Remove the maximum overs rule in LOIs

[Yankees]

Cricket needs a better bat/ball balance. And I think one of the easiest way to ensure that is to remove the rule that says a bowler is allowed a maximum number of overs. Instead allow a bowler to bowl as many overs as the team sees fit.

Pros: No need to distribute overs amongst 5 or more. So we won't have to see part-timers having to bowl just for the sake of preserving top bowlers for the death overs.

Higher chance of wickets during the "boring middle overs."

Gives weaker teams a better shot at victory. AFG can just ride Rashid Khan.

More dynamic/exciting team selection. Captains will have to decide - do you go with extra bastmen and trust your top 2/3 bowlers. Or do you go with 5 in case someone has an off day? It allows teams to play to their strengths. Imagine having to make those decisions during the world cup.

No more fake all-rounders. Also allows room for genuine wicketkeepers.

Bottom line: Team gets to put out their best attack - whether its 5, 4, 3, or just a 1 man show.

Con: Less of a team sport. You don't need to develop 5 top bowlers when one or two will suffice. While this is true, I'm a firm believer that the best teams will still employ a 3-4 man attack, similar to test cricket.

Thoughts?

[Tigers_eye]

All records would fall. Fizz rules.

[aklemalp]

Limited in limited overs wouldn't be appropriate then.

I give it a thumbs down.

We already have test cricket

[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.

[aklemalp]

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.

They already have a game where the batsman have 3 chances; it's called baseball

[Yankees]

Originally Posted by aklemalp
Limited in limited overs wouldn't be appropriate then.

I give it a thumbs down.

We already have test cricket

That doesn't make sense. It's still limited overs cricket = 50 overs.

[aklemalp]

Originally Posted by Yankees
That doesn't make sense. It's still limited overs cricket = 50 overs.

Limited in terms of limiting the number of overs the bowler can bowl. It makes sense.

Look it up!

[Yankees]

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.

See folks, this is what happens when you watch too much IPL tamasha. You start talking out of your a$$ and saying things like cricket is all but a bowlers game.

I'm sure anything less than four 6s an over is too much of a bowlers game for fans of bombastic hungama IPL.

[Yankees]

Originally Posted by aklemalp
Limited in terms of limiting the number of overs the bowler can bowl. It makes sense.

Look it up!

There is a difference between limited overs and bowlers restrictions. Getting rid of the latter wouldn't change the intent of the former.

[Austin 3:!6]

Originally Posted by Yankees
See folks, this is what happens when you watch too much IPL tamasha. You start talking out of your a$$ and saying things like cricket is all but a bowlers game.

I'm sure anything less than four 6s an over is too much of a bowlers game for fans of bombastic hungama IPL.

Not sure which part of my post you didnt understood? Is it not true that a batsman gets only 1 chance...i repeat 1 chance in an entire match. But bowlers can bowl overs after over and get multiple chances. What is so difficult for you to understand?

Not sure why you dragging IPL here. For all IPL hullaballo...the fact remains we are still no.1 test team.

[aklemalp]

Originally Posted by Yankees
There is a difference between limited overs and bowlers restrictions. Getting rid of the latter wouldn't change the intent of the former.

Nope. I have always viewed it as such.

From a historical context, it was natural to put a limit to number of overs a bowler can bowl.

I'm sorry, but I'm a purist.

You have a good concept though,...an amalgamation of both extremes of the game coming together in a marriage. Nice.

I wish more people would be on my side.

[Yankees]

Originally Posted by Austin 3:!6
Not sure which part of my post you didnt understood? Is it not true that a batsman gets only 1 chance...i repeat 1 chance in an entire match. But bowlers can bowl overs after over and get multiple chances. What is so difficult for you to understand?

Not sure why you dragging IPL here. For all IPL hullaballo...the fact remains we are still no.1 test team.

