BS things about todays cricket

[timmyj51]

BS things about todays cricket

1) Duckworth/Lewis. Has to go! If rain comes either wait, resume the
match the next day, or replay it. Just waiting to see this: WC finals,
team A makes 300+. Rain comes. Team B makes 50. World Champs!

2) wide/no-ball rules. Total wusification of cricket. No more pulls, hooks,
etc. Imagine if this was around when Richards/Lloyd at their prime! No
spectacular hooks, pulls, etc. Go back to the old rule: 1-2 bouncers allowed
per over. Ball down the legside has to be out of reach before its a wide.

3) meaningless matches. Cricket's always been big on these. The Ashes
have been decided. Start the ODI series. But instead they're gonna play
two more meaningless tests. Like figure skating. Win an olympic medal,
then join Ice Capades and skate in Goofy costume.

 

[pontingsux]

Re: BS things about todays cricket

4. Ponting being australian captain

 

[Ljp86]

Re: BS things about todays cricket

1) Duckworth/Lewis. Has to go! If rain comes either wait, resume the
match the next day, or replay it. Just waiting to see this: WC finals,
team A makes 300+. Rain comes. Team B makes 50. World Champs!

Debatable but I can't see it being overahuled. The Duckworth/Lewis system favours teams that have lost few wickets, so for games where rain comes into the equation, it is simple, don't lose wickets early.

The D/L system is fair enough (although very confusing) I believe and I don't see any other sort of system being used.

Currently, the team batting second must have faced 20 overs for a game to be awarded to either side. In many cases, it is simply not feasible to replay games or continue them the next day. For example, it would be impossible for games to be replayed/continued in series such as the World Cup or the upcoming Commonwealth Bank series here in Australia. After the decision to replay the game is played, what happens if the next day is totally rained out, what would happen then, in series where there are only one or two day breaks between games, an excessive workload of having to play or finish off matches on extra days would result in a tougher workload on the players in a schedule which can be very demanding at times.

2) wide/no-ball rules. Total wusification of cricket. No more pulls, hooks,
etc. Imagine if this was around when Richards/Lloyd at their prime! No
spectacular hooks, pulls, etc. Go back to the old rule: 1-2 bouncers allowed
per over. Ball down the legside has to be out of reach before its a wide.

Total rubbish. The changes you have mentioned above are used in test cricket but the use of such rules in One-Day cricket would encourage negative bowling (i.e overuse of bouncers and continual bowling down leg-side). Would result in less scoring and more negative tactics.

)3) meaningless matches. Cricket's always been big on these. The Ashes
have been decided. Start the ODI series. But instead they're gonna play
two more meaningless tests. Like figure skating. Win an olympic medal,
then join Ice Capades and skate in Goofy costume.

You're comparing cricket to figure-skating now?

Completely disagree. Why end a series just because it is over? You have to play the full thing out. The current Ashes series represents a perfect opportunity for Australia to win 5-0.

And it is not only the competitive side of it. You can't just cancel probably the biggest test of the year at the MCG. To do that would be totally irresponsible and not to mention stupid. The MCG Boxing Day Test Match provides a great spectacle and showcases Australian cricket and our country's greatest stadium to many viewers around the world. The MCG has a capacity of over 100,000 spectators and is important to Cricket Australia's image and also the money the game brings in. This money goes towards grassroots development of the game.

Doing the same to the SCG test would also have a similar impact. And with Warne and McGrath retiring from test cricket, it gives both players a perfect send off to their wonderful carreers.

Canceling the tests because the series has been decided is downright ridiculous.

 

[Chandu]

Re: BS things about todays cricket

After the decision to replay the game is played, what happens if the next day is totally rained out, what would happen then, in series where there are only one or two day breaks between games, an excessive workload of having to play or finish off matches on extra days would result in a tougher workload on the players in a schedule which can be very demanding at times.

