ICC news

Two bouncers an over likely in ODIs

ESPNcricinfo staff

June 1, 2012

Comments: 125 | Text size: A | A

The ICC's cricket committee has recommended the number of bouncers permitted in an ODI over be increased to two. They also concluded the bowling powerplay be removed and the number of fielders permitted outside the 30-yard circle reduced from five to four.

The committee's recommendations will be ratified by the ICC Board in in Kuala Lumpur later this month, if they are incorporated into ODI playing conditions the mandatory Powerplay of 10 overs at the start of each innings will remain but only one period of five overs will now be nominated as a Powerplay, to be taken by the batting side and completed by the 40th over.

The changes are designed to "improve the balance between bat and ball and to create an identity for ODIs distinct from the Test and Twenty20 formats", an ICC release stated.

The committee decided there had been little impact from two five-over Powerplays being taken between the 16th and 40th overs, but did think using two new balls from each end had proven successful - both measures were recommended at last year's meeting.

"The changes will help enhance what is still an exceptionally popular form of the game," Dave Richardson, ICC General Manager of Cricket, said. "The committee was mindful of the need to avoid continual changes but was determined to complete the process initiated last year to enhance the format. It is now confident that these recommendations for ODI cricket, which showed its popularity during the 2011 World Cup will help create an even more attractive spectacle as we approach the World Cup in 2015."

Other recommendations of the committee, chaired by former West Indies captain Clive Lloyd, were that the Duckworth-Lewis (D/L) method of calculating scores in rain-affected matches should remain. An Indian mathematician, V Jayadevan, had proposed his system - the VJD method - replace D/L but the committee unanimously agreed there was no evidence of any significant flaws in the D/L method nor that any improvements could be offered by the VJD method.

In addition, to improve over-rates, it was recommended that drinks should not be brought onto the field other than at official drinks breaks and players should always assume a not-out decision following a review and be ready to immediately resume play after the decision is made.

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by Mark00 on (June 3, 2012, 9:58 GMT)

A step in the right direction. Three bouncers will give bowlers enough options.

Posted by Rocketman1 on (June 3, 2012, 9:28 GMT)

Personally, I think a 50 over game should have the first and last ten overs as power play. You want a fast start and a fast finish! Then a five over block in the middle somewhere to make things interesting. Half the game has the field up, so technically, half the game gives the opportunity for the batsman to score. 2 bouncers are fair I think, as fast bowlers deserve a go too, and it also brings back the hook shot into the game! As for spinners, well...if the field can drop back for 25 overs in a game, I'm sure they can be utilised too. 2 new balls is great, but I think they should use one ball for the whole game and then bring a new ball in from over 25 at one end. This way one ball would get nice and rough for spinners/swingers, and one ball will be hard and fresh for a good seamer. Thoughts?

Posted by   on (June 3, 2012, 7:43 GMT)

@naveed khan. really??? srilanka produces fast bowlers??????? mention a few names apart from malinga. and malinga himself not playing tests!!!! others bowlers are just 120-135kmph bowlers. about pakistan could you name a fast bowler who is threating. they had produced express fast bowlers until mohd. amir .current crop of bowlers are just average. all know about umar gul when batsmen attack him. and talking of India, they have umesh yadav and varun aaron who had consistently hit 145-150 kmph but they are still inexperienced to consider them as threat. but don't compare srilanka's fast bowlers(according to you) with indian bowlers. it's my assumption that you are talking about fast bowlers not medium pacers. if it is about medium pacers then zaheer is the best bowler in subcontinent right now.

Posted by   on (June 3, 2012, 7:00 GMT)

that means India will not going to win WorldCup for another 28 years.

Posted by KuttiPattalu on (June 3, 2012, 6:39 GMT)

It is a good move. Also like all the players are to bat all the players should be used for bowling at least one over in an innings which will make the game much more interesting.

Posted by keecha on (June 3, 2012, 5:15 GMT)

People, understand that the 4 fielders outside the circle rule just balances the 2 bouncers an over rule. It is an incentive to take on the bouncer with a hook or a pull shot. Nowadays we don't see much of the hook shots. Batsmen evade bouncers and then thwack another ball to compensate. Now they will be pushed hard to employ the hook which a couple of decades ago was a famous shot to counter the venomous bouncers..

Posted by theswami on (June 3, 2012, 3:09 GMT)

I think the D/L system is the worst possible system, which does not apply anything other than math solutions, it overlooks the reality. The VJD system is more practical and pragmatic, being fair to both teams and does not throw up impossible equations. In t20 for example, D/L is totally bunkum. I think it finally was a distinguished Dons from Cambridge's word vs. a non-descript engineer from India's rationale that decided the vote. If only Dave Richardson was a part of the 1992 WC SA team, if only he was @ the crease along with Brian McMillan ...... If only .......

Posted by   on (June 3, 2012, 3:08 GMT)

Rule of only 4 men outside the circle? this will definitely help in breaking the 443 run in an inning. Looks like the commitee comprises of Johnty Rhodes, Gibbs, Devilliers, Clarke etc.

