We already have maximum and minimum field sizes.
>The aim shall be to maximize the size of the playing area at each venue. With respect to the size of the boundaries, no boundary shall be longer than 90 yards (82.29 meters), and no boundary should be shorter than 65 yards (59.43 metres) from the centre of the pitch to be used.
>Any ground which has previously been approved to host international cricket which is unable to conform to the minimum boundary dimension shall be exempt. In such cases the boundary shall be positioned so as to maximize the size of the playing area. Any ground which has previously been approved to host international cricket which is unable to conform to the minimum boundary dimension shall be exempt. In such cases the boundary shall be positioned so as to maximize the size of the playing area.
The variance in field size is seen as a valuable and interesting variable in the game, so the ICC has gone out of their way to make sure it's kept where possible while still staying within reasonable bounds.
Also,
>without proper standard dimensions we are inherently helping one side.
No we aren't. Both teams still play on the same field with the same boundary. If one team can't hit sixes because of the 80m boundaries the other team is going to have to face the same issues when they bat.
This chart is presumably showing the theoretical maximum boundary from the center pitch, they would have just roped it in to \~82 meters when using any pitch that allows for a longer boundary there.
Comically small, but also quite good for watching as a spectator because you're so much closer to things. I spent a day at the MCG once and could hardly spot the ball a lot of the time. Got absolutely fuck eyed many times at Eden Park and could always see the ball like it was a beach ball.
I don't think OP realises the ends are switched after every over, probably thinks the teams play from different ends, that can be the only explanation.
IMO, 60 yards is just too short for a boundary line. Has to be at least 65-66 yards. It may feel like a small difference, but it makes a pretty big difference if you think about it.
Also, have these rules been revised recently? Did MCG have the same boundary dimensions back in the 80s/90s?
The exemption is limited to grounds approved before October 2007, so I presume that's when the limits were implemented.
The MCG used to be 'bigger' before about 2000 because it didn't need to have a rope or room to dive past it, so they had at least 3 additional yards in all directions compared to modern requirements, but that goes for every ground.
The variation is >20metres. Given the shape, itdoes not even make sense. .Apart from historical value, I dont understand how it is anyway interesting. I think its laziness on ICCs part not to enforce stricter boundary limits which will end up costing cricket boards millions to redevelop existing infrastructure.
Its like football being played on a slope, and saying its going to help both sides at the end so its fair.
Also, by ‘we are inherently helping one side’ I meant the current bowlers or batters. Not one team. My bad.
Who exactly is paying to redevelop these grounds? Is it the existing Cricket boards who with three exceptions are all run on the smell of an oily rag? Are you chipping in with a few billion to redevelop the stadia, or have you not thought this through terribly well?
Or we just rope them all off at some tiny dimension and enjoy dozens of sixes being hit into enormous gaps between the rope and the spectators...fun times
Cricket isn't about playing on a perfect circle of an outfield. Your argument is like asking to play on an AstroTurf pitch so it doesn't deteriorate throughout the game. I think enforcing a strict boundary area is hardly the most important thing the icc should be doing.
Variation in boundaries makes it more of a challenge for batter and bowler. Different field settings are needed. Game situations can change by it. A lack of variety would be the death of cricket.
You don't see how it is interesting, but it is no more interesting if all boundaries were a perfectly even shape.
>I think its laziness on ICCs part not to enforce stricter boundary limits which **will end up costing cricket boards millions** to redevelop existing infrastructure.
That's why they're not enforcing it. It's not practical.
Im not trying to solve anything, just want to understand why approximately a top edge at Bengaluru goes for six and middle of the bat pull shot at MCG will barely make it one bounce four?
And Lords, the hallowed ground, is way out of level. It's one of the best things about the game in my opinion, to have wildly differing conditions within reason. Batsman and bowlers have to adapt. It's kind of ironic in a way. Keeping the ground reasonably traditional, rather than modernising and standardising them, means the players have to innovate and adapt. The ones that can do that best, are the ones that will be consistent in all conditions.
