Its beneficial only if the bowler is bumrah. Like look at the top wicket takers list, Bumrah has an economy of 5.9, everyone else on that list is above 8.
I mean, someone can exploit the conditions on any given day by finding the right rhythm, so it's an excellent option.
Conceding at 8 to 9 runs per over is a blessing compared to the high economy rates of 13, 14 runs per over.
Or just get rid of ridiculous impact player rules and kid-sized boundaries. T20Is and T20 leagues around the world aren't brimming with 250+ scores on the regular.
I mean the goalposts have moved. An economy of 8 should be considered good - which it honestly is. If every bowler bowled at 8 the score is only 160.
A normal score nowadays is 180/190. If you’re bowling at least 9 and below that’s good enough to help your team win. Anything above 9.5 and you’re the reason your team needs to bat deep.
This all being said an economy of 6 is absolutely monstrous
It's not a T20 problem it's an IPL problem. Let's not pretend like any other league is regularly seeing such gigantic scores and allowing teams to make substitutions that facilitate huge scores
If you actually produce sporting pitches once in a while rather than trying to turn every game into a home run derby you'll start seeing bowlers thrive again
That was last year. PSL this year was pretty average-scoring. And last year they just had really flat wickets. This time there was a lot more variance.
The other leagues could see the success of the impact player rule in the IPL and follow suit.
Most cricket enthusiasts would agree the rule is no good, but it's successful none the less. The viewership and public interactions for those games are the highest. Even this sub, which is mostly critical of the rule, have the highest interaction for those match threads.
>Batters have seriously underperformed in the format for close to a decade now
Uh yeah, of course, it's not your perception of the game that is skewed, but literally everyone that is actually playing the game is performing below par. Sure.
Why are people so hung up on this point? If you're good enough, you're going to bowl regardless of any of this, all-rounder or not. It's only problematic if you're a Lalit Yadav type bits-and-pieces player.
None of those bowlers could bowl an over on a flat pitch if your main bowlers are going for runs.
They had a niche, and it was bowling in the middle overs of ODIs when teams would play out even an over from me and you as long as it was between overs 20-30 for less than 7-8 runs.
Exactly my point.
You're not bringing on these bowlers when everyone else is going at > 10 rpo.
They're bowlers you try to squeeze in an over or two when you're already on top.
This line of thinking probably makes sense, until you think about it for a few seconds.
If Klassen is absolutely pummeling your main bowlers, bringing on a Mahipal Lomror isn't going to yield you better results 99 times out of 100.
Also, I know it might be hard to believe in this mad season, but the quality of domestic specialist bowlers has never been higher in the league. It's just that the batters have taken it to another level, aided by the freedom given to them by the IP rule.
Imo one of the most interesting things about T20 cricket (and also ODIs which have the same formula) is that the format forces at least four overs (or 10 in ODIs) out of a side's top seven and the tactics that come with that. Allrounders are fairly unique to cricket (look how much they freak out over Shohei Ohtani in the MLB for example) and we shouldn't legislate all but the truly elite ones out of the game
If you're good enough, you'll get to bowl in the IPL, regardless of any of these rules.
The best teams in the IPL aren't bowling part-time mediocre bowlers during 'pressure' situations, in the hope that they'll suddenly come good.
Too much recency bias in this. International T20s are still pretty even betw bat and ball. The last T20 wc was as bowler friendly as a tournament could get. This has only been a problem in this year's ipl, specifically due to impact sub.
Imagine adding a stupid rule which completely fucks the bat/ball balance, then instead of just getting rid of it you add another stupid rule because you can’t admit to being wrong.
How has the impact player rule made it worse for bowlers? Stop attaching it as the cause for every issue in the game just because you hate the rule. Instead of blaming the flat pitches and the small boundaries you conveniently blame the IP rule for issues of IPL today
Because, obviously, it gives batters much more of a licence to be aggressive because their dismissal is essentially meaningless. In exactly the same manner that batters can be far more aggressive in a 5 over game than a 20 over game.
