Crackpot idea indeed! I can't think of any commentators who would use these terms. I like watching cricket and been to a few games in the past few years.
I don't understand all the cricket terms although we played at school but if I was sufficiently interested I would make sure I knew all the vernacular.
Another instance of dumbing down to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
DH is apoplectic, he didn't like the introduction of 120 ball cricket and this is even less. It seems to me that you either love cricket or you hate it, and making matches shorter and less exciting isn't going to change that.
Am I correct in believing that one day cricket, with no cricket 'whites' was introduced to make the game more welcoming to a new, younger audience? Likewise some men's tennis Grand Slams being reduced to three sets from five and tie-break points introduced to reduce the potential lengths of sets - again, all in the name of being more 'audience friendly' for those with reduced concentration spans?
I read today that that thought is being given to 'modernising' cricket terms. Batsmen to be called batters and wickets called outs. Whatever next, its a national disgrace ??