PDA

View Full Version : Is this what we really want to see?


beshideshi
December 15, 2009, 02:28 AM
It was a slight murmur five-six years back, but nowadays talk to any bowler and he will shout it out to you.
Cricket is supposed to be a game where the batsmen and the bowlers play. Not the batsman play, and bowlers watch.
The flat pitches, the smaller grounds, bigger bats, T20 revolution, fielding restrictions, power plays, throwing the grammar book out of the window, limiting bouncers have just made cricket into a batsman's game. Bowlers sometimes have nothing to do but watch the the ball disappear from a good length.
I for one want to see cricket, not just batting. I will take the risk of admitting, I enjoy BD bowling more than their batting at times. When Warne,Murali, Shoaib, Lee, Bond, Asif , waqar, wasim and other greats bowls at their best, its a feast to the eye. And I would like to see more of it. When the ICC president was asked whether T20 is harsh on bowlers, he said bowlers have always come up with something new when they needed. so, why not give the batsman something to think about, let them invent smoething and improvise.
It's just my opinion, definitely biased as I myself is mainly a bowler, but If you ask me, Ban-WI game in 2003-4[the one BD lost by one wicket despite scoring 120 odd], BD-ZIM 5th odi [2009, BD] were more charming than the proclaimed " greatest ODI ever" in centurion.

yaseer
December 15, 2009, 02:34 AM
Inshallah we will see in Mirpur what we really want to see.
The way the pitch is getting lower and lower (hopefully curator will make it much lower before tri-series), we can see a totally different ball game.

_Rafi_
December 15, 2009, 05:27 AM
Yes. We dont want pitches where a bowler can bat like Lara or Tendu.
<br />Posted via BC Mobile Edition

beshideshi
December 15, 2009, 05:45 AM
its sad really. India scored 414, and now SL is on 326/2 from 37. This used to happen a lot, but in EA cricket 2007.
Yaseer bhai, Mirpur will never be as pacey as perth, we took soil from perth, but we cant take the weather. So one of the few[or only?] black soil pitch in sub continent wont be as quick as perth, but better than other flat wickets i assume

BANFAN
December 15, 2009, 06:39 AM
Cricket or any sports or any show business is what the spectators/viewers would like to pay for.

AsifTheManRahman
December 15, 2009, 09:12 AM
That's why we should make bowling pitches when we host India and Sri Lanka next month. Where 160 will be the par score.

Spitfire_x86
December 15, 2009, 11:10 AM
Why not? Bowlers had enjoyed unfair advantage for too long, which is no longer the case thanks to ODIs/T20s, which taught the batsmen to not over respect the bowling and the better safety guards that modern batsmen have. I sure hope you don't long for the days when cricket was played without helmets. Its not like helmets were invention of 80's. Yes, a batsman with good technique shouldn't get hit by a bouncer in the head, but when something has potential to be life threatening, proper safety measures are always necessary.

Surfer
December 15, 2009, 11:44 AM
1. I don't remember anyone screaming so high when Australia and SA did it. Rather many consider that to be the greatest ODI ever. They look at the chase with awe. But with India, it becomes cricket's graveyard.

2. The same points were raised after the first test. We had perfect pitches for the next two. Some pitches would be flat and some others would be good. Have some patience.

3. Don't forget that both India and Srilanka have very good batting lineups and very poor bowlers. Any other team would have suffocated under that required run rate, but not Lanka. Making those many runs even on the flattest of wickets is not a joke.

Tigers_eye
December 15, 2009, 12:05 PM
The question is bowlers are cricketers or not? I say not. Lets move on. Just like we Bangalis are not human. Close to "chotushpod jontu".
+++
SA chasing Aus's 434 is one of the greatest games? NZ chasing the Aussies down is among the greatest games? Only for those who think bowlers are not cricketers.
+++
If after scoring 414 runs in a 50 over match, you don't feel comfortable to defend, you call that cricket? I don't.
+++
helmets are fine. That protects life. I have no problem. But why restrict bouncers to one? Who are these so called murderers of balls that we are protecting?

MohammedC
December 15, 2009, 12:54 PM
That's why we should make bowling pitches when we host India and Sri Lanka next month. Where 160 will be the par score.

