Can reintroducing reverse swing in ODIs cut down the number of 300+ scores?

[Savak]

The careers of Umar Gul, Wahab Riaz, Lasith Malinga and co suffered ever since the ICC introduced the two new ball rules in ODI's which made the spinners ineffective as well.

I personally implore the ICC to bring back the old rules and allow the fielding team to persist with the old ball, in fact the ICC should leave it up to the discretion of the fielding team as to whether they would like two new balls or to persist with the same old ball and give them the option to use reverse swing.

Pakistan's bowling attack has taken a severe beating in the absence of reverse swing. Having an older ball also makes it more difficult to put the spinners away. There has to be a better and more competitive balance between bat and ball.

 

[Sam99]

Then what about those records made in easy two ball era? what about double centuries? what about easy centuries batsman scored?

 

[Gabbar Singh]

Then what about those records made in easy two ball era? what about double centuries? what about easy centuries batsman scored?

Rules change all the time - that doesn't invalidate records. For example what about all the centuries scored when batsmen have been using runners?

 

[Sam99]

Rules change all the time - that doesn't invalidate records. For example what about all the centuries scored when batsmen have been using runners?

Don't tell me runners have been used every other match (might have helped to make one or two centuries at max). These easy runs are now counted in records and every future batsman should get this easy runs. ICC should have thought this when they made batting so easy.

 

[ahmedwaqas92]

Don't tell me runners have been used every other match (might have helped to make one or two centuries at max). These easy runs are now counted in records and every future batsman should get this easy runs. ICC should have thought this when they made batting so easy.

You are only looking at it from the perspective of batsmen here, what about the bowlers? Bowlers who have half decent averages in this era should be then hailed head and shoulders above those of the yeasteryears, right! While if that's the case then is Muhammad Amir a greater bowler than Wasim Akram and Jaspit Bumrah better than Waqar Younis?

ODI rules have constantly changed over the course of the last 30 years or so and if ICC feels that going back to 1 ball per inning formula (which I personally think of how it should be) would not be some left field decision that would put anyone at a disadvantage.

 

[Deewana Mastana]

Bowlers have been tarnished from the last 10 years at least in the so called game "Cricket".

Flat pitches, 2 new balls, bigger and heavier bats, smaller boundaries, it is all a batsman's game nothing much for a fair contest between bat and ball.

 

[j_kazmi]

The new ball rules before 2012 were great I don’t see why they changed it.

We’ll still see a lot of 300 scores but I don’t think as many.

Batsmen have evolved over the years so things won’t go back to the way they were before 2012 but it will make scoring harder, which may pull down your average 350 score back down to 300.

 

[Savak]

The new ball rules before 2012 were great I don’t see why they changed it.

We’ll still see a lot of 300 scores but I don’t think as many.

Batsmen have evolved over the years so things won’t go back to the way they were before 2012 but it will make scoring harder, which may pull down your average 350 score back down to 300.

Umar Gul in the 2010 England ODI series in England was in the form of his life and he looked a totally different bowler operating in the middle to end of the innings with reverse swing and it motivated him to crank it up to 90 mph plus. He kept the scoring rate down and got wickets.

After the 2 new balls in 2012, he was never the same bowler.

Even the spinners suffered with the 2 new ball rules. An older ball doesn't come on to the bat that easily as a new ball does and it would make things more challenging for the batsman.

I say leave it at the discretion of the fielding side.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

Umar Gul in the 2010 England ODI series in England was in the form of his life and he looked a totally different bowler operating in the middle to end of the innings with reverse swing and it motivated him to crank it up to 90 mph plus. He kept the scoring rate down and got wickets.

After the 2 new balls in 2012, he was never the same bowler.

Even the spinners suffered with the 2 new ball rules. An older ball doesn't come on to the bat that easily as a new ball does and it would make things more challenging for the batsman.

I say leave it at the discretion of the fielding side.

Gul was bowling consistently over 90mph until his injury in South Africa 2013. Uptil then, he was bowling with good speed. It was after that knee injury that his speed went down which he never recovered.

 

[Mamoon]

Two new balls rule has taken reverse-swing out of the equation and exposed bowlers with poor new ball skills, but I don’t think bringing reverse-swing back will cut down the big scores by much.

