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

[BluesMan]

Early wickets are cruical in T20. Its almost impossible to recover and post a good score. Just ask the Scorchers. To say that wickets at the end of an innings dont matter much is just obvious, and similar in all form of the game. By the end of a one dayer, there swinging anyway, thus similar to t20, so why wouldn't you (dan) change the the wicket account in ODIs?

Early wickets in t20s, ODI's and tests set sides back, and at the end, the're not as demeaning, thus the arguement is irrelvant.

 

[Tyberious Funk]

I agree there are two fundamental problems with T20...

1. The ridiculously overhyped broadcast, and

2. The idiotic fans the game seems to attract.

IMHO, the game itself is fine.

 

[Slax]

1. Unless you are playing inside in an environment that does not alter in any way you will never be able to get conditions that are exactly the same for both teams.

2. Losing a wicket does matter, watch Firday night's match again and what happened after Wade was runout.

Regardless of what a few people think the game is here to stay. Crowds & ratings figures show this and until that changes nothing will change.

 

[R00StaR]

Agree with other posters on the value of wickets, they obviously do mean a lot. Lose early wickets and the team cant be as aggressive, lose them late and the new batsmen in is more likely to dot ball and less likely to hit a six.

To add further penalty will see batsmen become more risk adverse, it'll become like the ODI when the middle overs outside of power plays become an accumulate mode.

Note the ODI last night, theres no way Australia shouldve won that after the horrid start. Without the early Indian wickets they wouldve cruised home. But getting a couple, then forcing the bats to be more cautious getting the RR up then grabbing another one or two killed them.

 

[Father Jack]

i don't see why radical solutions are required for minor problems.

 

[King Elvis]

God, I'm bored of people on here mindlessly bagging out T20.

And I'm sick of people trying to completely change the fundamentals of Cricket, to address problems that dont' even exist.

 

[dumb]

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.

___________________________________________________________

What does everyone think, and if you don't agree, what alternatives would you propose for these issues?

the future of cricket, and the best cricket format has fundamental problems? what a turn up eh. if only you spent the same amount of time enjoying what is good in cricket as analyzing for problems. anyway...

Q: solution to PROBLEM ONE + TWO?

A1: cheerleaders. or maybe a few more PA songs and chants to offset all the bad and dirty things about cricket.

A2: i call this one the 'galaga'. the opposition selects a batsman from the other teams top 6. if then a batsman from that team can complete some sort of feat (ie, hitting the sidescreen on the full) they win their batsman back, who then bats at the same end as the feat-completing batsmen (that's right, 2 batsmen at the same end!).

A3: cheerleaders. the players are entered into a mobile phone, then printed out into an empty KFC bucket. cheerleaders then pull each name out of the bucket, this is then the teams batting order!

 

[Dan26]

Agree with other posters on the value of wickets, they obviously do mean a lot. Lose early wickets and the team cant be as aggressive, lose them late and the new batsmen in is more likely to dot ball and less likely to hit a six.

To add further penalty will see batsmen become more risk adverse, it'll become like the ODI when the middle overs outside of power plays become an accumulate mode.

Note the ODI last night, theres no way Australia shouldve won that after the horrid start. Without the early Indian wickets they wouldve cruised home. But getting a couple, then forcing the bats to be more cautious getting the RR up then grabbing another one or two killed them.

The question isn't whether wickets "matter" in T20.

The question is "do wickets matter enough" ?

Obviously they matter. But they don't matter as much as they do in 50-over cricket, and they don't matter as much as in Tests. And in my opinion, they don't matter enough.

And for all the examples people give about wickets falling in T20 that "mattered," there are dozens of examples of wickets falling in T20 that didn't matter.

That's the problem with selective examples. If you have an agenda, you can be selective with your "examples."

The real issue as I see it, is there isn't an official penalty for losing your wicket. In Tests there is a penalty, in the sense that if you lose 20 wickets, you lsoe the match. If you lose a wicket the penalty is that you are one wicket closer to losing the match.

But ASSUMING that a team won't get bowled out in T20 cricket (yes I know it occasionally happes but it's rare) there is no official penalty for losing your wicket. Yes a new batter comes to the crease and this usually means a slower scoring rate but it doens't guarantee a slower scoring rate. There is no official rule that states that if you lose a wicket your scoring rate must legally slow down. And that's really the problem. There is no OFFICIAL penalty. It's even possible, that the scoring rate increases by bringing in a batter who goes berserk.