Agreed. And I think we did it last year when we played tri-series against the lankans and almost beat them in the final match.

one think I am not sure whether our curator did it intentionaly or it just happened by virtue of luck.

Spitfire_x86
December 15, 2009, 12:56 PM
helmets are fine. That protects life. I have no problem. But why restrict bouncers to one? Who are these so called murderers of balls that we are protecting?
Limiting number of bouncers (and stricter margin of wide balls) in ODIs/T20 make perfect sense. So does the power play rule, as it forces the fielding teams to set attacking fields for at least few overs. Without forced power plays we would see defensive fields throughout the innings. Fielding restriction rules like max. 5 fielders outside 30 yards circle ensure that the chasing team always have a fair shot at victory, even if 4 or 6 runs is required from the last ball.

You might argue for limitless bouncers in tests, as there is no such rule that a batsman can't hit all balls for sixes. But a pacer can bowl bouncers at will, unlike 6 hitting of a batsman.

In the 90's bouncers weren't allowed at all in ODIs, over shoulder height balls was considered no ball. Later in the height limit was changed to head high, now one bouncer is allowed. But scoring rates have only increased instead of dropping. It might be true that a batsmen now have better bats, but it still takes only one ball to dismiss a batsman. And aren't bowlers also supposed to benefit from the raised standard of fielding?

Spitfire_x86
December 15, 2009, 01:04 PM
Low scoring matches doesn't automatically mean the standard of cricket or bowling is high. Our leading bowlers all have perfectly decent FC/List A averages, our domestic matches doesn't produce many high scoring matches. Does it mean that quality of our domestic cricket is better than Aussie/Indian domestic cricket?

Neel Here
December 15, 2009, 01:59 PM
The question is bowlers are cricketers or not? I say not. Lets move on. Just like we Bangalis are not human. Close to "chotushpod jontu".
:lol:
But why restrict bouncers to one? Who are these so called murderers of balls that we are protecting?
excellent point, there should be no restriction on the number of bouncers that can be bowled in an over only caveat being none should be bowled wide above the batsman's head.

bad pitch or good pitch, bowlers are losing the arms race with batsmen, we have to do whatever we can to restore the balance.

Neel Here
December 15, 2009, 02:00 PM
And aren't bowlers also supposed to benefit from the raised standard of fielding?
not in this series !!!!!!

uss01
December 15, 2009, 02:18 PM
Yup, the batting lineup is too good for both teams. So hats off to them.

1.
3. Don't forget that both India and Srilanka have very good batting lineups and very poor bowlers. Any other team would have suffocated under that required run rate, but not Lanka. Making those many runs even on the flattest of wickets is not a joke.

Spitfire_x86
December 15, 2009, 02:41 PM
excellent point, there should be no restriction on the number of bouncers that can be bowled in an over only caveat being none should be bowled wide above the batsman's head.
1 short ball above the batsman's head is allowed, and that is considered a bouncer. If it's not above head hight, then it's not a bouncer (and not called wide). What you ask for is already allowed within the current law. Then why don't we see bowlers try bowling 6 of those deliveries in every over (or trying to bowl 6 yorkers in every over)? Because it's hard to get those right everytime, and you get predictable. Just the same is likely to happen if a batsman tries to hit every ball of a over for 6.

Tigers_eye
December 15, 2009, 02:41 PM
Limiting number of bouncers (and stricter margin of wide balls) in ODIs/T20 make perfect sense. So does the power play rule, as it forces the fielding teams to set attacking fields for at least few overs. Without forced power plays we would see defensive fields throughout the innings. Fielding restriction rules like max. 5 fielders outside 30 yards circle ensure that the chasing team always have a fair shot at victory, even if 4 or 6 runs is required from the last ball.

You might argue for limitless bouncers in tests, as there is no such rule that a batsman can't hit all balls for sixes. But a pacer can bowl bouncers at will, unlike 6 hitting of a batsman.

In the 90's bouncers weren't allowed at all in ODIs, over shoulder height balls was considered no ball. Later in the height limit was changed to head high, now one bouncer is allowed. But scoring rates have only increased instead of dropping. It might be true that a batsmen now have better bats, but it still takes only one ball to dismiss a batsman. And aren't bowlers also supposed to benefit from the raised standard of fielding?
I don't get it. Limiting to one ball over the shoulder (not over the head) have created batsmen who can't Hook and exposed in Test.

