Sunday, July 28, 2013

What's your opinion on the 2 potential new "radical" bowling changes being made in ODI's..?

What's your opinion on the 2 potential new "radical" bowling changes being made in ODI's..?
The ICC is "concerned" that ODI's are becoming a dying form of the game, despite the fact that at the moment in South Africa the series against England is being played to near full stadiums. What they are really worried about is that ODI's aren't making enough money, so the "brains" at the ICC are making it even more Gimmicky..... The 2 rule changes the ICC suggest could be implemented: * The bowling side starts with 2 new balls. It gives the batsmen more of an advantage because they will play against a harder ball for longer. This takes out the ball change at the 34th over. It also means there is no chance that reverse swing will occur. * Two bowlers are to be allowed to bowl 12 overs each and two to bowl ten, leaving the fifth bowler an allocation of just six. The intention is to encourage captains and selectors to pick more 'specialists' and marginalise the need for bits-and-pieces cricketers. So what do you think about these changes? Are they going to help breathe some life into ODI's, or is it going to make a confusing game, even more confusing.
Cricket - 18 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
There is no harm in trying out these 'Gimmicks' as you put it. if it works, well and good, they can keep it: otherwise they can always throw it out as they did with the substitution 'gimmickry'.
2 :
Batting friendly games are being made more batting friendly and the main bowlers might get to bowl bit more but that the extent, to which these changes are going to benefit bowlers, as 2 balls will ensure no reverse swing & all the more for batters, to attack the hapless bowlers & make merry.
3 :
Two bowlers are to be allowed to bowl 12 overs each and two to bowl ten, leaving the fifth bowler an allocation of just six. The intention is to encourage captains and selectors to pick more 'specialists' and marginalise the need for bits-and-pieces cricketers. this suggestion i liked the most as this will gave captains to have their peak bowlers to bowl in death overs, imagine brett lee giving nightmares to batsman with his yorkers from 40th -50th over, the death overs.
4 :
* The bowling side starts with 2 new balls. It gives the batsmen more of an advantage because they will play against a harder ball for longer. This takes out the ball change at the 34th over. It also means there is no chance that reverse swing will occur. This is boring. The ball should be replaced in the 30th over rather with a new one. * Two bowlers are to be allowed to bowl 12 overs each and two to bowl ten, leaving the fifth bowler an allocation of just six. The intention is to encourage captains and selectors to pick more 'specialists' and marginalise the need for bits-and-pieces cricketers. I think the supersub rule should rather be reintroduced, without the captain having to name the substitute before the toss. It will give teams like India the benefit of an all-rounder.
5 :
Interesting ! But I dont like this change "* The bowling side starts with 2 new balls. It gives the batsmen more of an advantage because they will play against a harder ball for longer. This takes out the ball change at the 34th over. It also means there is no chance that reverse swing will occur" This will take out all the fun from the match. I like this change "* Two bowlers are to be allowed to bowl 12 overs each and two to bowl ten, leaving the fifth bowler an allocation of just six. The intention is to encourage captains and selectors to pick more 'specialists' and marginalise the need for bits-and-pieces cricketers." This will allow bowlers like Johnson, Zaheer to bowl more overs and also we will get rid of Jadeja type player who likes to be responsible for home team's defeat. Hahaha
6 :
there is no confusion, the confusion is in your mind, the stadias fill on test or ODI cricket if the team is not incompetent like england.
7 :
All these changes are again proving that the game is killing the bowlers
8 :
Starting with 2 new balls is better than having one later in the game Great Shane Bond Bowls 12 only need part timer 2 bowl 6
9 :
This is one of the reasons cricket is not my favourite sport, at least FIFA doesnt propose wholesale changes to the laws of the game as they please. Both rule changes are rubbish to be precise. If these rules are implemented in the future, how will we differentiate and compare ODI stats for bowlers who have different quotas on their overs? Start off with 2 new balls? Seems to be the idea of a ball-less individual.
10 :
What a load of rubbish. Why do they feel they need to continually tinker with ODI cricket? The format works, and is probably the strongest of the three at present. Aaarrrggghhhh......
11 :
The ODI,s are already framed to favour the batsman,by feild restrictions.,free hits,by giving wides when the ball is bowled even slightly outside the leg stump,having shorter boundry lines.Are these rules not enough for batsmen to score quickly and heavily?If not then further weaken the bowling to make the batsamn score more runs.This can be done if is made compulsory for 5 bowlers to bowl 8 overs each and one bowler can bowl 10 overs,over all 6 bowlers should be made compulsory..Hence the batsmen will have a chance to target more weak bowlers and make big totals.I donot agree with the ICC new rules ,which will not help in anyway.On the other hand i agree with Sachin's suggestion that the ODI be divided into 2 innings of 25 overs each.When the match will nearly have the same excitement as a combined 2 seperate matches of 20-20 games.
