Is it just an exhibition?

[Grasshopper17]

To me, cricket is the ultimate game of risk v return. Batsmen take risks, and they invariably score quicker, but they are also more likely to get out. Bowlers who take risks are more likely to get people out, but they're also more likely to go for a few runs in the process. One day cricket being the case in point - we see higher scoring rates than in test cricket, and so wickets fall more regularly.

ALL EXCEPT IN THE FIRST FIFTEEN OVERS! For a number of years now we have seen blokes like Adam Gilchrist, Sanath Jayasuriya and Virender Sehwag (none of whom were brought up as opening batsmen) tear up opposition bowling attacks and setting up spectacular scoring rates for the middle order to build on. Never was this more visible than this summer. For the most part, teams kept hitting out, and kept hitting out and kept hitting out. AND THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT! Often India and Australia were somewhere up around 80 or 100 for the loss of just one or two wickets. This part of the game has ceased to become a challenge for opening batsmen, and the fielding side needs to be given some avenue to restrict the scoring in the early overs if it all goes pear shaped.

I love the one day game, but for me they are only 35 over games. The first 15 overs are basically just a net session purely for the crowd's entertainment (which doesn't work anyway, judging by the timing of the Mexican waves - I was at the game in Bellerive, Australia set the record for the highest score in Australia at that time, and yet the crowd were still bored enough to partake in Mexican wave after Mexican wave), after that, batsmen are forced to bat according to the situation, which is the way cricket should be. I think the fielding restrictions in the first fifteen overs HAVE TO GO, or they at least have to be spread out across the entire 50 overs, at the fielding captain's discretion.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by rchowell
To me, cricket is the ultimate game of risk v return. Batsmen take risks, and they invariably score quicker, but they are also more likely to get out. Bowlers who take risks are more likely to get people out, but they're also more likely to go for a few runs in the process. One day cricket being the case in point - we see higher scoring rates than in test cricket, and so wickets fall more regularly.

ALL EXCEPT IN THE FIRST FIFTEEN OVERS!

I don't agree with this at all.

You're saying the risk of getting out in the first 15 overs is reduced?

That's nonsense. Captains can set fields as attacking as they like.

Field restrictions only prevent them from setting defensive fields.

 

[Grasshopper17]

Re: Re: Is it just an exhibition?

Originally posted by DaveW
I don't agree with this at all.

You're saying the risk of getting out in the first 15 overs is reduced?

That's nonsense. Captains can set fields as attacking as they like.

Field restrictions only prevent them from setting defensive fields.

But shouldn't we be able to leave a few things up to the captains? Most teams start off with two slips and a gully, that sort of thing. Trying to get the batsmen out. But as we're seeing pretty soon they're 30/0 off 5 and the captains realise that they have to find some way of stemming the run flow, but they can't because of the rules. Shouldn't the fielding side be allowed some right of reply, immediately, not 10 overs later when the restrictions are relaxed? It's enough of a batsman's game as it is!

 

[ThePope]

Stop messing with the game... there's 20 years of tradition behind that circle...why can't we just leave it how it is.

BTW OD cricket was always intended to be a batsman game... accept it. I like seeing Gilly, Hayden, Gibbs, Ganguly, Tendulkar etc hit out for 4 runs, much more than seeing a smashing cover drive or pull shot earn 1 run straight to the "sweeper" on the fence.

 

[Grasshopper17]

Originally posted by ThePope
Stop messing with the game... there's 20 years of tradition behind that circle...why can't we just leave it how it is.

BTW OD cricket was always intended to be a batsman game... accept it. I like seeing Gilly, Hayden, Gibbs, Ganguly, Tendulkar etc hit out for 4 runs, much more than seeing a smashing cover drive or pull shot earn 1 run straight to the "sweeper" on the fence.

First of all I'm not complaining about the circle and I understand why it was there in the first place. Back when one day cricket started Bob Willis put all his fielders and the keeper back on the boundary to stop the ball going for 4 off the last ball of a game. The batsman was bowled but that would have been pretty farcical otherwise. So let's get that straight I'm not complaining about that.

The question I would put to you is "why couldn't the administrators leave it how it was?" As far as I know when the circle was brought in the reasoning behind it was that no more than 5 fielders would be allowed outside the circle. The first 15 over restrictions came along as a bit of an afterthought, to see more big shots and entertain the crowd more. Well as I've already pointed out that is never going to be possible - you are always going to have half the crowd that can't possibly be entertained unless every ball is going to or over the boundary, and then there's the other half who are always going to be entertained because they are at the cricket.

Your second point is also flawed. Let's go back to the 2nd Final. Australia scored 117 runs in its final 10 overs, with the 5 men outside the circle, and yet could only manage 99 in its first 15, with just two outside. For the record, they lost two wickets in both periods. Don't get me wrong I love seeing the dashers at the top of the order hit over the infield early on as well - I just don't think it's fair, that's all. Besides, I don't know about you but for me a brilliantly run two is often as aesthetically pleasing as a thumping boundary, and if done on a consistent basis can be even more demoralising for the fielders too.