Hi Rahul,Great piece on the proposed changes. I am sure lot of debate would have happened on this but I feel removing the over restrictions(10 overs),like in a test match, on the bowlers would give something to the fielding side. Cricket is a battle between bat and ball and why do we only restrict the bowling talent. We never ask a batsman to stop after playing 50 balls. Moreover this should change the composition of sides inducting in more batsman and actually creating more risk taking and interest in the game. This works in baseball....Whatsay
Hi Michael,Right now, since the market still demands that lots and lots of runs be scored, because crowds like boundaries and such, we'll continue to see rules in favour of the batsmen. There's no other reason why the ICC wouldn't favour bowlers. But there's another side to it, and I believe it'll be a natural shift: when the runs get too much and audiences tire, we'll see more rules that benefit bowlers. Personally, it's that day I wait for, but I don't think it'll come soon.The reason the first ten overs won't be removed is because they are explosive and give runs, which is what TV looks for. This format of the game - for a long time - has been excessively pro-batsman.As for the 50-ball thing, here's a thought. What if bowlers could keep bowling for however long they wanted? What would that throw up?Rahulps. I'm all for more risks.
Hi Rahul,You say that the rules would change when the runs get too much and audience tires. Aren't they tiring ? I know a lot of people watch ODIs still, but aren't the signs already there ? That they don't 'care' that much ?And what with the tv looks for runs ? TV looks for what audience looks for. Fiersome bowling can look as good on tv.One valid reason I see for ODI game favouring batsmen is that a batting friendly game tends to go all the way, atleast more often than bowler friendly one. So the audience, who is in for xx bucks worth of 'entertainment' doesnt feel short changed in the batting game.
Post a Comment