Using Powerplays between overs 16 and 40
Alastair Cook, England one-day captain
It's certainly very interesting and it will change the tactics in those
last 10 overs. It can be a bit of nightmare when the Powerplay is taken
in the 45th over - you can feel a bit helpless. It will certainly
change things now that they have to be taken before the 40th over.
Ian Chappell, former Australia captain and current commentator
I don't think there's enough foresight with the framing of all the
laws. You need to think of the laws occasionally, but we are having
major changes all the time, which means you haven't thought through the
rules properly at first. If I am a captain, this rule makes me feel,
"Why don't you come out and lead the side instead of me, because you are
telling me what I need to do all the time - when to take the fielders,
where to place my fielders." This Powerplay legislation distracts from
allowing the captain to lead the side.
Michael Kasprowicz, former Australia fast bowler and now a Cricket Australia board member
The Powerplays have worked really well for bowlers. There seems to be a
lot more impact from bowlers, and I think that's good for the game.
Enforcing their use between the 16th and 40th overs increases the need
to think about it in a tactical sense rather than just leaving the
batting Powerplay, in particular, for the final few overs.
Andrew Hudson, former South Africa batsman and currently South Africa's convenor of selectors
A lot of teams would just wait until the end of the 45th over to take
the Powerplay, because then they would have no choice, but now it will
make them commit to a game plan. It will probably create a bit more
interest.
Sanjay Manjrekar, former India batsman and current commentator
Again, we can see some of the problems 50-over cricket has been having
and this is an attempt to infuse some excitement into the middle stages.
I'm not overly excited by it. It's another little tweak. It'll just
shake captains a bit out of their comfort zone because they had been
doing it the standard way [last five and after the mandatory first 10].
Very few captains actually used [Powerplays] to their advantage.
Ian Bishop, former West Indies bowler and current commentator
I think teams will eventually find a way to create some sort of
equilibrium. I hope this ruling will create some more interest in middle
overs. I have no empirical evidence to back this, but generally bowling
teams take their Powerplay straight after 10 overs. Forcing them to
take it in 16-40 will give the spectators something to watch, if sixes
and fours are your kind of thing.
I don't think forcing batting sides to take it before the 40th over is a
bad thing, or that it might end up being a double-edged sword. I have
no sympathy for batsmen, not because I don't like them, but they
generally hold the advantage in limited-overs cricket. A lot of batting
sides have lost their way in the Powerplay overs, but the problem was
that their approach to the restrictions wasn't clear; I don't think when
it is being taken is as much an issue as how it is approached. If you
are reckless in the Powerplay, which was often the case in the World
Cup, it can be a problem, but I think batsmen are going to get smart
enough in time to learn how to handle it.
New balls from either end
Ravi Rampaul, West Indies fast bowler
Playing with two new balls keeps the ball a lot newer, so from where I
stand it is probably a good thing for the bowlers but not the batters.
The two new balls might rule out reverse-swing later in the innings, but
you will have a harder ball to bowl with later on in the innings.
Bishop This rule will suit different people in different
conditions. In the subcontinent, where you have dry and flat grounds, it
is going to favour the batsmen, but in England, Australia and New
Zealand it will help the bowling side, since the balls will seam and
swing through the course of the innings. The disadvantage that will come
into play will be that bowlers will struggle to achieve legitimate
reverse-swing in most conditions, and that disappoints me. This rule
seems to have come about to do away with the practice of changing the
ball midway through the innings due to discoloration, and we might in
the process lose out on one or two aspects, like reverse-swing.
Kasprowicz I never thought the compulsory change of ball was a
good thing. If the ball is worn and batsmen can't see it, then fair
enough. But to go to a ball at each end is a good move, and is one of
the few changes we've seen over the years that is going to help the
bowlers, fast bowlers in particular. We didn't really see much
reverse-swing in recent times anyway, because of the change of ball, so I
think we will see more of that, as teams can work on the ball.
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
"If I am a captain, this rule makes me feel, 'Why don't you come out and
lead the side instead of me, because you are telling me what I need to
do all the time - when to take the fielders, where to place my
fielders'"
Ian Chappell
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Chappell Australia tried the new balls from both sides and gave
it up 10 years back. So where has it come from again? For god's sake,
get the white ball fixed so that it retains its colour and character,
instead of tinkering with everything else. This rule is surely going to
favour bowlers more in certain conditions. And that affects the balance
between bat and ball, which is a bad thing.
Chris Woakes, England fast bowler
The new rule looks good. The ball keeps shape a lot longer, and with
the ball not changed towards the end, you have a good feel of it through
the innings. The ball did start to reverse towards the end, and that, I
think, would happen here because of the outfield.