I didn't respond to that part of your post because its utter nonsense. It takes 10 wickets to bowl a team out. This notion that batsmen gets 1 chance is pointless, because bowlers have to go through the whole lineup. That is not what is meant by bat/ball imbalance. Nobody is complaining about how difficult a batters life is. That is completely asinine.

Every stat shows run rates are continuously going up. That is a problem. And everything from bat size to pps are created to ensure more runs in ICCs poor attempt to make ODI more exciting, and it comes at the expense of bowlers.

[cricket_king]

Originally Posted by Austin 3:!6
Not sure which part of my post you didnt understood? Is it not true that a batsman gets only 1 chance...i repeat 1 chance in an entire match. But bowlers can bowl overs after over and get multiple chances. What is so difficult for you to understand?

Not sure why you dragging IPL here. For all IPL hullaballo...the fact remains we are still no.1 test team.

lol this guy's obviously never played any proper club cricket. If he has, I suspect he's never lasted more than 3 balls in an innings, and hence, his rage against the bowlers.

Or perhaps, and more likely, he endures his perpetual unemployment by trolling the internet using his mother's computer.

[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.

[Yankees]

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?

[Yankees]

Originally Posted by cricket_king
lol this guy's obviously never played any proper club cricket. If he has, I suspect he's never lasted more than 3 balls in an innings, and hence, his rage against the bowlers.

Or perhaps, and more likely, he endures his perpetual unemployment by trolling the internet using his mother's computer.

I've never met anyone that complained about batters having it so rough. oh boo hoo.

[Max100]

That's why there is test match. It's more fun in odi to see 5 or more bowlers

[DinRaat.]

Not gonna happen, its like saying lets scrap physics, because it makes life hard for us.

I don't think that was a good analogy, but anyway you guts get the points

[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.

[Roy_1]

Originally Posted by Yankees
So the question is whether 50 overs bowled by your 3 best bowlers is enough to offset the opposing team having 2 extra batsmen?

Still so many loopholes, good spells are good because they come in gaps, even for the best bowlers it is almost impossible to continue a good spells for 10+ overs in odis, they will eventually be burned out and taken to the cleaners. Fiery opening spells of Starc and Amir, Fizz's cutters in the mid to late overs, Bumrah's deceptive slowers in the last overs are the reasons why people still enjoy quality bowling. It is not possible for Starc to keep gun blazing till 30th over, if Bumra start bowling variations from 25th he will be found out and thrown out of the park during slog overs. From a viewers perspective Interesting things will no longer be interesting if you get too many of them. With this rule bowling will become one dimensional and monotonous to watch. I believe having a couple of very good bowlers doesn't make a great attack, variety and diversity of the attack does. With just 3 bowlers per team this variety will go right out of the window. One more thing is fast bowlers would be overburdened and the likes of Starc will become even more prone to injuries. So overall I am sorry but I am a naysayer in this.

[Yankees]

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 works too. If captain designates before the game which 2 will get 12 overs, and limit the others to a maximum of 10 overs each. Then the team has no choice but to field 5 bowlers, but limits the 5th bowler to 6 overs.

Or top 3 gets 12 overs, and limit 4 and 5 to seven overs each. Still a significant change.

[DinRaat.]

Designated bowlers can bowl 10 overs, all-rounders can bowl unlimited.

Done. Thank me later.

[Yankees]

Originally Posted by DinRaat.
Designated bowlers can bowl 10 overs, all-rounders can bowl unlimited.

Done. Thank me later.

Great, can't wait for rashid khan/Hasan ali/Tahir to suddenly become all-rounders.

[DinRaat.]

Originally Posted by Yankees
Great, can't wait for rashid khan/Hasan ali/Tahir to suddenly become all-rounders.

How about all-rounders need to have atleast 1000 runs and 50 wickets, to be considered an all-rounder.

[RealSports]

I like 50 overs, and it should stay 50 overs. 10 overs is fine for each bowler. It's the fielding restrictions that I don't like.