12 :
I don't like the 'start with two new balls rule'. but I like the ' 2 bowlers bowl 12 overs rule' P.S: check the full article at cricinfo.com: http://www.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/438501.html
13 :
1: The idea of needing a "new ball" in ODIs is quite useless anyway. This is just a variation on a gimmick. 2: I like this idea, as it would give bowlers a chance to get into a spell a bit more than is the case at the moment. Just to save the maths becoming complicated I would prefer that four bowlers can bowl up to 11 overs each, rather than 12x2 and 10x2 (which looks like somebody was trying a bit too hard to be clever). What they should of course just do is replace the redundant 50-over format with a 40-over one, and save everybody from the tedium of the modern ODI...
14 :
Wow! The trolls are out in force,look at all those TDs. I suppose anything is worth a try, but as someone else said why keep changing things? However, I would be interested to see if it works,but I still think T20 is the main problem & should be kicked to the kerb. ODI was doing fine till the newer form of cricket came on the scene.
15 :
That day is near when ICC will announce that , Fast bowler is restricted to ball straight (no swing) with speed limit ( maximum ) 60 MPH, spinner restricted to not to turn the ball. 2nd point could favors the good bowler of the particular match.
16 :
ODIs have been a fluid thing right from the get go. bringing in the 30 metre fielding circle and fielding restrictions, then the powerplay, the batting powerplay, the free hit on the following ball of a noball, the noball for a full toss above the waist or bouncer over shoulder, the altered notion of wide (widing anything down legside) none of these rules were in effect when ODI first started and the format has survived the changes. There is no harm in trying the varioations, if they don't work they can always dump it, like they did with the supersub rule of a couple of years ago. Personally I like the 12 over/6 over rule as in the current form if a bowler is difficult to play the batsmen simply see him off and then plunder the other 4 bowlers 40 overs, this way if a bowler gets on top he can get a little reward and gie the batsmen less overs to play with, it also keeps them guessing as in the current laws a bowler bowls 10 overs you know he's finished, with the new rule he might pop back for another 2 overs later on. The new ball rule can go both ways. A new ball comes off the bat faster but is usually also does more in the air so a good bowler can take advantage of that, you might see something like the opening bowlers having 6 overs each with the new ball, the spinners and medium pace restricting bowlers coming on to bowl out the old ball and then the strike bowlers coming back for another 6 overs each with the second new ball. this might make things really interesting.
17 :
I think its trash, ICC is making too many changes, Super sub, Batting and bowling power plays etc. They should leave the game as it is
18 :
1. "The bowling side starts with 2 new balls" Rubbish rule. Not just reverse swing will be difficult but also the spinners will have to bowl with the "new" ball. Normally the spinners are introduced at the time of 17th or 18th over when the ball is a little more scuffed. Now with 2 new balls it will mean they can't find that kind of ball before 35 overs! And that's too late for bringing your spinner into the game. But there's an other prospective that it will make the batting on zippy pitches, like in the New Zealand, a bit more difficult. In those kind of conditions the batsmen have to see through the new ball and be cautious at the start. So 2 new balls will make life more harder for batsmen on particular pitches. I'm not gonna vote in favor of this change. 2. "Two bowlers are to be allowed to bowl 12 overs each and two to bowl ten, leaving the fifth bowler an allocation of just six." So you're telling me that the ICC wants to ensure that teams play with 4 bowlers! That means the young bowlers' opportunities to get into the national team reduce even more. There are cricketers who only get their chance as the 5th bowler when the team has a good attack. This will shut their chances. Discouraging. The good thing is that the teams can have their 2 best bowlers bowl upto 24 overs. Batting teams often plan to play the 2 best bowlers with caution till their overs finish and attack against the others. This rule will make them think about that approach. @ Y factor: The bowlers used to bowl more than 10 overs a match in earlier days also, when you had 60 over ODIs. So comparing or differentiating between stats isn't a big issue. To conclude, I think these changes are not really necessary. If they need to change anything about the format then just make a team play 2 inns of 25 overs, so that the toss doesn't make a big impact. That's the only change I want.
19 :
I think this changes will only help the batsmen. The ODIs will be more interesting from now on.