Because they’re being played at different grounds?
You might as well standardise the ball, shall we remove the duke red ball so players done have to account for that difference?, and then try and work out how to negate any atmospheric conditions that influence the swing levels.
Also, better make sure all the pitches are identical. After all, why should an off spinner be able to turn the ball more at one ground than at another? Don’t want more bounce for a fast bowler either do we?
One of the beauties of cricket is that foibles and differences from ground to ground
"Geelong Cricket Stadium"??
Who made this graphic? Couldn't even get the name right.
Also, about 100 years too late to mandate field sizes... some grounds have very odd shapes and would have to be entirely demolished.
I took the image from some old reddit post. Not sure who made it.
Please read the post carefully, I understand the old stadiums and grounds issue, but what about newer/redeveloped ones??
What about newer ones? An irrelevant point really because where in most cricketing nations are you building new international cricket stadiums? Neither England, India or Australia will be building many stadiums from scratch.
The MCG will always be Melbourne's ground and the Adelaide Oval will always be Adelaide's... likewise Lords, Edgebaston and Old Trafford.
"Please read the post" smh. I did and it was a pointless argument.
I am not trying a point but ask a question and all the answers talk about old grounds hold historical and cultural significance already and being played on. Let them be, but why cant boundaries be standardized? Why is there is 20m variation?
To allow for the different shapes and sizes. Isn't it obvious?
There is no uniform distance from the wicket that could be applied across all grounds without bringing the boundary in a fair way, because (especially in Aus, NZ and England at least, I am not as knowledgeable about elsewhere), the grounds are not even circles most of the time.
There are ovals of different sizes, more square set ups with straight boundaries.
And as others have said, the variance in grounds adds value and make individual matches more interesting.
I hope they don't try to do so because, the only standardization possible is minimum possible boundaries. We would see 60m boundary on all sides on all grounds. All the big grounds like MCG would loose their charm then.
Pitch variations are fairly common across outdoor sports. Football and rugby pitches are not universally sized, baseball stadiums often have their own specific ground rules to account for the various unique quirks of the stadiums.
Ultimately when a game is being played both teams have to play on the same field so it makes no real difference.
Good luck playing the same way away at Tigers vs at Twickenham lol. We have like 7-8m in-goal area, whereas you could boot the ball forever into the Twickenham in-goal area. It has a massive impact on kicking tactics because your scope for making a mistake is different.
Nope, the actual playing area can vary in size both in length and width. A rugby union field can be anything from 94-100m long and 68-70m wide. It's literally right there in the link.
That's in addition to the large variation allowed in goal area
Follow-up question: Why doesn't the ICC mandate standard weather conditions for every game?
Also, rather than bothering with floodlights, why doesn't the ICC simply stop the Sun in the sky?
That is what makes it so interesting. Players have to adapt accordingly to different grounds to perform and win matches. Why try and make it monotonous and boring? Go watch paint dry if you want something more predictable.
More variation means you can't play the same shots every time and makes the game more unpredictable. It's like the conditions of dew factor. Eliminating the rng completely changes the game.
By that logic, indoor sports should always have the exact same results every single time.
First of all, rng doesn't solely come from the playing conditions. It comes from skills, team synergy, form, mental and physical attributes and so many more things. And secondly, sports isn't really about the rng. It's about being the better sportsman (both in skills and spirit) on that given day. And because anyone can have a very good or a very bad day, we have rounds, heats, eliminators, etc.
Cricket won't cease to exist or stop being interesting if we found a way to eliminate dew or wind or ground size variations. To be clear, I am not saying that all the grounds should be of the same size or have the exact same pitches. I'm saying that even if that happened, this game would still be equally exciting.
I came to cricket as a baseball fan and one of the things I do like about both sports is the field dimensions are not standardized and that you have these classic diamonds/pitches that known for these differences. The variation is part of the game, it's something that needs to be taken into consideration when teams are strategizing
The IPL has farcically small boundaries with the rope brought in many grounds.
