 |
| "Bowls&Kitty" by Mattinbgn - Own work. Licensed under GFDL via Wikimedia Commons - |
It's supposed to do for lawn bowls what the Twenty20 format supposedly did for cricket (i.e. make it interesting). Now, I haven't been able to sit though a Twenty20 cricket match, so I can't say the format actually works. It turns out that cricket is just boring and there's nothing you can do about it.
However, I agree that lawn bowls could do with a shorter version - just because it makes sense to be able to play more than one "game" on that space and with that equipment. And because 25 ends is way too long for anyone from Generation X or younger to comfortably fit into their lives.
This Twenty20-like version of the game they mention in the ABC article doesn't float my boat. There's a bit more detail in this article from the Messenger. I'm sure it would be great if you actually saw it in action, but it seems slightly complicated.
Two sets of five ends? I don't get it. Why not just have ten ends?
Petanque and bocce are traditionally played until someone hits 13. It would make a nice symmetry across the boules sports if the shorter version of lawn bowls was played as a Thirteen13 kind of thing.
Whoever gets to 13 first, or whoever has the highest score after 13 ends, wins.
Done, easy. No fussing about. If you play singles with four bowls a piece or doubles or triples with three balls a piece makes no difference - you get to one 13 or another and then the game is over.
But, could we steer away from the repetitive numerical nomenclature? T20 is a silly name for a sport, and T13 is just as silly. What about: "Thirteens"? It sounds more elegant - more like something you'd do on a bowling green.
"I'm heading to the King's Park Bowls Club for a game of Thirteens. Care to join me?"
No comments:
Post a Comment