Bowlers are currently at a discount in T 20's. They are there in a tableaux meant solely for the fl...
Expand
Bowlers are currently at a discount in T 20's. They are there in a tableaux meant solely for the flat track bullies to make hay under a constantly shining sun.
Wasim Akram in a recent(June 5, 08) Express article entitled "
In T20 bowlers get paid to get thrashed " Young cricketers should realise that tournaments like the Indian Premier League (IPL) are only for entertainment and should focus on the longer version of the game to develop themselves...........In Twenty20 there is no technique for the bowlers or batsmen and a player's skill is found in Test matches,...........Twenty20 is perhaps the only format of the game where a bowler is paid to get hammered around the ground,"
These choice quotations show the obvious sense of frustration that is being felt in the bowling community for the one sided stacking of all the chips in favor of batsmen in the current T20 tournaments. In the ICL this was not as evident as in the IPL, because of the wide variety of unsporting(to the bowlers) grounds in the latter tournament compared to the fewer grounds, generally even for both ball and bat in the ICL. Added to this was the lower quality of the fielding in the IPL
because of the large number of prima donnas(read, established ODI and test 'stars' of the Sourav Ganguly mold) in the IPL.
The solutions are in my view nearly obvious. Given the short nature of the T20 match, at least one bowler should be provided with the warewithal to run through the side. The only way he can do it is to be given some time to attain the fluidity in his bowling. It takes probably two overs for a bowler to attain line and length and once he does he has just two overs to show his mettle.
He is generally changed at the end of two or three overs if he is doing well, to keep him as a card in the death of the innings.When he re-starts his bowling at the death, he has to again get back his fludity, that might take him two overs to do again.
I suggest that at the beginning of each match, one bowler can be designated as a strike bowler: that will enable him to bowl a maximum of, say 8 overs. The balance of 12 overs should be bowled by others, with a maximum of four overs for the other bowlers. Thus, the side can concentrate on at least two or three bowlers of quality (with one or two all rounders) with the potential of being strike bowlers.
The bowlers so designated, at the beginning of the match, as a strike bowler, can either complete his spell in one go or have two or three spells at the option of his captain. Further, bowlers should be allowed to bowl at least two bouncers per over and bowl one ball going down the leg side and not be no balled, so long as the ball pitches on the stumps.
This might even out the playing field for both bat and ball. The purpose should NOT be to make it easier for batters to belt the ball all over the field, but to make it a true contest of skills.
I have said my bit, the question is WHAT DO YOU THINK ?
Close
Sampath: For a good contest between bat and ball, bowlers should be given room to manoeuvre: the current IT 20's make them just bit players, extras as it were in a hitting contest.
Thank you for your thoughts.
Girdhar
Reply | | Report Abuse
dear girdhar,
this structural solution gives some flexibllity
and time for adjustment...
the strike bowler can be declared at the end of any person who exceeds four overs..
that way depending upon the match and pitch some bowlers may get the advantage....
but the solution is that bowlers should reinvent themselves....
Reply | | Report Abuse
Thank you for visiting Avinash: Choosing a strike bowler could be considered a matter of strategy. I think there are battles and there are wars and there are skirmishes, Tests could be considered the most strategic wars. While the shorter form games have more tactics and represents battles or skirmishes. Both types in my humble opinion are needed as they reflect life. Thank you for your recommendation.
Best, Girdhar
Reply | | Report Abuse
Girdhar
That is a good suggestion. Also, there is no harm if the team is allowed to name the strike bowler after having tried the first four over or so. The one who is doing better can then be named strike bowler. This will not be unfair given that everything else is virtually loaded in favour of the batsmen.
Having said that, I have found T20 to be a waste of my time. There is little place for strategy in the game. 5o overs had a great element for strategy ans was highly enjoyable. And where there is no strategy, it becomes just brawn without any brain.
I hope this passes away as a temporary madness. But I know I am wrong in hoping so.
Avinash
Reply | | Report Abuse
Sir Knight: I do not quite agree, but I think a hard fought game between bat and ball will bring in as many crowds as( I suspect it bring in more) thamn a one sided flat track bully contest.. Thank you for your comment.
Rgds, Girdhar
Reply | | Report Abuse
The game becoming increasingly difficult for the bowelers sir. Seems lke the powers that be have decided that its best to let the willow do the talking as thats what rakes in the moolah..wont be surprised if it gets tougher in the coming days
Reply | | Report Abuse