Sunday, July 14, 2013

What's a nomad life like?

What's a nomad life like?
I am wanting to be a nomad. I want to make money also I don't think you need college to make good money anymore.. With all these free websites and hands on learning. I want organic healthy foods and commodities really. I want a nice wife and maybe a family. I'm interested in this nomad lifestyle. Is anyone out there a nomad with good advice for me? American nomad? I would travel to europe also. thanks for the advice. Drugs and alcohol free nomad of course! Caffeine also free.. I want to maybe have a light car or bicycle in my travels. Spain, central and south america, Africa, pretty much the whole world intrigues me.. and What exactly is a nomad? Itinerant I guess.. I want to do this.. As soon as I finish my job here or winter comes.. Maybe I will change my mind but I want to do it.. Live my life! to tthe fullest! Be a real leader of the masses to see the world and teach my knowledge to others about gmo's and whole foods plant based diet..
Philosophy - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
A 'nomadic' life is unstable, constantly changing, no place to call 'home'. Good luck raising a family if you're living the life of a nomad. It won't happen.
2 :
dream on
3 :
Well, you figured out what the most successful people in the world do; They WRITE DOWN everything they want to do in their lives. Then they wait. The WAY to make what they come true; comes to them. In ways they never would expect. They never chase after what they want. That never works. They never put a calendar against what they want. That does not work either.


Sunday, July 7, 2013

why are we as humans so lazy and judgmental?

why are we as humans so lazy and judgmental?
we are money hungry, we are selfish, we are rude and we are judgmental and lazy as human beings, we create technology to make uor own clothing and to have our food given to us. do we not know how to farm? do we not know how to knit? crochet? weave? macrame? lace? why is it that we as human have loads of talents, but we settle for the 9-5 desk jobs because it makes more money? why do we need thousands of dollars to live off of when as a human being we do not need any more than 800 for one person to live comfortably? people are starving in south africa but we spend tens of thousands of dollars to remodel our house so it look like a magazine. do we even care about others anymore? tell me as a civilized human being with a heart why? "our"? we have the richest people in the world that cannot even get off their buts and skip one glass of wine a day to donate it to a charity! do not say "our". your logic is flawed, we need very little clothing to live off of, ten outfits total, 5 shirts 5 pants/skirts/dresses. and mabie two hats and two pairs of shoes. with 5 pairs of socks and underwear. just to overcharge.
Other - Society & Culture - 6 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
maybe you should start a fight club
2 :
don't include me as we I'm not one of them I know how to knit and crochet but it's time consuming buying the yarns cost as much as buying the whole sweater might as well buy it from the stores. we have to work to make money to pay bills. we do care for others but our economy is in crisis we barely survive ourselves
3 :
you're generalizing humans here. There ARE people who do help others, especially those who can afford to such as the wealthier people, celebrities and people who make more money than a person needs in life. Giving is a priviledge. Not everyone can afford to give. There ARE a lot of hardworking people out there who often work their butts off most often for minimum wage only.There's NOTHING wrong with spending our money in whichever way we want if it makes us happy. We're the ones working for it. We're not all money hungry. Some of us know how to live life well and decently. But just so you know, everything equals money in this world even for survival. There's not much you can do without it. FYI: Giving does not make you a good person. Charity starts at home. Seems to me you're the one being judgemental here.
4 :
humans started being like that when people said being civilized was wearing clothing, speaking like a rich prick and using a fork and knife when eating being civilized imo is caring about the person next to you, not killing other people and caring about the environment, living in perfect harmony with it thats y we are efd up PS: "Jay" ppl like u don't understand the real problem, u cannot end poverty by just throwing money, thats always the problem and it will forever be a problem, giving and not giving someone money doesn't change a thing, thats been the problem with our govt in Australia with the Aborigines, people need to invest into something, give them an education, build hospitals, teach people some of the skills you have, that's why Chinese investment in 3rd countries is rising at a fast rate, the Chinese are doing what us first-world countries have failed to do, and thats building infrastructure for the poor, to let them grow. Its better to give someone a fishing rod and teach them to fish than to give them fish everyday and complain about how you've given them 365 fish for the past yr....
5 :
Giving the Africans money will not cause them to be prosperous or to get by even. Currently, there are nearly a billion people worldwide who are suffering from malnutrition and lack of food. The cost of feeding all of these people is staggering obviously. The problem is the governments of these countries plus there are environmental problems going on such as lower crop yields due to the warmer climates of today. If you want to blame someone blame the governments of these nations for not reaching out to others or for being greedy and screwing their people over. If there is a means to live larger and better then people should do it if they can. Sending money and food overseas isn't going to help things in the long run though.
6 :
Some people look for the jobs that give more money to help their family and friends. After all, they only want what's best for them. And I don't think it's wrong to buy expensive gifts to someone if it will make them happy. If you're looking for someone to blame for the millions of people in poverty, then the average worker should be the last on your list. Many of them, in this current financial crisis, only earn enough money to barely support themselves. You should be looking at the rich people who buy $100 million dollar houses and live excessively lavish lifestyles. The governments of the poor countries, as someone mentioned here earlier, are also to blame for being corrupt and incompetent.




