Alternatives to Bowl-out
Moderator: Moderators
- prasen9
- Member
- Posts: 19238
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 8:49 pm
- Please enter the middle number: 1
- Location: State College, PA
- Has thanked: 41 times
- Been thanked: 10 times
- Contact:
Alternatives to Bowl-out
I think the bowl-out is a rather silly idea. Why not have an extra time? That is, each team gets to bat 2 overs (or some n overs, for a small n). One bowler can only bowl one over and a pair of batsmen can bat only one over. At the end, whoever scores more runs wins. Otherwise, continue for a sudden death with 1 over each. At least, that will test out real cricketing skills (albeit at an instant cricket level).
- jayakris
- Moderators
- Posts: 34950
- Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 7:24 am
- Antispam: No
- Please enter the middle number: 5
- Location: Irvine, CA, USA
- Has thanked: 20 times
- Been thanked: 5 times
- Contact:
Re: Alternatives to Bowl-out
12 balls bowled at 11 batsmen of each team (one batsman, picked by the team gets a bonus ball). No bowler allowed more than 2 balls. No fielders. Just 4s, 6s, dot balls and wickets are possible (each wicket is -4 runs; only bowled/lbw/c&b). The balls are not fielded and returned, to save time. No wicket keeper. Each team lines up in a row behind each stumps, 15 yards away, for minimum obstruction to hit balls. After 6 balls faced and 6 balls bowled by a team at one end, the teams change ends for the next 12 balls. The captains decide the order of bowling and batting, but the batsman is decided first before the bowler is decided. 24 balls can be bowled in this fashion in about 15 minutes easily. That should do it, about as fairly as possible. You will need a two boxes of 12 balls each, of random age. Each bowler can pick a ball he likes.
That is about as fair and fast a scheme as I can come up with, that tests a whole bunch of batting/bowling abilities. Sorry. Fielding is not tested, as it takes time to test.
Jay
That is about as fair and fast a scheme as I can come up with, that tests a whole bunch of batting/bowling abilities. Sorry. Fielding is not tested, as it takes time to test.
Jay
Last edited by jayakris on Sun Sep 16, 2007 8:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Alternatives to Bowl-out
I don't see anything too wrong with the 'bowl out', except that instead of 3 stumps they should have only one stump. I wonder how on earth these international cricketers miss, when I probably can bowl and hit one of the 3 stumps in my sleep. Of course tension is the key, similar to how top football stars miss their spot kicks.
If the 'bowl out' doesn’t work out well, just flip the coin and be done with the match.
If the 'bowl out' doesn’t work out well, just flip the coin and be done with the match.
-
- Member
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 5:12 pm
- Please enter the middle number: 1
- Location: Orlando, Florida
Re: Alternatives to Bowl-out
go by the number of wickets lost. its a no brainer.
if there is a tie even then then the team which gives away the most number of extras if the loser.
performance should be rewarded, not luck.
if there is a tie even then then the team which gives away the most number of extras if the loser.
performance should be rewarded, not luck.
- prasen9
- Member
- Posts: 19238
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 8:49 pm
- Please enter the middle number: 1
- Location: State College, PA
- Has thanked: 41 times
- Been thanked: 10 times
- Contact:
Re: Alternatives to Bowl-out
Why is giving more extras but less runs with the bat better than giving less extras but more runs with the bat? It seems to reward the disciplined but less skilled over the erratic but more skilled. I don't think that should necessarily be the case.
- Atithee
- Member
- Posts: 5900
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:14 pm
- Has thanked: 10 times
- Been thanked: 14 times
Re: Alternatives to Bowl-out
Why tinker with it at all? Just split the points and let the other criteria (e.g. NRR etc.) come into play if a relative position is desirable. Trying to turn cricket into something which it is not just for the sake of it is not necessary. We were doing fine without the bowlout, thank you very much. In fact, I think 20-20 format is nothing but an extended form of "bowlout" anyway.prasen9 wrote: Why is giving more extras but less runs with the bat better than giving less extras but more runs with the bat? It seems to reward the disciplined but less skilled over the erratic but more skilled. I don't think that should necessarily be the case.
P.S. What Jay is proposing is somewhat like the double-wicket tournaments.
- jayakris
- Moderators
- Posts: 34950
- Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 7:24 am
- Antispam: No
- Please enter the middle number: 5
- Location: Irvine, CA, USA
- Has thanked: 20 times
- Been thanked: 5 times
- Contact:
Re: Alternatives to Bowl-out
Hadn't thought of that. My main criterion was the time factor (wanted to do it under 10 to 15 minutes), and I wanted to get the minimum amount of unbiased tests of the abilities across the team.P.S. What Jay is proposing is somewhat like the double-wicket tournaments.
But I agree with Naveen that number of wickets lost should be the first criterion in a tied match. Any bowlout should be only if it is a tie even on # of wickets. Pakistan should have won that match against us before any bowl-out. It was really a travesty. Once again ICC showed that they cannot do one thing right.
Jay
- Sathya
- Member
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 1:55 pm
- Please enter the middle number: 1
- Location: Chennai, India
Re: Alternatives to Bowl-out
Exactly ! Couldn't agree with you more on this.Atithee wrote: In fact, I think 20-20 format is nothing but an extended form of "bowlout" anyway.
- jayakris
- Moderators
- Posts: 34950
- Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 7:24 am
- Antispam: No
- Please enter the middle number: 5
- Location: Irvine, CA, USA
- Has thanked: 20 times
- Been thanked: 5 times
- Contact:
Re: Alternatives to Bowl-out
I couldn't disagree with you both more. I *really* love this format of cricket, and it is much more than a bowlout, and is one that tests focus, quick thinking, and ability in batting/bowling/fielding in every ball!
