Print

[ItsJustCricket]

When is too much of a good thing really too much?

Got some stats (baring in mind the 1975, 1979 and 1983 World Cups where 60 0vers. And 1987 was the first 50 over World Cup). Stats are offset in the knowledge the first 4 World Cups where more like 1 day Test matches. Obviously as ODI cricket became more marketable the number of matches at the World Cup increased.

1975 - 6 individual 100s, only 1 x 150+ score(Glenn Turner 171*).

1979 - 2 individual 100s, 0 x 150+ scores 

1983 - 8 individual 100s, only 1 x 150+ score(Kapil Dev 175*).

1987 - 11 individual 100s, only 1 x 150+ score(IVA Richards 181*).

1992 - 8 individual 100s, 0 x 150+ scores.

1996 - 16 individual 100s, 2 x 150+ scores(Gary Kirsten 188* and Andrew Hudson 161).

1999 - 11 individual 100s, 1 x 150+ score(Sourav Ganguly 183).

2003 - 21 individual 100s, 2 x 150+ scores(Craig Wishart 172* and Sachin Tendulkar 152).

2007 - 20 individual 100s, 2 x 150+ scores(Imran Nazir 160 and Matthew Hayden 158).

2011 - 24 individual 100s, 2 x 150+ scores(Virender Sehwag 175 and Andrew Strauss 158)

2015(ONGOING) - 37 individual 100s, 7 x 150+ scores(Martin Guptill 237*, Chris Gayle 215, David Warner 178, AB de Villiers 162*, TM Dilshan 161*, Hashim Amla 159 and Kyle Coetzer 156).

In the previous 10 World Cups there was a combined 12 x 150+ scores. Yet in the ongoing World Cup it's like happy hour for the batsmen...alrwady 7 x 150+ scores....

When will the scales go in favour of the bowlers?

could you imagine how boring Test cricket would be if batsmen were as dominant in that format? Thankfully they often aren't, unless the pitch is an absolute road.

I agree, this ODI stuff is becoming too batsman friendly.  Not too long ago, 300 was considered a mammoth score in 50 over cricket, now it's average at best! It would be great to see the format change to help the fielding side somehow.  Just not sure how to best do that.  Hopefully somebody will come up with something in time for the next world cup!

Clearly you can all tell I'm a bowler! 

[WalkingWicket37]

could you imagine how boring Test cricket would be if batsmen were as dominant in that format? Thankfully they often aren't, unless the pitch is an absolute road.

I agree, this ODI stuff is becoming too batsman friendly.  Not too long ago, 300 was considered a mammoth score in 50 over cricket, now it's average at best! It would be great to see the format change to help the fielding side somehow.  Just not sure how to best do that.  Hopefully somebody will come up with something in time for the next world cup!

Clearly you can all tell I'm a bowler! 

Have you seen the new "(No Swearing Please) everything out the park" approach come into club cricket yet because people see it on the telly?
I can recall a couple of games where it was obvious last season.
In one game our third XI conceded over 400 one game.
A few weeks later I played a game where the opisition numbers 1-11 just teed off. A run rate of about 7 was maintained and we didn't get the 10th wicket until the last ball of the innings.
Is this going to become the norm in all standards of cricket? If so I can't see anyone wanting to be a bowler going forward!

[ProCricketer1982]

Have you seen the new "(No Swearing Please) everything out the park" approach come into club cricket yet because people see it on the telly?
I can recall a couple of games where it was obvious last season.
In one game our third XI conceded over 400 one game.
A few weeks later I played a game where the opisition numbers 1-11 just teed off. A run rate of about 7 was maintained and we didn't get the 10th wicket until the last ball of the innings.
Is this going to become the norm in all standards of cricket? If so I can't see anyone wanting to be a bowler going forward!

it is becoming the norm in club cricket, higher and higher scores, more and more 'hitters' and less quality in the bowling (coupled with fielding restrictions). I can't see it changing any time soon as no one wants to play draw cricket (meaning just smashing runs and not being able to actually 'take' wickets won't win you games!) and for some reason a game is only 'good' if people have smashed big runs. No one seems to enjoy a 181-9 plays 182-9 off 50 overs etc.

I can't remember all the stats but the club I'm currently at basically scored 300 or more like 5 times in it's long history.. this year we scored it at least once each weekend. Are we better batsmen?? probably not. The bowling is crap and the wickets are better.

most of the world cup has been pretty boring for me personally, I've not enjoyed the massive run fest but loved the Aus vs NZ game and a few of the minnow vs minnow games as they were tight and low scoring.

[Gerry SA]

Kiwi speedster Adam Milne has been ruled out of the rest of the World Cup with a heal problem. He's been replaced by the equally rapid Matt Henry, whom could walk straight into the playing XI.

[Gerry SA]

And with regards to rebalancing the debate between bat/ball in ODIs. The size of bats needs to be regulated. You see mishits going 100+ meters these days. Also 5 out of the ring should be brought back.

[uknsaunders]

I think regulating edge size could be a way forward - make the batsman have no more than a 20mm edge and get value for shots only out of the middle. If they mishit then the ball drops into a boundary fielder (back to 5 out for me) hands. Maybe combine it with some kind of weight restriction to make sure batsman can't have too forgiving a middle and it would make things alot harder. Could even do an F1 and restrict the number of bats that could be used in 12 months - making the batmakers press the bat for longevity.