Plus if the bowler already bowls one above the shoulder in his first three balls, batsmen starts licking their chops knowing there will not be another in the remaining balls of the over. They charge fast bowlers like spinners!! What the heck? Fast bowlers are not cricketers as I said.

Batsmen are given helmets to protect their heads. What does it matter if there are 6 balls above the shoulder in an over? Let them have shoulder pads also. Bunch of sissies. Hook it for six sixes for all I care. Instead you will see them ducking and crying for mommies.

Spitfire_x86
December 15, 2009, 02:57 PM
I don't get it. Limiting to one ball over the shoulder (not over the head) have created batsmen who can't Hook and exposed in Test.
Hook is a difficult shot to get right, and the batsmen who don't play it very well have always been advised to avoid the shot in all forms of game throughout the game's history. (How many times Bashar or Ashraful made your blood boil with ill judged hook shot?)

The limit of bouncers is not really a barrier to exposing a team's weakness to short ball. The latest example is England vs India match in T20 World Cup 2009. A match was actually won with consistent high quality short pitched bowling, exploiting few particular batsmen's weakness to short pitched bowling was possible, in T20 format!!

Plus if the bowler already bowls one above the shoulder in his first three balls, batsmen starts licking their chops knowing there will not be another in the remaining balls of the over. They charge fast bowlers like spinners!! What the heck? Fast bowlers are not cricketers as I said.
If charging down the crease was guarantee of 4 and 6, then Tamim would be the top scorer and have the highest strike rate in World T20 2007. A bowler can do a bunch of things to prevent getting hit for 6 if the batsman charges precipitately in the remaining balls (especially in tests, when he can wide enough).

2 things happened in last 2 decades which nowadays often make the game too much batsman friendly:

1. The batsmen got better (ODI/T20 effect)
2. Number of truly excellent pacers have gone down

Playing rules, pitch etc haven't had that much effect. If 2 DPL club teams played in Rajkot today, we would most likely see a 250 scoring match instead of 400+ match with the same pitch and playing rules.

Neel Here
December 15, 2009, 03:12 PM
1 short ball above the batsman's head is allowed, and that is considered a bouncer. If it's not above head hight, then it's not a bouncer (and not called wide). What you ask for is already allowed within the current law. Then why don't we see bowlers try bowling 6 of those deliveries in every over (or trying to bowl 6 yorkers in every over)? Because it's hard to get those right everytime, and you get predictable. Just the same is likely to happen if a batsman tries to hit every ball of a over for 6.

no, in ODI a legal bouncer is defined as a ball that is between the shoulder and top of head of a batsman. over the head is called wide.

Spitfire_x86
December 15, 2009, 06:25 PM
Isn't the definition of "dangerous" bouncer same in forms of the game? Rule 42.6 (http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-42-fair-and-unfair-play,68,AR.html)

beshideshi
December 16, 2009, 01:46 AM
1. I don't remember anyone screaming so high when Australia and SA did it. Rather many consider that to be the greatest ODI ever. They look at the chase with awe. But with India, it becomes cricket's graveyard.

2. The same points were raised after the first test. We had perfect pitches for the next two. Some pitches would be flat and some others would be good. Have some patience.

3. Don't forget that both India and Srilanka have very good batting lineups and very poor bowlers. Any other team would have suffocated under that required run rate, but not Lanka. Making those many runs even on the flattest of wickets is not a joke.

I am not blaming India for anything, the way I see is, india's strength is obviously their batting, and they will try to take advantage of it. It's called home advantage for some reason.
And also the 3rd point you said, is very crucial, SL has a fantastic batting line up as well, but when you go into bat with a burden of 700od runs on you, its not easy to play good cricket all the time. Whereas if you look at NZ, the bowling friendly conditions/pitch resulted in one of the finest test series I have seen in some time[ Barring ashes] and was the series less enjoyable than the IND-SL series?
PS. You say both the teams have poor bowlers?? Murali/kula/bhajji/zaheer they are all world class bowlers.

