Twenty-20 not so perfect after all
Sambit Bal doesnt seem too impressed with the idea of Twenty-20. He is critical of the fact that the game allows batsmen a distinct advantage and credits bowlers who are content at just keeping the runrate low.
I think one option would be to have Twenty-20 games with 11 players but only six are allowed to bat, not all eleven. Allow a maximum of six overs per bowler, not five. This means there could be around two front-line bowlers and the rest of the eight overs could be shared by the part-timers. This reduces the impact of the batting team going berserk even when they are at 40/2 in 3 overs since now they only have three more wickets in hand and have to bat for another 17 overs. If the number of players was 11, they would merrily smack the ball around, safe in the knowledge that their batting arsenal hasnt yet padded up. In addition, allowing six overs per bowler means that there is an incentive for the team to have specialist bowlers rather than relying on part-timers. If you only allowed four overs per bowler, as the case is currently, then that encourages teams to stack up their sides with batsmen and relying primarily on part-timers to do the bowling.
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed -
| This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By 
anantha (27 Jan 2005, 9:16:00 pm)
You suggestion seem to converge Twenty20 with what is now the first 20 overs of a ODI. Ya, I sound stupid, but you seem to be suggesting a radical change that will take away the USP of Twenty20 - a slam bam thank you maam style of batting. Taking that out of the equation will take it closer to ODIs which is not what the brains behind the concept intended.
But why Twenty20 at all? Is'nt that a valid question? I mean, cricket as a game seems to be going to the dumps. I think mebbe the time has come to make radical changes to the Test match scenario, mebbe make sure that each team plays each other atleast once every year and have a All Star 3 (or 5 game) ODI series between the Test Champions and a Rest of the World XI, just like it happens with the NBA or the NFL here. That will probably get more crowds into the grounds (since every game counts towards a world championship) and the season end tourney will rake in the moolah too, if its played with the same intensity as the recent fund raiser in Australia.
But then, traditional series like the Ashes / Frank Worell / Border-Gavaskar games might be affected. But I think its worth a thought.
Sorry for the long comment, but I just had to rant!
By anantha (27 Jan 2005, 9:18:00 pm)
We'd prefer if you posted comments with your real name to add more credibility to your opinions. However, the moderators reserve the right to delete comments, especially those containing offensive or unsuitable language. The opinions in the comments are your own views. You are welcome to provide a URL to your own cricket blog, but the moderators reserve the right to delete comments which only reference sites for viewing live streams.
Links within entries open in a new window. Some of the links may now be broken/not take you to the expected report since the original content providers may have archived/removed the contents. Some of the sites linked may require registration/subscription.
All opinions expressed are those of the authors alone. The authors' respective employers (past, present or future) are in no way connected to the opinions expressed here.
All pictures, photographs used are copyrights of the original owners. We do not intend to infringe on any copyright. Pictures and photographs are used here to merely accentuate and enhance the content value to our readers.
|
|
|
|
Post a Comment