The funamental issue as I see it is bringing in an official penalty for losing your wicket (that being losing 5 runs). NOT as a gimmick. But as a practical and logical way of forcing batsmen to care more for their wicket, and forcing bowlers to actually try to take wickets, and to officially reward the fielding team with a measurable reward.

 

[R00StaR]

The penalty is you cant be as aggressive if 3-20 in the 3rd over Vs say 0-20. The best way to win any cricket match is to take wickets. To penalise any further will kill what people like about 20/20, they get to see batsmen being conservative in tests and ODIs.

 

[Father Jack]

If you want wickets to matter to its largest degree then watch Test cricket. If you have ending an innings possible by running out of overs as well as losing ten wickets, then wickets will matter less. It is intrinsic in the format. Trying to tack on ludicrous gimmicks in order to artificially increase the importance of wickets is arsehattery at its finest.

 

[nineteen eighty]

statsguru you can play around with and see what it brings up.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...;filter=advanced;orderby=won;toss=1;type=team

Some very interesting stats you posted earlier. I haven't gone to stats guru but I hazard to guess that in the first few years for T20 (when teams were learning how to play it), the team batting first would have won significantly more than what the numbers currently show. And that's just me guessing...

God, I'm bored of people on here mindlessly bagging out T20.

Tend to agree with you. I like the game and I'm mad for test cricket. It's another form of entertainment for me.

And I'm sick of people trying to completely change the fundamentals of Cricket, to address problems that dont' even exist.

King - I would argue strongly (but not in this forum as I don't want to derail it) that T20 is addressing a market that test cricket wasn't. The attendance and viewing numbers prove that is the case. There is no chance whatsover...NONE...that shield cricket would generate the same level of interest that the BB did. At the same time, if there were more T20's, the ratings and attendance figures probably would have rivalled anything that the tests did.

A new market has been created. More and more kids are now talking about cricket. It is up to the junior coaches now to ensure that the kids get the right level of coaching so that they all don't become sloggers.

T20 is to the betterment of cricket and the game in general.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

The reason wickets are not as important as containment is because you are restricted as to who can bowl.

Since one day cricket was invented and now progressed to 20/20 I have never understood the format on Bowler restrictions.

A batsman can bat for the entire innings yet a bowler can only bowl 10 overs in one format and only 4 in the other.

Why should bowlers be restricted? Christ they make it hard enough as it is for the bowlers by playing on highways in these formats, an inch above the batsmans head is deemed wide????? An inch down leg side is deemed wide?????

And then the ludicrous situation of a bowler having a great day and has taken 3-21 and then some rule says you can't play anymore????

If Brett Lee is bowling well he should be able to continue for as long as the captain wants him to.

If not all batsman should have to retire after they reach 30 which would be silly.

Make it a fair game and you will see better cricket.

 

[Father Jack]

they limit bowlers so that teams dont select 8 batsmen

 

[Dan26]

The penalty is you cant be as aggressive if 3-20 in the 3rd over Vs say 0-20.

Of course they can be just as aggressive. If they choose to be. Normally, they would play a little more conservative at 3/20, but they don't have to. They don't actually get penalised. They are instead exercising their own choice, their own free-will to play less aggressively.

The best way to win any cricket match is to take wickets.

Wickets are far less important in T20. Techncally wickets aren't the way to win by T20. And that's a fact. The way to win is scoring more runs, irrspective of how many wickets have fallen.

So, what you are saying is wrong. The best way to win a test match is to take wickets. The best way to win a T20 match is to contain the batters run scoring (hence the use of defensive fields where the fileders are not in wicket taking positions. There is no intent to take a wicket, the intent is to stop the runs because THAT is how you win the game by definition)

To penalise any further will kill what people like about 20/20, they get to see batsmen being conservative in tests and ODIs.

I think the appeal of T20 is the 3 hour time frame. Generally in any sport, anything that means there is "more at stake" is a positive for people viewing that sport.

If a team was 1/160 chasing 170 with 20 balls to go, 2 wickets (and the loss of 10 runs) would totallly change the game. I don't see that as "killing what people like." It would enhance it, and make better.