On the bowlers side, I would like a return to 1 white ball and some proper investigation into different manufacturers. Surely they can come up with something that moves around a bit more? I think Shane Warne mentioned removing fielding restrictions altogether, that would pose a challenge in the last 10 overs?

[WalkingWicket37]

@uknsaunders I like the sound of no fielding restrictions! Before our 2nd XI go promoted into a league with fielding restrictions, the skipper used to have a master plan. He'd put men out from the start to cut off boundary options. When the run rate had gone up to 9s & above (when chasing) or in the last 10/15 overs we'd have everyone out. Good luck batsman!

A few oppositions told us it was village doing it, but you can't say it wasn't effective 

[Manormanic]

Whilst I have said before that this World Cup may end up a statistical outlier due to the perfect batting conditions and small grounds, I do think the structure of ODI crickte needs changing.  The hit and giggle approach is great in T20 if you like that sort of thing, but its true that every change is in favour of Indian TV audiences...sorry, I mean, the batsman over the bowler and the game would be better for some rebalancing.

I would not change edge size or regulate bat weights.  Too much of a nightmare.

I would, however, try to reposition the 50 over game away from T20 a bit more than it is now.  The best way of doing so would be either to revert to five out of the circle or to look at more radical solutions to keep the interest up.  What would that look like?  I'd be interested to see how games would go if there were no bowling restrictions and fielding restrictions were limited to two out in the first 15 overs and no more than five on the legside...

[ProCricketer1982]

@uknsaunders I like the sound of no fielding restrictions! Before our 2nd XI go promoted into a league with fielding restrictions, the skipper used to have a master plan. He'd put men out from the start to cut off boundary options. When the run rate had gone up to 9s & above (when chasing) or in the last 10/15 overs we'd have everyone out. Good luck batsman!

A few oppositions told us it was village doing it, but you can't say it wasn't effective 

I do like the idea of zero fielding restrictions, as you say.. good luck smashing so many runs with nearly all fielders out! It is particularly effective at club level too because the biffers get all annoyed at having to take a single each ball and end up getting out tryign to hit it even harder.

[Buzz]

plus in 50 overs even with all the fielders on the fence, going at 8 an over is still doable - you just need to do a load of running!!

[ProCricketer1982]

plus in 50 overs even with all the fielders on the fence, going at 8 an over is still doable - you just need to do a load of running!!

true buzz, but at the club level.. who has the fitness to run that much?? I'd back most people (even if they think they are fit because they do a few weights at the gym and look like a gym queen) will soon get tired on a july/aug day having to run singles/two's all the time and will make a error mentally (try and smack it, go across the line, nick it etc etc)

[uknsaunders]

@uknsaunders I like the sound of no fielding restrictions! Before our 2nd XI go promoted into a league with fielding restrictions, the skipper used to have a master plan. He'd put men out from the start to cut off boundary options. When the run rate had gone up to 9s & above (when chasing) or in the last 10/15 overs we'd have everyone out. Good luck batsman!

A few oppositions told us it was village doing it, but you can't say it wasn't effective 

Played in similar situations and teams do shoot themselves in the foot doing this. The problem is you give away easy runs in the hope of stopping the boundary. You aren't certain to even stop the boundary, stick 9 men out with 5 on one side and 4 on another, and a well timed shot can still beat them. Not to mention the two's taken to the old guy 70 yards away. A decent batting team should go at 8 an over simply by pushing it around and they don't lose wickets as nobody is within 60 yards to catch it. Add in the odd bad ball that goes for 6 to the short part of the boundary and it' a very dangerous game.

[ProCricketer1982]

Played in similar situations and teams do shoot themselves in the foot doing this. The problem is you give away easy runs in the hope of stopping the boundary. You aren't certain to even stop the boundary, stick 9 men out with 5 on one side and 4 on another, and a well timed shot can still beat them. Not to mention the two's taken to the old guy 70 yards away. A decent batting team should go at 8 an over simply by pushing it around and they don't lose wickets as nobody is within 60 yards to catch it. Add in the odd bad ball that goes for 6 to the short part of the boundary and it' a very dangerous game.

I ended up taking over from the sunday capt mid game at Downend last season on a sunday. Their track is so easy to bat on and the boundary is stupidly small so just slogs would sail miles over the boundary for six. I employed this tactic as their guys were used to just tee'ing off regardless of the ball. shock horror, they had to stop playing big shots (where they were easily going at 10 an over +) and started going at 4-5 an over max.. sure enough, they got annoyed and started getting out as they suddenly weren't hitting as many easy boundaries and had to run singles (at no point is the field big enough to run a 2 unless the fielder is a idiot). rather than losing in 20 overs we lost in 38.. a success really

good teams will of course just knock it around but I think people underestimate the lack of quality in batting around in club cricket currently. So many of the batsmen I'm seeing are basiclaly just stand there are biff it players and they really won't be happy scoring a 100 in singles as theya re used to smacking it.. hard to change your ways even if it's the right way.

[WalkingWicket37]

What league are you lot playing in where two's are so abundant?
A lot of the blokes I play with and against look like they'll keel over after a quick single, so a barrage of running two's wont last long haha 

[ProCricketer1982]

What league are you lot playing in where two's are so abundant?
A lot of the blokes I play with and against look like they'll keel over after a quick single, so a barrage of running two's wont last long haha 

our team is 'fit' but if I'm being 100% honest and not being all cocky nad thinking that everyone is super fit.. they and I wouldn't be able to spend 50 overs running 'quick' 2's every ball or two. most would be knackered pretty quickly and would make errors or go to 'slow' 1's