Major League Baseball in USA+Canada sometimes do stupid things like forcing teams to play 2 matches on the same day, if a previous match was rained out. They call it doubleheader. They start at like 11 AM for the first one, and are still playing at like 1 AM to finish the second one. Baseball even has more absurd rules, such as a winner must be decided in extra innings if score is tied after 9 innings. There is no time limit on an individual match. Imagine if both matches of a double header went to extra inning!!! They could be playing from 11 AM to 6 AM next day!!!

The saddest part is that there are actually some loser souls who sit till the end of second double header past midnight. These are not even real playoff matches or anything. Sometimes they could be meaningless regular season matches in the middle of summer.

And those American baseball guys have the gall to call cricket a pointless activity.

But for the record, I hate Duckworth-Lewis too. Unfortunately like everyone else, I have no constructive proposal to replace this necessary evil.

 

[Chandu]

Re: BS things about todays cricket

Why end a series just because it is over? You have to play the full thing out. The current Ashes series represents a perfect opportunity for Australia to win 5-0.

Who cares (among neutrals, that is)?

And it is not only the competitive side of it. You can't just cancel probably the biggest test of the year at the MCG. To do that would be totally irresponsible and not to mention stupid. The MCG Boxing Day Test Match provides a great spectacle and showcases Australian cricket and our country's greatest stadium to many viewers around the world. The MCG has a capacity of over 100,000 spectators and is important to Cricket Australia's image and also the money the game brings in. This money goes towards grassroots development of the game.

It has all to do with sponsors (for example, for this series 3 would be pissed off if their logo wasn't plastered all over the TV screen for umpteen more days), and very little with sport itself.

Doing the same to the SCG test would also have a similar impact. And with Warne and McGrath retiring from test cricket, it gives both players a perfect send off to their wonderful carreers.

Once again, very few among neutrals care.

In fact, I would even go on to argue that all records secured in dead rubber matches mean absoultely nothing. They should've never been counted and scrapped from official records going back to the beginning.

Dead rubber matches are glorified exhibition contests (sort of like friendlies in Association Football=soccer) and nothing else. If they're really interested in passing their time, maybe they should just play those dead rubber matches with free attendance for everyone. Let the crowds all gather and have a jolly good time and party. It makes no difference if England lose again at MCG.

Dead rubber matches is a pointless activity, it really is.

Canceling the tests because the series has been decided is downright ridiculous.

In American playoff systems e.g. basketball/ice hockey/baseball, it is very routine to end the playoffs when a winner is decided. There are sponsors and big TV rights for those American sports too. And I'm sure they become grumpy if a playoff series doesn't go till the last match. But that is life. When they're paying for sponsorship, it's understood a series could be over in shortest amount of time. They're taking that financial risk. Nobody is interested in watching meaningless contests that won't matter past that point.

BTW, I'm willing to compromise a little bit and concede that probably for tradition sake, dead rubber test matches should go on. But explain to me with a straight face why having dead rubber ODIs even makes sense? What does anyone achieve playing those meaningless matches other than giving practice time to youngsters, or players recently recovered from injuries? If that's what they are, they should really declare them to be practice matches and not official ODIs. I mean, the worst part if a visiting team 1000+ miles away from home has already lost an ODI series, and are forced to go through motions of an ODI which means nothing. How depressing must that be?

Another important point: What about risking unnecessary injuries in dead rubber matches? I suppose bad injuries can happen even in football friendlies, and that is part and parcel of sport. But unlike football, which doesn't usually have a "series", and the friendlies are practice matches for real things like World Cup/Euro/Copa America.... (qualifiers), in cricket it's not like that. There is no concept of winner of previous matches with football friendlies. In cricket dead rubber matches, a winner is already known.

 

[Chandu]

Re: BS things about todays cricket

For the record, cricket isn't the only sport with "dead rubber" problem. In Davis Cup contests of international tennis, they keep playing until all 5 matches are over. I have absolutely no idea why. But a tennis match takes very little time compared to a cricket test match.

 

[schwab2clarkson]

Re: BS things about todays cricket

4. Ponting being australian captain

5.People bagging the ******** out of the Australian Team.