 

[damochandler]

the sport is fine. there is nothing wrong with 20/20 and there certainly isn't anything wrong with test cricket.

 

[Dan26]

Trying to tack on ludicrous gimmicks in order to artificially increase the importance of wickets is arsehattery at its finest.

It's not a gimmick. I hate gimmicks. A gimmick is the 9-point goal. Brought in for no reason. It doesn't solve any problem or address any issue that needed solving. It's a pure gimmick, in every sense of the word.

A loss of runs for going out is actually an attempt to address an issue that many on this forum (and in the wider coummunity) have talked about for a few years - that wickets don't mean as much in T20. How do you get bowlers trying to bowl to get people OUT again? How do you get captains to set fields aimed at getting batters OUT? How do you get batsman to put more value on their wicket?

Isn't that what we want? Don't you want batters to value their wicket? Don't you want bowlers to aim to get a batter OUT? I would have thought a resounding yes to both.

Or is this simply a case of people being predictably defensive to any change? One thing is for sure - humans generally don't like change. People get nice and cosy with the world as they know it, and often (in my view) can't see the better things out there that could be done.

 

[King Elvis]

they limit bowlers so that teams dont select 8 batsmen

You are as clever as you are handsome.

 

[Father Jack]

It's not a gimmick. I hate gimmicks. A gimmick is the 9-point goal. Brought in for no reason. It doesn't solve any problem or address any issue that needed solving. It's a pure gimmick, in every sense of the word.

A loss of runs for going out is actually an attempt to address an issue that many on this forum (and in the wider coummunity) have talked about for a few years - that wickets don't mean as much in T20. How do you get bowlers trying to bowl to get people OUT again? How do you get captains to set fields aimed at getting batters OUT? How do you get batsman to put more value on their wicket?

Isn't that what we want? Don't you want batters to value their wicket? Don't you want bowlers to aim to get a batter OUT? I would have thought a resounding yes to both.

Or is this simply a case of people being predictably defensive to any change? One thing is for sure - humans generally don't like change. People get nice and cosy with the world as they know it, and often (in my view) can't see the better things out there that could be done.

Wickets are important, but their importance is limited by the fact that overs are also limited. There is nothing wrong with this. Taking runs off for getting out is every bit a gimmick as the super goal.

Also, I've read about and listened to and watched and discussed a hell of a lot of cricket and this thread is about the first time I've ever heard this particular argument that wickets don't cost enough.

 

[the 5th wiggle]

Not at all. Plenty of people at those games who didn't give two shits about the result.

spot on pal,most people just go to be entertained and are not fussed with the result and by the time they have got out of the ground they've forgotten who won.

 

[The Passenger]

The reason wickets are not as important as containment is because you are restricted as to who can bowl.

.....

Make it a fair game and you will see better cricket.

whilst i agree with the sentiments, the problem you'd get is teams with good spinners would just play 2 of them, alongside a couple of batsmen who can bowl, and bat down to number 9...

in saying that, maybe that's a good thing. add a bit of riskiness to the strategy cause if it doesnt' come off you're in the shit.

one rule i think shoudl definately be implemented into 50 over cricket, and having been plumping it for years, is that the each bowler should be given another over for every wicket they take. i.e. after 10 overs, they have 3 wickets, they get another 3. and they continue to get another over if they take a wicket. basically their overs are finished when the amount of overs they have bowled less than amount of wickets they take is equal to ten.

1) reward bowlers who go after wickets more than just containment

2) should help to eliminate shitty all rounders the likes of mark ealham. even in the worst of days you'd back you're four main bowlers to take at least 5 or 6 wickets, which means you don't have to find many overs from your batsmen. on a good day you could bowl out the opposition and get the full 50 overs out of your four strike bowlers. so team should more resemble the make up of a test team - your best six batsmen, best keeper, best four bowlers... rather than best five batsmen, and some guy who's barely passable as a batsmen and a bowler

(remember that ******* from england last year - Yardy... there should have been a motion to strip england of the ashes for just allowing that guy to play international cricket. even if he had nothing to do with the ashes. he was just that shit)

3) add a great strategy element for captains at the end of innings. i.e. glenn mcgrath has bowled 9 overs for 2 wickets and there are 5 overs left. do you bring him on now, back him to get the 2 wickets in the next 3 overs and be able to see the innings out from that end... if it works you get your main bowler bowling out the innings, but if it doesn't work you're stuck having to bowl out the last over or two from one end with a part timer...