Monday, July 1, 2013

What is Wrong with humans?

What is Wrong with humans?
Hello my names Ben I've posted a few questions about this before but im going to put EVERYTHING I want to ask . Starting with violence why do people commit violence is it are animal instincts. It it cause of Greed why do people kill each other over paper money why do we have money in the first place why do we take medication when we never used to back in the 200s.. why does our God do this to us. why did he give us free will why is the arab world jacked up why is people in south africa struggling to get clean water why isn't no buddy helping them why is there aids why is there dieases why do people commit suicide why are people bi polar why are people ADD why do people have seizures why do people have amnesia why can't people get along why do we have a government why do people kill i know this has happened for eons why do we fight why do blacks hate white why does whites hate blacks why South park make fun of jews what is time why are we spinning in a empty vass universe what is at the end of the universe why are people psychotic why do we die of drugs why did we create drugs why are we even here why did God Create us why does God give us free will why did god create black holes. why did god make the universe so big to us why do we depend on oxygen why do we have to die why do people what was before our lord God what created him/her what created time what created before the universe there was something before and it goes on and on times infinity... what is going on here seriosly. what is the meaning of love why do we love shoot i love to love but what is the meaning of it how did it come why do some men like men and some women like women what is going on!
Biology - 8 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
It's Called Life...
2 :
Everything.
3 :
ask your god.welcome to life!
4 :
diseases are part of life- every animal gets them. biologically the only difference between humans and other animals is the very advanced nervous system ie the brain. the very complex interection of neruons in our highly complex brain gives us the ability of reason (wheres other animal have only instinct). this makes us able to create new things fortunately but unfortunately creates such features as greed for money and power. it also makes us intelligent enough to question questions such as these. i cannot answer questions about God of course, if i would be able to do that, i would not be standing here wasting my time at a computer :D
5 :
So you got the idea. One bad thing lead to other bad things and so on. A thing depends on another thing. It's a good thing you ask why, you will see the big picture. If you are really concerned, focus on one thing each time. What matters you the most? See the big picture. Compare. Try not to judge. Men likes men, drugs, etc? What makes it bad? Which makes it good? Does it have any other way to do? Be strong. Hope it helps.
6 :
Perhaps the answer might be that there is no god. That gets rid of the problem of trying to determine why a deity would do something. Why becomes a moot point. The real questions are about how, not why.
7 :
Here's the answer to each questions. Starting with violence why do people commit violence is it are animal instincts Violences, we are classified as animals, so we should have animal instinct. It it cause of Greed Greed?? Yes, all violences starts bcoz of greed. why do people kill each other over paper money Paper money got its value in it, thus resulting greed and violence. why do we take medication when we never used to back in the 200s We didn't take medication in the 200s bcoz there were no medicine. why does our God do this to us. Don't blame god on everything. God is what human create so that they can blame everything on them. why did he give us free will God didn't give us free will, you should blame USA. why is the arab world jacked up Same answer, blame the USA why is people in south africa struggling to get clean water There were lack of rain there. why isn't no buddy helping them There is nothing they can do. why is there aids Someone create it to cause tremors in stoct market. why is there dieases So that life wouldn't last too long. why do people commit suicide Imbalance in emotion. why are people bi polar They finally found out that the opposite gender is getting boring. why are people ADD Same answer, imbalance in emotion. why do people have seizure Many reasons for that. why do people have amnesia Trauma in the head physically or mentally why can't people get along Because we are independent species. why do we have a government To control other people. why do people kill i know this has happened for eons For survival why do we fight To prove who is stronger why do blacks hate white Why oil hates water why does whites hate blacks Why water hates oil why South park make fun of jews Because it is their taboo what is time Time is gold why are we spinning in a empty vass universe No idea what is at the end of the universe No idea why are people psychotic Same answer, imbalance in emotion why do we die of drugs Consume in massive amount why did we create drugs To change the emotion and feelings of oneself why are we even here To complete what a complex planet should have. why did God Create us Because this is what told by every religion why does God give us free will To see what is our capability. why did god create black holes Stop blaming onto god. why did god make the universe so big to us Because we can fill it up later. why do we depend on oxygen Oxygen is the main component to release energy from food why do we have to die So the planet will not be filled by too many people why do people what are you asking? what was before our lord God No idea what created him/her God for the gods. what created time Its already there. what created before the universe there was something before and it goes on and on times infinity no idea what is going on here seriosly That is what we are finding out about. what is the meaning of love The emotion of being happy when the one they loved has meet what they want them to be. why do some men like men and some women like women They want to try something new. What is going on Nothing is going on Heres my question. Why are you asking these questions?
8 :
This is really a religion/philosophy question, and you've decided to post it in the biology/science section. This is why creationists think they are practicing science.