50 over Rule Change

Anyone else agree with this?

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/628002.html

I do. In fact, maybe two could have 15 overs. A batsman afterall doesn't get 100 balls max.

I like that ODI cricket forces teams to use 5 bowlers, as it does add something to the game - watching captains juggle who to bowl when helps showcase their skills. And afterall, tailenders have to bat too.

That said, there is something to be said for 12 overs - though allowing 3 bowlers to bowl 12 is probably too many, as that only leaves 4 overs for the 5th bowler. 12 overs from 2 bowlers would be OK IMO.

Think I'd go with Pete, 15 will be far too many, 12 for 2 bowlers would be good though.

Back to the future?

The first official limited overs tournament between English counties (and I believe in the world) was the Gillette Cup launched in 1963. For the first season only, it was a 65 over per side tournament with a limit of 15 overs for each bowler. The tournament then reduced to 60 overs with a max per bowler in '64 and '65 of 13 overs. After that, the limit went down to 12 with the competition remaining at 60 overs for many years.

I understand the argument for going back nearer to how things were originally but would probably prefer things to stay as they are now. I like to see 'games within games' and feel the role of the fifth bowler is a key component of that. I also believe the current situation is more challenging for the bowling side's captain which is for the good of the game as a whole.

I am tired of watching 300 get chased off with ease. Its a bit like watching five hour tennis classics, its wonderful as once off, specials. But then when every Tom, Dick and Harry gets 350... *Yawn* Oh, look another six off Jonothan Trott... how delightfully unoriginal.

Kingraf - Those 300 chases are quite rare and, to my eye, increasingly rare in recent years as bowlers have improved (bringing tactics from T20) and batsmen have had to deal with the two new balls.

12 overs for a bowler might not be too bad a thing. However, I worry that we tinker with the 50-over game too much. I'd like to leave it as it is for a few years and then reassess.

Shelsey93 wrote:Kingraf - Those 300 chases are quite rare and, to my eye, increasingly rare in recent years as bowlers have improved (bringing tactics from T20) and batsmen have had to deal with the two new balls.

12 overs for a bowler might not be too bad a thing. However, I worry that we tinker with the 50-over game too much. I'd like to leave it as it is for a few years and then reassess.

ShankyCricket wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:Kingraf - Those 300 chases are quite rare and, to my eye, increasingly rare in recent years as bowlers have improved (bringing tactics from T20) and batsmen have had to deal with the two new balls.

12 overs for a bowler might not be too bad a thing. However, I worry that we tinker with the 50-over game too much. I'd like to leave it as it is for a few years and then reassess.

+1

I quite like the idea of having a ruling where any bowler may not bowl more than 12 overs, but by doing that you allow a team to strengthen their batting line up by taking an batting allrounder and 4 bowlers as the allrounder will only bowl 2 overs.

If you want to help the bowlers then perhaps relax the wides a little, any ball o the leg side is a wide, and even the offside wides are rather strict.

Alternatively relax the Power plays of the bowling side to placing a field ANY WAY they want.

Very hard for us associate coaches to keep track of all these law changes... Regional cricket regs tend to be a bit behind what we see on TV, so we have to be aware not only of the latest regs, but also the regs we think will be in place and of course the actual regs when the tournament regs get distributed...

I actually think ODI cricket has become somewhat less formulaic recently. I'm not sure that much more tinkering is needed...

Mike Selig wrote:Very hard for us associate coaches to keep track of all these law changes... Regional cricket regs tend to be a bit behind what we see on TV, so we have to be aware not only of the latest regs, but also the regs we think will be in place and of course the actual regs when the tournament regs get distributed...

I actually think ODI cricket has become somewhat less formulaic recently. I'm not sure that much more tinkering is needed...

Mike - sympathies as regards keeping up with the regs!

I believe limited overs cricket as a whole has become less formulaic in recent years, certainly in England. For the last couple of years or so, Surrey have regularly played six (sometimes seven) bowlers in their one day teams which obviously brings greater variety and options for their attack. Very hard for the batting side to anticipate who'll be bowling and when.

Conversely, throughout the '70s when John Player League games (40 overs per side, 8 max per bowler) were played every Sunday, you could pretty much accurately predict who would be bowling what over before the match even started! Ok, some exaggeration there but more than an element of truth. Certainly the opening bowlers would almost always share the opening 8 overs and then be brought back at the end to complete their spells for the final 8 overs. Things change - and in this instance, for the better!

I remember the JPL well, and you're right about the bowling, Guildford.