Do the ICC hate bowlers or what?

[woosaah]

The ICC have announced a few new laws to be put in practice in Australia next season (not sure if its international or just domestic)

The use of Powerplays should continue but an additional fielder (making three in total instead of the current limit of two) should be allowed outside the 30 yard circle during the second or third Powerplay


The captain of the batting side should be able to choose when to take one of the Powerplays


A free hit should be introduced for the delivery that follows a front-foot no-ball


There should be a mandatory change of ball after 35 overs

what do you guys think? I really think all these are in favour of the batting team no question, but would be interested in what you guys think

 

[Prestwick]

No, they just really, really, really like bowlers from South Asia.

 

[Hazey]

The free hit rule after a front-foot no-ball already exists in England, and works pretty well. The issue about the batting team deciding when to take the power play was under discussion all of the last year, and is still on a 'trail' period, which is why we didn't see it at the world cup (not that it mattered when Lara is taking the last power play in the 44th over... :wacko: ).

As for the change of ball, it could be helpful or deprimental to both sides - it'll mean the end of any kind of real reverse swing for the bolwing side, helping the batsman, but then on a day when there is no swing, on a flat-ish pitch, a new ball will help put some pace back into the game, thus helping (usually) the bowlers.

 

[Prestwick]

Thank god for the MCC I say.

If these rules were brought into Test Cricket I'd kill myself.

 

[BokMagic]

Free hit after a front-foot no-ball? Come on, that sounds more like freaking 20/20, or some similar tonk-a-thon crap.

I reckon that the ICC should just make it official- bring in the boundary ropes by 20 meters, and have a square on the pitch into which the bowler must pitch every delivery, almost like that thing in baseball. Then everyone can just get rid of their bowlers and have a side stacked with 11 hitters. Seems to me that`s the way that ODI cricket`s moving anyway....

As for me, well I`ve always liked sport to be an even contest. I hate fkn basketball, as there`s no contest between attack and defense. And same thing now in cricket- there`s no more contest between bat and ball, in the ODI`s at least.

Reckon if there IS to be rule-changes made, I`d rather get rid of the whole powerplay thing. If you want to start out with 5 players on the fence and give away easy singles, so be it. If you don`t want to start with slips and a guy like Hayden snicks one past where 1st slip would`ve been, then that`s your bad luck for being too defensive. Something like that`ll definately improve the oft-forgotten art of ODI captaincy.

 

[Hazey]

Cannot disagree more, that's the way that ODI's were heading before the power play's were bought in - Captain would play aggressive in the field for 5 overs, and then suddenly there were 9 men on the boundary - INCREDIBLY boring cricket.

I also disagree that it in one-sided in favour of the batting side - look at the matches in the World Cup where supposedly strong batting sides were restricted (first one that comes to mind, South Africa v. Australia) to a small score - higher run totals in the modern era reflect more aggressive batsmen, not a game that is totally run orientated.

 

[BokMagic]

Hmmm, batsman-friendly wickets- with the exception of a couple in the Caribbean for the CWC, heavier bats with larger sweet spots, fielding restrictions, boundary ropes brought in, and very little margin for error in terms of where the bowler can pitch the delivery- seems to me like the game`s being loaded much more in favour of the batsman.

Just look at some of the results in ODI`s over the last 12 months- Aus setting 300+, twice in a row, against NZ in the Chappel-Hadlee series, and losing both. And what about the 434 plays 438 game at the Wanderers last year? Definately not even contests between bat and ball mate. And look even at test cricket these days- just 10 years ago, a batting average of 40+ was considered world class. Nowadays most sides feature at least 2 batsman averaging 55+ in test cricket. Sure there are weaker bowling attacks like Zim and Bangladesh, but that`s a huge difference IMO.

 

[Hazey]

Results based on the improvement and development of the game - after all, you can get 400 runs, but you can only get 10 wickets.

Yes there are high scoring games, but there are also games where scores are low (as I pointed out in my last post). As for batsmen friendly wickets - I disagree. The number of early season wickets, or wickets that degenerate on day 3, 4 (or 5 in Test) far outnumber those that play like a carpet for the whole game (I use day 4 of the current Windies v. England test as my example for this).

As for heavier bats and bigger sweet spots; as I said, development in the game. A few years ago the MCC experimented with a ball that had a much smaller seam (it became known as 'The Year Of The Bat'/'The Year Of The Orange') but it was disregarded after there were 2 treble-centuries within a month of the season starting - bowler friendly attitude? I think not. As for the high-scores in both ODI and Tests, look at the records, yes some have been broken recently, but the previous records in many are 20 or 30 years old (for example, highest run chase in the 4th innings of a Test was 406 in 1971, before it was beaten in 2003).

As for boundries being brought in, etc. - this has a lot to do with the 'spectator' element of the sport. More runs, more exciting; smaller boundries, closer to the action.

 

[BokMagic]

Well Hazey, looks like a very well-constructed argument there mate. But I`m still disagreeing.

As you said, the improvement in bats has been a technological advance- but it`s been all in favour of the batsmen. There hasn`t been a single advancement in the ball itself. And there hasn`t been a single rule-change in favour of the bowlers since the introduction of the lbw law. Why, most rule changes have been squarely in favour of the batsman. Reducing the number of bouncers an over, fielding restrictions in ODI`s, the freaking front-foot no-ball. And now more changes wrt the power plays.

Wrt the wickets- well in some places, like early-season England swinging paradises, and some of our own pace-friendly SA wickets, yes there`s something in it for the bowlers. But I do believe it`s not nearly as helpful as before. Let`s just look at one example- the WACA. Used to be lightning fast, with plenty of bounce to encourage the seamers. Yet on our last tour over there, SA managed to bat out 130-odd overs in order to secure a draw. And England racked up something like 500,550? in the 1st innings during the Ashes. And let`s not forget how much lower and slower the wickets, in general, have become in the Carribean of late. Sabina Park used to frighten the living daylights out of most batsmen. It`s pretty tame by comparison these days. And of course, just about every ODI played on the sub-continent results in an absolute featherbed, that batsman just want to roll up and take home with them. In the recent Asia vs Africa ODI series, you had Asia scoring 330+ batting 1st in the last 2 matches. Africa responded with 310-odd in both.

And wrt the shorter boundaries bringing in more excitement to spectators due to more boundaries- perfectly true mate. I`m sure shortening golf courses all over the world by about 500m in total will also add to excitement. Especially when Tiger Woods shoots his 1st round of 49. But that`s just not how it should be done IMO.