beshideshi
December 16, 2009, 01:53 AM
Spitfire bro, I understand what you are saying. and you are one of the majority, that is why we are seeing the new *mongoose* generation.
The bouncer laws in ODI are different from Tests, you can bowl just one. Thats fine, but what I hate is, when a ball sails miles over the head of the batsman, its called a wide, and that one for the over as well!! Which makes no sense. Bouncer is supposed to be a weapon which destroys the batsman, and if it is called a wide, it definitely does not fulfill its purpose, also the batting side gets an extra run and the bowler cant bowl another bouncer in the over. I think any wide given due to the height should not be counted as a bouncer.
The fielding restrictions surely make the game more interesting, but instead of 10-5-5, I would like to see 5 mandatory, 5 bowlingg PP and 5 overs of batting PP. Or allow another fielder outside the 30 yard ring during the batting PP.

Banglatiger84
December 16, 2009, 03:26 AM
I am not sure whether batsmen have actually gone better or whether we have less truly good pacers; the period of mid 80's to mid 90's saw the advent of bowlers like Ambrose , Walsh, the 2 W's, Mcgrath, Donald, Vaas....

Now how many pacers of similar quality have started playing between 2000 and 2009, Bond maybe, but I cant think of anyone else....

BANFAN
December 16, 2009, 04:31 AM
There is no pleasure in watching a bowler getting a wicket with ordinary balls, assisted by pitch. But a lots of runs (singles/4s/6s, centuries, doubles) are always good to watch. While if a bowler can produce gems like perfect yorkers, reverse, dusra etc etc and pick up the wickets, it's also worth watching. Or a stunning catch by a fielder can also be worth watching than a loppa catch.

So I think, this is what we want. Let the batsmen rule; let the bowlers and fielders work hard to produce those stunning wicket taking ball/catches. It's in the right direction I guess.

Neel Here
December 16, 2009, 07:09 AM
Isn't the definition of "dangerous" bouncer same in forms of the game? Rule 42.6 (http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-42-fair-and-unfair-play,68,AR.html)

why depend on MCC when the ICC ODI rulebook is available ?

http://static.icc-cricket.yahoo.net/ugc/documents/DOC_1F113528040177329F4B40FE47C77AE2_1254317640264 _993.pdf

42.4 Law 42.6 - Dangerous and Unfair Bowling
42.4.1 Law 42.6 (a) - The Bowling of Fast Short Pitched Balls
Law 42.6 (a) shall be replaced by the following:
a) A bowler shall be limited to one fast short-pitched delivery
per over.
b) A fast short-pitched delivery is defined as a ball which passes
or would have passed above the shoulder height of the striker
standing upright at the crease.
c) The umpire at the bowlers end shall advise the bowler and
the batsman on strike when each fast short pitched delivery
has been bowled.
d) In addition, for the purpose of this regulation and subject to
Clause 42.4.1 (f) below, a ball that passes above head height of
the batsman, that prevents him from being able to hit it with his
bat by means of a normal cricket stroke shall be called a wide.
e) For the avoidance of doubt any fast short pitched delivery
that is called a wide under this playing condition shall also
count as the allowable short pitched delivery in that over
f ) In the event of a bowler bowling more than one fast
short-pitched delivery in an over as defined in Clause 42.4.1
(b) above, the umpire at the bowlers end shall call and signal
no ball on each occasion. A differential signal shall be used to
signify a fast short pitched delivery. The umpire shall call and
signal ‘no ball’ and then tap the head with the other hand.

Spitfire_x86
December 16, 2009, 09:11 AM
Thanks for the link. I stand corrected on the definition of bouncer in ODIs.

But these rules still allows a bowler to exploit a batsman's weakness against short pitched delivery, given the bowler is skilled enough and bowling in suitable conditions (like Steyn bowling in South Africa, not Shahadat bowling in Bangladeshi pitches).

Tigers_eye
December 16, 2009, 12:56 PM
There is no pleasure in watching a bowler getting a wicket with ordinary balls, assisted by pitch. But a lots of runs (singles/4s/6s, centuries, doubles) are always good to watch. While if a bowler can produce gems like perfect yorkers, reverse, dusra etc etc and pick up the wickets, it's also worth watching. Or a stunning catch by a fielder can also be worth watching than a loppa catch.