6. People comparing cricket to other sports all the time.

7. Duncan Fletcher's coaching

8. England's game plan.

9. Players taking drugs because of lack of education of what they do.

 

[Ljp86]

Re: BS things about todays cricket

Major League Baseball in USA+Canada sometimes do stupid things like forcing teams to play 2 matches on the same day, if a previous match was rained out. They call it doubleheader. They start at like 11 AM for the first one, and are still playing at like 1 AM to finish the second one. Baseball even has more absurd rules, such as a winner must be decided in extra innings if score is tied after 9 innings. There is no time limit on an individual match. Imagine if both matches of a double header went to extra inning!!! They could be playing from 11 AM to 6 AM next day!!!

The saddest part is that there are actually some loser souls who sit till the end of second double header past midnight. These are not even real playoff matches or anything. Sometimes they could be meaningless regular season matches in the middle of summer.

Yeah, I've heard about this. I remember a sports report on TV a while back where a baseball game went past 1am. American has obviously never heard of the terms "draw" or "tie".

Pretty ridiculous really.

And those American baseball guys have the gall to call cricket a pointless activity.

And one of them is already trying to change the sport even though it isn't prominent in his home country.

Who cares (among neutrals, that is)?

Some would have an interest in the series and would either be supporting Australia or England. Others would just like to watch cricket even if their own team is not competing.

I like to watch games not involving Australia as I love cricket in general. I can't though because I don't have Pay-TV.

It has all to do with sponsors (for example, for this series 3 would be pissed off if their logo wasn't plastered all over the TV screen for umpteen more days), and very little with sport itself.

Yes, I also agree. I probably should have put the sponsors argument in my initial post.

Once again, very few among neutrals care.

In fact, I would even go on to argue that all records secured in dead rubber matches mean absoultely nothing. They should've never been counted and scrapped from official records going back to the beginning.

Dead rubber matches are glorified exhibition contests (sort of like friendlies in Association Football=soccer) and nothing else. If they're really interested in passing their time, maybe they should just play those dead rubber matches with free attendance for everyone. Let the crowds all gather and have a jolly good time and party. It makes no difference if England lose again at MCG.

Dead rubber matches is a pointless activity, it really is.

In American playoff systems e.g. basketball/ice hockey/baseball, it is very routine to end the playoffs when a winner is decided. There are sponsors and big TV rights for those American sports too. And I'm sure they become grumpy if a playoff series doesn't go till the last match. But that is life. When they're paying for sponsorship, it's understood a series could be over in shortest amount of time. They're taking that financial risk. Nobody is interested in watching meaningless contests that won't matter past that point.

BTW, I'm willing to compromise a little bit and concede that probably for tradition sake, dead rubber test matches should go on. But explain to me with a straight face why having dead rubber ODIs even makes sense? What does anyone achieve playing those meaningless matches other than giving practice time to youngsters, or players recently recovered from injuries? If that's what they are, they should really declare them to be practice matches and not official ODIs. I mean, the worst part if a visiting team 1000+ miles away from home has already lost an ODI series, and are forced to go through motions of an ODI which means nothing. How depressing must that be?

It all comes down to money and injecting more money into the game. The amount of money created by the two final test matches even though they are dead rubbers is enormous, especially the Boxing Day Test at the MCG. With a capacity of over 100,000 spectators at the venue, the money generated by ticket sales but also food and drinks bought as well as alocoholic beverages and merchandise is massive and extremely important to Cricket Australia. And it also important to the Sponsors. I can guarantee 3 Mobile would not be happy if a decision was made to cancel the final two tests. Other sponsors will also be opposed to such events taking place.

And canceling dead rubbers also affects the media covering the game. TV, Radio and Newspapers would all be affected by not having any cricket to cover. Channel 9 (who telecast cricket here in Australia) would be furious should any matches be canceling for the sake of them being "unimportant".

It's all about money, money, money.

Another important point: What about risking unnecessary injuries in dead rubber matches? I suppose bad injuries can happen even in football friendlies, and that is part and parcel of sport. But unlike football, which doesn't usually have a "series", and the friendlies are practice matches for real things like World Cup/Euro/Copa America.... (qualifiers), in cricket it's not like that. There is no concept of winner of previous matches with football friendlies. In cricket dead rubber matches, a winner is already known.

