Cricket 24x7 - All the cricket

Breaking/Brief news

    July 12, 2005

    Pitfalls of the new rules ... or clueless teams ... or both!

    To me, Australia's thrashing of England in the second game of the NatWest Challenge, which almost mirrored what happened in game one, more or less confirmed that either the new ICC rules will be a total flop or that none of the teams have a clue about how to make the best use. Of course, Australia did find a loophole in the substitution rules when they confused everyone following the first game when first Hogg came on as a 'normal' substitute for Shane Watson who had bowled three overs even though he was named as the 'super sub'. Then Australia chose to use the super-substitution and Hogg was named as the super sub in place of Hayden. But Hayden didnt go off the field because he was then named the substitute for the injured Shane Watson! None of the other substitutes have really contributed anything. Solanki fielded for around 20 overs in game 1. He didnt get to bat when England's top order had been blown away at Lord's since Flintoff and Collingwood had steadied the situation. Brad Haddin was swapped with McGrath after Australia began their chase at Lord's but there was really little chance of him getting to bat.

    It does seem to me that the teams are approaching the 10-5-5 over batches in much the same manner as they did earlier. Earlier, they didnt have a choice. They had to bowl 15 overs at a stretch with field restrictions in place. On almost every occasion, barring during Australia's innings at Lord's, the fielding restrictions were applied for twenty overs at a stretch. It is likely that the weather conditions dictated it, but it was too much of a coincidence.

    It also seems to me that if the new rules on substitutes stay, then teams will inevitably pick a batsman as the substitute and opt to bowl first on winning toss. In case they do lose the toss and are put in to bat, they will be in some trouble but they will have the option of bringing in the extra batsman in place of a say a bits and pieces all-rounder or some bowler who is unlikely to have too much of an impact given the weather and pitch conditions. For e.g. swap the batsman with a pace bowler who could struggle when bowling second in great batting conditions. If they do win the toss and bowl first, the batsman can be very useful in a chase.

    This is why I mentioned earlier that the rules should not require teams to name the substitute before the toss. We definitely need to reduce the importance of a chancy event such as a toss. One of the options I've come across is to allow teams to name 12 players before the toss and pick the substitute after. There could be real trouble if a side picked a bowler as a substitute and they were sent in to bat in seaming conditions. My guess is that the new rules will put the bits-n-pieces allrounder out of the game and encourage teams to pick genuine all-rounders or specialist batsmen/bowlers as the substitute.

    I've seen a few critics pan the new rules saying that cricket is a game played between teams of 11 and that making it 12 changes things fundamentally. I dont think we should stick to our dogmas. What is the big deal about 11? Isnt it likely that the number was arrived at fairly randomly or by chance? In fact, although in a different context, I am all for tweaking Twenty20 to let only six players bat and increase the number of overs per bowler to six rather than five. I dont see why one-day cricket cannot be tweaked. I think the problem is that these rules need to be tried and tested out in domestic competitions or "A" team level games rather than in international matches.

    Mike Atherton wants the new rules to be given some more time before everyone criticizes them while Tim de Lisle reckons that these changes, and several others made by the ICC, are totally unnecessary.

    Flintoff batted superbly at Lord's and it seemed like he was finally finding form. But the firm of Andrew and Kevin have not really had any partnership, much to the dismay and disappointment of those who were salivating at the prospect of 200 runs being added between them in 30 overs. Flintoff got out just 13 short of his century. It did seem like a selfless shot at that point in time, especially in the context of Hayden's claims last year about sub-continental batsmen being more worried about individual landmarks compared to others. But there was a sense of recklessness about it too. Flintoff got out in the 47th over when he really should have hung around till the 50th over. It was far more likely that he and Geraint Jones got quick runs than Jones and the tail who managed 21 runs in 3.3 overs. Eventually Australia didnt really sweat too much over the runs, getting them in the 45th over so perhaps it may not even have mattered. But he'd done too much of the hard work and he should have aimed for twin benefits: do more damage and get his century.


    Thus spake Jagadish @ 10:57 AM |
    Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - Blog Feed | | ]

    1 sledge(s):

    I think they've got it all wrong. What they need to do is give the toss less emphasis. Currently, if you win the toss, you have a huge advantage... huge. I'm not going to go into all the advantages here.
    There should be an advantage in winning the toss but not to the extent of, "Oh, the Aussies won the toss, I might as well go to bed now 'cause they'll win."
    My suggestion is (now that I've bagged the current system)....
    Each team has 50 overs (as it is now) but the captain must declare after the 10th over and before the beginning of the 35th over. When his team bats again the innings continues from whoever the batsmen were.
    The team that bats second has the same prerogative, a declaration somewhere between overs 10 and 35.

    I'm sure there are some probs with this setup , but it would sure bring in some tactics rather than just cruise along from the 20th to 35th over as they do now.

    So come on bag the idea or give it the 'nod' !

    By Blogger Bernie Howard (14-Jul-2005, 10:38:00 AM)  


    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.

    Post a Comment

    Links to Pitfalls of the new rules ... or clueless teams ... or both!

    Technorati

    Bloglines

    Blogger search:

    Create a Link


    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.

    Powered by Blogger Locations of visitors to this page
    HOME
    RSS Feed - RSS Feed


    Contact us
    cricket24x7 at gmail dot com
    cricket24x7 at yahoo dot com

    How Cricket 24x7 started


    The squad
    Celebrating Sunil Gavaskar
    England thrash Australia, London matches to go on,...
    Hating Aussies and reliving 1987
    New Zealand v Zimbabwe, BCCI v ICC and Tests v ODI...
    Hughes wonders about beaming Lee into the test squ...
    What the media says about the NatWest final
    A fascinating tie at Lord's but a shared final?
    Hayden lets fly, Ponting looks forward to the fina...
    Of averages, Warney, the new ICC rules, Pietersen'...
    The hiatus done, some of the news we didnt write a...



    RHS navbar photo source - Tc7

    Partnership between


    Creative Commons License
    Cricket 24x7 - All the cricket by V Ganesh & S Jagadish is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.