Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Roy_1
The idea just doesn't seem to be a good one TBH and I think will be counter-productive. If this rule is implemented then the teams will be comprised of two-three bowlers and rest all batters and ironically which will be discriminatory towards bowlers, more half decent batters will get into the teams while many genuine bowlers will be left out for not being better than the bests. I am not sure about others here but I rate a captain mostly based on how he utilizes his bowlers by making the best use of their respective quotas so if Smith getting 40 overs in between Stark and Haz or Kohli using the spinners bowing most of the overs or Sarfraz making Hasan Ali bowl 20 overs straight without having to worry about changes then this game will surely lose charm and be less exciting for me at least. Just my dui poisa.
|
This is a great point, and actually good enough reason to not change the rule. It's very possible teams will just have a lineup 9 batters deep. I guess the only counter-argument to that is, if your first 7 batters couldn't handle the bowlers, how likely is 8 and 9 to be able to do the job?
The idea behind no over restrictions is that every over should be the team's best "attack." So it forces batsmen to score off the best bowlers, instead of doing what most teams do now, which is hold off the good spells and milk the 4th and 5th bowler.
So the question is whether 50 overs bowled by your 3 best bowlers is enough to offset the opposing team having 2 extra batsmen?