SA Footy

bennymacca wrote:yeah agreed - 80 overs isnt some magical thing that cant be changed. If it works out to be 50 overs then a change i dont see much wrong with that

Exactly, any change would be the same for both teams.

1st innings day 1 is a lot different to 2nd innings day 5 in terms of the speed the ball wears.
Changing the ball day 1 at last years day/nighter in 50 overs would probably have seen more wickets fall...advantage bowler too much.
Leave 1st innings at 80 and change to 60 in the second.
Other than that just change it if it needs to be changed for shape or seam damage reasons.

tigerpie wrote:1st innings day 1 is a lot different to 2nd innings day 5 in terms of the speed the ball wears.
Changing the ball day 1 at last years day/nighter in 50 overs would probably have seen more wickets fall...advantage bowler too much.
Leave 1st innings at 80 and change to 60 in the second.
Other than that just change it if it needs to be changed for shape or seam damage reasons.

that could work too.

I think the point we are making though is that the wear of the ball isnt insurmountable. As long as there is a somewhat even contest between bat and ball i dont think too many care how long the ball lasts (within reason of course)

What if, like last year (IIRC) the second innings starts late on day 2?

Booney wrote:What if, like last year (IIRC) the second innings starts late on day 2?

Head to the bar!

Booney wrote:What if, like last year (IIRC) the second innings starts late on day 2?

That's not the exclusive domain of the pink ball!

bennymacca wrote:

Booney wrote:What if, like last year (IIRC) the second innings starts late on day 2?

That's not the exclusive domain of the pink ball!

True, but I'm talking about :

tigerpie wrote:1st innings day 1 is a lot different to 2nd innings day 5 in terms of the speed the ball wears.
Changing the ball day 1 at last years day/nighter in 50 overs would probably have seen more wickets fall...advantage bowler too much.
Leave 1st innings at 80 and change to 60 in the second.
Other than that just change it if it needs to be changed for shape or seam damage reasons.

If the wear of the ball is considered because of the age of the pitch then the 2nd inning starting on day 2 should be under the same conditions as the 1st innings.

I think the most important thing in cricket is there needs to be a contest between bat and ball from the first over to the last. Nobody wants to see a game with conditions where it's far too good for batting or far too good for bowling. The NZ game I thought was actually ok. It was on the bowler friendly side, but we didn't see sides struggling to get to 100 in an innings.

I think we'll see this fixed just with improvements in the ball. I doubt someone made a red ball and had it perfected in a couple of years. But the idea of shifting how quickly the ball gets changed does make a lot of sense. But I think the bigger problem we have with cricket balls is stopping them going out of shape so darn fast.

Its the big bats doing the damage!

tigerpie wrote:Its the big bats doing the damage!

Andre Russell's Pink bat didn't last long the other night playing for Jamaica in the CPL!

RustyCage wrote:

bennymacca wrote:yeah agreed - 80 overs isnt some magical thing that cant be changed. If it works out to be 50 overs then a change i dont see much wrong with that

Exactly, any change would be the same for both teams.

If you are changing the ball every 50 overs and playing a session at night this swings the battle between bat and ball too far towards the ball. So what we will have is two formats heavily in favour of the bat and one format that would be heavily in favour of the ball. I have always maintained the joy of cricket is not only the battle between two sides, but the battle between bat and ball as well. This is what makes Cricket such a multifaceted game. Want something simpler, go to a teeball match or follow baseball. The reason why Test Cricket is the best format is because it promotes a more even battle between bat and ball. This is why when a wicket provides assistance for batting and bowling it's considered a 'good wicket'.

Leave test cricket alone, teeball is a horrible spectacle but it pays the bills for the game. If you want people to attend test cricket again make better wickets.

regards,

REB

Rik E Boy wrote:

RustyCage wrote:

bennymacca wrote:yeah agreed - 80 overs isnt some magical thing that cant be changed. If it works out to be 50 overs then a change i dont see much wrong with that

Exactly, any change would be the same for both teams.

If you are changing the ball every 50 overs and playing a session at night this swings the battle between bat and ball too far towards the ball. So what we will have is two formats heavily in favour of the bat and one format that would be heavily in favour of the ball. I have always maintained the joy of cricket is not only the battle between two sides, but the battle between bat and ball as well. This is what makes Cricket such a multifaceted game. Want something simpler, go to a teeball match or follow baseball. The reason why Test Cricket is the best format is because it promotes a more even battle between bat and ball. This is why when a wicket provides assistance for batting and bowling it's considered a 'good wicket'.

Leave test cricket alone, teeball is a horrible spectacle but it pays the bills for the game. If you want people to attend test cricket again make better wickets.

regards,

REB

That is a bloody sensational post.

Rik E Boy wrote:

RustyCage wrote:

bennymacca wrote:yeah agreed - 80 overs isnt some magical thing that cant be changed. If it works out to be 50 overs then a change i dont see much wrong with that

Exactly, any change would be the same for both teams.

