Print

[Sitonit]

So Ricky Ponting is one the first significant high profile cricket personnel has voiced his opinion to enforce more regulations on cricket bats in an attempt to bring some balance back in the game.

Even though, in his own days Ricky played with a graphite reinforced bat, I think he has a point.

I remember the days when fans would jump out of their seats and dance in joy when a four was hit. (Just like when a goal is scored in a tense soccer game)
These days, people yawn at sixes.

It has reach to a point that I enjoy watching baseball ball more than IPL.

These sixes look meaningless.

What's after this?
T10, F5, and then just a one over matches? What we call those? A super-over match or O1?

They decreased the boundary lines, they choked the charm of bouncers, they gave a free license to kill in the name of free hit, they enforced powerplay and whatnot, all in an effort to create more artificial excitement in the game and generate more revenue. But they didn't realize that you can't scare the public with the same alligator for too long.

To really put the skills to test, I would like the following changes.

1 - Boundary lines MUST BE 85 meters for ANY int'l game for ALL 3 formats. Any ground that does not meet this requirement should be disqualified for international games.

2 - No free hit rule. Front foot no ball and beamers may result in 2 runs penalty.

3 - Bat's weight range should be 2.10 and 2.12. Max edge size 35 mm. Max spine size 55 mm. Toe size max 20 mm. Shoulder max size 15 mm

4 - No restriction on bouncers per over.

5 - No limit on number of overs on a bowler. If a batsman could bat as long as he wants to bat then a bowler should also be allowed to bowl as long as he wants to long.

^^^ THIS will separate boys from men.

[Cedrictoad]

Interesting!

1. Agree.

2. Agree.

3. Suits me as I use 2.7 / 2.8... but limiting weight/edge size etc is not the answer (with that logic tennis should go back to wooden racquets). Heavy bats have been around for a long time and if you are strong enough to use one then you have an advantage - Darwinism at its finest.

4. Disagree, it will promote negative bowling and negative fields.

5. This would probably not work as sides would pick 8 batsmen a keeper and 2 bowlers.  Maybe increase the number of overs for bowlers but 4 bowlers minimum should have to bowl.

I would think about removing the fielding restrictions or introducing sportier pitches personally... can't smack everything if it is seaming around!

[avkrish]

1 - Boundary lines MUST BE 85 meters for ANY int'l game for ALL 3 formats. Any ground that does not meet this requirement should be disqualified for international games. - Agree that the boundary distance should not be very short.

2 - No free hit rule. Front foot no ball and beamers may result in 2 runs penalty. - Disagree; no balls should be penalised with a free hit

3 - Bat's weight range should be 2.10 and 2.12. Max edge size 35 mm. Max spine size 55 mm. Toe size max 20 mm. Shoulder max size 15 mm - Can't say; I don't believe the bat size gives the batsman any undue advantage (other than psychological). If the size is restricted, the batsmen might struggle for a short while to adjust to the new restrictions but they will develop new skills to score runs. Bat manufacturers are also not going to sit quietly.

4 - No restriction on bouncers per over. - Agree but bowlers who bowl bouncers that are too high or too wide should be penalised heavily.

5 - No limit on number of overs on a bowler. If a batsman could bat as long as he wants to bat then a bowler should also be allowed to bowl as long as he wants to long. - Disagree

[GoodLeave]

We've seen in this years T20 Blast that variations are becoming a vital part of a bowlers arsenal.

If you keep serving up the same 80mph good length delivery/standard off spin then you're going to get punished. The name of the game in short format cricket is to score runs quickly, the batsman is out to attack you, outthink him.

Bringing in limits to bats/fielding positions/venues is just artificially hamstringing batsmen.

[rickjames]

No no no no no

BIG BATS FOREVER

[dcullen8]

I dont know about everyone else, but where i live cricket is a fading sport. T20 probably just sparks enough interest in the young'uns to get the occasional one come through into senior 45/50 over stuff.

[ProCricketer1982]

Just make boundaries big for every game, get rid of silly field restrictions and use quality balls with big seams and watch it seam about and hitters nick off etc

Sure watching someone bat is fun but it boring watching smash after smash

[Sitonit]

We've seen in this years T20 Blast that variations are becoming a vital part of a bowlers arsenal.

If you keep serving up the same 80mph good length delivery/standard off spin then you're going to get punished. The name of the game in short format cricket is to score runs quickly, the batsman is out to attack you, outthink him.

Bringing in limits to bats/fielding positions/venues is just artificially hamstringing batsmen.

This is EXACTLY where I differ in the opinion.

Wild, ugly and unorthodox slogging versus quality play.

I am not against quick scoring and a rain of big sixes. But they should be played in a standard size ground with a standard size bat. THIS is where the actual skills of a batsman are put to test.

I am not against T20 either but it has messed up with the mindset of the batsman, that we see in test cricket.
A number of Test games these days hardly last 3 to 4 days.
How often do you see an opening batsman carry the bat these days?


Kids watching a cricket game

The bowler runs up to his mark.
Comes charging down, passes the umpire and delivers his heart out.
Batsman ducks down to save his rear end, the ball takes the outside edge of a tree trunk in the name of a cricket bat, and lands over a 50 yards boundary for a SIX!

