And you suggest ... a toss?
Or maybe, an overtime?
Or a good ol' tie to end the game, and having a late evening cuppa tea with a few laughs.
We are not here to make or mock the rules, ofcourse. Seems a "Bowl Out" is part of cricket rules, is rarely used (I was not aware of it before seeing the clip, myself), and thus is fun to watch (better than two captains sharing a trophy and having goofy grins). If you want to go into even deeper discussion on this topic, feel free.
Meraa bas chale to...I would also get rid of the Penalty Shoot-Out in Soccer and Hockey(not to mention that Sudden-Death). It is a stupid way to decide important games (sometimes even who wins the World Cup). Agar shoot-out OR bowl-out karna hi hai...then a team should be declared the Winner only when it leads the other team by at least 3 points....until then both teams should keep shooting/bowling.
Well, as part of my warm up routine, I do bowl at bare stumps before the start of a game. This is more to get the run up right, as well as loosen up the arms and shoulders. And trust me, 5 out of 6 times, even I (fairly ordinary bowler) hit the stumps every week with no batsman standing there. Thank you for your suggestion though. :)
I dug out this thread because I was reminded about our discussion after today's events at the Twenty20 India-Pak match.
Faisal, do you still think it is very easy to hit the stumps.....3 bowlers in your national team might disagree.
Faisal, do you still think it is very easy to hit the stumps.....3 bowlers in your national team might disagree.
your forgot about the pressure element, and its a matter of bowling one bad ball. And i think they got it wrong by changing their runup considerably but i guess they did what they thought would be best.
its about practice not luck, professional cricketers bowl at a single stump repeatedly, and about it not being fair? its the same pitch with the same set of wickets, i think its pretty equal. so in the case u mentioned about faisal and heath streak, its a simple case of heath streak not putting the ball where he should be putting it. all it takes is one bad ball.
The case that I am trying to make is the following :
A great bowler is not any more likely to hit the stumps than an ordinary bowler.
Probably the reason why Sehwag and Uthappa were nominated for the bowl-out by India today instead of regular bowlers like R P Singh and Agarkar.
The essential difference between the soccer and cricket shoot/bowl-outs is that - in Soccer, the player taking the shot has to get past the opponent's goal-keeper who is of his equal stature. That means that if Oliver Kahn is the Goal-keeper, the shooter better be of a high standard.
But in Cricket bowl-outs (the kind we witnessed today), it is just between the bowler and the "unprotected" stumps. Therefore Faisal (who apparently hits the stumps 5 out of 6 times) is as likely to hit the stumps as somebody like Wasim Akram. This, of course, is not fair.
That said, I personally feel that even the soccer penalty shoot-outs is not the best way to decide the a soccer game.
by the way, as I said above if the "shoot-outs" cannot be done away with, there should at least be a clear difference of 3 points between the two teams before the winner is decided. This was the case in the India-Pak match today - so all is good :)
I agree with reasoning of Some1 here.
Bowlout in today's match was all the more ridiculous as it didnot effect fate of this team in this world cup anyway. Neither points are carried forward not does it effect who you play in 2nd round. I guess it was just for scoring brownie points like India never lost to Pak in worldcup.
From looking at the above video, it seems like slow short-run up bowlers are best suited for bowl-outs. India did the right thing by employing Sehwag, Harbhajan and Uthappa.
they should atleast have a rule that forces teams to use their regular bowlers with their regular actions (full run ups and all). its meaningless otherwise, and you have people who never bowl in a normal match (like uthappa or whoever that indian batsman was) doing the bowling.
they should atleast have a rule that forces teams to use their regular bowlers with their regular actions (full run ups and all). its meaningless otherwise, and you have people who never bowl in a normal match (like uthappa or whoever that indian batsman was) doing the bowling.
that really doesnt make any sense to me
i dont see whats wrong or how it is meaningless with bowling other players
and it was only utthapa who doesnt bowl in matches (yet), sehwag, harbhajan, pathan and sreesanth bowl in "normal" matches
in soccer, cant the goalies or defense men, or even the midfielders shoot in a penalty? or do they have to be the "regular" shooters?
I agree with reasoning of Some1 here.
Bowlout in today's match was all the more ridiculous as it didnot effect fate of this team in this world cup anyway. Neither points are carried forward not does it effect who you play in 2nd round. I guess it was just for scoring brownie points like India never lost to Pak in worldcup.
point is probably entertainment
i doubt we are going to see many more ties in cricket so lets enjoy it while we can
and of course its hilarious watching international cricketers missing a set of unguarded stumps
The essential difference between the soccer and cricket shoot/bowl-outs is that - in Soccer, the player taking the shot has to get past the opponent's goal-keeper who is of his equal stature. That means that if Oliver Kahn is the Goal-keeper, the shooter better be of a high standard.
But in Cricket bowl-outs (the kind we witnessed today), it is just between the bowler and the "unprotected" stumps. Therefore Faisal (who apparently hits the stumps 5 out of 6 times) is as likely to hit the stumps as somebody like Wasim Akram. This, of course, is not fair.
i think this is the best way, would you like a batsmen standing there trying to fend the ball away from the stumps during a bowl-out? :D
If the shooter is of a high standard, does that also mean he is great player? No. He might not be the calibre of zidane but he still takes the penalty kicks. If Faisal has the same control as wasim does then i would say he is a player of high standard for bowl-outs but doesnt mean he is better than wasim. So i feel the formats are pretty similiar...
If the shooter is of a high standard, does that also mean he is great player? No. He might not be the calibre of zidane but he still takes the penalty kicks. If Faisal has the same control as wasim does then i would say he is a player of high standard for bowl-outs but doesnt mean he is better than wasim. So i feel the formats are pretty similiar...
okay , let me put this simply for you...
What happens in the soccer penalty shoot-out is normal soccer - a player trying to score a goal while the opposing goal-keeper tries to stop him from scoring.
What happens in the Cricket bowl-out is NOT normal Cricket....the bowler at no point in the game is expected to bowl at and hit an "unprotected" set of stumps. So an "abnormal kind of talent" is expected from the players during the bowl-out that has no co-relation with their individual cricketing skill.
Since this process does not reflect normal cricketing skill at all, it should not be used to decide the winner of the game. PERIOD.