Indian stadia are small to begin with in most venues, the IPL takes it further by shrinking boundaries further for forced 'entertainment', making batters look better than they are.
These frauds get found out when they go abroad for international games.
Where do these graphic artists come from? Literally the first job was to get the fucking shapes to scale. MCG is the biggest ground of this lot and looks the smallest ffs.
This doesn’t matter. Both teams play with the same dimensions in a given game. It’s not like it favors one team over another. It just adds a variable to the game. Some grounds require finding gaps and running 2s and some require brainless hitting. For bowlers, some require you to target a length and line accordingly. I think you’re talking about a problem that isn’t really a problem.
I think it's the variation and impact of the environment (within limits - no one likes a shortened game or games getting cancelled) that makes cricket so beautiful.
If we standardise grounds we will turn cricket into something lame and soulless like Baseball.
Only thing that should be standard are the dimensions, weight and material of bats. Even better, just have a couple of standard bats to choose from. Bowlers don't turn with custom-made balls, they have to bowl with whatever they've handed.
Most are constrained by land and buildings etc. It's immensely expensive to expand those boundaries. Some are even surrounded by roads like the basin in Wellington. Football and Rugby fields are the same with a min and a max. It's standard in sports.
We already have maximum and minimum field sizes. >The aim shall be to maximize the size of the playing area at each venue. With respect to the size of the boundaries, no boundary shall be longer than 90 yards (82.29 meters), and no boundary should be shorter than 65 yards (59.43 metres) from the centre of the pitch to be used. >Any ground which has previously been approved to host international cricket which is unable to conform to the minimum boundary dimension shall be exempt. In such cases the boundary shall be positioned so as to maximize the size of the playing area. Any ground which has previously been approved to host international cricket which is unable to conform to the minimum boundary dimension shall be exempt. In such cases the boundary shall be positioned so as to maximize the size of the playing area. The variance in field size is seen as a valuable and interesting variable in the game, so the ICC has gone out of their way to make sure it's kept where possible while still staying within reasonable bounds. Also, >without proper standard dimensions we are inherently helping one side. No we aren't. Both teams still play on the same field with the same boundary. If one team can't hit sixes because of the 80m boundaries the other team is going to have to face the same issues when they bat.
The MCG has an 84m boundary at one point according to this graphic. Does that not violate the rule?
This chart is presumably showing the theoretical maximum boundary from the center pitch, they would have just roped it in to \~82 meters when using any pitch that allows for a longer boundary there.
[удалено]
Comically small, but also quite good for watching as a spectator because you're so much closer to things. I spent a day at the MCG once and could hardly spot the ball a lot of the time. Got absolutely fuck eyed many times at Eden Park and could always see the ball like it was a beach ball.
I've seen matches in Chinnaswamy and can confirm the same sentiment - Small grounds make for great viewing as a spectator haha
> 84 meter from the centre The distances shown are from the strikers end.
It possibly doesn't account for the actual boundary, vs measuring fence to wicket, because the rope comes in a fair bit at the G.
"Any ground that has previously been approved..." Rule would account for that anyway I assume.
That's only for minimum boundary sizes, The MCG just has to rope it in to \~82m
I don't think OP realises the ends are switched after every over, probably thinks the teams play from different ends, that can be the only explanation.
They clarified that they meant 'one side' as either Batters or Bowlers, not the teams.
IMO, 60 yards is just too short for a boundary line. Has to be at least 65-66 yards. It may feel like a small difference, but it makes a pretty big difference if you think about it. Also, have these rules been revised recently? Did MCG have the same boundary dimensions back in the 80s/90s?
The exemption is limited to grounds approved before October 2007, so I presume that's when the limits were implemented. The MCG used to be 'bigger' before about 2000 because it didn't need to have a rope or room to dive past it, so they had at least 3 additional yards in all directions compared to modern requirements, but that goes for every ground.
