In the midst of the heated battle in the ICC on Zimbabwe's future, there is one development I wanted to discuss here. The power play rules for ODI's have been slightly altered where the batting side gets to choose when one of the 2nd or 3rd power plays takes place.

First of all it will swing the game more towards the bowlers when the team batting first might opt for those power plays during the slog overs say between 45-50 overs. As if T20, better bats, flatter pitches, ball changes weren't enough, now batsmen getting to choose a power play tilts the game away from the bowlers.

On the bright side,I think it might speed up those games which are going towards a predictable result. The side chasing might want to impose a power play and finish a game quickly instead of knocking singles, makes the game a bit more interesting in that scenario.

Also a team chasing, needing quick runs to keep up with the required run rate, might conserve that power play to use it at the end or whenever they deem it necessary, makes some of those games a little more exciting as well.

A cricket thread - well nearly. I would like to see more than just tinkering with this law. I never understood the need for 'power play', and would like to see it abolished.
Methinks captains have enough to think about, and need 'power play' - like a boil on the bum.

__________________
Ern

I have to admit to some confusion here- the way you've written the sentence suggests to me that you meant to say "batsmen" instead of bowlers. Whether this is what you meant or not, this PowerPlay rule has been used in Australian domestic cricket for a couple of years now, and it has in fact worked quite well for the bowlers. The batting sides tend to take their PowerPlay when they've got an established partnership at the crease, and I've enver seen it taken after 45 overs. But when it is taken, it almost always results in at least a wicket. I agree with Ernest- I don't think it's really necessary at all, but at least this way it achieves what it was originally intended to do. It livens up the middle overs and does, in fact, give something for the bowlers.

Yes thats what I meant ...the original post edited to reflect that.

I haven't seen a lot of australian domestic cricket, so I dont know what strategies players use when it comes to batting power plays. But almost no international team nowadays uses power plays the way they are supposed to, even if the opposition goes hammer and tongs in the first power play, they dont delay using the subsequent power plays. Effectively it is like the 15 over field restrictions in the past only that they are now 20 overs.

In the initial stages when the power plays were introduced, people at times used them later in the innings but I dont see that anymore. I guess teams nowadays are concentrating on getting wickets than restricting runs, with almost any kind of score being chase-able with wickets in hand. The power plays get wickets more often than not and I guess fielding team captains want to make use of them when the ball is newer.

I think you might be right when u say powerplays result in wickets which also might stem from the fact that the batsmen are given the license to free their arms. I think the batsmen are aware of this fact too and would want to take the risk in the beginning or towards the end and maybe not the 'consolidation' period of the middle overs.

This again depends on the match situation but looking at the way India have been playing under Dhoni's captaincy and listening to his presentation ceremony speeches and post-match press conferences, he values wickets too much in the middle overs to call for a power play, more often that not u will see the Indians taking the power plays towards the end if they're batting first and honestly its a win-win situation because u dont care so much for wickets at that stage anyway and the field restrictions might just make it easier to score.

Again in a close match situation, I think it increases the chance of chasing stiffer targets say when required run rate is like 9 an over with 10 overs to go or a required rate of 11 an over with 5 overs to go and batting power plays at such a juncture will surely swing the match one way or another.

I hope u and me are right when we think Ern doesn't see the necessity of power plays due to the fact that they are similar to the previous 15 over field restriction. I have a feeling he doesn't like field restrictions at all. As u say I just hope it achieves what it was intended to do.

On any decent cricket pitch (ODI or otherwise) the fielding restrictions should make absolutely no difference.

If you've got bowlers beating the bat, and batsmen looking worried, any decent captain is going to have at least a couple of slips and a gully fielder, plus someone at cover point as well as a fielder at mid on another at mid off and another in the covers.

By my reckoning that leaves the option of short leg (attacking) or midwicket (compromising) and just one deep fielder to sweep somewhere outside of the circle behind square on the leg side...

Once the captain is forced to take out / push back more than two of those fielders... the game has swung too far towards the batsmen... and that's in any form of cricket.

The ICC should just concentrate on sorting the balls (more prominent seams, harder-wearing), the pitches (faster, less even bounce, more turn, more cracks on a good length), the bat technology (smaller sweetspot, less power) and the outfields (longer, lusher turf, deeper boudaries).

Yeah, what they should have done is change the restrictions to the first 10 overs, then from 20-25 and from 30-35, if they wanted to ensure a more lively middle session.

Also because of the fact that the captains are forced to set attacking fields (eg. two slips) so edges which would normally be safe would then go to hand.

Well, I can only tell you what I've seen. The batting PowerPlays were almost always taken between the 30th and 40th over, when the batsmen at the crease were established and in good touch, so the batting captain would enforce the PowerPlay to try and capitalise on the existing partnership.