Remove the maximum overs rule in LOIs

[One World]

5 bowlers minimum. But allow maximum 2 bowlers to 12 overs and restrict others to maximum 9 overs. This will balance out the argument.

[Eclipse]

Terrible idea. I don't know how can someone even think that something like this can actually be implemented in the real world in order to bring balance between bat and the ball.



Actually rules like this will have exactly the opposite effect. It will make the gap between the importance of a batsman and a bowler even wider. If bowlers r allowed to bowl 15/20 overs every team will obviously fill their lineup with 8/9 batsmen and 2/3 bowlers.


Not only this, allrounders will also lose their importance since the extra service they usually provide with either bat or ball will become totally redundant. Every captain will rather prefer to have a proper batsman or a proper bowler in their team instead of an allrounder.

[Awla]

Another alternative is to just allow only one bowler to bowl max 15 overs. That way your best bowler on a particular day gets to create more pressure to the opposing team throughout the middle overs. If I'm not wrong, Sachin proposed similar kind of idea a few years back (after his retirement).

[Tigers_eye]

Originally Posted by Awla
Another alternative is to just allow only one bowler to bowl max 15 overs. That way your best bowler on a particular day gets to create more pressure to the opposing team throughout the middle overs. If I'm not wrong, Sachin proposed similar kind of idea a few years back (after his retirement).

Sachin.. Demi God for some? That Sachin?

[Yankees]

Originally Posted by Awla
Another alternative is to just allow only one bowler to bowl max 15 overs. That way your best bowler on a particular day gets to create more pressure to the opposing team throughout the middle overs. If I'm not wrong, Sachin proposed similar kind of idea a few years back (after his retirement).

That works too, I like it. Would the captain have to designate the 15 overs allocation prior to toss? Or can he choose as the innings progress?

[Roey Haque]

I like the sound of it.

More freedom. Liberterian cricket.

But also I hate it when batsman take too long to build an innings, and better prospects might have to suffer down the order. So I would also like to introduce some rule where slow innings could result in the fall of wicket.

[aklemalp]

These 'ideas' are getting more radical as the thread gets larger...

[Awla]

Originally Posted by Yankees
That works too, I like it. Would the captain have to designate the 15 overs allocation prior to toss? Or can he choose as the innings progress?

I think it is better if the captain chooses as the innings progress. If you decide before the toss, then it'd be demotivational for other bowlers. But if the captain observes how every bowler is performing on that particular day before designating the 15 over allocation, then it encourages every bowler to be at their best.

Although this rule can backfire, if the captain is also a bowler and very selfish

[Yankees]

Originally Posted by Awla
I think it is better if the captain chooses as the innings progress. If you decide before the toss, then it'd be demotivational for other bowlers. But if the captain observes how every bowler is performing on that particular day before designating the 15 over allocation, then it encourages every bowler to be at their best.

Although this rule can backfire, if the captain is also a bowler and very selfish

good point. It's also beneficial if the top bowler has an off day.

[Zeeshan]

Originally Posted by Austin 3:!6
This presumption that cricket is heavily tilted towards batsman is a myth. On the contrary I think cricket is all but a bowlers game. You get only one chance as a batsman, one error...one small nick or an umpire blunder and you are out for the entire match. Bowlers can get hit for boundaries after boundaries and still get 60 chances (60 balls) in an ODI game to make a comeback. Hence ICC ensuring flat pitches/heavy bats to keep batters in a game heavily tilted towards bowlers.

You want bat/ball balance? Ok how about this? Every batsman should get 3 chances before they can be ruled out for the entire match. Similarly, a bowler get hit for 10 boundaries cant bowl anymore in the match. Now that is called balancing the game.

OPs suggestion of bat/ball balance by allowing bowlers to bowl non-stop but batsmen should get only one chance is hilarious.

Great post. Fully agreed with first para.

[Zeeshan]

Originally Posted by aklemalp
These 'ideas' are getting more radical as the thread gets larger...

lol.......

[aklemalp]

We should also reduce the number if umpires...