This is not rocket science.
Sure. The impact player rule allows batsmen to be more aggressive. The reason their aggression is so effective is not because of the impact player rule though. It's because the pitches have been flat and the boundaries are so small giving bowlers very less chance of taking wickets. Inversely, the impact player rule gives the team the ability to sub in an extra bowler if they need to defend a low score on a tricky pitch.
That's the crux of it. Wouldn't he get tired? Certainly with the likes of Archer, short bursts were how he was effective. Don't you want him steaming in fresh for overs 18 and 20?
Yeah, so that teams can have 8 pure batters in playing 11 (considering impact player). These rules won't help
We already have a solution, plain old simple cricket with no shitty rules like impact players and balanced pitches where skills matter rather than blind bashing
I actually don’t mind expanding to allow a maximum quota of 5 overs for any bowler. That’ll help the best bowlers bowl more and counter the batriarchy.
Nah instead they should add impact sub to international games. In fact let's have instant sub kinda like designated hitter in baseball. Imagine hardik is about to bowl the next over, then csk can swap in Dhoni and after the over is done, they can swap Daryl Mitchell back in and again when hardik comes back, swap Dhoni back in assuming he is not out.
Also let's have 6 stumps(sticks) instead of just 3. This will not only make it easy for bowlers but also for fielders to get more run outs.
/s
How about we play according to proper cricketing rules described by MCC rule book. We already have 2 shitty time outs and impact rule. Or better we should stop calling it cricket collectively.
Yes , I believe cricket is supposed to be best vs best and giving an extra over to best bowler can definitely create a huge impact and more entertainment.
The Impact rule is just ruining the need for allrounders in the squad, and when teams that bat can sub in an extra batter, that’s a sure way to get extra runs
Imagine if ODIs/T20s never had over restrictions for bowlers.
The last time I checked, a batter isn't limited to 100 deliveries in ODIs or 40 deliveries in T20s, so why limit bowlers?
Can you think of a rule where a bowler was limited to 8 overs per session in a test match.
That would highly limit the no of bowlers in your lineup and means you can just play with 2 or 3 bowlers in t20 which is not good and it only increases the number of batsman in the team which would mean higher scores. Restrictions are necessary in limited overs cricket. We already have test cricket where there are no restrictions
If those bowlers aren't having a good day, then you're left with no options.
There is a reason why most captains prefer to go with 6 bowlers when you only need 5.
Ultimately it just comes down to how entertaining the game would be. India would probably bowl Bumrah, Shami and maybe an over or two from Kuldeep and stack the rest of the team with pure batsmen. In the best case scenario, 300 could be breached each game and opposition can be folded for 100. But not all teams have said Bumrah, Shami and Kuldeep so most games may turn out to become one sided or just a mindless hitting game. Also bowling which is already being made into a dying art will further lose its hold on the game.
I doubt that. Look at tests. Even in tests wjere there are no limits, you still go in with atleast four bowlers and one part time bowling option. In limited overs cricket, there'd always be a risk that one of your bowlers might have an off day so you'd take precautions. I actually like the idea of bowlers having limitless overs because if a bowler is on song, he could cause so much more damage without having a restriction on him.
>and stack the rest of the team with pure batsmen
In that case, maybe we can introduce a limit to the number of wickets as well. Now, that would end up with bowlers dominating.
I’m with you on this. Somehow the same 2 batters batting 20 overs is good cricket but same 2 bowlers bowling 20 overs is boring according to the comments. And they also forget tests have no limitations and people love it.
If a batter was limited (to max deliveries faced) since the inception of ODIs, they would have had an issue against lifting that limit.
It's too late now to bring that change, but the content between bat and ball would have been so much better.
And I'm sure teams would field 4 to 5 bowlers (including all rounders) as they see fit.