Posted by Shehan4u on (June 3, 2012, 3:00 GMT)

I don't see many like the rule changes..So technical committee. Take all these changes out and live the game alone..

Posted by   on (June 3, 2012, 2:22 GMT)

We're going to see a lot of boundaries behind the wicket then...

Posted by   on (June 2, 2012, 23:16 GMT)

When Australia, England, South Africa have dominating and menacing fast bowlers then they will have 2 bouncers/over. Once Pakistan, West Indies, Sri-Lanka Fast bowlers become threatening, I am certain we will revert to One Bouncer/Over. Unfortunately, India and Bangladesh have yet to produce menacing Fast bowlers.

Posted by   on (June 2, 2012, 20:39 GMT)

the new rule of 2 bouncers is going to be a big relief for the fast bowlers. but i'm skeptical about the 4 men outside the circle. it makes sense to make the match more interesting during the dampened middle overs but we need to check it out as the bowlers would be the unlucky ones on the subcontinent pitches

Posted by gauravk on (June 2, 2012, 19:50 GMT)

The two bouncers per over is a welcome move but I don't see any rationale behind the outfielders rule. As mentioned correctly by Karan Ranka, outfielders rule will destroy spinners. Someone should tell the administrators that cricket lovers want an even contest between bat and ball and not a run feast with nothing for the bowlers.

Posted by Balumekka on (June 2, 2012, 17:40 GMT)

@Bruisers: So what about conducting 2 T20s rather than 20 over (per innings) split innings ODI?

Posted by Alkais on (June 2, 2012, 15:33 GMT)

I wonder is there any player who was a bowler in the ICC Cricket Committee. I think only players are who were all batsmen.

Posted by   on (June 2, 2012, 13:38 GMT)

4 players rule will destroy the spinners. Batsmen like sehwag, dhoni, pollard, bravo will be having great advantage. Good spinners presently a rare bread to find and this new rule will lead to their extinction. If they want a clear battle between bat and ball they should think of substitutes. 2 bouncers in an over will be interesting. Bowling power plays were as such an extra burden on the game. However Batting power play revision was also required liked the old school 15 over field restrictions.

Posted by   on (June 2, 2012, 13:21 GMT)

Don't look. Technical committee members are changing! (Don't be naughty; only the rules. Moreover, nothing exciting to see either, even if they are really changing)

Posted by   on (June 2, 2012, 12:58 GMT)

ICC should bring back the super sub. The super sub flopped before because the rule was such that the team that won the toss had an advantage because their sub was planned. There were instances where a team lost the toss and had to bring in their sub immediately. ICC should allow teams to have 12 or even 13 players with 11 taking the field. If batting first once 10 wickets fall they will be considered all out, and when bowling the 11 who batted come out to field for 5 overs. After 5 overs subs can be brought in by the fielding team. The same can be applied if bowling.

Posted by simpleguy2008 on (June 2, 2012, 12:43 GMT)

Please go for the udrs system for all international teams

Posted by   on (June 2, 2012, 12:34 GMT)

It look a good move. Increasing bouncers will definitely be abetter move in the sense that it will be advantage to the bowling side, but not forgetting that it might be used to intimidate the batsmen of the lower order. Secondly 4 fielders outside the circle is also good by as there is a powerplay for batting there should be a Bowling powerplay where the fielding side should have the liberty of placing just 2 fielders inside the CIRCLE. Actually it s is th4e other way of Batting powerplay. That will give more balance to the BAT and BALL>

Posted by   on (June 2, 2012, 12:28 GMT)

changers should be done in sports, but not all the time. the ODI format is beeing changed on regular basis during the past 18months and its killing the intrest of the game. pls be carefull when changers are done and dont bring them up every time.

Posted by   on (June 2, 2012, 11:58 GMT)

Still desperately tinkering with the rules, trying to make the 50 over format interesting. It won't work. Overs 15-35 (at least) will remain useful only to those who fancy a nap.

I say dump the 50 over format altogether and just play T20 and Tests. Or play two-innings T20s instead, that would be fun.

Posted by Ishan2012 on (June 2, 2012, 11:45 GMT)

I think ICC is doing very stupid thing always changing the law of Cricket, all u can see every years their is law change additional powerplay or no ball or free hit,.... please ICC stupid management and administration please remove the 3rd powerplay, and make cricket more intresting, give something to bowler, so we can see some great bowler if future, now u see one bowler goes for 7-22-01, but whn he comes in powerplay he go for 40 run in 3 over, give something to bowler.

Posted by   on (June 2, 2012, 10:33 GMT)

They should make ODIs a 60 over game with 30 overs (15 overs for each team) in first inning and 30 overs as second inning...This will lead to fast paced action and the format could save one dayers in the long run against T20s...

If they take just the cosmatic steps as they are doing now..God save them...In the next 5 years we will see IPL through out the year...

Posted by   on (June 2, 2012, 10:28 GMT)

allowing 2 bouncers per over is a good move. also there was no need for a bowling powerplay ever...as a fielding captain can set attacking fields even if its not mandatory to do so. batting powerplay has also become predictable as most of the teams take in during 36-40 over slot. reducing it by 1 over after every 10 overs would make it interesting to see how batting strategies change...i.e. keep 5 overs of powerplay if taken between 10-20 overs, 4 overs if taken between 20-30 overs and 3 overs if taken after 30 overs...it would certainly give some respite to bowlers as well with number of fielders being reduced to 4 outside the inner circle!