 

[greatwhiteshark]

whilst i agree with the sentiments, the problem you'd get is teams with good spinners would just play 2 of them, alongside a couple of batsmen who can bowl, and bat down to number 9...

in saying that, maybe that's a good thing. add a bit of riskiness to the strategy cause if it doesnt' come off you're in the shit.

one rule i think shoudl definately be implemented into 50 over cricket, and having been plumping it for years, is that the each bowler should be given another over for every wicket they take. i.e. after 10 overs, they have 3 wickets, they get another 3. and they continue to get another over if they take a wicket. basically their overs are finished when the amount of overs they have bowled less than amount of wickets they take is equal to ten.

1) reward bowlers who go after wickets more than just containment

2) should help to eliminate shitty all rounders the likes of mark ealham. even in the worst of days you'd back you're four main bowlers to take at least 5 or 6 wickets, which means you don't have to find many overs from your batsmen. on a good day you could bowl out the opposition and get the full 50 overs out of your four strike bowlers. so team should more resemble the make up of a test team - your best six batsmen, best keeper, best four bowlers... rather than best five batsmen, and some guy who's barely passable as a batsmen and a bowler

(remember that ******* from england last year - Yardy... there should have been a motion to strip england of the ashes for just allowing that guy to play international cricket. even if he had nothing to do with the ashes. he was just that shit)

3) add a great strategy element for captains at the end of innings. i.e. glenn mcgrath has bowled 9 overs for 2 wickets and there are 5 overs left. do you bring him on now, back him to get the 2 wickets in the next 3 overs and be able to see the innings out from that end... if it works you get your main bowler bowling out the innings, but if it doesn't work you're stuck having to bowl out the last over or two from one end with a part timer...

The reality is though that both the short formats of cricket are disigned for entertaining crowds and that means batting and big scores.
So what is wrong with getting those runs against good bowlers instead of fill in bowlers.

 

[R00StaR]

It's not a gimmick. I hate gimmicks. A gimmick is the 9-point goal. Brought in for no reason. It doesn't solve any problem or address any issue that needed solving. It's a pure gimmick, in every sense of the word.

A loss of runs for going out is actually an attempt to address an issue that many on this forum (and in the wider coummunity) have talked about for a few years - that wickets don't mean as much in T20. How do you get bowlers trying to bowl to get people OUT again? How do you get captains to set fields aimed at getting batters OUT? How do you get batsman to put more value on their wicket?

Isn't that what we want? Don't you want batters to value their wicket? Don't you want bowlers to aim to get a batter OUT? I would have thought a resounding yes to both.

Or is this simply a case of people being predictably defensive to any change? One thing is for sure - humans generally don't like change. People get nice and cosy with the world as they know it, and often (in my view) can't see the better things out there that could be done.

What penalty do AFL teams get for missing a goal? They even get rewarded with point if they dont suck too badly. How'd -6pts for a miss go down ya think?

Team A 23.23:0 lost to Team B 1.0:6

 

[Dan26]

What penalty do AFL teams get for missing a goal? They even get rewarded with point if they dont suck too badly. How'd -6pts for a miss go down ya think?

Team A 23.23:0 lost to Team B 1.0:6

They've missed a goal. But they havn't missed the scoring area. They are the attacking team and they are having a shot on goal. There is nothing to penalise.

Your argument is like saying a batter who "attempts" to hit a bounday, but only gets a single is being penalised, just like a footy player who "attemps" a 6 pointer but only gets a one pointer.

There are plenty of penalties in footy. And they come in the form of free kicks. You do the wrong thing you get penalised with a free kick to the opposition.

Your footy analogy, no offence, is terrible.

The same footy analogy you've given, can only be compared to cricket, by a player "trying" to hit a 4, but only getting a single.

 

[R00StaR]

No, the batsmen who is trying to score fails and gets out. The footy player is trying to kick a goal he fails and kicks a point.

Now your saying its ok for the team that scores the most to win, even without penalty for stuffing up? I tend to agree.

 

[King Elvis]

It's a terrible idea.

Go watch Indoor Cricket instead maybe?