Jay
Jay
Last edited by jayakris on Mon Sep 17, 2007 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- prasen9
- Member
- Posts: 19238
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 8:49 pm
- Please enter the middle number: 1
- Location: State College, PA
- Has thanked: 41 times
- Been thanked: 10 times
- Contact:
Re: Alternatives to Bowl-out
I too think that # of wickets should be the tie-breaker. You could use NRR in past matches when it is there. However, if it is the first match of a knock-out tournament, you may need a bowl-out.
- Kumar
- Authors
- Posts: 7118
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 12:59 am
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 9 times
Re: Alternatives to Bowl-out
I am not comfortable with using the # of wickets as tie breaker.. Aim for any team is to post the maximum runs with 10 wickets.. If i can get to that score losing nine wickets, why do i need to be penalized? This is a twenty over match.. And we have broken all barriers in cricket.. Why don't we push the envelope further during tied game just like football games which goes to extra time? 3 over match (one bowler allowed one over and maximum of 3 wickets)...Team batting second will have great advantage (may be we can use the number of wickets to decide who wins the toss).. If the score is still tied at end of 3 overs, may be then we can have a bowl out (or may be another set of 3 overs)...prasen9 wrote: I too think that # of wickets should be the tie-breaker. You could use NRR in past matches when it is there. However, if it is the first match of a knock-out tournament, you may need a bowl-out.
- jayakris
- Moderators
- Posts: 34950
- Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 7:24 am
- Antispam: No
- Please enter the middle number: 5
- Location: Irvine, CA, USA
- Has thanked: 20 times
- Been thanked: 5 times
- Contact:
Re: Alternatives to Bowl-out
Kumar has a very good point. I didn't think carefully about that when I said # of wkts lost could be the first tiebreaker in a tie.
I disagree with Prasen about using past NRR against other teams. That does not say muh about how the current two teams which tied compare to each other - and as he says, it is not useful in early matches in a pool anyway.
Jay
I disagree with Prasen about using past NRR against other teams. That does not say muh about how the current two teams which tied compare to each other - and as he says, it is not useful in early matches in a pool anyway.
Jay
- BSharma
- Authors
- Posts: 12076
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 8:51 pm
- Please enter the middle number: 1
- Location: USA
Re: Alternatives to Bowl-out
I like Kumar's version of a tie-breaker the best (3 over match - one bowler allowed one over and maximum of 3 wickets).
The tie breaker should be based on performance between players of the two teams, for example in football there are extra time (involving the entire teams) and penalty shoot-out (goalkeeper and opposing player). The bowl-out is a contest to see which bowlers can knock off the stumps, and batting and fielding skills are not brought into play.
The tie breaker should be based on performance between players of the two teams, for example in football there are extra time (involving the entire teams) and penalty shoot-out (goalkeeper and opposing player). The bowl-out is a contest to see which bowlers can knock off the stumps, and batting and fielding skills are not brought into play.
Last edited by BSharma on Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- prasen9
- Member
- Posts: 19238
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 8:49 pm
- Please enter the middle number: 1
- Location: State College, PA
- Has thanked: 41 times
- Been thanked: 10 times
- Contact:
Re: Alternatives to Bowl-out
Hey, Kumar's version is an extension of my original version of 2 overs and I did say some no. of overs, say n By using the number of wickets fallen, we are redefining the game by saying that in case of ties, the ones who used the least resources to get to the same number of runs wins. What is wrong with that?
The NRR over other teams may be a better indicator than some farcial bowl-out. I do not mind extra-time/extra-overs either. Actually, I do not care for the "team of the day" to win, I want the better team (skills-wise over as long a time as possible) to win. That is why I do not like knock-out tournaments and prefer leagues, but of course, they are here to stay for the thrill of the spectator and time-constraints. The question is whether NRR or the 2/3 over match is a better indicator.
The NRR over other teams may be a better indicator than some farcial bowl-out. I do not mind extra-time/extra-overs either. Actually, I do not care for the "team of the day" to win, I want the better team (skills-wise over as long a time as possible) to win. That is why I do not like knock-out tournaments and prefer leagues, but of course, they are here to stay for the thrill of the spectator and time-constraints. The question is whether NRR or the 2/3 over match is a better indicator.
- BSharma
- Authors
- Posts: 12076
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 8:51 pm
- Please enter the middle number: 1
- Location: USA
Re: Alternatives to Bowl-out
We will call it the "Kumar-Prasenjit tie-breaker" from now onwards.prasen9 wrote: Hey, Kumar's version is an extension of my original version of 2 overs and I did say some no. of overs, say n By using the number of wickets fallen, we are redefining the game by saying that in case of ties, the ones who used the least resources to get to the same number of runs wins. What is wrong with that?
... Actually, I do not care for the "team of the day" to win, I want the better team (skills-wise over as long a time as possible) to win. That is why I do not like knock-out tournaments and prefer leagues, but of course, they are here to stay for the thrill of the spectator and time-constraints.
Prasenjit, I still do not like the "number of wickets fallen" as a way of deciding the tie-breaker because "least resources" used by a team is not used in other sports to break a tie. We don't use "number of shots taken at goal" in fotball or hockey as tie-breakers nor do we use number of "steals", "free throws", number of attempts at basket, or number of players used in a game to decide a basketball match. If the two teams scored the same number of runs in a match, let them play 3 overs or "n" number of overs to break the tie, as it is done in football or hockey.
Regarding your statement "I do not care for the "team of the day" to win", would you discount an upset win and not give any credit to the underdog? If Australia reaches the final having not lost any match and another team gets there with one loss and the latter wins the final, would you make the two teams to share the trophy because of similar win-loss record? I like the "knock-out" tournaments as well as the "league" matches.