Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
EndofWhitt
Moderator
Global user
Registered: 09-2006
Posts: 533
Karma: -17 (+1/-18)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Rule changes.
If it was a level playing field (no pun intended, honest) then I totally agree with what is being stated. But batting points based upon runs scored and run rate in a league where there is such a variance in ground size favours teams with smaller grounds over those with larger grounds. IMO this is why we have the current percentage of score batting points rule.
Jam's analysis seems to support my argument in that the smaller the ground, in general the higher the average score!
I don't know how well you know other grounds in the PS Codskip, so I'll just use the theory on a couple of grounds in the 5th division that you'll know.
Although at present massive scores aren't being made at Fylde 3rds. IMO this is down to the standard of cricketers (on opposing teams especially) and the 6 inch long grass in the outfield on each occasion I've been there. On each occasion more 6's than 4's have been scored by our side as beat the fielder it stopped in the outfield.
If the outfield was cut to usual levels could you imagine the scores on a ground with a 30-odd yard boundary all round? You wouldn't be declaring on 180! Compare that to, let's say, Harris Park, where a 1st innings total of 150 will win more games than it loses. Over the course of a season who will get more batting points?
Is it fair to give an advantage to smaller grounds, or for equality does everyone have to bring their boundary in to match the smallest?
|
|
31/Aug/2007, 7:49 pm
|
Send Email to EndofWhitt
Send PM to EndofWhitt
|
gilly11
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 03-2006
Posts: 1014
Karma: -9 (+5/-14)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Rule changes.
And their was me thinking if you batted first you got points for scoring at 2,3,4 an over.
Does that not help teams with smaller grounds?
|
|
2/Sep/2007, 2:04 pm
|
Send Email to gilly11
Send PM to gilly11
|
yoey
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 03-2006
Location: Great Eccleston CC
Posts: 766
Karma: -5 (+7/-12)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Rule changes.
This was brought up last year. I still feel the points system should be 10 for a win. A few teams would change position but in general the teams with the most wins and playing the better cricket finish in the right position. Personally I haven't changed my thoughts. I would be a bit more radical and increase the number of bonus points on offer. 10 for a win with 10 bonus points on offer, 5 batting, 5 bowling, I think it would really show who the better sides are, not only that clubs would have to produce good wickets if they want to achieve maximum points, at the moment it is harder work bowling sides out for 3 points as opposed to batting and scoring 180 for 3 points. I would like to see 225 as a score for 5 bonus points or maybe increase it.
The positives with the advent of win/loss is teams press on for the win, vey few are happy to bat out the overs unlike years gone by with draws.
Moving on to grounds teams should be rewarded for producing better wickets irrespective of whether it is a small ground or not. It is far to easy for teams with better bowling sides than batting sides to produce poor wickets. In the short term it may well be to their benefit, unfortunately I believe these clubs will suffer in the long term, players can adjust to playing on poor wickets but when they come to decent tracks the techniques that they have used on poor tracks wil have an adverse effect.
Having said this I don't think anyone this year could do much about the standard of wickets this year. Early season was hampered with some exceptional March weather and then the worst summer on record. Hats have to come off to some of the groundsmen around not only the league but also throughout the UK!
|
|
2/Sep/2007, 2:30 pm
|
Send Email to yoey
Send PM to yoey
|
EndofWhitt
Moderator
Global user
Registered: 09-2006
Posts: 533
Karma: -17 (+1/-18)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Rule changes.
quote:
gilly11 wrote:
And their was me thinking if you batted first you got points for scoring at 2,3,4 an over.
Does that not help teams with smaller grounds?
Only if they lose Gilly, as if you win it doesn't matter if you score 150 or 250 if you win, you don't get those points. But how many of these teams on smaller grounds have you come up against that bat 1st? Whenever I've been to a team that has a smaller ground for the past couple of seasons since WLD entered the PS we normally find that we get put in.
Yesterday was one of the few occasions that we haven't batted first and that was because your skipper (unlike 90% in the league that I have come across) took the correct decision & batted.
I seem to recall that when I was last playing in the league (before joining WLD in the Chorley League) before it was only win/lose cricket there were batting and bowling points on offer for both innings. I can only assume that this was deemed to be not fair and as such we have the current system, which I personally feel is as fair as it can be and also in 99% of cases teams are in the correct position in the league based upon their capability and consistency.
Last edited by EndofWhitt, 2/Sep/2007, 7:49 pm
|
|
2/Sep/2007, 7:42 pm
|
Send Email to EndofWhitt
Send PM to EndofWhitt
|
CodSkip
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 05-2006
Location: Fleetwood CC
Posts: 946
Karma: -1 (+17/-18)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Rule changes.