Posted by Raja_S_R on (June 2, 2012, 9:59 GMT)

For me this looks Interesting ...2 Bouncers in an Over means you have a chance to bowl 100 balls out of 300 deliveries that are to be bowled. Roughly 33.33% a bowler can succeed.. compared to the current 16.67% (i.e 50 balls). Take the case of Final 2 deliveries in a match where you need 8 or 12 runs for say....Bowler has every chance to win the battle :)

Posted by anshu.s on (June 2, 2012, 9:53 GMT)

Instead of these cosmetic changes why don't they allow 2 subsitutions at end of each innings so the bowling team can have full complement of six regular bowlers to choose from and similarly battingtean can have specialist batters coming at no.9.Surely this would ensure a equal contest between bat n ball,this is not someting out of the blue,in all icc warm-up matches you can choose 13 players with only 11 alowed in field.

Posted by   on (June 2, 2012, 9:39 GMT)

ICC is makin ODI to T20, but sayn it'll create diff..lolz.....

Posted by Jimmy_Jim on (June 2, 2012, 9:34 GMT)

4 fielders will be interesting, with pace bowlers sure, but spinners? Seems very unfair, they can't really bowl (successful) bouncers either. I do like the drink break stuff though, ridiculous having people running on to give drinks every 5 overs, especially when it's not very hot.

Posted by John-Price on (June 2, 2012, 9:14 GMT)

If they want a distinct form of the game, why not do away with all special regulations. That is to say, no fielding circles, no limit on bowlers overs, no power plays - just keep the 50 over limit and the no-draw rule.

Also, games to be played with white clothing and a red (or pink) ball if the home team so wished. What you would get is something between test cricket and 20:20 with a personality of its own. I think it's worth a go, at least on trial basis.

Posted by Astroavs on (June 2, 2012, 9:01 GMT)

1.Sehwagh 2.Gambhir 3.Pujara 4.Kohli/Rahane 5.Rohit 6.Dhoni/Naman Ojha 7.Irfan Pathan 8.Ravi Ashwin 9.Amit Mishra/P.Ojha 10.Umesh Yadav/Zaheer Khan 11.Munaf Patel,Varun Aron

Posted by Astroavs on (June 2, 2012, 8:54 GMT)

ow can spinners bowl two bouncers in an over. power play 15 over in 3 blocks.5-5-5 when ever bowling want to use...4 fielder in boundary line power play.no batting power play.....spend boundary longer so do not have batting team advantage...

Posted by   on (June 2, 2012, 8:53 GMT)

Absolutely stupid. ICC is seeping towards the downfall.

Posted by   on (June 2, 2012, 8:50 GMT)

allowing only 4 players is really a stupid decision

Posted by venkatesh018 on (June 2, 2012, 8:10 GMT)

It is like trying a variety of costumes and makeup on a dead body...Useless... Limit ODIs to multi-nation tournaments like the World cup...Nobody has the appetite anymore for meaningless bilateral ODI series...This is the only solution...

Posted by   on (June 2, 2012, 7:19 GMT)

4 outfielders instead of five is absolutely stupid. How can spinners bowl two bouncers in an over. And in One Day Matches most of the overs are bowling by spinners especially in subcontinent pitches.

Posted by   on (June 2, 2012, 7:17 GMT)

wow,the rules are changing

Posted by AKS286 on (June 2, 2012, 5:58 GMT)

no need of any rules wherever captain want to set the field & how much players inside or outside is upto the captain from 1 1to 50 overs. upto shoulder height if a bowler wants to give 6 bouncers allowed. don't restrict and complicate the game.

Posted by   on (June 2, 2012, 5:38 GMT)

NOTHING will be improved!

Posted by HawK89 on (June 2, 2012, 5:29 GMT)

With 4 fielders max outside, this will show who are the better captains are with their field placings. Enough of this standard field of long on and off, 3rd man, fine leg and the 5th jumping between either side of the wicket.

Posted by theDP-enator on (June 2, 2012, 5:29 GMT)

Couldn't agree more with Ramachandra Shetty on this one! Two bouncers an over would even up the contest between bat and ball but 4 outfielders instead of five is just ridiculous. Has t20 not devalued the boundary enough already? And how can we acknowledge any world records that are set? I am already dark enough on all the subcontinent batsmen setting records on flat pitches and minuscule fields but that is an argument for another day.

Posted by Hammond on (June 2, 2012, 5:17 GMT)

The rules are changing like the command chain on a sinking ship.

Posted by ramanish on (June 2, 2012, 4:41 GMT)

Let all the restrictions be removed but with a string that any wide or no ball be treated as FREE HIT.Then bowlers will bowl straight and batsman wii have chance to score if they are capable of

Posted by natmastak_so-called on (June 2, 2012, 4:37 GMT)

allowing only 4 players outside is again swinging the balance to batsmen and 2 bouncers an over can not be the compensation for that ,as the pitches world over are getting slow and with batsmen having all the protection, the day is not far, when we'll see a batsman flat batting a bouncer over bowlers head for a boundary (it looks ugly but believe me i've seen players practising this shot on slower pitches.)