Just another thing that happens in cricket. While they are unnecassary, it is another aspect of the game which adds to the series and perhaps an opportunity for an opponent to save face with their opposition slightly weakened by injuries.

I don't really think the injuries argument is a huge issue. All the cricketing nations know that series will be fully completed so players playing in "Dead rubbers" so to speak are playing at their own risk and are risking possible injury.

 

[Chandu]

Re: BS things about todays cricket

And canceling dead rubbers also affects the media covering the game. TV, Radio and Newspapers would all be affected by not having any cricket to cover. Channel 9 (who telecast cricket here in Australia) would be furious should any matches be canceling for the sake of them being "unimportant".

To be fair, you have to consider that TV audience for dead rubber matches tends to be miniscule compared with matches that actually matter. With respect to these specific MCG and SCG matches, there is an exception. Because there is more of a "human interest" element involved, i.e. Warne and McGrath's retirements. But in general, dead rubber matches worldwide get the lowest TV ratings. But I suppose those TV stations and sponsors would still have those scraps as opposed to having nothing.

 

[SouthSwans]

Re: BS things about todays cricket

Abuse of members is not tolerated

 

[timmyj51]

Re: BS things about todays cricket

"After the decision to replay the game is played, what happens if the next day is totally rained out, what would happen then, in series where there are only one or two day breaks between games,"



With some of these ODI series (including the WC) there's as much as a week between matches.
Plenty of time for replays.



"The changes you have mentioned above are used in test cricket but the use of such rules in One-Day cricket would encourage negative bowling (i.e overuse of bouncers and continual bowling down leg-side). Would result in less scoring and more negative tactics."


If a batter can't hit a ball slightly down the leg side he shouldn't be on
the team. What would have happened if anyone tried that type of
"negative bowling" to Haynes, Richards, or Lloyd?



"The MCG Boxing Day Test Match provides a great spectacle and showcases Australian cricket and our country's greatest stadium to many viewers around the world."


Well, I'm sure the church ladies, mamas boys, and 40-year-old virgins
like meaningless matches but true sports lovers don't.

 

[schwab2clarkson]

Re: BS things about todays cricket

No need to respond to the baiting Suzi

 

[Ljp86]

Re: BS things about todays cricket

With some of these ODI series (including the WC) there's as much as a week between matches. Plenty of time for replays.

Fair enough.

If a batter can't hit a ball slightly down the leg side he shouldn't be on the team. What would have happened if anyone tried that type of "negative bowling" to Haynes, Richards, or Lloyd?

Wrong. If the ball is coming at the batsmen at 155km/hr, it is extremely hard to get bat to ball. Taking away the leg-side wide rule would encourage bowlers to bowl full-pitched deliveries down the leg-side in order to stop the batsmen scoring runs.

Well, I'm sure the church ladies, mamas boys, and 40-year-old virgins like meaningless matches but true sports lovers don't.

Err, wouldn't "true" sports lovers watch any game of cricket regardless of its status withing the series/tournament.

A true sports lover wouldn't crap on about how dead rubbers mean nothing and that test matches should be skipped just to progress to the ODI's.

 

[Chandu]

Re: BS things about todays cricket

A true sports lover wouldn't crap on about how dead rubbers mean nothing and that test matches should be skipped just to progress to the ODI's.

Oh, come on! The argument can go both ways. Sports is about competition, having something on the line to win. In dead rubber tests, there is nothing on the line to win except pride.

By your argument, "true sport lover" would be one who goes and watches recreation cricket league of kids who play just for the sake of recreation, and it doesn't matter who wins.

 

[Ljp86]

Re: BS things about todays cricket

Oh, come on! The argument can go both ways. Sports is about competition, having something on the line to win. In dead rubber tests, there is nothing on the line to win except pride.

So, you're dismissing all the traditionalists that are involved in cricket as well as the tradition to do with cricket itself?