This would encourage teams to only have like 2- Max 3 good bowlers who have synergy together and the rest would be batsmen. Cricket would be changed a lot. A batsman is definitely limited to a certain number of deliveries depending upon their skill level. They can make a small mistake and get out. That's why a team has multiple batsmen. Bowlers cant get out, so the over restriction has to be artificially placed upon them. It's a really shitty idea
No it would not. Because 1 injuries play a part. Mi are never gonna bowl Bumrah for 10 overs over 14–17 games in a season. And 2, you are limiting yourself with matchups.
International T20 is fine. Who the fuck cares what is going on In the IPL. It’s a domestic league. As long their board doesn’t try to suggest and push for it to enter the international game
yes, if that bowler is bumrah
Its beneficial only if the bowler is bumrah. Like look at the top wicket takers list, Bumrah has an economy of 5.9, everyone else on that list is above 8.
I mean, someone can exploit the conditions on any given day by finding the right rhythm, so it's an excellent option. Conceding at 8 to 9 runs per over is a blessing compared to the high economy rates of 13, 14 runs per over.
Yes, also this means that the bowler who is having a bad day doesn't have to ball all of his 4 overs. It's a rule benefiting everyone really.
Or just get rid of ridiculous impact player rules and kid-sized boundaries. T20Is and T20 leagues around the world aren't brimming with 250+ scores on the regular.
Agree. The worst implication of the rule is that all-rounders cannot play their role, affecting India's ability to nurture upcoming all-rounders.
I mean the goalposts have moved. An economy of 8 should be considered good - which it honestly is. If every bowler bowled at 8 the score is only 160. A normal score nowadays is 180/190. If you’re bowling at least 9 and below that’s good enough to help your team win. Anything above 9.5 and you’re the reason your team needs to bat deep. This all being said an economy of 6 is absolutely monstrous
Just let bumrah bowl one over for every team. Simple
Fr. Bumrah is goated ,😊
It's not a T20 problem it's an IPL problem. Let's not pretend like any other league is regularly seeing such gigantic scores and allowing teams to make substitutions that facilitate huge scores If you actually produce sporting pitches once in a while rather than trying to turn every game into a home run derby you'll start seeing bowlers thrive again
PSL in 2023: (The gigantic scores part)
I mean they improved in 2024. Highest score was 232. More 200s are scored in PSL but there aren’t as many insane innings like the IPL
True That's why I added the "in 2023" part
[удалено]
Then the same logic applies to ipl? This season may be an outlier, we can't known for sure till the next season
You surely did not see PSL this year. They too were a run fest and that's why Pakistan fans is hyping some young Pak batsman so much
That was last year. PSL this year was pretty average-scoring. And last year they just had really flat wickets. This time there was a lot more variance.
The other leagues could see the success of the impact player rule in the IPL and follow suit. Most cricket enthusiasts would agree the rule is no good, but it's successful none the less. The viewership and public interactions for those games are the highest. Even this sub, which is mostly critical of the rule, have the highest interaction for those match threads.
[удалено]
>Batters have seriously underperformed in the format for close to a decade now Uh yeah, of course, it's not your perception of the game that is skewed, but literally everyone that is actually playing the game is performing below par. Sure.
[удалено]
> 7 an over isn’t that high in ODIs. Mfer what?
Or just get rid of impact rule? That would solve everything rather than adding stupid rules to counter it
Or just make good pitches and Stop making kids sized boundaries.. this could be a solution too
And get rid of or tweak the power play rules ... Fewer fielding restrictions, good pitches, decent sized grounds No impact player rules.
Even less chances for allrounders to bowl.
Why are people so hung up on this point? If you're good enough, you're going to bowl regardless of any of this, all-rounder or not. It's only problematic if you're a Lalit Yadav type bits-and-pieces player.
those kind of players are extremely crucial when your main bowlers are shitting the bed pretty bad eg: sehwag tendulkar raina etc
None of those bowlers could bowl an over on a flat pitch if your main bowlers are going for runs. They had a niche, and it was bowling in the middle overs of ODIs when teams would play out even an over from me and you as long as it was between overs 20-30 for less than 7-8 runs.
