- Joined
- Jan 23, 2000
- Posts
- 24,968
- Likes
- 2,619
- Location
- Werribee
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- post count: 38,986
Thread starter
#1
As most of you know I really like T20 cricket and see it as the future of the game. The crowds are voting with their feet, the TV ratings are through the roof and I personally see it as the game cricket should have started as 100 years ago.
But I see two fundamental problems, which at some point need to be addressed.
PROBLEM ONE
The coin toss has far too much influence. The team that bats first wins about 60% of the time. It shouldn't be acceptable that winning or losing a simple coin toss affects your chances of winning or losing by 20%. Batting first and setting a total, requires a totally different mind-set, mentally than chasing.
So, basically one team has a certain mind-set for 20 overs and then the chasing team has to contend with a more pressurized mind-set for their 20 overs. This is unfair, and geneally the chasing team fails.
PROBLEM TWO
Wickets are not that important. Often towards the end of an innings when a wicket falls, it is no more noteworthy than the fact it was also a dot ball. There were games in the Big Bash where a team lost 9 wickets and the chasing team lost only 3 yet failed to win. There needs to be more importance (and consequence) on a wicket falling.
___________________________________________________________
POSSIBLE SOLUTION FOR PROBLEM ONE
Domestic 50 over games a few years ago trialled a concept (which failed) to alleviate this problem. Team A batted for 25 overs, then team B batted for 25, then team A came back again for 25 overs, and team B batted for the last 25.
But that didn't solve the problem. Team A was still "setting the target" for their whole 50 overs of batting and Team B was still always chasing the target for their whole 50 overs of batting.
So, for T20 games, what could you do? A solution is:
This means both teams effectively spend 10 overs "setting a target" and 10 overs "chasing a target"
Take team B for example. From overs 1-10, they are chasing. Then from overs 11-20 (even though their innings is just continuing as normal), they are at the stage of the game where they are effectively in the position of "setting a target." Then Team A spends the final 10 overs chasing.
10 overs chasing each. 10 overs setting a target each. but in a 10-20-10 format.
And for 50-over games, you would obviously do it 25-50-25.
POSSIBLE SOLUTION FOR PROBLEM TWO
In Test Cricket wickets are what it is all about. Unless a team declares, the only way you can win is by taking 20 wickets. So, every wicket you take gets you one wicket closer to winning.
Baseball is the same. The only way to win is to get 27 outs. It won't matter how many runs you score, if you can't get 27 outs you cannot win.
50 over cricket is different of course as wickets aren't "necessary" to win. But they are still important, because 50 overs is long enough for a team to get bowled out so the batsman still have to protect their wicket, and they avoid taking unnecessary risks.
But in T20, the batter can take nearly all the risks he wants because he knows it is almost impossible to get bowled out. It does happen of course, but it's rare. In some cases, getting a wicket might bring in a batter who scores 20 of 8 balls and it would have been better off if you didn't take the wicket.
So, how can this problem be solved? A run penalty for losing a wicket (say, 5 runs) is a genuine practical idea that has many advantages. Those that have played Indoor Cricket will know that it is a very effective way of giving a consequence for going out.
A 5 run penalty for losing a wicket in T20 would:
What does everyone think, and if you don't agree, what alternatives would you propose for these issues?
But I see two fundamental problems, which at some point need to be addressed.
PROBLEM ONE
The coin toss has far too much influence. The team that bats first wins about 60% of the time. It shouldn't be acceptable that winning or losing a simple coin toss affects your chances of winning or losing by 20%. Batting first and setting a total, requires a totally different mind-set, mentally than chasing.
So, basically one team has a certain mind-set for 20 overs and then the chasing team has to contend with a more pressurized mind-set for their 20 overs. This is unfair, and geneally the chasing team fails.
PROBLEM TWO
Wickets are not that important. Often towards the end of an innings when a wicket falls, it is no more noteworthy than the fact it was also a dot ball. There were games in the Big Bash where a team lost 9 wickets and the chasing team lost only 3 yet failed to win. There needs to be more importance (and consequence) on a wicket falling.
___________________________________________________________
POSSIBLE SOLUTION FOR PROBLEM ONE
Domestic 50 over games a few years ago trialled a concept (which failed) to alleviate this problem. Team A batted for 25 overs, then team B batted for 25, then team A came back again for 25 overs, and team B batted for the last 25.
But that didn't solve the problem. Team A was still "setting the target" for their whole 50 overs of batting and Team B was still always chasing the target for their whole 50 overs of batting.
So, for T20 games, what could you do? A solution is:
Team A bats for 10 overs
- Team B then bats for 20 overs
- Team A bats for 10 overs
This means both teams effectively spend 10 overs "setting a target" and 10 overs "chasing a target"
Take team B for example. From overs 1-10, they are chasing. Then from overs 11-20 (even though their innings is just continuing as normal), they are at the stage of the game where they are effectively in the position of "setting a target." Then Team A spends the final 10 overs chasing.
10 overs chasing each. 10 overs setting a target each. but in a 10-20-10 format.
And for 50-over games, you would obviously do it 25-50-25.
POSSIBLE SOLUTION FOR PROBLEM TWO
In Test Cricket wickets are what it is all about. Unless a team declares, the only way you can win is by taking 20 wickets. So, every wicket you take gets you one wicket closer to winning.
Baseball is the same. The only way to win is to get 27 outs. It won't matter how many runs you score, if you can't get 27 outs you cannot win.
50 over cricket is different of course as wickets aren't "necessary" to win. But they are still important, because 50 overs is long enough for a team to get bowled out so the batsman still have to protect their wicket, and they avoid taking unnecessary risks.
But in T20, the batter can take nearly all the risks he wants because he knows it is almost impossible to get bowled out. It does happen of course, but it's rare. In some cases, getting a wicket might bring in a batter who scores 20 of 8 balls and it would have been better off if you didn't take the wicket.
So, how can this problem be solved? A run penalty for losing a wicket (say, 5 runs) is a genuine practical idea that has many advantages. Those that have played Indoor Cricket will know that it is a very effective way of giving a consequence for going out.
A 5 run penalty for losing a wicket in T20 would:
Force the batsman to be more protective of his wicket.
- Force the bowler to try to TAKE wickets, rather than just bowl to contain the run scoring.
- Give a genuine consequence for the batting side for losing a wicket. There would be a genuine penalty for going out. Currently there is no real penalty at all, other than it is also a dot ball.
What does everyone think, and if you don't agree, what alternatives would you propose for these issues?
