There are two fundamental problems with T20. How would you solve them?

Dan26

Brownlow Medallist
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:


  • 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?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Dan26

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 23, 2000
Posts
24,968
Likes
2,619
Location
Werribee
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
post count: 38,986
Thread starter #3
PROBLEM THREE
Nobody gives two shits about the result of any particular game.
Well the Big Bash proves you're wrong.

But that aside, if you're not going to - or are incapable - of contributing to the thread, then don't bother posting.
 

Keys

Not Bitter
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Posts
44,805
Likes
63,195
Location
Yelling at Clouds
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Bengals
Moderator #4
So you need a greater skill set to bat in 20/20s than tests even though :

A batter can take more risks because the consequence of losing his wicket is less

And

Bowlers are more interested in containment than taking wickets (fields are also set with a focus on containment over wicket taking)

On topic if the side batting second passes the first teams total does the game end or keep going on the basis that the bowling team might take some more wickets
 

Dan26

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 23, 2000
Posts
24,968
Likes
2,619
Location
Werribee
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
post count: 38,986
Thread starter #6
On topic if the side batting second passes the first teams total does the game end or keep going on the basis that the bowling team might take some more wickets
I'm not sure what you mean. Everything is the same as it is now, except team A bats for 10 overs, team B bats for 20 overs, then Team A bats for 10 overs.

After team A bat for 10 overs, if team B goes past team A's total, nothing happens. Team B continue their 20 consecutive overs of batting.

When it gets to over 11 for team, B, they are effectively in the position of "setting a target" as opposed to "chasing a target." Their score at that point could still be less than Team A, or it might be more. It doesn't really matter. But the stage of the match means that they are "ahead" in terms of the amount of overs they have faced.

So, it means both teams have 10 overs where they are "ahead" in the amount of overs they have faced, and 10 overs where they are "behind" in the amount of overs they have faced.

I actually think it's a really good solid idea.
 

Starburns_

Super Moderator
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Posts
47,869
Likes
89,324
Location
Out searching for Pokemon
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Colts, Stars, The Exers
Moderator #8
You clearly didn't see Friday night's match or the highlights of the Australia vs India T20 game from 4 years ago that channel 9 showed during the rain delay today. Good bowling and/or irresponsible batting often results in the team batting first struggling to post a competitive total due to losing too many wickets.
 

Dan26

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 23, 2000
Posts
24,968
Likes
2,619
Location
Werribee
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
post count: 38,986
Thread starter #9
You clearly didn't see Friday night's match or the highlights of the Australia vs India T20 game from 4 years ago that channel 9 showed during the rain delay today. Good bowling and/or irresponsible batting often results in the team batting first struggling to post a competitive total due to losing too many wickets.
I know that. I'm not suggesting wickets don't matter at all. Of course they do. They just matter much less in T20 than in the other forms of the game, and I believe there should be a bigger consequence for losing a wicket.

There are always extreme examples (like the game from 4 years ago, you are referring to), but generally, there is not enough of a consequence for going out in a match that lasts ony 20 overs each. But that can change if a run penalty was introduced.

Think of a close-ish game where the batting side looks set to get the runs.

Suppose they need 10 of 15 balls with 7 wickets in hand. 90% of the time they will get the runs, even if a wicket falls.

But imagine if a wicket fell and they lost 5 runs. They would need 15 off 9, and the game has totally changed. The consequences for going out are huge at that stage of the game.
 

The Passenger

Mr. Mojo Risin'
Joined
Mar 25, 2003
Posts
30,218
Likes
16,808
Location
Hasa Diga Eebowai
AFL Club
West Coast
#10
On topic if the side batting second passes the first teams total does the game end or keep going on the basis that the bowling team might take some more wickets
i'd imagine the game keeps going till it's impossible for the bowling team to win.

as for the effect of the coin toss, interesting the team winning the toss is leading in T20I's 115-94 in results.

batting first hasn't had a major impact on which team wins with batting first trailling 102-107.

but win toss and batting first is leading 60-52, and won toss and fielding first is leading 55-42.

it would suggest a good knowledge of the conditions of the match is very helpful.

from over 200 internationals there is starting to get a reasonable amount of statistical data to get a sense of a trend developing.

compare to ODI's in the last five years (similar time frame to since T20I's started) and winning the toss is trailling 343-350 (all time win toss is leading 1570-1528), interestingly batting first is trailling 324-369 in those same games (all time batting first trails 1501-1598). i'm out by one on the all times but i can't work out why, and don't really care.

so in short form games the only category that is starting to show any sort of real statistical outlier is an advantage to the team winning the toss in T20I's, but although 200 is starting to get a fair bit in terms of sample size, it's still not that significant.
 

