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.
by RustyCage » Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:47 pm
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
by tigerpie » Thu Jul 14, 2016 10:51 am
by bennymacca » Thu Jul 14, 2016 11:05 am
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.
by Booney » Tue Jul 19, 2016 1:20 pm
by heater31 » Tue Jul 19, 2016 1:21 pm
Booney wrote:What if, like last year (IIRC) the second innings starts late on day 2?
by bennymacca » Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:06 pm
Booney wrote:What if, like last year (IIRC) the second innings starts late on day 2?
by Booney » Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:30 pm
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!
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.
by Grahaml » Wed Jul 20, 2016 8:57 pm
by The Dark Knight » Wed Jul 20, 2016 9:34 pm
tigerpie wrote:Its the big bats doing the damage!
by Rik E Boy » Wed Jul 27, 2016 1:18 pm
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.
by Grenville » Wed Jul 27, 2016 7:23 pm
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
by bennymacca » Wed Jul 27, 2016 7:49 pm
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
by Tony Clifton » Fri Jul 29, 2016 3:00 pm
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.
by Booney » Fri Jul 29, 2016 3:05 pm
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.
by Tony Clifton » Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:44 pm
by bennymacca » Fri Jul 29, 2016 5:33 pm
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.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |