Could someone score a triple century in a one day cricket match

[Conspirator.]

So, after watching Martin Guptill bludgeon 237 not out at well over a run a ball, to lead New Zealand to an easy win over the West Indies, I was curious as to whether you people think that the day will come when a batsman scoring 300 in the 50 over format becomes as common as it is currently to score a double century?

My second(and more important) question is if you think the influx of runs being scored is positive for the game? The bowlers have mentioned that the fielding restrictions, bigger bats, smaller grounds and flatter wickets are making life tougher for them in limited overs cricket. Do you believe that the cricket administrators should try and reinstate the balance between bat and ball, or are you happy with scores of 350+ becoming commonplace? Discuss.

 

[Senpou]

Well rohit sharma once scored 264 and we all thought that he would do 300+ that day, if he hadn't gotten out then he would have definitely scored 300

 

[The Sach]

That's going to happen pretty soon.lol
And no it isn't good for cricket at all. We need new rules for bowlers.

 

[Shanks]

Big show Maxie will have 300 against England in near future ,then the day will come Pietersen will be made English captain .

Looking forward for another Ashes whitewash .

 

[Conspirator.]

That's going to happen pretty soon.lol
And no it isn't good for cricket at all. We need new rules for bowlers.

What would you suggest to be the new rules? More bouncers allowed per over? More fielders outside the circle to be allowed?

 

[Ken Kaneki]

Well that depends on the rules. The fielding rules for last 10 covers have been changed. They have had an humongous impact on the game. The line and length in death overs has become very predictable. Someone like AB De Villiers who can move at will, and change the line ,thus kill at death. This was not the case before. Death bowling offered more variety.

The second is the pitches. Everywhere in the world, pitches are being made flatter purposely. So bowlers are more defensive than attacking. So batsmen smack bowlers around. Hell even boundary lines have been pushed in.

All these have been purposely done to increase the number of runs. More runs more big shots more interest more money. That is the logic. So if these rules continue, I am sure 300 runs in 50 overs are around the corner.

However, I personally like a fair contest between bat and ball. If it were me, I would remove the fielding restrictions for last 10 overs and I would also make pitches turning in Subcontinent, bouncy in Australia, swinging in England. Let's see a fair contest. A 250 run game can give you more to discuss than a 400+ game. But, I expect the rules to be further skewed in favour of batsmen.

Well rohit sharma once scored 264 and we all thought that he would do 300+ that day, if he hadn't gotten out then he would have definitely scored 300

He got out last ball I think.

 

[The Sach]

What would you suggest to be the new rules? More bouncers allowed per over? More fielders outside the circle to be allowed?

More fielders allowed outside the circle looks better option to me, imo.
Also, restrictions should be placed on ground structure as well. It is nice to see the ball flying out of the stadium, but we shouldn't forget that four and sixes should be an event and not routine.
Cricket boards should also avoid making complete flat pitches. There can be one or two exceptions, but not every pitch should be flat pitch.

 

[Conspirator.]

Well that depends on the rules. The fielding rules for last 10 covers have been changed. They have had an humongous impact on the game. The line and length in death overs has become very predictable. Someone like AB De Villiers who can move at will, and change the line ,thus kill at death. This was not the case before. Death bowling offered more variety.

The second is the pitches. Everywhere in the world, pitches are being made flatter purposely. So bowlers are more defensive than attacking. So batsmen smack bowlers around. Hell even boundary lines have been pushed in.

All these have been purposely done to increase the number of runs. More runs more big shots more interest more money. That is the logic. So if these rules continue, I am sure 300 runs in 50 overs are around the corner.

However, I personally like a fair contest between bat and ball. If it were me, I would remove the fielding restrictions for last 10 overs and I would also make pitches turning in Subcontinent, bouncy in Australia, swinging in England. Let's see a fair contest. A 250 run game can give you more to discuss than a 400+ game. But, I expect the rules to be further skewed in favour of batsmen.

I agree a 100%. I've heard some analysts say that not enough yorkers are being bowled at the death, but given how batsman move around their wickets these days, it's not as simple as that. I agree that we need a balance between bat and ball, and the vagaries of the pitches all over the world should increase to make the contest between bat and ball fairer. However, cricket, like all other sports has become a business that is all about money as you said. Why do you think the IPL is so popular among international cricketers, despite of their chock-a-block schedule throughout the year?

 

[The Sach]

Well that depends on the rules. The fielding rules for last 10 covers have been changed. They have had an humongous impact on the game. The line and length in death overs has become very predictable. Someone like AB De Villiers who can move at will, and change the line ,thus kill at death. This was not the case before. Death bowling offered more variety.

The second is the pitches. Everywhere in the world, pitches are being made flatter purposely. So bowlers are more defensive than attacking. So batsmen smack bowlers around. Hell even boundary lines have been pushed in.

All these have been purposely done to increase the number of runs. More runs more big shots more interest more money. That is the logic. So if these rules continue, I am sure 300 runs in 50 overs are around the corner.

However, I personally like a fair contest between bat and ball. If it were me, I would remove the fielding restrictions for last 10 overs and I would also make pitches turning in Subcontinent, bouncy in Australia, swinging in England. Let's see a fair contest. A 250 run game can give you more to discuss than a 400+ game. But, I expect the rules to be further skewed in favour of batsmen.

@bold, this is an interesting point and yes credit goes to T20. Batsmen like ABD can score fearlessly because they have various shots in their arsenal. Due to T20 batsmen have learnt various new shots, making them more lethal.
On the other hand, except few bowlers, others haven't developed much, they need to have more variation and that 'surprise element' in their attack and that's why players like Narine are doing pretty well.
This is where work needs to be done from bowlers side.

 

[Natsu Shazneel]

I prefer a good balance of both bat and ball. Where the bowlers are steaming in with aggression. Placing fear in the batsmens eyes. That battle between Shane Watson and Waheb Riaz was great for that reason. World cricket needs to see that spell and learn from it. Because that was some thrilling stuff to see for any cricket fan. The danger of the bowler adds a rewarding victory for the batsmen. It changes the player from a boy to a man. Giving the bowlers some support could make any run scores thrilling to watch. Because we will know the batsmen never had it easy. At the moment every batsmen has it easy besides Pakistani batsmen. Whose only enemy is them selves.

 

[Conspirator.]

I prefer a good balance of both bat and ball. Where the bowlers are steaming in with aggression. Placing fear in the batsmens eyes. That battle between Shane Watson and Waheb Riaz was great for that reason. World cricket needs to see that spell and learn from it. Because that was some thrilling stuff to see for any cricket fan. The danger of the bowler adds a rewarding victory for the batsmen. It changes the player from a boy to a man. Giving the bowlers some support could make any run scores thrilling to watch. Because we will know the batsmen never had it easy. At the moment every batsmen has it easy besides Pakistani batsmen. Whose only enemy is them selves.

I agree in principle, and the bold is sadly true. However, with the advent of the IPL, T20 cricket and the business orientated mind of the cricketing administration, I think that having a finely calibrated balance between bat and ball is nothing more than a pipedream at this point.

 

[Natsu Shazneel]

I agree in principle, and the bold is sadly true. However, with the advent of the IPL, T20 cricket and the business orientated mind of the cricketing administration, I think that having a finely calibrated balance between bat and ball is nothing more than a pipedream at this point.

If fans speak up it will happen. That spell brought back so many memories for me. I doubt any of these current batsmen can take on spells like that. I would like to see batsmen like Kohli, Ab-Devillers, Amla, Brandon Mcallum, and Maxwell face top notch bowlers, Who try to bring fear in a batsmen's eyes. I doubt any of these batsmen would play that freely if it happen.

 

[Ken Kaneki]

I agree a 100%. I've heard some analysts say that not enough yorkers are being bowled at the death, but given how batsman move around their wickets these days, it's not as simple as that. I agree that we need a balance between bat and ball, and the vagaries of the pitches all over the world should increase to make the contest between bat and ball fairer. However, cricket, like all other sports has become a business that is all about money as you said. Why do you think the IPL is so popular among international cricketers, despite of their chock-a-block schedule throughout the year?

Different pitches can be there for international cricket and IPL/Big Bash. Those leagues can be about money and runs. Earn from there. But atleast maintain the standards at the international level. Even Test pitches are flat. Also the number of Tests have decreased drastically.

Everything is aimed at profut maximization. But as a true cricket fan, I would rather have those traditional rivalry between batsmen and bowlers.

 

[Ken Kaneki]

@bold, this is an interesting point and yes credit goes to T20. Batsmen like ABD can score fearlessly because they have various shots in their arsenal. Due to T20 batsmen have learnt various new shots, making them more lethal.
On the other hand, except few bowlers, others haven't developed much, they need to have more variation and that 'surprise element' in their attack and that's why players like Narine are doing pretty well.
This is where work needs to be done from bowlers side.

Dude the bowlers today have much more variations than bowlers of yesteryears However they are far too restricted.

 

[Kishi Uzumaki]

Maybe but every time when batsmen looked unstoppable bowlers came up with new tactics to control them even when they were in disadvantage most of the time so I'm hoping it will happen again .

 

[BLAZE]

6 Double Centuries in last 6 years.Why not