So I think, this is what we want. Let the batsmen rule; let the bowlers and fielders work hard to produce those stunning wicket taking ball/catches. It's in the right direction I guess.
I understand the viewership but 400+ runs and still insecure of a win is the right direction? That pitch had nothing to offer. You think bowlers can get batsmen out in those pitches unless batsmen make a mistake?

If you tell me that these pitches are created to get the home team advantage I have no arguement since the home team's batting line up is deep and one of the best in the world. That is certainly not good way of hiding the fact that the home team is poor in bowling and not good for cricket as a whole.

The bowlers are mere sacrificial lambs for the batsmen.

Tigers_eye
December 16, 2009, 01:06 PM
...

2 things happened in last 2 decades which nowadays often make the game too much batsman friendly:

1. The batsmen got better (ODI/T20 effect)
2. Number of truly excellent pacers have gone down...
We can argue all day and not be convinced.

Batsmen are not better than the 80's nor 90's. Subject to definition on what is better. In my book sound technique dictates who is the better batsman. In your's it may be raining sixes and fours.

Batsmens' stats got better because of the benigh pitches are put in place all over the world. That is one of the main reasons.

Other reasons are Technology, scheduling and FALTU rules created by ICC to protect the batsmen. That is why the numbers are better.

Dilshan is not better than Arvinda. Doesn't matter how many century he scores. Shewag can not be better than Tendulkar, doesn't matter how many matches he wins for India.

Tigers_eye
December 16, 2009, 01:09 PM
As for truly good pacers decling, that can be contributed to the #1 Pitch, #2 scheduling, #3 Rules as well.

Had Marshal, Holding, Roberts bowled in the same pitch where Ind-SL played, they would concede even more when you think about the extras they would give.

What is going on WACA is a travesty as well.

One World
December 16, 2009, 07:03 PM
Very good thread. This is the time for BCB to read that book word by word and try to twist it in their favour as much possible.

beshideshi
December 16, 2009, 08:36 PM
I still remember when Gilchrist used to stand at the edge of the 30 yard cricle, sometimes beyond it when keeping to Lee/McGrath etc, but WACA has lost a lot of its venom. Still one of the bounciest wicket in international cricket, but perhaps a shadow of the WACA pitches a few years back.

And I can not agree with the argument that world cricket isn't seeing enough great bowlers, Md. Asif showed how he can make the ball talk in Dunedin, wellington, but when you see the same bowler in Pakistan he looks like a fish out of water. same can be said about O'Brien, Bond and many others. My point is, there are bowlers who have the capability to reach the heights of Wasim/Waqar/Marshal/Garner but the platform is not as good, and hence the bowlers have to work much harder to proof their worth.

zainab
December 17, 2009, 07:41 AM
I can remember that not too long ago, 250 runs was a good innings in ODIs, then it crept up to 300
runs, then to 350 runs, now, it is over 400 runs, and the great thing is that a good batting team can chase 400 runs now. I saw a bit of 20/20 innings here.
Our boys will have to accelerate their batting against these 2 teams who have scored more than 800 runs in one day. In their current domestic one day matches, I have not read that any team has made 300 runs.
Siddons should really be watchful and pay attention, or else these boys will get slaughtered without a good bowling attack.

Tigers_eye
December 17, 2009, 02:03 PM
What if a bangladeshi batsman would have smashed lankan bowlers like sehwag did? then you wouldnt hv said 'is this what you want to see..'
on the contrary you would hv said..'what an innings'...
this is the difference in the opinions of the countries..

it happens... and fact is cricket is getting too commercialised and we can hardly do anything about it..
T20 is actually killing true cricket

Cricket Forever (http://livecricketonline.wordpress.com)
Some of us here are following cricket since 70s. Our first heros are the Gavaskars, Imrans, Kapils. Nationality doesn't matter. Yes, we would enjoy just like Jayawardene enjoys Dilshan's knock. Yet he wants a little more something for the bowler as well.

http://www.cricinfo.com/indvsl2009/content/current/story/440016.html

He asks for at least allowing two bouncers for a bowler in an over. The wickets are as flat as it can be. That is what the issue is. Not only in India but in other countries as well where once fast bowlers ruled.