OK,
I'm getting confused as to who thinks what about what!
No method is going to be entirely foolproof and it doesn't take a genius to find a fault with whatever is put forward.
However....
The premise for my proposal is simply that you should get bonus points based on the merit of both your batting and bowling performances.
It just seems inherently wrong to me, that at present, you could get full batting points for knocking a low total off, whilst doing it slowly and/or losing a lot of wickets. What you're really doing there is doubling up on bowling points! If your bowlers do a great job and skittle a side for say, 60 odd and your batters go 8 down knocking them off, is that worth full batting points?
I agree, it should be easier to score higher scores faster on small grounds. The thing is, we can't do anything about the size of grounds, they're beyond control. But we can do something about the points system.
There's always going to be flaws and you can make an argument for anything, such as what happens where rain intervenes and makes it a 45 v 25 over game. The side batting second may have to get an unreasonably charge total based on the overs they have. On the flip side, the side bowling second has less overs to bowl the side out too. You just can get a points system that works in every single scenario.
I still think I'll put forward the suggestion though, together with one about reducing second innings targets in rain affected games where it brings about a difference in available overs.
|
|
3/Sep/2007, 8:37 am
|
Send Email to CodSkip
Send PM to CodSkip
|
CodSkip
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 05-2006
Location: Fleetwood CC
Posts: 946
Karma: -1 (+17/-18)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
|
|
3/Sep/2007, 8:36 am
|
Send Email to CodSkip
Send PM to CodSkip
|
EndofWhitt
Moderator
Global user
Registered: 09-2006
Posts: 533
Karma: -17 (+1/-18)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Rule changes.
quote:
CodSkip wrote:
It just seems inherently wrong to me, that at present, you could get full batting points for knocking a low total off, whilst doing it slowly and/or losing a lot of wickets. What you're really doing there is doubling up on bowling points! If your bowlers do a great job and skittle a side for say, 60 odd and your batters go 8 down knocking them off, is that worth full batting points?
The thing is Cod, you don't get any batting points for knocking off a low or even a high score, you just get bowling points plus the win points.
You can only attain batting points if you lose. This then rewards teams for going for scores if batting second or posting reasonable scores, i.e. if you score 180+ you get full batting points.
I agree there is an anomoly regarding the batting points when batting second in that a team can score 54 for example chasing a target of 60 and get full points, but a team gets 224 chasing 250 only get 2. But surely the conditions may have made that the case and a grafting 10 or 20 can be as valuable and skillful a knock by a batter as a flamboyant 50 on a flat track with a fast outfield.
What the current system does give in such a scenario is a fair reflection on how much better the victors on the day have been over the vanquished. Over the course of a season you want to see that the teams that have played consistently are in the right place.
The debate on points IMO stems from last season when Whittingham stayed in the Premier League, but won fewer games than Norcross. Had the boot been on the other foot I'm pretty sure this discussion would not still be running!
Take a football analogy, Fulham won fewer games than Sheff Utd & Charlton last season, or Man City scored the least number of goals should they have been relegated instead?
|
|
3/Sep/2007, 9:08 am
|
Send Email to EndofWhitt
Send PM to EndofWhitt
|
howard benson
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 02-2006
Posts: 321
Karma: -3 (+2/-5)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Rule changes.......
....
codskip
'I still think I'll put forward the suggestion though'
as posted on another thread - you'll have to be quick - deadline for proposed amendments is 31 august
|
|
3/Sep/2007, 11:52 am
|
Send Email to howard benson
Send PM to howard benson
|
CodSkip
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 05-2006
Location: Fleetwood CC
Posts: 946
Karma: -1 (+17/-18)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Rule changes.
Sorry for the repeated posts earlier. And the blank one too. Work server is rubbish! 
If we've missed the deadline its immaterial anyway!
I take your point Whitt, about not getting batting points if you win, but then that raises the issue that why should a losing side get two sets of bonus points and a winning side only one?
I'd have to disagree about the current set up always giving a fair reflection though.
At present, a side could play 10 games, get 7 points every time and have 70 points. A side could lose 10 games, again get 6 points every game and have 60 points.
one team would be played 10, won 10 and the other played 10, lost 10 and yet only be 10 points apart!!!!
I know that scenario is unlikely, but it is entirely possible. There needs to be a far bigger differential and I think that is achieved by awarding bonus points to both sides for both batting and bowling and increasing the win points award.
|
|
3/Sep/2007, 12:03 pm
|
Send Email to CodSkip
Send PM to CodSkip
|
Add a reply
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Link to us
- Blogs
- Hall of Honour
- Chat
|
You are not logged in (login)
Board's time is: 26/Nov/2009, 2:43 pm
|
|
|
