Instead of bowlers bowling spells of 4-5 overs, captain keep changing bowling after every over. So first over is bowled by bowler1, second by bowler2, third by bowler3, fourth by bowler4, fifth by bowler5, and then back to bowler1. This way batsman would remain unsettled and confused. Funny that no one ever tried this, specially on flat tracks. There is no law disallowing this.
Re: Why not in cricket
Instead of bowlers bowling spells of 4-5 overs, captain keep changing bowling after every over. So first over is bowled by bowler1, second by bowler2, third by bowler3, fourth by bowler4, fifth by bowler5, and then back to bowler1. This way batsman would remain unsettled and confused. Funny that no one ever tried this, specially on flat tracks. There is no law disallowing this.
I have read some reports on matches in past where captains have tried vry frequent bowling changes. Like bowling 5-6 bowlers one after another. In today's world though, Captains will have time pressure and they will not be able to complete their overs in stipulated time. Each bowling change requires additional times.
Re: Why not in cricket
Well....
If a bowler is bowling good, why change him for another bowler? It makes sense to keep a bowler on if he is bowling with a good rhythm and applying pressure on a batsman...
Yes if he is not bowling good then change him and I think this happens anyway..
Another thing is if you keep on changing your bolers, yes the batsman will not get settled but so wont your bowlers
Re: Why not in cricket
This way batsman would remain unsettled and confused.
The same would apply for the bowler. If he is changed after one over everytime, he will never get into any sort of rhythm.
However, your suggestion is good for Twenty20.
Re: Why not in cricket
Well....
If a bowler is bowling good, why change him for another bowler? It makes sense to keep a bowler on if he is bowling with a good rhythm and applying pressure on a batsman...
Yes if he is not bowling good then change him and I think this happens anyway..
Another thing is if you keep on changing your bolers, yes the batsman will not get settled but so wont your bowlers
good points
Re: Why not in cricket
However, your suggestion is good for Twenty20.
You raise a fine point. This strategy have good chances of working in shorter version of matches. In longer versions, you would want to keep one set of bowlers 'working at' a batsman.
Re: Why not in cricket
You raise a fine point. This strategy have good chances of working in shorter version of matches. In longer versions, you would want to keep one set of bowlers 'working at' a batsman.
Come to think of it....in Twenty20, 1-2 over spells is the standard as it is......given that bowlers can only bowl a maximum of 4.
Re: Why not in cricket
Come to think of it....in Twenty20, 1-2 over spells is the standard as it is......given that bowlers can only bowl a maximum of 4.
But usually bowlers did well if they bowled 3 or 4 overs spell, such as Afridi mostly bowled 4 overs in a row and Gul bowled mostly 4 overs in a row. Again this prove, bowlers also need to get into rythm.
Re: Why not in cricket
It would be good if captains could switch batsmen just like bowlers;
I am sure sometimes we all find ourselves in a position where we are 'wishing' a fellow batsmen will get out.
Switching will solve this problem,if he ain't playing good, switch him, bring him back later.
Now this would make cricket really good viewing; unpredictable and unsettling
Re: Why not in cricket
yes caption dooes dat, Aussies did in T-20 against PAK
sometime it takes lil time (few balls) to get in rhythm, the way u sayin, by the time 1st bowler gonna b back he'll loosen up, he gotta warm up again n stuff,
Re: Why not in cricket
It would be good if captains could switch batsmen just like bowlers;
I am sure sometimes we all find ourselves in a position where we are 'wishing' a fellow batsmen will get out.
Switching will solve this problem,if he ain't playing good, switch him, bring him back later.
Now this would make cricket really good viewing; unpredictable and unsettling
basically cricket kee maa behn aik kar do
Re: Why not in cricket
Cricket is not only to complete overs ! it is more to show your talent As a batsman, as a bowler and also as a Capten. and you need time to make a strategy and for sure alone Cap. cant do anything so he needs his bowlers, and with so quick change i dont think so if it will give you a best result of some one leading the team.
may be we need Ten - Ten sort of cricket to implement this idea :)