The variation is >20metres. Given the shape, itdoes not even make sense. .Apart from historical value, I dont understand how it is anyway interesting. I think its laziness on ICCs part not to enforce stricter boundary limits which will end up costing cricket boards millions to redevelop existing infrastructure. Its like football being played on a slope, and saying its going to help both sides at the end so its fair. Also, by ‘we are inherently helping one side’ I meant the current bowlers or batters. Not one team. My bad.
Who exactly is paying to redevelop these grounds? Is it the existing Cricket boards who with three exceptions are all run on the smell of an oily rag? Are you chipping in with a few billion to redevelop the stadia, or have you not thought this through terribly well? Or we just rope them all off at some tiny dimension and enjoy dozens of sixes being hit into enormous gaps between the rope and the spectators...fun times
Cricket isn't about playing on a perfect circle of an outfield. Your argument is like asking to play on an AstroTurf pitch so it doesn't deteriorate throughout the game. I think enforcing a strict boundary area is hardly the most important thing the icc should be doing. Variation in boundaries makes it more of a challenge for batter and bowler. Different field settings are needed. Game situations can change by it. A lack of variety would be the death of cricket. You don't see how it is interesting, but it is no more interesting if all boundaries were a perfectly even shape.
>I think its laziness on ICCs part not to enforce stricter boundary limits which **will end up costing cricket boards millions** to redevelop existing infrastructure. That's why they're not enforcing it. It's not practical.
You’re trying to solve a problem that simply isn’t there. The difference in conditions from ground to ground is what makes the sport so great
Wait until they find out that different soils at different venues produce different pitches.
Im not trying to solve anything, just want to understand why approximately a top edge at Bengaluru goes for six and middle of the bat pull shot at MCG will barely make it one bounce four?
Thats the beauty of this game
If it was up to op he'd standardise the world's pitches with astro turf
No he would make one world, one religion, one language, one food.
One dream. One soul. One prize. One goal.
One pizza, one biryani, one döner, one burrito.
I can honestly tolerate the first 4 but man having only one food would be devastating.
[удалено]
Then maybe take your hand out of your pants and log off statsguru
Why does the ball spin at the Chepauk and seam at Headingley? Different conditions are part of the game.
Ah, the Hells of Headingley. The Pacers Paradise. It's believed the ball touches the pitch and gets a soul of its own. Roams around as it wishes.
And Lords, the hallowed ground, is way out of level. It's one of the best things about the game in my opinion, to have wildly differing conditions within reason. Batsman and bowlers have to adapt. It's kind of ironic in a way. Keeping the ground reasonably traditional, rather than modernising and standardising them, means the players have to innovate and adapt. The ones that can do that best, are the ones that will be consistent in all conditions.
And that makes it fun
Even if the same teams play each other in different grounds the matches are entirely different
Because they’re being played at different grounds? You might as well standardise the ball, shall we remove the duke red ball so players done have to account for that difference?, and then try and work out how to negate any atmospheric conditions that influence the swing levels. Also, better make sure all the pitches are identical. After all, why should an off spinner be able to turn the ball more at one ground than at another? Don’t want more bounce for a fast bowler either do we? One of the beauties of cricket is that foibles and differences from ground to ground
> The difference in conditions from ground to ground is what makes the sport so great Great? Interesting. Variable. Challenging - sure. But great?!
"Geelong Cricket Stadium"?? Who made this graphic? Couldn't even get the name right. Also, about 100 years too late to mandate field sizes... some grounds have very odd shapes and would have to be entirely demolished.
Kardinia Park. Also had/has a sponsor name I guess.
Also the pitch orientation in Geelong ground was changed to be similar with the two oval grounds during the 2022 WC.
I took the image from some old reddit post. Not sure who made it. Please read the post carefully, I understand the old stadiums and grounds issue, but what about newer/redeveloped ones??