Manjrekar I have absolutely no issue with two new balls. The
mandatory change after 34 overs exposed what happens with the ball. It
just didn't look good that you had to change the ball because you didn't
have the quality of balls that could last the distance. A lot of
modern-day spinners are able to use the hard seam of the cricket ball to
work to their advantage. R Ashwin recently made a statement that he
found spinning the ball easier with the hard seam because he was able to
grip it better and it was responding well off the pitch. So the
old-school [belief] that the ball has to be old for the spinners doesn't
necessarily hold true now. Also, I saw Umar Gul get reverse-swing as
early as the ninth over in England during the World Twenty20. If you're
good enough, reverse-swing can still be part of a 50-over innings
despite the two new balls.
In livelier conditions, the effect of the new ball and seamers will put
pressure on batsmen for longer, but if you look at world cricket
generally, we have placid pitches. It'll work in favour of the batsmen a
bit because they'll constantly have the hard ball to smash around. We
won't see the stage of 25 to 34 overs where the ball was at its softest.
Hudson It was not ideal to be changing the ball at 34 overs, so
it takes out that variable. It could have an impact on reverse-swing,
but at least discolouring won't be a problem, particularly for night
games. It will also give the bowlers a slight advantage, which is a good
thing since it has been a batter's game for so long.
Murali Kartik, former India left-arm spinner
Earlier there was a chance for spinners that the old ball wouldn't go
off of the bat. Now with two new balls they will remain fresh a longer
time. Yes, at the same time spinners can grip the ball better, but I am
sure even this rule is only for batsmen.
Obstructing the field
Bishop I think this ruling is absolutely correct. Changing
direction and getting between the stumps and the throw has become an
acceptable practice. I think that is wrong and is tantamount to
cheating. It is the nature of the game that if you run, you are taking a
risk. Your challenge is to back that judgement by reaching the other
end. If your judgement is poor, you face the consequences. And doing
anything to preserve your wicket is cheating. So I think if batsmen
change direction to impede the fielding team, they should be penalised.
Chappell This one is plain ridiculous. Batsmen have been allowed
to come in between the throw and the stumps right from the time I
started playing, which is bloody long ago. Fielders are going to now
throw the ball at the batsman needlessly, purely in the hope of getting a
wicket. Even if he doesn't get the wicket, it is going to go up to the
third umpire and take another decision away from the on-field umpires.
The rule needlessly tries to legislate for a one-in-a-million chance. It
is even more ludicrous since there is already enough in the law to
allow the umpires to legislate that rare case. This is going to create
controversies that are totally unnecessary. It is just another example
of the stupidity in the law-making. The best example for the ridiculous
law-making is the Mankad law. The man who changed that rule needs to be
lined up against the wall and shot. The administrators need to rewrite
the laws to simplify them as much as possible and not complicate them
even more. I'm afraid that's what they are doing right now -
complicating things too often.
Kasprowicz I'm not sure how they're actually going to dictate
that or determine what the line is [for the batsman running between the
wickets]. Trigonometry might come into it as to point A and point B. I
can't recall too many instances when it was a major issue, but it must
have taken place often enough in an international match for it to be
one.
Manjrekar I think it's fair. You have a law that says you can't
deliberately obstruct a fielder who's trying to take a catch unless you
have a right to be in that area at the time. Some of this escaped all
these years, that a batsman, while running, could change his direction
deliberately to get in the path of the ball. There was a slight amount
of gamesmanship and cheating involved. But it's another thing that the
umpire will have to watch out for, another nuance in the game that will
have to be monitored now - to determine if the change in direction was
deliberate.
No runners
|
Will we never again see three batsmen on the field at a time?
|
|
Enlarge
|
|
|
|
The MCC MCC feels that not to allow a runner for an incapacitated
batsman does not comply with the spirit of equity within the Laws. If a
bowler is incapacitated, another bowler can take over; if an
incapacitated batsman is not permitted a runner, this effectively means
the loss of his wicket, which is a disproportionate effect.
Hudson In terms of injuries, there was always a bit of a dilemma
with guys who got cramps, especially in the subcontinent. Sometimes the
idea of a runner could have been abused and misused. Outlawing runners
may be a bit harsh on genuine cases, where there is an injury, and with
so much cricket being played, genuine cases may suffer, but overall it
will prevent any abuse the system was taking.
Kasprowicz I think the abolition of runners is a tremendous rule
change, because for a team, if a bowler gets injured you weren't able to
replace a bowler, and in some circumstances that could be damaging to
the team's performance. Whereas with a batsman, he always got the luxury
of someone else to do the running for him. So I think that's a good
one, and unfortunately if you do suffer an injury, somehow you just have
to manage it and get through it. It has seemed like it was a bit too
easy at times for some batsmen, and as a former fast bowler I certainly
applaud it.
