Wickets falling makes cricket more interesting. Discuss.

When runs are being scored in vast quantities, whether it be in Tests, ODIs or t20s, matches can very quickly become one-sided.

When wickets fall at regular intervals, the game is much more challenging for batsmen, and more intriguing for spectators.

Should the ICC be doing more to encourage bowlers?

am i missing something here??

haven't we all been saying this for the last decade?

It's something we've been saying, but cricket administrators in their rush to bring in more whack it around matches seem to have forgotten about.

I think administrators are just starting to wake up to the fact that people don't just want to see boring run fests.

Henry wrote:I think administrators are just starting to wake up to the fact that people don't just want to see boring run fests.

Trev in racist subis aren't people shocker . . .

Aye, runs are sh!t in excess. A tight game with regular wicket falls is the stuff we need.

Look at the U19 WC today. The Paksters seemed always in the hunt but the Aussies were always just a wicket away from evening the ledger.

In the end, Hazlewood sorted it and we won a tight one.

as the saying goes a close game is a good game.

if they want to give the bowlers some assistance then tell cricketing nations to stop making roads and make ones that fair to both and make it standard across the cricketing nations,. if they cannot provide that standard then they lose test status.

might make a fairer for all. and cricketers will have to go back and learn some skills instead of slogathons.

Damn straight, CT. Nothing better than a game that has you on the edge of your seat sweating on who takes the next wicket, or hits the next boundary, as it may turn the game.

Yes. Nothing worse than watching cricket played on roads and shite batsmen racking up tons at will...

Uniformity is the only thing which should be discouraged. Let wickets have their unique characteristic traits, everything else will fall into place.

I seem to remember that DKL reckoned it should be OK for bowlers to be allowed to ball-tamper, because even in his day it was becoming a batter's game, what with flat decks, heavy bats and stronger armour.

Worse than roads, runfests and boredom, I don't like the idea of losing bowlers prematurely, because they've broken their bodies, year in year out, trying to extract life from dead tracks.

I think we should go steady on this one, and introduce changes in easy stages.

A presumably acceptable compromise for all concerned would be if, say when Australia are playing England, the pitch and ball and ambient conditions are kept suitably tame so that the Poms continue to pile up massive totals (pleasing those who like to see batting artistry and aesthetically pleasing disapperances of the ball to all parts of the ground) - and then, when it's their turn, all possible methods are employed to see to it that Oz fall to pieces very quickly, keeping the tension and thrills up for the other spectators. who prefer bowlers to rule the roost.

That should ensure there is a fair contest between bat and ball over the course of a Test, and keep everyone contented.

nope, how about you reverse that scenario. put the oz's at getting huge scores and the poms fall apart.

not a pitch thats has something for both bowler and battsmen brings out those with skills and those without.

doremi wrote:Uniformity is the only thing which should be discouraged. Let wickets have their unique characteristic traits, everything else will fall into place.

that's because the subi grounds are roads. give them a green top and can't handle it.

no a standardised pitch would give something for both and make the game interesting where teams cannot play for draws all the time they will have to develop the skills to win instead.