Posted by   on (June 2, 2012, 4:21 GMT)

The idea of two bouncers/over is long felt by cricket lovers,as it gives the bowler option of surprising the batsmen whenever he wants in an over and keeps the batsmen guessing all the time unlike the existing one bouncer/over.However 4- fielder restrictions in non power play period is absolutely stupid.This will discourage spinners from flighting the ball. It is like giving one arsenal to fast bowler and taking away one from spinner.

Posted by   on (June 2, 2012, 4:11 GMT)

Hey! We need the bowling powerplay! Change it to they allowing 2 extra fielders for that. It cant be batsman friendly all the way!

Posted by k233 on (June 2, 2012, 3:39 GMT)

Wow, at least they are giving a consolation price to the bowlers by allowing 2 bouncers an over......

Posted by   on (June 2, 2012, 2:51 GMT)

with 4 fielders outside 30 yard circle, the number of double centurions in odis will go up and average team scores will be like 375- 425

Posted by Zafar_Abbas on (June 2, 2012, 2:10 GMT)

simply preposterous.. two bouncers on sub continent pitches will go more in favor of the batsmen.. the only possibility for bowlers advantage could have been reduction of the powerplays but again as has happened most of the times in the past couple of years, run scoring has stalled particularly in the bowling power plays.. so perhaps there was no need in change of any rule

Posted by   on (June 2, 2012, 2:10 GMT)

One more rule changes needed. Please remove treating extra bowls( wide ball for above shoulder height) as a bouncer

Posted by   on (June 2, 2012, 1:12 GMT)

Surely Bowling power play should remain. It brought new dimension to cricket

Posted by johnathonjosephs on (June 2, 2012, 0:14 GMT)

Why are they keep changing the rules? ODI cricket was fine the way it is before these batting powerplays and 2 new balls.

Posted by   on (June 1, 2012, 23:50 GMT)

Two bouncers will be difficult only for INDIA. It is the only country where they cannot bowl a bouncer and they cannot play a bouncer. ……….Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh…………..toooooooooo…… tough now.

Posted by sifter132 on (June 1, 2012, 22:30 GMT)

DON'T like the two bouncers per over idea...This strikes me as a poorly thought out compensation deal for bowlers ie. they are taking out one outfielder and the committee was probably asking 'what can we do for bowlers in return?' But bouncers are crap!! They are redundant in the modern ODI game, because hardly any batsmen duck them anymore. In the old days they were a great way to limit scoring because ODI batting was all about limiting risk until the final overs, so batsmen would avoid them. But now batsmen play at the short ones unless it's too high - where it gets called a wide...Name a bowler that actually uses his one bouncer an over at the moment. It's a bad ball for bowlers because their margin for error is small - they'll get wided if it's over the head of the batsmen.

Posted by Mr.Shani on (June 1, 2012, 22:21 GMT)

Reducing bowling power play is unfair with the bowling side. If they want to reduce then need to reduce batting power play because it makes the batting side dominant. Bowlers already have many restrictions so the idea of 2 bouncers in an over will make the balance between bat & ball. And reducing outside fielders from 5 to 4 makes no sense. It's ODI cricket not T20. So let it be. If ICC really wants to make some changes then please change the rule where bowling team sends his fielder outside for some rest without any proper reason. If u play a match then it should be clear that u need to field 50 overs. If u can't stay 50 overs in the field then need not to play. Cricket is not just bowling & batting. Fielding is also compulsory. So a fielder should not be send in the dressing room without any serious injury r reason.

Posted by BackfootNossyfan on (June 1, 2012, 22:02 GMT)

Argh. Stop changing the game, people are iffy about it as is. Between ODIs and T20Is I prefer ODIs, but if they keep changing it it's not going to be the game I love anymore.

Posted by Thunee_man_Naidoo on (June 1, 2012, 21:49 GMT)

I'm sure most people are tired to find new changes to the format every couple months. While we can keep up with it, it's very confusing to the average fan and, honestly, quite irrelevant to them and the game as a whole. ODIs are fine the way they are but it's slowly becoming corrupted by injecting lifeless gimmicks into the format. When will they realize that true cricket fans will watch the sport no matter how it's played. What they're doing now is pandering to people who have no interest in the game, trying to get them to watch, while ignoring (and sometimes confusing) cricket fans.

Posted by   on (June 1, 2012, 21:21 GMT)

They talk about balancing the contest between bat and ball, but reducing the boundary fielders from 5 to 4 will significantly tip the scales in favor of the batsmen. The rules are fine the way they are, there has been a significant improvement in the quality of ODI under the current rules.

Posted by   on (June 1, 2012, 20:46 GMT)

Max 4 fielders outside and 2 bouncers will make spinners less effective compared to pacers.