Dan26

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 23, 2000
Posts
24,968
Likes
2,619
Location
Werribee
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
post count: 38,986
Thread starter #11
On topic if the side batting second passes the first teams total does the game end or keep going on the basis that the bowling team might take some more wickets
Sorry Keyser I get you know.

My take is that once the chasing side goes past the total of the other side they win. Once they go past their score the game ends.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Dan26

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 23, 2000
Posts
24,968
Likes
2,619
Location
Werribee
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
post count: 38,986
Thread starter #13
i'd imagine the game keeps going till it's impossible for the bowling team to win.

as for the effect of the coin toss, interesting the team winning the toss is leading in T20I's 115-94 in results.

batting first hasn't had a major impact on which team wins with batting first trailling 102-107.

but win toss and batting first is leading 60-52, and won toss and fielding first is leading 55-42.

it would suggest a good knowledge of the conditions of the match is very helpful.

from over 200 internationals there is starting to get a reasonable amount of statistical data to get a sense of a trend developing.

compare to ODI's in the last five years (similar time frame to since T20I's started) and winning the toss is trailling 343-350 (all time win toss is leading 1570-1528), interestingly batting first is trailling 324-369 in those same games (all time batting first trails 1501-1598). i'm out by one on the all times but i can't work out why, and don't really care.

so in short form games the only category that is starting to show any sort of real statistical outlier is an advantage to the team winning the toss in T20I's, but although 200 is starting to get a fair bit in terms of sample size, it's still not that significant.
Those numbers are interesting, thanks for providing them.

One other idea, is for the home team to always pick whether they want to bowl or field.

That would only work in Big Bash games obviously, where teams play home and away on a regular basis. For Internationals it wouldn't work, as Australia, as the home team, would always choose.

But for Big Bash games it means the team that hosts the semi-finals and the Grand Final gets the advantage (and it is a deserved advanatge) of choosing what they want to do. The Scorchers, I believe earned that advantage for the final.

But if a 10-20-10 format was used, it should - theoretically - be fairer, with or without a coin toss.
 
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Posts
3,130
Likes
1,090
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Vancouver Canucks
#14
Solution:

Have two teams of 11 specialist batsmen.
Play at the same time on 2 different grounds.
Set the bowling machine up one end and press play.
After 10 overs swap grounds so it's all fair.
Team who scores most sixes wins.


This is almost too easy.
 

The Passenger

Mr. Mojo Risin'
Joined
Mar 25, 2003
Posts
30,218
Likes
16,808
Location
Hasa Diga Eebowai
AFL Club
West Coast
#15
i reckon play 14 a side. only 11 batsmen bat, and you have 11 on the field at any one time so you're bowlers can stay off the field resting.

bowlers bowl from each end like a baseball pitcher. once you're replaced you can't come back onto bowl. get maximum of 6 overs. so of you're 4 bowlers, 1 is bowling and the other 3 are off the field resting.

would stop the stop-start nature of bowling spells which i think is contributing to injuries. and would keep bowlers off the field where they are throwing themselves around - another area which i reckon is a cause of injuries.

problem is the guys batting and 8, 9 and 10 would do **** all in a game....
 

Kristof

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 3, 2003
Posts
16,959
Likes
16,467
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Soft spot for Brisbane
#17
I think wickets matter A LOT. Completely change the rhythm of the innings, because the new player can't come in and immediately score at pace. That's why we lost the other night.
 

Dan26

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 23, 2000
Posts
24,968
Likes
2,619
Location
Werribee
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
post count: 38,986
Thread starter #19
I think wickets matter A LOT. Completely change the rhythm of the innings, because the new player can't come in and immediately score at pace. That's why we lost the other night.
I know what you mean, but it's not a rule that scoring has to slow down if you lose a wicket.

Yes, scoring usually does slow down when you lose a wicket but it doesn't have to. It could go up, if the incoming batsman goes berserk.

And you sau it matters a lot. It's all relative. The shorter the form of the game, the less important wickets are. They might be important in T20, but they are still less important than they are in the 50 over game and less than in tests.

That's why I'm suggesting an actual penalty for losing a wicket.

You're suggesting (or implying) that there already is a penalty because the scoring rate decreases. But that's not really a penalty, because it's not a writen rule that the scoring rate must decrease.
 

treeman

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Posts
5,423
Likes
3,636
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide Crows
#20
I'm not sure what you mean. Everything is the same as it is now, except team A bats for 10 overs, team B bats for 20 overs, then Team A bats for 10 overs.