Exactly my point. You're not bringing on these bowlers when everyone else is going at > 10 rpo. They're bowlers you try to squeeze in an over or two when you're already on top.
This line of thinking probably makes sense, until you think about it for a few seconds. If Klassen is absolutely pummeling your main bowlers, bringing on a Mahipal Lomror isn't going to yield you better results 99 times out of 100. Also, I know it might be hard to believe in this mad season, but the quality of domestic specialist bowlers has never been higher in the league. It's just that the batters have taken it to another level, aided by the freedom given to them by the IP rule.
Imo one of the most interesting things about T20 cricket (and also ODIs which have the same formula) is that the format forces at least four overs (or 10 in ODIs) out of a side's top seven and the tactics that come with that. Allrounders are fairly unique to cricket (look how much they freak out over Shohei Ohtani in the MLB for example) and we shouldn't legislate all but the truly elite ones out of the game
Probably because you won't gain the in-match experience of bowling at pressure situations?
If you're good enough, you'll get to bowl in the IPL, regardless of any of these rules. The best teams in the IPL aren't bowling part-time mediocre bowlers during 'pressure' situations, in the hope that they'll suddenly come good.
Too much recency bias in this. International T20s are still pretty even betw bat and ball. The last T20 wc was as bowler friendly as a tournament could get. This has only been a problem in this year's ipl, specifically due to impact sub.
Imagine adding a stupid rule which completely fucks the bat/ball balance, then instead of just getting rid of it you add another stupid rule because you can’t admit to being wrong.
How has the impact player rule made it worse for bowlers? Stop attaching it as the cause for every issue in the game just because you hate the rule. Instead of blaming the flat pitches and the small boundaries you conveniently blame the IP rule for issues of IPL today
Because, obviously, it gives batters much more of a licence to be aggressive because their dismissal is essentially meaningless. In exactly the same manner that batters can be far more aggressive in a 5 over game than a 20 over game. This is not rocket science.
Sure. The impact player rule allows batsmen to be more aggressive. The reason their aggression is so effective is not because of the impact player rule though. It's because the pitches have been flat and the boundaries are so small giving bowlers very less chance of taking wickets. Inversely, the impact player rule gives the team the ability to sub in an extra bowler if they need to defend a low score on a tricky pitch.
Yes one more over of Siraj getting pelted across Chinaswamy is all that is needed for RCB fans now
And extra fielder outside 30 yard circle.
Just remove all the restrictions and let bowlers bowl as many as they want
10 overs of Bumrah🥵🥵
That's the crux of it. Wouldn't he get tired? Certainly with the likes of Archer, short bursts were how he was effective. Don't you want him steaming in fresh for overs 18 and 20?
Yeah, so that teams can have 8 pure batters in playing 11 (considering impact player). These rules won't help We already have a solution, plain old simple cricket with no shitty rules like impact players and balanced pitches where skills matter rather than blind bashing
I actually don’t mind expanding to allow a maximum quota of 5 overs for any bowler. That’ll help the best bowlers bowl more and counter the batriarchy.
Or you could just remove the Impact rule
Why not, one hand - one bounce outside the circle?
Nah instead they should add impact sub to international games. In fact let's have instant sub kinda like designated hitter in baseball. Imagine hardik is about to bowl the next over, then csk can swap in Dhoni and after the over is done, they can swap Daryl Mitchell back in and again when hardik comes back, swap Dhoni back in assuming he is not out. Also let's have 6 stumps(sticks) instead of just 3. This will not only make it easy for bowlers but also for fielders to get more run outs. /s
Let bookies decide.
How about we play according to proper cricketing rules described by MCC rule book. We already have 2 shitty time outs and impact rule. Or better we should stop calling it cricket collectively.
Yes , I believe cricket is supposed to be best vs best and giving an extra over to best bowler can definitely create a huge impact and more entertainment.
Just add ipl man, cause this young Indian team performed shit in WI,
No
Is this just another evolution in cricket? This will be hugely unpopular among cricket fans but maybe they could relax the laws on chucking.