Hey kids,
Who wants to be a bowler?

[edge]

Minimum 85m boundaries? Kiss goodbye to the vast majority of international cricket grounds, including every single venue in some countries. As we all know from club cricket, yes boundaries can be too short but it's the same for both sides so rarely makes a big difference. Yeah make sure the boundaries aren't stupid small, but that long isn't necessary.

Forget the bats, put a decent seam on the balls and spice the pitches up a bit. Bowlers are starting to fight back anyway now with better disguised variations. Would be big in favour of increasing the number of bouncers permitted though.

[Biggie Smalls]

Minimum 85m boundaries? Kiss goodbye to the vast majority of international cricket grounds, including every single venue in some countries. As we all know from club cricket, yes boundaries can be too short but it's the same for both sides so rarely makes a big difference. Yeah make sure the boundaries aren't stupid small, but that long isn't necessary.

Forget the bats, put a decent seam on the balls and spice the pitches up a bit. Bowlers are starting to fight back anyway now with better disguised variations. Would be big in favour of increasing the number of bouncers permitted though.
[/quote
No need for me to comment as this is my opinion in a nutshell . Well said .

[GoodLeave]

This is EXACTLY where I differ in the opinion.

Wild, ugly and unorthodox slogging versus quality play.

I am not against quick scoring and a rain of big sixes. But they should be played in a standard size ground with a standard size bat. THIS is where the actual skills of a batsman are put to test.

I am not against T20 either but it has messed up with the mindset of the batsman, that we see in test cricket.
A number of Test games these days hardly last 3 to 4 days.
How often do you see an opening batsman carry the bat these days?


Kids watching a cricket game

The bowler runs up to his mark.
Comes charging down, passes the umpire and delivers his heart out.
Batsman ducks down to save his rear end, the ball takes the outside edge of a tree trunk in the name of a cricket bat, and lands over a 50 yards boundary for a SIX!

Hey kids,
Who wants to be a bowler?

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. I can see what you're saying, but for me, bowlers need to man up and think of ways to get the batsman out instead of complaining that the bats are too big. "T20 Blast", "Big Bash", the clue is in the name for me.

But I guess my opinion could be biased, as I've never been interested in bowling.

For me, the edge going to the short boundary for 6 is on par with "That ball" Warne bowled that got Gooch. How are you supposed to play that? If every ball did that, there'd be no contest either.

[Sitonit]

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. I can see what you're saying, but for me, bowlers need to man up and think of ways to get the batsman out instead of complaining that the bats are too big. "T20 Blast", "Big Bash", the clue is in the name for me.

But I guess my opinion could be biased, as I've never been interested in bowling.

For me, the edge going to the short boundary for 6 is on par with "That ball" Warne bowled that got Gooch. How are you supposed to play that? If every ball did that, there'd be no contest either.

Man up???
Why don't we ask the batsmen to "man up" and remove the leg guards, gloves, helmet and groin guard, and then bat?

On an honest note though, it's a common belief that the game rules have been twisted to bring a heavy bias in favor of the batsmen.

How about we bring some of those amendments that I stated in OP, to bring a fair balance in the game? I am telling, if that happens, it will ONLY put the batsmen on the spot to "man up".

Plus, bowlers are not robots. With the amount of cricket a pace bowler has to play these days, his body simply cannot keep up with the work load. And to top it off - with these ridiculous batsmen favoring rules, we have simply killed the charm of fast bowling.

[skip1973]

Surely if everyone has the same equipment it's an even game?

Short format cricket is weighted towards batsman because the fans want to see the big hits, the big scores, if it was bats that are the issue test cricket would would have runrates of 8-10 an over.

[GoodLeave]

Man up???
Why don't we ask the batsmen to "man up" and remove the leg guards, gloves, helmet and groin guard, and then bat?

On an honest note though, it's a common belief that the game rules have been twisted to bring a heavy bias in favor of the batsmen.

How about we bring some of those amendments that I stated in OP, to bring a fair balance in the game? I am telling, if that happens, it will ONLY put the batsmen on the spot to "man up".

Plus, bowlers are not robots. With the amount of cricket a pace bowler has to play these days, his body simply cannot keep up with the work load. And to top it off - with these ridiculous batsmen favoring rules, we have simply killed the charm of fast bowling.

Maybe "Man up" was the wrong phrase. I just don't like the "Everything is weighted in the batsmans favour" rhetoric. Players can complain all day about it, or they can try to work out a way of combatting it.

The only suggestion I agree with is the no restrictions on bouncers, because the batsman can adapt and dab it over the keeper for a boundary if they are good enough.

In my opinion, 200 plays 200 is a better game than 100 plays 100.

I watch test cricket (My favourite format) for the battle between bat and ball. (Dukes ball, English conditions make for the best contest I think) I watch T20 for the big hits.

[iand123]

I dont agree with the restricting of bat sizes. For me processes and technology has moved on enabling the production of these bats. Why isn't there the outcry over technology advances in lighter pads, gloves and shoes?

I would leave the bats alone and look at other ways of evening things up, boundary sizes at some grounds have got really small and think as suggested above a minimum size or something like that would be a start (although not sure what grounds that currently host international cricket who suddenly cannot host as they aren't big enough would say)