not 20 20

[slugger]

most poeople believe the game of cricket is weighted in the favour of the skipper who wins the toss, if the day is over cast, muggey, full of sun shine, expected rain what ever you know the toss counts, it can put you in a beneficial advantage.

cricket officials have tried to balance this silghtly, by shortening the game, (20-20) this is not the answer.

i have, i think come up with a better system, basically this- once team "A" has got three wrickets, the teams swap and and team "A" begin their run chase, of course when they lose there first three wickets, then team "B" continues to set its target (maybe they still leading maybe they are not) once team "A" has got it's next three wickets, teams swap again. this continues. until both teams have batted their 50 overs out or lost all 10 wickets before the end of their 50 overs. see this systym is based loosely on baseball, it also creates extra excitment as viewer can always guage the progess of a match, no rules are changed or modified. now tell me how much do you think the toss will play now.

i have explained this to a buddy who plays premire cricket, he thought it sounded extremely solid and full proof plan, in removing the benefits of winning a toss, and also created a constant atmosphere of excitment.

what do you guys think.

[slugger]

everyone is little unsure of change. lets have a look at the benefits.
-score comparison, through-out game.
-set up creates a constant movement, wave of excitment and emotion for spectator and player.
-the interuptions you speak of, should be seen as part of the strategy of the game.
-conditions will have little to no bearing on out come of match.

I think we have all seen games interupted by rain delay and other un-normal delays, powered lights switching off. etc.
and many times player have returned and continued from we they have left off. test batmen do it all the time hayden and lara don't score 400 in a day.

ODI matches have created some stop-start batting big scores and cnturies. S.Fleming scored a big century against sth africa in a rain interupted world cup match. and just today a.flintoff returned to score a century from a rained off match.

i would like to give you 2 examples, straight from the icc trophey. if it was played under my verision. i have done this many times before and it always looks like it would have been a much more interesting game.


Zim vs Sri Lanka
3/47 13.04 overs. Zim.
3/54 12.0 overs. Sri lanka
6/85 26.05 overs. Zim.
6/152 36.05 overs Sri lanka

now lets stop the game there. Sri-Lanka only need 4 wickets. Zim trail by 67 runs. with 24 overs left in the bank. to be equal with sri lanka using the same amount of overs up 36.05 (10 overs) they need to score approx. 6 runs an over. as you can see the game twist and turns giving both teams a chance to rectify a postion they may have got themselves into. Also the batting order can always be adjusted as the game progesses.

lets have a look at another match.

nz vs Aust
3/49 12.06 overs NZ.
3/99 23.03 overs Aust.
6/79 21.04 overs NZ.

ok lets stop the game here, Aust did,nt lose another wicket, but lets assume they're playing my verision, and i will give Aust the score they would have set according to their runs per over from the 37.2 over they were at 199 which is 5.3 runs an over, if they had continued, they would have set 3/265. Now is'nt this an interesting match. NZ were orginally set in to sit a score, now they are chasing the score. they have 29 overs in the bank 4 wickets in hand to win they require 6.4 runs an over. Mcmillian would have returned to the crease on 17 with Harris.

thats all i have to say. the format speaks for its self.