After team A bat for 10 overs, if team B goes past team A's total, nothing happens. Team B continue their 20 consecutive overs of batting.

When it gets to over 11 for team, B, they are effectively in the position of "setting a target" as opposed to "chasing a target." Their score at that point could still be less than Team A, or it might be more. It doesn't really matter. But the stage of the match means that they are "ahead" in terms of the amount of overs they have faced.

So, it means both teams have 10 overs where they are "ahead" in the amount of overs they have faced, and 10 overs where they are "behind" in the amount of overs they have faced.

I actually think it's a really good solid idea.
No you are not following what Keyser Soze is saying.

If Team A has made a total score of 100 and team B reaches their score with one over to spare do they bat the last over still despite the fact they have reached the total? Team A could still take a wicket in the last over deducting 5 runs and making a total of now 96 runs thus now behind.
 

Dan26

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 23, 2000
Posts
24,968
Likes
2,619
Location
Werribee
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
post count: 38,986
Thread starter #21
No you are not following what Keyser Soze is saying.

If Team A has made a total score of 100 and team B reaches their score with one over to spare do they bat the last over still despite the fact they have reached the total? Team A could still take a wicket in the last over deducting 5 runs and making a total of now 96 runs thus now behind.
Yes I addressed this a couple of posts ago.

The way I envisioned it was once the chasing team got the target, they win the game. Once they reach the total, game over.

Although the more I think about it, that might be unfair. If team A batted first and was 105 with one ball to go, then lost a wicket to go back to 100, then it should also be possible for team B to lose a wicket off the last ball (even if they had gone above 100, and were on, say 102,) reducing their score to 97 and therefore losing the game.

So, a slight revison. The game would continue for the chasing team until such a point as they couldn't lose.

So, suppose team A made 99, so team B were chasing 100 to win. If team B were 102 with 2 balls to go the match continues. But if team B were on 106 with one ball to go, they win. The last ball doesn't get bowled.
 

Dan26

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 23, 2000
Posts
24,968
Likes
2,619
Location
Werribee
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
post count: 38,986
Thread starter #23
would have to do that, otherwise would be unfair.

would radically change the final moments of a run chase. teams would get much more attacking from about 10-15 runs out.
How good would it be if a team was 4 runs up, and lost a wicket off the last ball.
 

jackn

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Posts
1,419
Likes
1,351
Location
aus
AFL Club
Carlton
#24
I know what you mean, but it's not a rule that scoring has to slow down if you lose a wicket.

Yes, scoring usually does slow down when you lose a wicket but it doesn't have to. It could go up, if the incoming batsman goes berserk.

You're suggesting (or implying) that there already is a penalty because the scoring rate decreases. But that's not really a penalty, because it's not a writen rule that the scoring rate must decrease.
This is a fairly ridiculous argument you're making here. Why should the scoring rate have to go down?

I'm going to use an equally ridiculous example involving footy. Say Chris Judd was suspended and had to miss one week. Chances are Carlton would play a bit below the level we'd play with him in the team, but we wouldn't have to. Should there then be an extra penalty of say starting the match on -50 points to ensure we were worse?

In cricket the scoring rate should not have to go down when a wicket falls, no matter the form of cricket being played. It usually will but if a batsman is good enough to start scoring heavily that's fine. There shouldn't be a law brought in to counter that.

Wickets are way more improtant than just a dot ball. I'm sure that over time the average scores of teams that only lost a few wickets in an innings would be comfortably higer than that of teams losing 6 plus wickets. Just leave the game as it is because it works fine for what it is.
 
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Posts
3,130
Likes
1,090
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Vancouver Canucks
#25
This is a fairly ridiculous argument you're making here. Why should the scoring rate have to go down?

I'm going to use an equally ridiculous example involving footy. Say Chris Judd was suspended and had to miss one week. Chances are Carlton would play a bit below the level we'd play with him in the team, but we wouldn't have to. Should there then be an extra penalty of say starting the match on -50 points to ensure we were worse?

In cricket the scoring rate should not have to go down when a wicket falls, no matter the form of cricket being played. It usually will but if a batsman is good enough to start scoring heavily that's fine. There shouldn't be a law brought in to counter that.

Wickets are way more improtant than just a dot ball. I'm sure that over time the average scores of teams that only lost a few wickets in an innings would be comfortably higer than that of teams losing 6 plus wickets. Just leave the game as it is because it works fine for what it is.
Isnt that what Dan26 was saying?
 
Top Bottom