Batsmen have become too adventurous in the T20 era with a wider array of strokes. Power-hitting has improved massively, and the era where 270 was a match-winning score is history for good.

The perception of balance between bat and ball will also change. Who decides the balance, and why do we consider a score of 250-300 as balanced?

It is simply the perception that has been embedded in our brains after repeatedly witnessing scores in the same range.

In our minds, an economy of 5 is good, and if the score is between 250 and 300, it means it is a good pitch.

However, these figures of 5, 250 and 300 etc. are arbitrary. No one can explain why an economy of 7 is bad, and why a score between 250 and 300 represents balance between bat and ball.

This idea of what balance is will change over the passage of time when big scores become more and more common, and that is how it has always been.

It took a while for people to realize that a strike rate of 65 will not cut it in ODIs, but that strike rate was acceptable for many years.

Similarly, in the future, an economy rate of 7 will become acceptable as well, because our mental perception of balance will shift.

Cricket is evolving, and it is a natural process. Instead of stopping and reversing the evolution, we need to evolve our brains, change our perceptions and the way we see the game.

It is human nature to be averse to change, but change is the only constant.

 

[Mr.Q]

Two new balls rule has taken reverse-swing out of the equation and exposed bowlers with poor new ball skills, but I don’t think bringing reverse-swing back will cut down the big scores by much.

Batsmen have become too adventurous in the T20 era with a wider array of strokes. Power-hitting has improved massively, and the era where 270 was a match-winning score is history for good.

The perception of balance between bat and ball will also change. Who decides the balance, and why do we consider a score of 250-300 as balanced?

It is simply the perception that has been embedded in our brains after repeatedly witnessing scores in the same range.

In our minds, an economy of 5 is good, and if the score is between 250 and 300, it means it is a good pitch.

However, these figures of 5, 250 and 300 etc. are arbitrary. No one can explain why an economy of 7 is bad, and why a score between 250 and 300 represents balance between bat and ball.

This idea of what balance is will change over the passage of time when big scores become more and more common, and that is how it has always been.

It took a while for people to realize that a strike rate of 65 will not cut it in ODIs, but that strike rate was acceptable for many years.

Similarly, in the future, an economy rate of 7 will become acceptable as well, because our mental perception of balance will shift.

Cricket is evolving, and it is a natural process. Instead of stopping and reversing the evolution, we need to evolve our brains, change our perceptions and the way we see the game.

It is human nature to be averse to change, but change is the only constant.

Very well explained.

Also, people who complain about the game favouring the batsmen more should remember that one basic rule hasn’t changed since the beginning. There’s no second chance for a batsman. A faint edge that even he didn’t feel is enough to send him back to the dressing room. Bowlers get a second chance and that gives them an unimaginable advantage. They can run in and bowl their full quota of overs no matter how many wides and front foot no balls they bowl or boundaries they concede. 10 overs = 60 chances to get a batsman out. This is also the reason why the world’s best batsman enjoys a better status than the world’s best bowler. It takes more concentration and skill to be a batsman.

Higher scoring rate means riskier shots. For a skilled bowler, that actually increases the probability of getting a wicket. Reverse swing will only promote defensive cricket and the T20 like finishes we see today won’t be common.

 

[Savak]

Reverse swing is still tough for many batsmen to face. There has to be some test for the batsman to see how good they really are

 

[slipcatch]

Fascism against bowler with 2 new balls in one game should be given worse punishment.

Decreasing the chance of reverse swing is probably the biggest crime committed by cricketing body against cricket.

That being said, not every bowler is capable of reversing, even with the help of sandpaper.

 

[JaDed]

Yes .

 

[hadi123]

We need more games like today, so much better when there is not 300+ scores, good balance between bat and ball

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Reverse swing won't change a thing. This aggressive batting is the result of T20s. Batsmen won't stop slogging just because the ball is doing funny things.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

Definitely. In Asia esp UAE and SL and WI, reverse swing will be a massive thing. In England as well, it could be a factor. T20 doesn't have that much to do with 300+ totals. You can slog for 20 overs but in 50, if you get out early, you might run out of players. It's the fielding restrictions, bats sizes, two new balls that have led to so many 300 plus totals in addition to some contribution of t20is. In India, I remember even back in 2005 and 2006 there used to be so many 300 plus totals in ODI's.