Posted by   on (June 1, 2012, 20:42 GMT)

Two new balls - less reverse swing - bad for bowling in subcontinent. 4 outfielders - really good for batsmen in subcontinent. Those who accept these changes should not cry about high scoring games anymore.

Posted by   on (June 1, 2012, 19:55 GMT)

Original format was best.

Posted by   on (June 1, 2012, 19:04 GMT)

One day cricket has seen too many changes in the last few years and its still changing... where as T20 format did not see any major changes at all. And it is the sport which is gaining popularity day by day. The steps taken by the officials shows that the One day cricket is losing its charm.

Posted by Sinhaya on (June 1, 2012, 18:52 GMT)

Please stop all these changes. Sick of hearing them. Let 5 fielders be near the boundary and anything less will give the batsmen an unfair advantage.

Posted by Bruisers on (June 1, 2012, 18:45 GMT)

I still find Sachin's idea of split innings in ODIs as the best way to reduce the unfair advantage the toss creates. But it should be two innings of 20 overs and not 25. It also removes the boredom of the middle-overs and makes the game more compact and interesting. And the players won't feel stressed out either.

Posted by   on (June 1, 2012, 18:45 GMT)

I am glad to learn that the VJD has been unanimously rejecte, and rightly so. The D/L is a relatively good system when it is understood and we should not mess with it. Now, Mr. Javadevan can quietly ride off into the sunset. The time has come for the ICC to stop tinkering will the rules and leave it the way they are. I have not read all the comments, but am sure everyone is a bit perplexed by this annual ritual of changes.

Posted by   on (June 1, 2012, 18:36 GMT)

Clive Loyd still seems to be smarting the loss to India in WC 83! 2 bouncers would be to his liking and not accepting an Indian version of the rain-rule calculations (when it is obvious that DL is silly often). Mmmm whatever - yawn...ODIs need Bill Lawry and nothing else.

For T20: Need some nice circles, lines and numbers and colored turf and pitch. At least in T20. Come on make it a bit like baseball, hockey, and pingpong.

For tests: try paying similar money as IPL.

Posted by Sehwag_Is_Ordinary on (June 1, 2012, 18:27 GMT)

4 fielders outside going to be nightmare, Bowlers cant stop the runs when even 5 fielders outside let alone 4 fielders. Tough very tough indeed. If someone wearing suit and ties doesnt mean they give better decision. 4 fielders outside is ridiculous IMO.

Posted by   on (June 1, 2012, 18:03 GMT)

>>>>>>>>>>>>changes again>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Posted by   on (June 1, 2012, 18:02 GMT)

t20s. Tests. no ODIs. done.

Posted by asithaSL on (June 1, 2012, 17:58 GMT)

OH,,, God Bless for subcontinent players(batsmen) in 2015 WC in Australia with two bouncers in an over. It ll going be a major advantages at crucial stages in ODI cricket for the Aus, SA , NZ n Eng. I feel sorry for us in 2015 WC , going to held on fast tracks in Australia. Coz they got good bouncers than subcontinent n their batsmen well played for bouncers too.

Posted by ElBeeDubya on (June 1, 2012, 17:47 GMT)

Two (or MORE/UNLIMITED) BOUNCERS under head height is a great idea. Other tweaks aren't really necessary. Removing bowling PP and then changing the fielding restriction seems to be a sign of some twisted compromise. Just because the current captains haven't figured out how to use the bowling PP does not mean an enterprising captain in the future won't figure out its use. Keep the fielding restriction so that spinners have some chance. I don't know much about VJD and I wish CRICINFO had done a feature or two to popularize it. Using two balls is a BAD idea. We want to see more REVERSE SWING one of the most beautiful deliveries in cricket in ODIs. So, except for the bouncers, the rest of the rules are NOT PROGRESSIVE but poorly thought out solutions. Is the Cricket committee trying to kill the ODIs softly?

Posted by Hayat22 on (June 1, 2012, 17:41 GMT)

Now that tendulkar has hit the double ton, the bowling powerplay can be removed, and thank goodness for it. Now kindly remove the 35 over bowl replacement also, since one of the immensely wicked skill invented by bowlers: reverse swing, has been banished due to this flagrant injustice of skewing the balance towards batsmen! People want a better contest between bat and ball, and want to see the best skills rewarded and not mediocrity sustained. Please do something.

Posted by maddy20 on (June 1, 2012, 17:40 GMT)

Better allow the bowler to bowl 6 bouncers an over. The batsmen can start running as soon as the bowler releases the ball and it will make the format more EXCTITING. The number of players in the outfield immaterial. even better allow bodyline bowling and disgrace the game of cricket for ever. Cricket committe recommendations, my ----. Why this chopping and changing incessantly? The should not just change the rules for the heck of it!

Posted by   on (June 1, 2012, 17:35 GMT)

Any boundary/sixer, if the ball stays inside the rope irrespective of the fielder touching/crossing the boundary rope, the ball should be treated as'in play' rather waste time on replays, in short if the ball is IN, its not aboundary.

Posted by landl47 on (June 1, 2012, 17:16 GMT)

There are way too many changes. People (even those within the game) don't know what the rules are because they change so often. One rule they should implement is that every rule change should be given at least 3 years to determine how well it works. It takes that long to see what effect the change will have once sides get used to it and work out a strategy to use it to their advantage. Only when that has happened can it be judged properly.

