'm thinking day one Gabba pitch. There should also be a measurement of moisture in the pitch at the start of play and the curator should water the pitch in the innings break to match that for second innings while he rolls it. That way both teams have very similar conditions.

I agree that more moisture needs to be in the pitch to even up the battle. I don't agree that the modern play has increased skill though, in fact I would argue their skill is so far below previous era's and it is proved almost every time they play on a pitch with any moisture in it, or if the ball is swinging, They have absolutely no idea how to combat it and no idea how to guts things out and build an innings. Yes they all look like Don Bradman on these roads they play on and these grounds with short boundary's but they look all at sea as soon as anything favours the bowlers.

The bats are to big and should not of been allowed to reach this size, poor cricket management from the ICC.

Things I would change in 50 over cricket.

1) Two bowlers can bowl 15 overs in the innings. Always been a stupid rule to restrict bowlers but batsman can bat the whole innings. (Someone was drunk when they made that rule up)
2) A line of exactly 1 foot (30cm) drawn on the popping crease for leg side wides. Anything leg side should not be a wide as it is now as it is to harsh on very easy scoring balls for the batsman, 30 cm is enough for any batsman to play a shot.
3) 1 bouncer per over above head height should be legal. 2 other short balls per over that are head height should be legal.
4) 4 runs given for clearing the rope or rolling into the rope as the boundary. But 6 is only a six if it clears the fence. The ball must be hit into the crowd for a six.

 

[Mateyman]

3) 1 bouncer per over above head height should be legal. 2 other short balls per over that are head height should be legal.

What is the point of a ball above the head where a batsman can't hit it?

 

[Illinois Nazi]

What is the point of a ball above the head where a batsman can't hit it?

Why can't he hit it?

 

[KevinTaylor]

FWIW I have no problem with heavy bats. If you can swing 3lb around then good luck to you. Chris Gayle, Kevin Pietersen etc. are big, strong guys.

I do think that edge profiles should be regulated. The width of the bat is limited to 4.25 inches and the length 38 inches, so it seems strange that there are no restrictions on the depth

Like Western Royboy said, the way they dry the wood now makes the wood so light you can carry a sleeper out there! (Buy a new one next week if you had a good tonk.)
Agree that either a maximum bat thickness or a maximum weight of 1 pound 8 ounces or something must be introduced and closely monitored(I think weight is the go).

My old duck could hit a six with the current bats.

I also believe/hope this would increase the amount of (Classic Catches) taken.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

What is the point of a ball above the head where a batsman can't hit it?

Why can't he hit it? It is called improvising and if the batsman is not good enough to do that the ball is a dot ball which is what the bowler wanted.
Would you prefer maybe just a bowling machine at each end set on half volleys?

 

[Mateyman]

Why can't he hit it? It is called improvising and if the batsman is not good enough to do that the ball is a dot ball which is what the bowler wanted.
Would you prefer maybe just a bowling machine at each end set on half volleys?

Why can't he hit it?

No but you can't play a controlled shot if the ball is above your head. More than 10 cm over the head should most definitely be a wide.

 

[fishardansin]

I agree that more moisture needs to be in the pitch to even up the battle. I don't agree that the modern play has increased skill though, in fact I would argue their skill is so far below previous era's and it is proved almost every time they play on a pitch with any moisture in it, or if the ball is swinging, They have absolutely no idea how to combat it and no idea how to guts things out and build an innings. Yes they all look like Don Bradman on these roads they play on and these grounds with short boundary's but they look all at sea as soon as anything favours the bowlers.

The bats are to big and should not of been allowed to reach this size, poor cricket management from the ICC.

Things I would change in 50 over cricket.

1) Two bowlers can bowl 15 overs in the innings. Always been a stupid rule to restrict bowlers but batsman can bat the whole innings. (Someone was drunk when they made that rule up)
2) A line of exactly 1 foot (30cm) drawn on the popping crease for leg side wides. Anything leg side should not be a wide as it is now as it is to harsh on very easy scoring balls for the batsman, 30 cm is enough for any batsman to play a shot.
3) 1 bouncer per over above head height should be legal. 2 other short balls per over that are head height should be legal.
4) 4 runs given for clearing the rope or rolling into the rope as the boundary. But 6 is only a six if it clears the fence. The ball must be hit into the crowd for a six.

I don't agree with the last point but I agree with the increased overs for a bowler. However, that will probably see another batsman added to the 11 for each team. As I'd go 3 bowlers and get 5 overs out of the part timers.

I also like roads that are predictable in the amount of bounce but have a surface that allows for seam, swing and spin if the bowlers are prepared to put a lot of work on the ball.