What's new

Should baby overs (3-ball overs) be allowed in T20s?

B

BreadPakoda

First Class Captain
Joined
Feb 8, 2018
Runs
5,373
Not sure if this is a wide spread terminology, but back in the day we had this concept of baby overs in gully cricket, where a captain could withdraw a bowler after 3 deliveries for solely tactical reasons. Another bowler with his bowling quota remaining finishes the over.

Imagine a Gayle going berserk against Chahal and Kohli replaces him with Siraj. Well the result could still be the same but at least it gives the fielding captain some breathing space.

While this could make the game a bit more bowler friendly, which we all want it to be, it could also lose out on possible Yuvraj-Broad or Hussey-Ajmal episodes.

Any thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Sounds like a REALLY good idea. BUT same should be for batsmen as well.

For example, Shehzad can be replaced by Fakhar Zaman or Shahid Afridi mid-game during an over. Purely for tactical reasons by the captain.
 
game is complicated as is don't need more gimmick rules.
 
Asch Ali said:
Sounds like a REALLY good idea. BUT same should be for batsmen as well.

For example, Shehzad can be replaced by Fakhar Zaman or Shahid Afridi mid-game during an over. Purely for tactical reasons by the captain.
Click to expand...
That's already there. A batsman can retire out himself.
 
BreadPakoda said:
That's already there. A batsman can retire out himself.
Click to expand...

NO. The batsman should NOT be considered OUT. They should be allowed to be switched back in anytime they want. Likewise to bowler being switched in mid-over like you prosposed.
 
Asch Ali said:
NO. The batsman should NOT be considered OUT. They should be allowed to be switched back in anytime they want. Likewise to bowler being switched in mid-over like you prosposed.
Click to expand...

The idea behind this concept is to make the game a bit bowler friendly. It's already a slog fest. Your suggestion will further tilt it towards the batsmen.
 
BreadPakoda said:
Not sure if this is a wide spread terminology, but back in the day we had this concept of baby overs in gully cricket, where a captain could withdraw a bowler after 3 deliveries for solely tactical reasons. Another bowler with his bowling quota remaining finishes the over.

Imagine a Gayle going berserk against Chahal and Kohli replaces him with Siraj. Well the result could still be the same but at least it gives the fielding captain some breathing space.

While this could make the game a bit more bowler friendly, which we all want it to be, it could also lose out on possible Yuvraj-Broad or Hussey-Ajmal episodes.

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

1) It might end up making it more difficult for bowlers if they only have 3 balls to find the right line and length to a particular batsman rather than the usual 6.

2) It is also taxing on bowlers to do their warmups / stretching and field settings after every 3 balls.

3) it will drag the the game on for too long and incur too many interruptions and breaks that fans and even the players may find unhelpful.

Interesting idea though.
 
BreadPakoda said:
The idea behind this concept is to make the game a bit bowler friendly. It's already a slog fest. Your suggestion will further tilt it towards the batsmen.
Click to expand...

Well I am balancing the rules of cricket with my suggestion. I believe it is an addition to your brilliant idea. If a spinner can be brought in to Englishmen who can’t play spin, left arm, right seam, off spin, leg spin, finger spin, googly, doosra, floater, sinker, swinger, straighter, bouncer, carrom, etc. the batsman won’t be able to score any runs. So I think it is fair to allow opposition to choose any batsman they want from the pavilion (for example Shahid Afridi). You know he hits 6 and gets out. You can send him in for one delivery. And bring him back to pavilion before 2nd delivery is bowled. And send him back to pitch next over, and repeat. It will be fair.
 
This will give tremendous advantage to the team who bowls second. And such a tactical advantage will be unfair in the name of the spirit of the game.
 
No. There is no place for this in Professional cricket. Just wastes time and disrupts the flow of the game.
 
Itachi said:
This will give tremendous advantage to the team who bowls second. And such a tactical advantage will be unfair in the name of the spirit of the game.
Click to expand...

How would it give an advantage to the team batting second?

Also, as I mentioned, the number of times this can be exercised can be restricted to 1.
 
called mini overs in our area.. this is for those kids who's there for fill numbers..
 
BreadPakoda said:
I agree that this could waste time. How about restricting it? Say only once per inning?
Click to expand...

No. Why complicate things. There should be no place to hide in professional cricket, you're playing with the world's best. Can't bowl 3 bad balls and not have to finish your over.
 