One World
December 17, 2009, 09:09 PM
Young generation led by Modi has become fan of popcorn cricket. Gone are the days the intelligence, improvisation and technique of a bowler constantly baffling in form batsmen are cheered. Ambrose, Walsh, Akram, Waqar, Vaas, Rafique, Warne, Murali, McGrath, Donald, Pollok, Bond, (give me an indian bowler) where art thou.

Eshen
December 17, 2009, 10:49 PM
Why the run-fest in Rajkot was not good for cricket (http://www.indianexpress.com/news/why-the-runfest-in-rajkot-was-not-good-for-cricket/555620/1)

- Harsha Bhogle

beshideshi
December 17, 2009, 11:01 PM
Great article, thanks a lot Eshen bhai. Hopefully the bosses of the game have a point of view similar to that of Harsha Bhogle

Spitfire_x86
December 18, 2009, 11:07 AM
We can argue all day and not be convinced.

Batsmen are not better than the 80's nor 90's. Subject to definition on what is better. In my book sound technique dictates who is the better batsman. In your's it may be raining sixes and fours.
If you want, I will replace the word "better" with "more effective". Technique and aesthetical qualities are purely subjective. Cricket is a game of runs, yes it is in all forms of the game (you can win a test without taking 20 wickets, but never without outscoring your opponent). More runs x Higher SR = More effective batsman.


He asks for at least allowing two bouncers for a bowler in an over. The wickets are as flat as it can be. That is what the issue is. Not only in India but in other countries as well where once fast bowlers ruled.
That extra bouncer will be another six ball given the wrong bowler is bowling against the right batsman.

Before 2002, bouncers were not allowed at all in ODIs. Yet all 400+ scores have been made after that.

Batsmens' stats got better because of the benigh pitches are put in place all over the world. That is one of the main reasons.

Other reasons are Technology, scheduling and FALTU rules created by ICC to protect the batsmen. That is why the numbers are better.
All of them are opinion, not proven facts. Flat pitches are not an invention of 20th century. In mid-90s, batsmen were scoring 270ish scores in those pitches. Now they can score 350 in those pitches against similar bowling attacks.

If Sehwag and Dilshan scored 0 in the Rajkot match, then it would automatically become a 300-350 match instead of 400+ match. The contemporary greats deserve a little more respect.

Neel Here
December 18, 2009, 02:00 PM
people are not considering another factor that differentiates ODI in 80's to 90's and beyond, the white kokaburra ball.

BANFAN
December 19, 2009, 05:16 AM
I understand the viewership but 400+ runs and still insecure of a win is the right direction? That pitch had nothing to offer. You think bowlers can get batsmen out in those pitches unless batsmen make a mistake?

If you tell me that these pitches are created to get the home team advantage I have no arguement since the home team's batting line up is deep and one of the best in the world. That is certainly not good way of hiding the fact that the home team is poor in bowling and not good for cricket as a whole.

The bowlers are mere sacrificial lambs for the batsmen.

Instead of blaming the pitch I would attribute these 400+ to some excellent/extra ordinary batting by Shehwag & Dilshan. Had they not gone so bizzarre with their bats, none of the teams would cross 320 or so.

You don't need a pitch for reversing the ball, For perfect inswinging yorkers, Swinging the ball in flight/air, well disguised slower delivery, achieving 100 miles speed, Bowling accurately on a line consistantly, etc etc. Well these can be done by good pacers only. We certainly don't have many such good pacers in the world cricket today. It's not the fault of the pitch.

Waqar/Wasim did it in any pitch. They learnt these tricks because Pakistani pitches didn't offer anything to the bowlers. Even I saw Zaheer, praveen K swinging the ball both ways yesterday (2nd ODI) & Harbhajan bowling quiet effectively even in these pitches. Necessity is the mother of invention as people say. Let the pitch be good for batsmen, and let the bowlers be innovative/hardworking to master the tricks of better bowling.

Bowling is an attacking/aggressive act, while batting is primarily an act of defence; the bowler has the natural advantage of an aggressor / attacker to decide where, how & what kind of ball he is going to through, so they already have a huge natural advantage, let the batsmen have the advantage of a better pitch, the contest is then even. Otherwise you are asking too much from a batsmen & handing over all the advantages to the bowlers alone.

Earlier, the bowlers had the entire advantage of the game, it's only becoming even now; so the lazy bowlers will cry definitely, as some of their avantages are being taken away. I think the current trend of making better pitches are long outstanding justice deserved by the batsmen; and good for the future of the game.