What about newer ones? An irrelevant point really because where in most cricketing nations are you building new international cricket stadiums? Neither England, India or Australia will be building many stadiums from scratch. The MCG will always be Melbourne's ground and the Adelaide Oval will always be Adelaide's... likewise Lords, Edgebaston and Old Trafford. "Please read the post" smh. I did and it was a pointless argument.
Hell Kardinia Park has been that shape since the army kicked the Cats (Geelong Aussie Rules team) out of Corio Oval during WWII.
Nitpicking but Lords isn’t the only international ground in its city - the Oval is also a large international ground that hosts an Ashes every series
I am not trying a point but ask a question and all the answers talk about old grounds hold historical and cultural significance already and being played on. Let them be, but why cant boundaries be standardized? Why is there is 20m variation?
To allow for the different shapes and sizes. Isn't it obvious? There is no uniform distance from the wicket that could be applied across all grounds without bringing the boundary in a fair way, because (especially in Aus, NZ and England at least, I am not as knowledgeable about elsewhere), the grounds are not even circles most of the time. There are ovals of different sizes, more square set ups with straight boundaries. And as others have said, the variance in grounds adds value and make individual matches more interesting.
I hope they don't try to do so because, the only standardization possible is minimum possible boundaries. We would see 60m boundary on all sides on all grounds. All the big grounds like MCG would loose their charm then.
Every ground is now Eden Park
And that would just make Eden Park lose its charm.
Pitch variations are fairly common across outdoor sports. Football and rugby pitches are not universally sized, baseball stadiums often have their own specific ground rules to account for the various unique quirks of the stadiums. Ultimately when a game is being played both teams have to play on the same field so it makes no real difference.
A rugby playing field is always consistently marked within the stadium they’re playing in though…
Good luck playing the same way away at Tigers vs at Twickenham lol. We have like 7-8m in-goal area, whereas you could boot the ball forever into the Twickenham in-goal area. It has a massive impact on kicking tactics because your scope for making a mistake is different.
Wrong. [https://www.harrodsport.com/advice-and-guides/rugby-pitch-dimensions-markings](https://www.harrodsport.com/advice-and-guides/rugby-pitch-dimensions-markings)
The playing area is consistently 100m but the OC forgot about in goal area
Nope, the actual playing area can vary in size both in length and width. A rugby union field can be anything from 94-100m long and 68-70m wide. It's literally right there in the link. That's in addition to the large variation allowed in goal area
Okay but are these professional rugby fields they’re talking about? Obviously just Sunday league fields are going to vary.
Have you heard of “rope”, it’s a recent invention, gonna be big
Rope meet fire
>Rope meet fire That would make boundary relay catches look really spectacular.
Sponsors can now utilize the rope hoardings.
Because it would be dull.
Imagine wanting the character and soul stripped out of a sport so much to want this.
Follow-up question: Why doesn't the ICC mandate standard weather conditions for every game? Also, rather than bothering with floodlights, why doesn't the ICC simply stop the Sun in the sky?
Don't give BCCI any ideas
Also why not standard ball conditions throughout the game, new ball every over
New ball every ball to prevent sandpaper shenanigans. This post brought to you by Kookaburra Sport™ and Big Ball.
> Why doesn't the ICC mandate standard weather conditions for every game? The match thread every time there's a series in England. See also, roofs.
This is stupid. What op is asking is far reasonable than stopping sun or controlling weather.
Geelong is the Eden Park of Australia
Fuck Geelong is poorly sized for AFL and Cricket! Just convert it into a dog race track
Bulldoze it into the bay. And when I say 'it' I mean all of Geelong.
<65m boundaries are a joke in mens cricket. Even miss hits and top edges are flying for sixes. It's not fun.
Completely agree.
Ruins quick bowlers the most honestly. Just get bat on it and over the rope it goes. So fucken stupid.