Posted by MrPontingToYou on (June 1, 2012, 17:08 GMT)

when odi's first started threy were almost like mini tests, they were entertaining and largely unpredictable as captains wer'nt forced to follow a bunch of useless rules and regulations. scrap all the bloody rules and allow captains to decide how they wish to set their fields. allow bowlers to bowl how they want, anything down the legside, or unplayable is a wide.

Posted by Hate.ME on (June 1, 2012, 16:45 GMT)

Actually it is good for medium fast bowlers like. As they don't have much pace, this will help bowling a dot or even wicket taking ball.

Posted by Shehan4u on (June 1, 2012, 16:45 GMT)

At the rate the game rules are being changed there will be a time where we wont be able to compare stats of players from different era's..There will not be any value for records like fastest 100 or 50 when outfielders are even more reduced in future...I hope these people let the game be alone without meddling with it..

Posted by SICHO on (June 1, 2012, 16:28 GMT)

This will definately upset Morné Morkel, 2 bouncers?

Posted by ElPhenomeno on (June 1, 2012, 16:17 GMT)

I know of no other sport that implements and then discards as many changes on the fly as cricket does with alarming regularity at the highest level. It's like they've never heard the concept of 'test trials'. What's next? Reduce 2 bouncers back to 1 because someone can't play bouncers or someone is unfairly using the bouncers??

Posted by yorkshirematt on (June 1, 2012, 15:45 GMT)

For goodness sake how often do they need to change the rules for ODIs. If they still can't work out how best to play it why not scrap the format altogether?

Posted by UnwedUnfed on (June 1, 2012, 15:18 GMT)

I never quite got the concept of the bowling powerplay anyway. Nothing really stops the bowling side from enforcing a powerplay for all 50 overs of the game - i.e. they can have 2 slips, and 11 men inside the circle for the entire game if they want. So if the "bowling powerplay" was supposed to be used by the bowling team to get an advantage/wickets, it was pretty meaningless. In matter of fact, it was another advantage for the batting team, as it forced the bowling team to be more aggressive even in situations that didn't warrant it.

Posted by   on (June 1, 2012, 15:04 GMT)

This is great news. ICC has taken right steps towards hastening the demise of ODI cricket. If you are so concerned about the balance between bat and ball, why not get rid of all the powerplays? Why not get rid of restrictions on bouncers entirely? How does reducing number of fielders outside the circle favour the bowler? How do you know that VJD method does not offer any benefit over DL when you have not even tried it? Apparently, it was okay to try out the stupid tweaks to Powerplay rules last year (although there was no evidence it offered any advantage over the previous Powerplay rule), but it is okay to be dogmatic when it comes to DL. Did you have any evidence that DL was better than the previous rule (except for that one farcical 1992 WC semi-final)? The rule about unofficial drinks break is ridiculous for reasons others have already pointed out. Moreover, would you also extend it to other stoppages in play such as changing cricket equipment?

Posted by   on (June 1, 2012, 15:01 GMT)

Technical committee members seem to be trying hard to justify their existence. Reminds me of a secretary of mine, in the early sixties, who kept on typing something or the other, just to appear to be busy. (In the early days of IIMs where I used to teach, two professors used to share one secretary. So, it was also a ploy to give signal to both of us that the other one is giving too much work). Good "show".

Posted by o-bomb on (June 1, 2012, 14:56 GMT)

More changes - we hardly had time to get used to the last lot. Going up to 2 bouncers an over is definitely a good move! It gives something back to the bowlers.

Posted by AlbertEinstein on (June 1, 2012, 14:41 GMT)

Oh and how about allowing one particular bowler to bowl 15 overs in an ODI, now that would even out the balance between ball and bat a lot more ?

Posted by   on (June 1, 2012, 14:39 GMT)

2 bouncers per over is fine but why the heck should the outfield be reduced to 4 .On the contrary I would allow the outfield to increase to 6 which can curb the lofted shots which can also help spinners.Which is what I want to emphasize whenever we talk about balance between bat and ball why do we always consider fast bowlers and not spinners as bowlers. It is always seaming conditions and never turning tracks which make people say the balance is even between bat and ball.

Posted by AlbertEinstein on (June 1, 2012, 14:38 GMT)

How about making a rule for boundary length say between 65 to 80 meters or allow the umpires to use sandpapers to roughen the ball up for spinners, allowing them to grip the ball better from ball 1.

Posted by seabass2003 on (June 1, 2012, 14:38 GMT)

Do the same group of people sit down each time they change ODI laws? If so, they are just creating a job for themselves. So many tweaks every time regarding fielders and powerplays so shouldn't they be replaced by a group that can know their own minds?

I give it four years until bouncers are reduced to one per over and powerplays changed again.

