Aus Players have had a gutful of idiot plans

You're farkin kidding

"Cricket Australia is facing a player revolt over some of its radical proposals for this summer's domestic 50-over competition, with Michael Hussey leading the charge.

Worried the planned split innings format could destabilise preparations for next year's 50-over World Cup in the subcontinent, Australia players have voiced concerns to CA chief executive James Sutherland.

Senior players are also worried about some of CA's bold proposals, such as teams being able to nominate a "super-striker" who is able to bat more than once, could cannibalise cricket too much.

"If I'm being honest I don't really agree with it (the super striker concept)," Australia batsman Hussey said.

"I think it could take away certain players from the game. Spinners might go out of the game altogether which I think might be really sad. And I just don't think it's right - it's one of the great challenges about batting.

"You get your chance, if you get out first ball, you want to appreciate your wicket so much ... if you know you've got a second chance, it doesn't sit right with me."

Last month, Australia Test captain Ricky Ponting said the players would need to be convinced about the merits of the sweeping changes for limited overs cricket."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revving up the game has merit, but are they going overboard. Paris and senior players seem to think so.

And if it hinders our chances in the upcoming Gilly (the only ODI tournamnet that matters) then I'm with Paris and the boys.

'super striker'

Cricket has tried 'Super Sub'. Which failed.

The 'Super Series' between the #1 team and a ROW XI. Which failed.

The 'Super Six' and 'Super Eight' stages at World Cups didn't do anything to add to the tournaments, they just caused confusion (at best) and farce (at worst.) There's also been a 'Super four' at some tournament, which was a poor substitue for two semi finals.

So it seems that just about any concept cricket comes up with that has 'Super' in the title could just as easily have the word 'super' replaced by 'sh!t', and be far more accurate.

Maybe t20 should have been branded 'Super 20'...

So it seems that just about any concept cricket comes up with that has 'Super' in the title could just as easily have the word 'super' replaced by 'sh!t', and be far more accurate.

Maybe t20 should have been branded 'Super 20'...

Cany observations, the rule proving exceptions being the original, true "Super Tests".

Perhaps I should have said any concept traditional cricket authorities come up with that has 'Super' in the title...

Zat wrote:Perhaps I should have said any concept traditional cricket authorities come up with that has 'Super' in the title...

That'd do it.

Nice analysis, Zog. Ever thought about Sports Journalism? Farkin Crash and the boys have no farkin clue.

Christian Ryan . . . is that the qunt's name? FFS smerky would be better than him . . .

Never met a Christian who wasn't a bit dim.

I thought skully was Christian Ryan.

and

the rest goes without saying.

Cricket has tried 'Super Sub'. Which failed.

Gary Pratt, anyone?!

Merls in completely missing the point shocker.

Yeah ... as if .... but thanks anyway, that's breakfast sorted!

...

That's not a haggis, it's horrie's colostomy bag.

Surely 2 innings of 20 overs each is the way to go. that way it helps the T20 form and it might actually be an interesting day's cricket.

It would also mean the accelerated death of 50 over cricket.

2 innings of 20 overs each. With 'first innings win', 'second innings win' and 'overalll win' available. That way, if something goes horribly wrong in a team's first bat, they still have something to play for.

No, only an overall win.

Yeah - just the one result - otherwise it all becomes a farce and very Seppo like ...

I like the idea though it does mean a minimum 10 hour game (with probably just the final 3 hours under lights) - and thus begs the question - will it satisfy the short-attention span section of the masses who see a need to alter cricket's structure ?

Ten hours in a single day watching the one sport .... has it ever been done before?

This is a beat-up.

The split-innings trial won't take place until after the Australian squad leaves for the World Cup.

Until that point the one-day comp will be played under normal rules.

It's only a trial. It may turn out to be great or it may turn out to be a disaster. But one-day cricket could do with a shot in the arm. It's either that or we just hand over the limited overs format to Twenty20, which I'm not convinced is the best idea at this stage.

still a sh!t idea, regardless

I'm still waiting for my innovations to be taken on board, such as "Fielding Fire", where you can run batsmen out at both ends, "Maxx Bonus", where you get 10 runs instead of 6 if the commentator shouts "Hello?!", "Far Quits" = 10 runs to both sides if the batsman manages to hit a delivery against the bowler's set of stumps, and of course "Whackhead", where the batsman gets a yellow card if he is whacked on the head. Two whackheads and he's off.

Errr ... yeah Petey ... quick .....pass the joint will you!

Merlin wrote:I like the idea though it does mean a minimum 10 hour game (with probably just the final 3 hours under lights)
[snip]
Ten hours in a single day watching the one sport .... has it ever been done before?

Maths never was your strong point, was it?

They must be going to take freakin long breaks