If you are changing the ball every 50 overs and playing a session at night this swings the battle between bat and ball too far towards the ball. So what we will have is two formats heavily in favour of the bat and one format that would be heavily in favour of the ball. I have always maintained the joy of cricket is not only the battle between two sides, but the battle between bat and ball as well. This is what makes Cricket such a multifaceted game. Want something simpler, go to a teeball match or follow baseball. The reason why Test Cricket is the best format is because it promotes a more even battle between bat and ball. This is why when a wicket provides assistance for batting and bowling it's considered a 'good wicket'.

Leave test cricket alone, teeball is a horrible spectacle but it pays the bills for the game. If you want people to attend test cricket again make better wickets.

regards,

REB

That's why last years Adelaide test was good. It because of the pink ball but because they left grass on the pitch.

bennymacca wrote:

Rik E Boy wrote:

RustyCage wrote:

bennymacca wrote:yeah agreed - 80 overs isnt some magical thing that cant be changed. If it works out to be 50 overs then a change i dont see much wrong with that

Exactly, any change would be the same for both teams.

If you are changing the ball every 50 overs and playing a session at night this swings the battle between bat and ball too far towards the ball. So what we will have is two formats heavily in favour of the bat and one format that would be heavily in favour of the ball. I have always maintained the joy of cricket is not only the battle between two sides, but the battle between bat and ball as well. This is what makes Cricket such a multifaceted game. Want something simpler, go to a teeball match or follow baseball. The reason why Test Cricket is the best format is because it promotes a more even battle between bat and ball. This is why when a wicket provides assistance for batting and bowling it's considered a 'good wicket'.

Leave test cricket alone, teeball is a horrible spectacle but it pays the bills for the game. If you want people to attend test cricket again make better wickets.

regards,

REB

That's why last years Adelaide test was good. It because of the pink ball but because they left grass on the pitch.

The pink ball was why tv ratings & attendance was good. Wouldn't have been in prime time otherwise.

bennymacca wrote:

Rik E Boy wrote:

RustyCage wrote:

bennymacca wrote:yeah agreed - 80 overs isnt some magical thing that cant be changed. If it works out to be 50 overs then a change i dont see much wrong with that

Exactly, any change would be the same for both teams.

If you are changing the ball every 50 overs and playing a session at night this swings the battle between bat and ball too far towards the ball. So what we will have is two formats heavily in favour of the bat and one format that would be heavily in favour of the ball. I have always maintained the joy of cricket is not only the battle between two sides, but the battle between bat and ball as well. This is what makes Cricket such a multifaceted game. Want something simpler, go to a teeball match or follow baseball. The reason why Test Cricket is the best format is because it promotes a more even battle between bat and ball. This is why when a wicket provides assistance for batting and bowling it's considered a 'good wicket'.

Leave test cricket alone, teeball is a horrible spectacle but it pays the bills for the game. If you want people to attend test cricket again make better wickets.

regards,

REB

That's why last years Adelaide test was good. It because of the pink ball but because they left grass on the pitch.

3 * 50's for the match, over in 3 days, no side scored more than 224. REB's point stands, far too much in favour of the ball, grassy deck or otherwise.

They're not going to nail it absolutely perfectly for the first game ever. Perth got it badly wrong for a day test after probably 100 practice runs.

The interest and spectacle was surely enough for even the most ardent critics to admit that gee, there might be something to this.

Unless they're the type still bitter about Kerry Packer and pajama cricket!

Booney wrote:

bennymacca wrote:

Rik E Boy wrote:

RustyCage wrote:[quote="bennymacca"]yeah agreed - 80 overs isnt some magical thing that cant be changed. If it works out to be 50 overs then a change i dont see much wrong with that

Exactly, any change would be the same for both teams.

If you are changing the ball every 50 overs and playing a session at night this swings the battle between bat and ball too far towards the ball. So what we will have is two formats heavily in favour of the bat and one format that would be heavily in favour of the ball. I have always maintained the joy of cricket is not only the battle between two sides, but the battle between bat and ball as well. This is what makes Cricket such a multifaceted game. Want something simpler, go to a teeball match or follow baseball. The reason why Test Cricket is the best format is because it promotes a more even battle between bat and ball. This is why when a wicket provides assistance for batting and bowling it's considered a 'good wicket'.

Leave test cricket alone, teeball is a horrible spectacle but it pays the bills for the game. If you want people to attend test cricket again make better wickets.

regards,

REB

That's why last years Adelaide test was good. It because of the pink ball but because they left grass on the pitch.

3 * 50's for the match, over in 3 days, no side scored more than 224. REB's point stands, far too much in favour of the ball, grassy deck or otherwise.[/quote]

Much better than 500+ first innings like every other test!