Posted by ganirules on (June 1, 2012, 14:24 GMT)

If the Aussies and English think that they can stop Indian batsman by bowling 2 bouncers in an over, we will use the remaining 4 balls to score the boundries

Posted by   on (June 1, 2012, 14:20 GMT)

Great idea with the powerplays. But the new ball hasn't been that great. It has made early on hitting in the first 10 much more difficult, but it hasn't been that bad. What's been worse is the removal of reverse swing from death bowling, especially for those like Lasith Malinga and Brett Lee, who have been poorer for it. one of the best sights in cricket can no longer be seen (as frequently, at least).

Posted by Meety on (June 1, 2012, 14:20 GMT)

1. Good that the TWO bouncers per overs will be allowed. Should allow for a bit of rough stuff from the bowlers to let the batsmen know they are there. 2. Neither here no there re" Bowling power play. In THEORY it was a great concept, (like the substitute rule), but captains just used it in the most boring way & it is really useless. 3. NOT in favour of the reduction of outfielders to FOUR. It's hard enough to stem the runs at the best of times. I think it reduces matches to a bit of a lottery.

Posted by Chris_Howard on (June 1, 2012, 13:59 GMT)

It's good that they're allowing two bouncers, but really, there should be no limit on bouncers, provided they're not over head height - as that becomes an easy way to bowl dot balls. It's not the bowler's fault if a batsman has trouble against bouncers. I mean, why not limit yorkers, and inswingers and outswingers, since many batsmen have trouble with those?

Posted by whyowhy on (June 1, 2012, 13:57 GMT)

SunnyD there is a committee to make the decisions so your sadarji assumption that the bouncers was Australian or English idea is outlandish to say the least.........

Posted by   on (June 1, 2012, 13:55 GMT)

by reducing the number of fielders permitted outside the 30 yard circle, what is the message that you are sending to bowlers? yes you cut powerplay but then you also reduce the number of fielders outside the 30 yard circle? total rubbish ICC, i liked ODI cricket the way it was, fielding restrictions for first 15 overs, batting powerplay rule isn't bad either, but don't make changes for the sake of changes, you will end up killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.

Posted by   on (June 1, 2012, 13:44 GMT)

Also they say D/L does not have flaws, ask the team who have bore the brunt of it !

Posted by   on (June 1, 2012, 13:38 GMT)

two bouncers in an over in limted overs version wont be much of a difference any hardly a concern for teams like bangladesh, that midget team probably dont one bowler to bowl bouncers above 80 mph.

Posted by SunnyD on (June 1, 2012, 13:27 GMT)

The bouncers and the 30 yard rules won't help spinners at all. It must be an Australian or English Idea. I agree with the batting powerplay decision.

Posted by mohamedamin on (June 1, 2012, 13:22 GMT)

That drinks recommendation is very tricky......what happens in matches where its extremely hot...like in Asia and Caribbean.....its like ure killing a player of water...

Posted by   on (June 1, 2012, 13:17 GMT)

Changes for changes sake! What else can one say! It is not even a case of robbing Peter (bowler) to pay Paul ( batsman), which had been mostly the case so far. Now it is a case of robbing Paul and giving it back to him. "Paul" (the batsman) who is supposed to be entertaining people (in the stadium and in front of the idiot box) who bring in the money can not be annoyed, no? Taking from one pocket (removing the bowling power-play, where batsmen could have hit over the inside field to make some quick runs) and putting it back in the other ( removing one of the fielders from the outside circle, later). Oh, yeah, there is something for Peter too. He can bowl two bouncers -- of course for the pace Peter; not his spinning brother!

Posted by bvnathan on (June 1, 2012, 13:17 GMT)

The new changes recommended - assumes the committee wanted to see the domination of bat over the ball. Not sure why the bowling power-play was taken out, as it used to give the bowling side an edge if first 10 overs turned out in their favor. Also ruling out VJD method as an alternative to D/L method smacks an unwillingness even to check out the advantages, whatever the new method brings in. If ODI rules and regulations are altered for the so-called enhancement of the game, why the reluctance and relative objection to try out VJD in the place of 15-year old D/L method?

Posted by Muhtasim13 on (June 1, 2012, 13:14 GMT)

I agree with almost all the proposals except this one "drinks should not be brought onto the field other than at official drinks breaks". I bet that none of the the ICC committee members has played any games in Chennai/Colombo during the summer. Players are going to drop down unconscious due to dehydration if they can't have a drink every 30 mins. Please ICC, for once, think about the players

Posted by vinayespn on (June 1, 2012, 13:13 GMT)

Two bouncers per over is a good move by ICC. This would encourage fast bowlers to experiment more with the short stuff. Hope Indian board directs groundsmen across India to prepare more lively pitches. People like Steyn, Lee, Morkel would be a happier lot. Slow bouncers would now be an option for fast bowlers.

Posted by chapathishot on (June 1, 2012, 13:07 GMT)

@Riderstorm: Great point made ,hopefully they will understand and implement your point before ODI is dead

Posted by R_U_4_REAL_NICK on (June 1, 2012, 13:05 GMT)

You want ODI's to become more thrilling huh? I guess this is a start, but not enough in my opinion. Good batsmen have shown time and time again that scoring shots are possible against bouncers. Why not let the bowlers bowl what they want, when they want, with just the basic rules like too far outside off or down legside = wide; above shoulder-height bouner = wide; full-toss above waste-height = severe beating from batsmen... I never really understand these fielding/batting restrictions either. A good batsmen should be able to bat to any field set. Even if all 9 fielders (other 2 = bowler + keeper) are allowed to stand around the ropes, so be it! I'd still enjoy a game scored with 1's, 2's and 3's. 4's and 6's alone is not what makes cricket enjoyable, so get over it ICC.