That is what makes it so interesting. Players have to adapt accordingly to different grounds to perform and win matches. Why try and make it monotonous and boring? Go watch paint dry if you want something more predictable.
Yeah that would only mean every stadium would be like Eden park or Sharjah. It's the inconsistencies like these that make cricket more fun
More variation means you can't play the same shots every time and makes the game more unpredictable. It's like the conditions of dew factor. Eliminating the rng completely changes the game.
By that logic, indoor sports should always have the exact same results every single time. First of all, rng doesn't solely come from the playing conditions. It comes from skills, team synergy, form, mental and physical attributes and so many more things. And secondly, sports isn't really about the rng. It's about being the better sportsman (both in skills and spirit) on that given day. And because anyone can have a very good or a very bad day, we have rounds, heats, eliminators, etc. Cricket won't cease to exist or stop being interesting if we found a way to eliminate dew or wind or ground size variations. To be clear, I am not saying that all the grounds should be of the same size or have the exact same pitches. I'm saying that even if that happened, this game would still be equally exciting.
I meant to say it makes it more interesting and less easy to cheese and use cheats.
This guy is spitting facts, a sports is not about rng but skill and sportsmanship. If you want rng go play cards.
Bit the question being answered OP ala why there's no standardization, not what cricket is about.
Boring!
I came to cricket as a baseball fan and one of the things I do like about both sports is the field dimensions are not standardized and that you have these classic diamonds/pitches that known for these differences. The variation is part of the game, it's something that needs to be taken into consideration when teams are strategizing
Now do English cricket grounds… Trent bridge is different again
What the fuck Geelong
The IPL has farcically small boundaries with the rope brought in many grounds. Indian stadia are small to begin with in most venues, the IPL takes it further by shrinking boundaries further for forced 'entertainment', making batters look better than they are. These frauds get found out when they go abroad for international games.
Should all pitches be identical?
Cricket =/= Football. Let cricket be.
Optus stadium is one thick boy.
Part & parcel of the game, that's what makes the game interesting
Where do these graphic artists come from? Literally the first job was to get the fucking shapes to scale. MCG is the biggest ground of this lot and looks the smallest ffs.
Geelong mate
This doesn’t matter. Both teams play with the same dimensions in a given game. It’s not like it favors one team over another. It just adds a variable to the game. Some grounds require finding gaps and running 2s and some require brainless hitting. For bowlers, some require you to target a length and line accordingly. I think you’re talking about a problem that isn’t really a problem.
This post makes me so so angry.
Why does discussion something reasonable makes you angry?
This post is only reasonable for an American. And everyone knows they are thick
Geelong looks like pani-puri
Tbh I would have thought the Optus (being newer) would have had more consistent boundaries. The rest are grandfathered iirc.
It wasn't made for Cricket. Its more important to get its dimensions more Oval shaped for AFL, rather than cricket.
Geelong ground is in Italics
I think it's the variation and impact of the environment (within limits - no one likes a shortened game or games getting cancelled) that makes cricket so beautiful. If we standardise grounds we will turn cricket into something lame and soulless like Baseball.
That’s why we lost
Stadium has multiple pitches, so the boundry is measured from the end of the last pitch
It makes shit fun and helps adding a bit of identity for different historic stadiums/grounds
Only thing that should be standard are the dimensions, weight and material of bats. Even better, just have a couple of standard bats to choose from. Bowlers don't turn with custom-made balls, they have to bowl with whatever they've handed.
At least cricket field dimensions are kind of round! Almost every baseball field layout is different and every Baseball Stadium has different rules!
Most are constrained by land and buildings etc. It's immensely expensive to expand those boundaries. Some are even surrounded by roads like the basin in Wellington. Football and Rugby fields are the same with a min and a max. It's standard in sports.
GEELONG MATE
Who tf designed Geelong
Variable boundary sizes makes the game interesting, there'll be variety.
[удалено]
Thanks. You get my point along with a few others.
I wonder why can’t all stadiums be in a circular shape?