Neel Here
December 25, 2009, 03:13 PM
my proposals

> we have 20 overs of power play instead of 15 overs earlier. this is stupid. remove the 2nd fielding side power play. divide the 10 over power play into 2 PP of 5 overs each. first 5 compulsory, the next five when the fielding side wants. keep the batting PP as it is. total 15 overs.

> allow 2 bouncers per over

> allow change of ball to completely new ball after 25 overs if fielding captain wants.(not an old ball in better shape as it is done now. which is hard hence easy to hit but doesn't swing which means even more problems for bowlers) if not taken then compulsory ball change to a new one after 35 overs.

> set minimum boundary lengths for each side of the wicket. some grounds, especially in NZ will have problems since they don't have space to expand. ICC should partially fund setting up of new grounds if need be. before this move can be completed, set minimum ground size standards individually for each ground. that is the small grounds will be overlooked but do not allow organisers in large grounds to bring the rope in whenever they feel like it to increase sixes and fours.

Neel Here
December 27, 2009, 01:25 PM
tigers eye bhai, I'm waiting for your input !

Tigers_eye
December 28, 2009, 02:16 PM
Dear Neel,
I will go along with no, all and any changes if they take the bouncer restriction away. chicken batsmen hiding behind the icc rules.

Tigers_eye
December 28, 2009, 02:42 PM
Instead of blaming the pitch I would attribute these 400+ to some excellent/extra ordinary batting by Shehwag & Dilshan. Had they not gone so bizzarre with their bats, none of the teams would cross 320 or so.
Hahaha!! What did Shewag/Dilshan do that UV, Sanath, Raina even Wkers couldn't do or didn't do before? All these can be named as FLAT TRACK BULLY. Nowadays all pitches are as flat as it can be.
You don't need a pitch for reversing the ball, For perfect inswinging yorkers, Swinging the ball in flight/air, well disguised slower delivery, achieving 100 miles speed, Bowling accurately on a line consistantly, etc etc. Well these can be done by good pacers only. We certainly don't have many such good pacers in the world cricket today. It's not the fault of the pitch.
Name any of the things that Malinga or Nehra can not do CONSISTANTLY? Yet they were taken to the cleaners. Why?
Necessity is the mother of invention as people say. Let the pitch be good for batsmen, and let the bowlers be innovative/hardworking to master the tricks of better bowling.
Why not the other way around? Why not the batsmen adapt and learn patience? Why do surroundings has to be taylormade for them only? That necessity in the mother of invention don't work for them or what? I saw peterson switch hitting, Dillu scoop, Ash paddle etc. Why do we have change rules and make pitches so that jodi laigga jai type players can succeed?
Bowling is an attacking/aggressive act, while batting is primarily an act of defence; the bowler has the natural advantage of an aggressor / attacker to decide where, how & what kind of ball he is going to through, so they already have a huge natural advantage, let the batsmen have the advantage of a better pitch, the contest is then even. Otherwise you are asking too much from a batsmen & handing over all the advantages to the bowlers alone.
lol, give them the pacifier as well. They are suckers in the name of viewership. Unfortunately you people believe them.
Earlier, the bowlers had the entire advantage of the game, it's only becoming even now; so the lazy bowlers will cry definitely, as some of their avantages are being taken away. I think the current trend of making better pitches are long outstanding justice deserved by the batsmen; and good for the future of the game.
Entire advantage was never with the bowlers. Hence loads of draws in tests. The bowlers on the other hand, have no advantage on these flat tracks. The primary job of the pacers nowadays are to admire the hitters and say "Wow, what a six!! Upper third deck."

Bowlers are never lazy. Batsmen are fat, lazy and always influencing the rules to their favor. Average professional bowler is several times more fit than average batsmen. That is the reason we see BOON, Ranatunga and so many others can't resist Fried Potato chips. Even John Daly would make them look bad.

You can not deprive someone and make another happy and call that justice.

akabir77
December 28, 2009, 03:10 PM
people who scores high in falt picthes are like driving in the parking lot. now put those drivers who are making 360 in the parking lot in a busy high way or better in dhaka road and see how they cry for their momies...lol