SA Footy

A thought I had a few weeks ago.

We all know since before the world cup in 99 and ever since it (Moody) we have struggled to find a 5th bowler.

What about 11 or 12 overs per bowler leaving less for the 5th?

- wrote:A thought I had a few weeks ago.

We all know since before the world cup in 99 and ever since it (Moody) we have struggled to find a 5th bowler.

What about 11 or 12 overs per bowler leaving less for the 5th?

Why, because Austalia haven't got a decent Allrounder? Good reason to change the rules of international cricket....

5 bowlers has to be implemented otherwise the batting line-ups will end up too strong..... cant agree with that rule....
scoob - we have Watson and Hogg .....

I think its a weakness in the rules.

In real cricket you can have 4 bowlers and be very successful.

Anyway its just a thought.

- wrote:I think its a weakness in the rules.

In real cricket you can have 4 bowlers and be very successful.

Anyway its just a thought.

One day cricket isn't real cricket though. It never will be. It is a bastardised version of the game designed to cater for the ever increasing short attention spans of modern society. 20/20 has now emerged as watching a 50 over game has become too long for many. Lets face it, the rules of limited overs cricket continue to be modified to ensure that the batsman have every advantage possible so we see higher and higher scores. The old fashion battle between bat and ball is disappearing and this won't change. No rule will be brought in to allow teams to restrict the scoring any further than is in place currently.

rod_rooster wrote:

- wrote:I think its a weakness in the rules.

In real cricket you can have 4 bowlers and be very successful.

Anyway its just a thought.

One day cricket isn't real cricket though. It never will be. It is a bastardised version of the game designed to cater for the ever increasing short attention spans of modern society. 20/20 has now emerged as watching a 50 over game has become too long for many. Lets face it, the rules of limited overs cricket continue to be modified to ensure that the batsman have every advantage possible so we see higher and higher scores. The old fashion battle between bat and ball is disappearing and this won't change. No rule will be brought in to allow teams to restrict the scoring any further than is in place currently.

Hang on. My rule makes it harder 4 batsman as they will face 48 frontlineovers

- wrote:

rod_rooster wrote:

- wrote:I think its a weakness in the rules.

In real cricket you can have 4 bowlers and be very successful.

Anyway its just a thought.

One day cricket isn't real cricket though. It never will be. It is a bastardised version of the game designed to cater for the ever increasing short attention spans of modern society. 20/20 has now emerged as watching a 50 over game has become too long for many. Lets face it, the rules of limited overs cricket continue to be modified to ensure that the batsman have every advantage possible so we see higher and higher scores. The old fashion battle between bat and ball is disappearing and this won't change. No rule will be brought in to allow teams to restrict the scoring any further than is in place currently.

Hang on. My rule makes it harder 4 batsman as they will face 48 frontlineovers

Exactly why such a rule change will never be brought in. Only rules that make it easier for batsmen will be considered now.

What about a rule that places a value on wickets, could work in different variations ... Ie, a team loses 10 runs for every wicket lost, so as such 5/300 would beat 6/308 ... Would never happen as it could change the game from "free license to slog" which the authorities want, but could make for an interesting slant?

Constance_Perm wrote:What about a rule that places a value on wickets, could work in different variations ... Ie, a team loses 10 runs for every wicket lost, so as such 5/300 would beat 6/308 ... Would never happen as it could change the game from "free license to slog" which the authorities want, but could make for an interesting slant?

Isn't that indoor cricket?

Constance_Perm wrote:What about a rule that places a value on wickets, could work in different variations ... Ie, a team loses 10 runs for every wicket lost, so as such 5/300 would beat 6/308 ... Would never happen as it could change the game from "free license to slog" which the authorities want, but could make for an interesting slant?

So if you score less runs you win... seems like a good idea...

great idea CP...... I think they would take that idea on and turn it into a complete farce (if its not already)

LMAO .. I was waiting to get shot down .. I'm not usually one for rule tinkering but one day cricket (which should be renamed Batsmens Cricket) is a Mickey Mouse game anyway that get's changed according to marketing direction all the time.

Constance_Perm wrote:LMAO .. I was waiting to get shot down .. I'm not usually one for rule tinkering but one day cricket (which should be renamed Batsmens Cricket) is a Mickey Mouse game anyway that get's changed according to marketing direction all the time.

Very good point CP. Can't argue with that at all.

I've always believed that when a bowler takes a wicket, he is then allowed to bowl 11 overs. If he gets a second wicket, he can then bowl 12, etc. A bonus over per wicket.

I've never thought it fair that a key bowler can only be in the game for 10 overs whereas a batsman can bat the entire 50.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:I've always believed that when a bowler takes a wicket, he is then allowed to bowl 11 overs. If he gets a second wicket, he can then bowl 12, etc. A bonus over per wicket.

I've never thought it fair that a key bowler can only be in the game for 10 overs whereas a batsman can bat the entire 50.

It's not a fair game though. It is designed to give the batsmen as big an advantage as possible. I agree with your idea of the bowlers getting a bonus over per wicket but we all know it will never happen. Could it work the other way around that batsmen can bat only 10 overs each. If they are not out after 10 overs they can come back in once all the other in the team have batted?

No matter what happens it will always be a very poor cousin to the real game of Test cricket.

It could be like U/13's cricket. Retire at 30 runs or 8 overs faced and you can come back in after everyone else has either retired or gotten out.