Posted by Min2_cric on (June 1, 2012, 12:58 GMT)

I think the ICC is trying its bst to ruin d cricket.Again n again changes.wat is this???? Its gud test matches r away frm these insane changes....

Posted by   on (June 1, 2012, 12:52 GMT)

gud move ICC....................................

Posted by   on (June 1, 2012, 12:51 GMT)

It will be good, but batting powerplay should not be limited to 40th over. Teams can opt for it even in last five overs.

Posted by ozziefan08 on (June 1, 2012, 12:49 GMT)

It seems in the last few years the Australian Domestic 50 over comp comes up with new ideas Nek Minnit the ICC are claiming them and introducing it to ODI's

Posted by Riderstorm on (June 1, 2012, 12:49 GMT)

Two basic things and the cricket will flourish all over again. Sporting pitches and Proper scheduling taking into consideration the work load and amount of quality cricket would be enough.

ICC for years has been trying to add touches by their recommendations instead of focussing on the basic issues.

Posted by   on (June 1, 2012, 12:48 GMT)

I think it's pretty good. Powerplay - 15 overs. Enough. And two bouncers, definitely a good one. One bouncer always seemed less so, this decision would be pretty good if put into effect.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (June 1, 2012, 12:47 GMT)

I agree that the two PowerPlays have had little impact. The idea of forcing teams to take them in the 16-40 over range was to encourage teams to think about how they might best use them but I've seen very little thinking on that count. The batting PowerPlay is occasionally taken before over 35 but very rarely, even when teams have two batsmen going well and it looks like a good idea. The bowling PowerPlay is pretty much never taken later than over 16 though, so what's the point? I guess fielding captains have a lot to think about and they have to keep it all in their head so they probably figure that it's just too hard to try to work the best time to take the bowling PowerPlay. Maybe the coach should have taken a bit more responsibility because they're sitting back in air-conditioned comfort and more in a position to analyse that sort of thing. It hasn't happened though so I'm in line with abolishing the bowling PowerPlay.

Posted by Eishaq on (June 1, 2012, 12:44 GMT)

Allowing two bouncers is a good proposal and will improve the balance.

Posted by ATC1810 on (June 1, 2012, 12:43 GMT)

Wish they would stop tinkering.

Posted by   on (June 1, 2012, 12:42 GMT)

why o why make the game more complicated? ,however the 2 bouncer rule can be interesting

Posted by jmcilhinney on (June 1, 2012, 12:42 GMT)

I'm not sure about the reduction of outfielders to 4. Very few teams would play that way now so I think that, in general, bowlers and fielding captains will not be thrilled. I guess that it will encourage batsmen to hit over the top more though, and with that comes greater risk and therefore wicket opportunities. Only time will tell I guess.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (June 1, 2012, 12:40 GMT)

I definitely think that the increase in the number of bouncers allowed is a good idea. I'm not sure that I agree with there being any limit in Test cricket but I can see the sense in it for limited-overs. One of the main issues with being allowed just one bouncer though is the fact that, once that one is bowled, the batsman knows that there will be no more and can therefore play accordingly. Even if a second bouncer never gets bowled, the fact that it is allowed will force batsmen to continue to play as though a bouncer could be coming, because it could be.

Posted by Hareendra on (June 1, 2012, 12:40 GMT)

Good to see the bowling power play getting scrapped! But then reducing the outfielders from five to four? Its like giving from one hand and then taking from the other! If these changes were meant to "improve the balance between bat and ball" they at the end of it, they have left the "the balance" exactly as it was!

Posted by Charith99 on (June 1, 2012, 12:33 GMT)

oh dear!!!! porr raina & co.perhaps they will retire from odi like kevin

Posted by   on (June 1, 2012, 12:31 GMT)

ICC is always making new rules to the game, I remember once there was this rule with a supersub in a team, ridiculous, whats next? One yorker allowed per over ?

Posted by Arthaurian on (June 1, 2012, 12:31 GMT)

Test cricket is a perfect balance between bat and ball, yet it has no power-plays, no field restrictions and no limit to the amount of bouncers that can be bowled.

Posted by guptahitesh4u on (June 1, 2012, 12:29 GMT)

Good suggestions to make it bowler friendly.

Posted by   on (June 1, 2012, 12:22 GMT)

this is great. they should give the bowlers some chance.

Posted by   on (June 1, 2012, 12:17 GMT)

I like the idea of using two new balls from each side ....they can even consider using a new ball after 25 overs ...but that will kill the 'reverse swing '

Posted by SamAsh07 on (June 1, 2012, 12:16 GMT)

Finally, I never saw the point behind bowling powerplays, unless they helped the bowling side, which they don't.

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days