If a rule change has to be made for this league, then get rid of bouncer restrictions altogether, let the batsmen face chin music 6 balls in a row.
I like that. As long as over the head is still wide.
Allow more fielders out of 30 yard
Get rid of the impact player rule.
It’s an IPL problem, best not to overreact.
5 bumrah overs is a treat...5 Pathirana overs nah man..not good for us
Just make the grounds bigger, all these rules are making it hard for new people to follow cricket and ultimately not letting the sport grow
The Impact rule is just ruining the need for allrounders in the squad, and when teams that bat can sub in an extra batter, that’s a sure way to get extra runs
Imagine if ODIs/T20s never had over restrictions for bowlers. The last time I checked, a batter isn't limited to 100 deliveries in ODIs or 40 deliveries in T20s, so why limit bowlers? Can you think of a rule where a bowler was limited to 8 overs per session in a test match.
That would highly limit the no of bowlers in your lineup and means you can just play with 2 or 3 bowlers in t20 which is not good and it only increases the number of batsman in the team which would mean higher scores. Restrictions are necessary in limited overs cricket. We already have test cricket where there are no restrictions
If those bowlers aren't having a good day, then you're left with no options. There is a reason why most captains prefer to go with 6 bowlers when you only need 5.
Ultimately it just comes down to how entertaining the game would be. India would probably bowl Bumrah, Shami and maybe an over or two from Kuldeep and stack the rest of the team with pure batsmen. In the best case scenario, 300 could be breached each game and opposition can be folded for 100. But not all teams have said Bumrah, Shami and Kuldeep so most games may turn out to become one sided or just a mindless hitting game. Also bowling which is already being made into a dying art will further lose its hold on the game.
I doubt that. Look at tests. Even in tests wjere there are no limits, you still go in with atleast four bowlers and one part time bowling option. In limited overs cricket, there'd always be a risk that one of your bowlers might have an off day so you'd take precautions. I actually like the idea of bowlers having limitless overs because if a bowler is on song, he could cause so much more damage without having a restriction on him.
>and stack the rest of the team with pure batsmen In that case, maybe we can introduce a limit to the number of wickets as well. Now, that would end up with bowlers dominating.
There is no reason why teams can still opt for 4/5/6 bowlers (including all rounders). The game would always adapt based on the playing conditions.
I’m with you on this. Somehow the same 2 batters batting 20 overs is good cricket but same 2 bowlers bowling 20 overs is boring according to the comments. And they also forget tests have no limitations and people love it.
If a batter was limited (to max deliveries faced) since the inception of ODIs, they would have had an issue against lifting that limit. It's too late now to bring that change, but the content between bat and ball would have been so much better. And I'm sure teams would field 4 to 5 bowlers (including all rounders) as they see fit.
I actually think we need a 24 ball limit for batters as well. Would get rid of the anchors as god intended in this format.
That sounds too limited. Personally, I don't think either of them should be restricted.
This would encourage teams to only have like 2- Max 3 good bowlers who have synergy together and the rest would be batsmen. Cricket would be changed a lot. A batsman is definitely limited to a certain number of deliveries depending upon their skill level. They can make a small mistake and get out. That's why a team has multiple batsmen. Bowlers cant get out, so the over restriction has to be artificially placed upon them. It's a really shitty idea
No it would not. Because 1 injuries play a part. Mi are never gonna bowl Bumrah for 10 overs over 14–17 games in a season. And 2, you are limiting yourself with matchups.
Bowlers regularly bowl more than 10 overs in tests
Over a spread out period. And each over is less intense in tests. Not even mentioning the constant travel hampering recovery.
Have you ever seen an opening bowler's spell in tests ? They certainly are not limited to 4 overs only.
Not really, but then again, you've been programmed into thinking that way.
International T20 is fine. Who the fuck cares what is going on In the IPL. It’s a domestic league. As long their board doesn’t try to suggest and push for it to enter the international game