if you hit it, you must run like when you were a kid in the backyard. the bowlers have no chance as it is, and i find this type of cricket game depressing
2006-12-18 20:58:11 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Cricket
good point Steven, but the batsman unhappy? i'm SURE arent ahppy at bowling just to be hit for six every second ball, this is not a fair game at all.
2006-12-18 21:09:40 · update #1
good point Steven, but the batsman unhappy? i'm SURE bowlers arent happy at bowling just to be hit for six every second ball, this is not a fair game at all.
2006-12-18 21:10:16 · update #2
I`m not a big fan of 20/20, but thats a good idea. You should tell Richie Benaud about it mate.
2006-12-18 22:14:44 · answer #1 · answered by Richo Fev 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No that's a bit too tough on batsmen. However, I would really like to see a few more innovations like double-play where both batsman could be ruled out in one ball.
But the 20-20 was always supposed to be a batsman's game. The bowlers just get a "thank-you-for-showing-up" card.
2006-12-20 14:01:04 · answer #2 · answered by pressurekooker 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree. It would require much more skill by the batsman and there is always the chance of the team not making the 20 overs. However the batsmen would probably not be too happy about this rule and the game may just fall apart.
2006-12-19 05:07:14 · answer #3 · answered by Steven Kennedy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree that this rule is unfair to bowler, but why make it unfair to batsman that he has to hit and run and could be chance of run out.
Yes, this rule is unfair for one more count, team fielding has to finish 20 overs in 80 minutes, otherwise there is penalty. If there is no ball, one will have to bowl that extra ball, hence extra time.
2006-12-19 05:59:42 · answer #4 · answered by shrimal_sandeep 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that could be inter sing
2006-12-20 01:33:29 · answer #5 · answered by john 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