Talk:Short form cricket

Twenty/20 and bowler restrictions

I made an edit the other day that was subesequently reverted, concerning the restricting of bowlers to four overs each. I removed it from the "changes to the laws" section.

Having just looked at the copy of the laws maintained on the MCC website, then the claim is correct in a way: the laws of cricket does mention limited-over cricket, but it doesn't mention restricting bowlers in any way.

However, I'm standing by the intent of what I did: I removed it because, while the restriction of bowlers is commonplace in any competitive limited-overs match, it is *not* a defining feature of Twenty/20 cricket: indeed, any competitive limited-overs game I've ever come across has been played with a restriction on the number of bowlers, in order to force teams to use at least five bowlers during a match. This formula means that a competitive 20-over match will limit the bowlers to four overs each, because 4 x 5 = 20.

In my view, therefore, mentioning the four-over restriction in the "changes from the laws" section on the Twenty/20 suggests (especially to people who are unfamiliar with cricket) that it is the only 20-over competition in which the bowlers are restricted to four overs each, instead of it being the recognised standard.

Hig Hertenfleurst 18:12, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, sorry for reverting your change so aggressively - I should have dropped a note here. To respond: The section is quite clearly labelled as changes from the standard Laws of Cricket, and any restriction on the number of overs allowed to each bowler is such a change. The sections for Cricket Max and Sixes Cricket both also list explicitly the number of overs allowed to each bowler as a change from the Laws. To not list this detail would either deny the reader the knowledge that bowling is restricted in this way or (if the reader knows about) imply that it is part of the Laws of Cricket. Also, Pro Cricket does not follow the same restrictions - it uses a 20 over format with bowlers restricted to a maximum of 5 overs each, not 4 - so it cannot be said that all limited overs cricket uses a formula requiring 5 bowlers.

I think it may be a good idea to include in the introductory section a blanket statement saying that normally overs are restricted in some way. I'll have a go at adding this - please see what you think. --dmmaus 22:06, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's a wonderful little semantical question, isn't it? The trouble (as I see it) with talking about over limits in general in short form cricket is that the limitation is not specific to short-form cricket, and that its natural home is in one-day cricket (I did add a brief sentence to this article to a while ago).

I've just had a great idea. I'll go back and lob something more substantial in one-day cricket that mentions the unusual limits in Pro Cricket. You take the bit about over limits back out of here, and modify the sentence in the Twenty/20 section to something like "bowlers are limited to 4 overs, which is the general standard for 20 over cricket, for more information on bowler limits see one-day cricket." Or possibly putting the "for more information about bowler limits" in the bit about Pro Cricket, mentioning it alongside the unusual rule. Maybe in both. Whichever looks better.

This removes the nagging feeling that the bit in short form cricket about over limits is out of place, while keeping the reference in the 20/20 section. Thoughts? Hig Hertenfleurst 23:53, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sounds workable to me. If you want to go ahead and do all this, please do. I'm just as happy leaving it how it is, really, and a bit busy, so I probably won't do it myself. --dmmaus 00:16, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cricket Max

It is actually a very short form of 2-innings a side cricket (i.e. 3, 4, or Test 5-day)

India & Dhoni

Why is Mahendra Singh Dhoni specifically mentioned as winning captain of India for 20/20 2007? No other captains appear for any of the other matches and it just seems a bit too... fan like. ClamsonJ (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Super 8s

I'm very surprised not to see Super 8s mentioned here. Super 8s was a format devised by Greg Chappell in 1996. That year saw two midyear tournaments: an international tournament in Malaysia (held in one weekend), and a state competition held in Cairns, Townsville and Brisbane. Three international tournaments were held: Australia A won in 1996 and 1997, and New Zealand won in 1998.

Changes to the rules: 8 players per team. 14 overs per innings. 2 players bowl 3 overs, 3 players bowl 2, 2 players bowl 1, wicket keeper doesn't bowl. Batsmen were required to retire upon reaching 50, but were permitted to resume if wickets were in hand (as per Hong Kong Sixes). The last man batted on as per Sixes too. Fielding restrictions were in place for the first 6 overs, and bowlers were limited to 15m runups maximum. And balls hit over the boundary were worth 8 runs instead of 6.

I guess the trouble is finding source material to verify this... surely I'm not the only person to remember the format. Bricks J. Winzer (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I have added the super 8s section now that more information about it exists on the web. NJM2010 (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

About "Last Mans Stands"

Hi all,
This is apparently a short form of cricket established in 2005. This comment copies text not currently included in the article.
In previous edits to the article it was asserted that it was "a profit making organisation who raise money by charging fees to teams to register to play a game similar to cricket" and that it was " the widest reaching amateur cricket league in the world, bringing together like minded individuals from all walks of life, countries, religions, and races, to enjoy this wonderful format of cricket".
It would appear to me that no mention of this purported form of cricket at all should be included in the article. My rationale is:

• that "Last Mans Stands" is at best a trivial short form of cricket, with no references to support its inclusion in the article
• that if "Last Mans Stands" is at best a trivial short form of cricket, with no references to support its inclusion in the article, then there is no reason to include criticism of it in the article.

Your thoughts about this? Pete "worst right-arm leg-spinner that has ever liveth" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The whole article is unsourced, and has been so for years. -Roxy the dog™ bark 11:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Most of the other content is harmless and generally accurate, if largely unreferenced. "Last man stands" is as you say an extremely trivial short form of cricket invented by a profit making operation as a means of monetising casual cricket. It is not really very successful and is certainly not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. It has frequently been listed here in the past, apparently mainly as a desperate attempt at marketing the product. Cricket Max, as a defunct version of the game, is not really notable either. 6-aside cricket and evening cricket are popular enough to remain notable.

TBH I'm not sure we really need this article at all, as most of it could be transferred to the relevant section of Forms of cricket.

Evening cricket

This section is far too specific. Evening cricket has been played for many decades in England, at least 50 years, probably more. It is generally a variation of T20, but there are many different varieties. Some are 15 8 balls over, some twenty overs. Some have fielding restrictions, some don't. Some oblige a batsman to retire after 25 runs, some don't. The article implies there is a universally agreed and implemented code, that is not the case. I suspect, whoever wrote this, only knows one league. John Price (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)