That will kill a bowler's confidence and most of the captains will not use this option. Only a terrible captain will lose his faith in his bowler in 3 balls.
 
BreadPakoda said:
How would it give an advantage to the team batting second?

Also, as I mentioned, the number of times this can be exercised can be restricted to 1.
Click to expand...

.... Advantage to the team which BOWLS second.

Because it gives the captain the tactical advantage during the last death overs where he could change the bowlers in the middle of it there by decreasing the risk that is in death overs. He could use his primary bowler to create pressure in the first three balls and then a trundler where the batsman will have to risk and will either be out trying to hit six or run rate will keep on piling.

Its simply gives way too many advantage for the team bowling second. They can use it in as aggressive as they want or they could also use it very negatively and defensively when things are against them.

While it gives no such incentive to the team bowling first.

.... If you are restricting it to 1, it doesn't serve any purpose and will be just a gimmick novelty of which will wear out after few days.
 
Itachi said:
.... Advantage to the team which BOWLS second.

Because it gives the captain the tactical advantage during the last death overs where he could change the bowlers in the middle of it there by decreasing the risk that is in death overs. He could use his primary bowler to create pressure in the first three balls and then a trundler where the batsman will have to risk and will either be out trying to hit six or run rate will keep on piling.

Its simply gives way too many advantage for the team bowling second. They can use it in as aggressive as they want or they could also use it very negatively and defensively when things are against them.

While it gives no such incentive to the team bowling first.

.... If you are restricting it to 1, it doesn't serve any purpose and will be just a gimmick novelty of which will wear out after few days.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Good points. Although I don't agree with the last one. A W after a 6 6 6 can change the complexion of a 20 over game.

I see people saying it gives unfair advantage, while some are saying it will create pressure on bowlers. I am of course myself not completely sold on it, hence the question.
 
The_Odd_One said:
That will kill a bowler's confidence and most of the captains will not use this option. Only a terrible captain will lose his faith in his bowler in 3 balls.
Click to expand...

Interesting. On the other hand one could argue that it can also give confidence to a bowler to take more risks knowing that he can be replaced if he isn't getting it right. Like a safety.
 
BreadPakoda said:
Interesting. On the other hand one could argue that it can also give confidence to a bowler to take more risks knowing that he can be replaced if he isn't getting it right. Like a safety.
Click to expand...

Why do you need a bowling change for that? He can just go back to his stock deliveries.
 
It will complicate things too much .

If it is to be implemented , a captain should be allowed to do it only once per innings.
 
The simplest and better suggestion is to eliminate bowling quota, or at least increase it to 5 overs per bowler.
 
CricketAnalyst said:
The simplest and better suggestion is to eliminate bowling quota, or at least increase it to 5 overs per bowler.
Click to expand...

This is much better honestly. A bowler should be able to bowl as many deliveries as he/she needs. Although it might make scaling stats from previous era more difficult, but that shouldn't be a big issue. It would make the game more balanced.
 
Nope, baby overs does not have a place in International cricket. A bowler learns a hard way and getting hammered sometime brings the character out. Few can succeed after the event, few fall away. Hiding them is never a solution.
 
Wow! ICC should hire few posters from here, who keep coming up with "new" ideas.

First, extra review for the #1 batsman
Then, Two batsmen out in one delivery
And now this.

Not much cricket is going on (for IND, PAK and BAN) and hence posters don't have much to discuss about. This is forcing them to come up with new ideas, whether it makes sense or not.
 
Might as well go the full way and allow bowlers to bowl one delivery each.... it would be just like a nets session and the batsman wouldn't have a clue what's going on or who will bowl next!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TalentSpotterPk
Who is the most intelligent limited overs fast bowler in Pakistan?
Replies
14
Views
296
TalentSpotterPk
TalentSpotterPk
Cricket Warrior
"We’ll be better prepared for the death overs as anyone can change the game in the final overs": Shaheen Shah Afridi
Replies
12
Views
696
FearlessRoar
FearlessRoar
Savak
Rohit Sharma vs Yuvraj Singh: Who will be remembered as the greater legend in Indian limited-overs cricket?
Replies
38
Views
1K
mominsaigol
mominsaigol
hassan918
"I feel that we should be looking to dominate the middle overs": Imad Wasim
Replies
15
Views
1K
Cricket Warrior
Cricket Warrior
M
Should a bowler's bowling average be adjusted according to the quality of the batter he has taken wickets off?
Replies
6
Views
247
Muhammad Saad
M
Back
Top