Playing out the full series has always been the case in cricket, even if it is a one-sided series with the series having been decided a long time ago. Both teams are going out there to win, even if the series result can't be changed. I don't see why these games should be canceled just because they supposedly have less meaning.

By your argument, "true sport lover" would be one who goes and watches recreation cricket league of kids who play just for the sake of recreation, and it doesn't matter who wins.

Yep. A true sport lover will go watch most grades of cricket. Whether it be international, domestic, district or club cricket, they'll follow it no matter what.

 

[timmyj51]

Re: BS things about todays cricket

" If the ball is coming at the batsmen at 155km/hr, it is extremely hard to get bat to ball. Taking away the leg-side wide rule would encourage bowlers to bowl full-pitched deliveries down the leg-side in order to stop the batsmen scoring runs."



Hard to hit? With the two leg side fielder restrictions?
Anyone would have tried that with Richards, Haynes, Lloyd, etc.
and all the sponsor signs on the square leg boundary'd be smashed to pieces.

 

[Stamislav]

Re: BS things about todays cricket

Hard to hit? With the two leg side fielder restrictions? Anyone would have tried that with Richards, Haynes, Lloyd, etc.
and all the sponsor signs on the square leg boundary'd be smashed to pieces.

The best line to attack a batsman with is in line with the stumps or just outside off. Bowling down the leg side, as mentioned before, is called negative bowling and serves the primary purpose of making it difficult to score runs.

While most batsmen probably find it easier to hit a ball hard to the leg side than to the off side, it is very difficult to reach a ball outside leg stump from a normal batting stance.

Law 41.5 limits the number of fielders on the leg side behind the popping crease to two. This serves to discourage short-pitched bowling on the leg side (and hence, at the batsman's body), but it does not stop the batsman from scoring runs on the leg side in front of square.

You'll notice that in Test cricket captains rarely stack all their fielders on the leg side. That's because putting them on the off side, say, in the slips and in the gully, is a more effective way to get people out. However, stacking a bunch of fielders on the leg side and bowling down leg is an effective way to prevent run-scoring in ODI cricket; only problem is, that gets boring real quickly, so rule 41.2.1 from the ICC's playing conditions for ODIs stipulates that no more than 5 fielders may be on the leg side at the moment of delivery.

Also, Law 36 stipulates that a batsman cannot be given out LBW if the ball pitches outside of leg stump, even if the ball comes back and would have gone on to hit the stumps. Once again, this rule exists to discourage bowling down the leg side, because it's boring.

 

[Ljp86]

Re: BS things about todays cricket

Thankyou for the rules clarification there Stamislav.

Timmyj51, as Stamislav has demonstrated, it is a lot harder to score runs on the leg-side, especially if the ball is being bowled rather quickly. Repeated negative bowling is hard to get away and it isn't a matter of how many fielders there are, it's a matter of getting bat-on-ball which is the initial objective and hard to do.

And it makes it even harder when there are fielders out there, protecting the boundary. Try scoring 9 runs an over on the leg-side with 5 fielders and with Brett Lee bowling at 155km/hr down the leg-side. Not so easy is it?

 

[Chandu]

Re: BS things about todays cricket

So, you're dismissing all the traditionalists that are involved in cricket as well as the tradition to do with cricket itself?

There is a cliche which says "All traditions are meant to be broken".

Playing out the full series has always been the case in cricket, even if it is a one-sided series with the series having been decided a long time ago. Both teams are going out there to win, even if the series result can't be changed. I don't see why these games should be canceled just because they supposedly have less meaning.

I'm not not necessarily asking for "cancelling" them, as strongly as the original poster. I was saying they should explicitly call them out to be "exhibition" games, and not include anything from these games in official records.

 

[Ljp86]

Re: BS things about todays cricket

There is a cliche which says "All traditions are meant to be broken".

I can't see them being broken any time soon.

I'm not not necessarily asking for "cancelling" them, as strongly as the original poster. I was saying they should explicitly call them out to be "exhibition" games, and not include anything from these games in official records.

I disagree. They are still part of the series and should be included because the margin of triumph/defeat can still be altered.