No 3rd, 4th umpire

[Night_wolf]

Originally Posted by Awla
Another alternative is to just allow only one bowler to bowl max 15 overs. That way your best bowler on a particular day gets to create more pressure to the opposing team throughout the middle overs. If I'm not wrong, Sachin proposed similar kind of idea a few years back (after his retirement).

this is a great Idea. this bowler(who can bowl 15 overs) should not be declared before the match and on the match day depending on bowling performance of players, captain gets to chose who will bowl more than 10 0vers. this will add some more drama in tight chases also gives the captain more assurance on the field as on a day a part timer can bowl better than your premium bowler

[Yankees]

Originally Posted by Night_wolf
this is a great Idea. this bowler(who can bowl 15 overs) should not be declared before the match and on the match day depending on bowling performance of players, captain gets to chose who will bowl more than 15 overs. this will add some more drama in tight chases also gives the captain more assurance on the field as on a day a part timer can bowl better than your premium bowler

Agree.

[tiger1000]

Originally Posted by Austin 3:!6
This presumption that cricket is heavily tilted towards batsman is a myth. On the contrary I think cricket is all but a bowlers game. You get only one chance as a batsman, one error...one small nick or an umpire blunder and you are out for the entire match. Bowlers can get hit for boundaries after boundaries and still get 60 chances (60 balls) in an ODI game to make a comeback. Hence ICC ensuring flat pitches/heavy bats to keep batters in a game heavily tilted towards bowlers.

You want bat/ball balance? Ok how about this? Every batsman should get 3 chances before they can be ruled out for the entire match. Similarly, a bowler get hit for 10 boundaries cant bowl anymore in the match. Now that is called balancing the game.

OPs suggestion of bat/ball balance by allowing bowlers to bowl non-stop but batsmen should get only one chance is hilarious.

In the same token, you need to produce few chances as a bowler to get the batsman out

As a batsman facing error? How about a bowler who faces them

Bowlers can get hit boundary street Boundaries? No bowler would take the figures of 1/90 - 10 after the game

Games where scores are 350 means bowlers have very little to do with outcome of the game, it's who's batsmen are superior that will win the game, a balance would be where either a bowler or batsman could win the game, how you go into a game, expecting a century to win the game

A 3 and out system is beyond idiotic

[Zeeshan]

2 wickets if you hit the crotch...

[RazabQ]

Originally Posted by Jadukor
I think the solution is somewhere in the middle. Perhaps the captain could be allowed to chose two bowlers that can bowl 12 overs each. That would allow the best strike bowlers to have a longer spell in the middle overs.

This.
Change that to 2 bowlers are allowed 15 overs and remove the 2 new balls (because it kills reverse swing or spinners effectiveness) and I'm for it. I would ignore trollish comments about how batsman have it rough these days.

[tiger1000]

Originally Posted by RazabQ
This.
Change that to 2 bowlers are allowed 15 overs and remove the 2 new balls (because it kills reverse swing or spinners effectiveness) and I'm for it. I would ignore trollish comments about how batsman have it rough these days.

Without 2 new balls, it kills momentum of the game and it slows the hell out of it

As for 15 overs, it's not test cricket, whole point of 10 overs is to have depth in the team, it makes an all rounder valuable, which is important because all rounders are a difficult thing to come across, team has to balance the team dynamic, 15 overs for two, takes away that problem

[mufi_02]

I am a purist. I think removing the max 10 overs each will just change the very essence of ODI game. Someone like Mushy will have Fizz and Shakib bowl 25 overs each. It will make a lot of ODI statistics irrelevant.

I think we can innovate the ODI game in other ways.

[Yankees]

Originally Posted by mufi_02
I am a purist. I think removing the max 10 overs each will just change the very essence of ODI game. Someone like Mushy will have Fizz and Shakib bowl 25 overs each. It will make a lot of ODI statistics irrelevant.

I think we can innovate the ODI game in other ways.

Every so-called "innovation" has only helped batsmen. For purists, the game should already be over. It's gotten to a point where 300 innings isn't good enough. These ODI stats have become irrelevant years ago.

[aklemalp]

For BD.

Let Shakib bowl 20
Fizz 20
Mash 10

That's rad!!!