captaincolly wrote:A pertinent question by someone on Twitter - Won't the changes potentially play havoc with the DL system?
Alviro Patterson wrote:captaincolly wrote:A pertinent question by someone on Twitter - Won't the changes potentially play havoc with the DL system?
Or even working out a bowlers economy rate, as it is based on runs per 6 ball over.
captaincolly wrote:
[/quote]The new tournament is scheduled to begin in the summer of 2020 and will have innings made up of 15 traditional six-ball overs and one ten-ball over that could be bowled at any point. The proposed idea would result in matches being completed about 40 minutes faster than T20 matches, which, if they go the distance, last 40 balls longer.
GarlicJam wrote:captaincolly wrote:
According to The Times it will be a single 10 ball over that can be bowled at any stage during the innings.The new tournament is scheduled to begin in the summer of 2020 and will have innings made up of 15 traditional six-ball overs and one ten-ball over that could be bowled at any point. The proposed idea would result in matches being completed about 40 minutes faster than T20 matches, which, if they go the distance, last 40 balls longer.
Durham’s PCA representative, Chris Rushworth, tweeted: “What a load of *******.”
Durhamfootman wrote:of course, the rationale behind the 100 balls is to finish the game in 3 hours, yet when T20 first appeared the games were always finished within 3 hours..... the final over had to have been started 75 mins into an innings with a short turnaround in between (back then players ran off the pitch when they were out and the incoming batsmen ran on, to avoid 6 run penalties for starting that final over late), so if T20 has become too long, then it is entirely the fault of the administrators for allowing it to happen in the first place
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests