One Day Cricket
- Thread starter jaydee
- Start date
Re: One Day Cricket
I like One Day Cricket as it is, and I enjoy them very, very much. I think after 40ish years ODI cricket has really developed and honed just enough tactics and knowledge to make it very good without it becoming a bore in that you know exactly what is going to happen.
For mine I don't like the powerplays. No bowling or batting powerplay should be used. There was no 'boring middle overs' to begin with, so why try and fix it by adding something irrelevant and stupid? Just another thing to encourage big hitting but not proper hitting.
I like One Day Cricket as it is, and I enjoy them very, very much. I think after 40ish years ODI cricket has really developed and honed just enough tactics and knowledge to make it very good without it becoming a bore in that you know exactly what is going to happen.
For mine I don't like the powerplays. No bowling or batting powerplay should be used. There was no 'boring middle overs' to begin with, so why try and fix it by adding something irrelevant and stupid? Just another thing to encourage big hitting but not proper hitting.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
Banned
Re: One Day Cricket
People have to realise that ODI's, for the immediate future at least, are here to stay.
The 2015 World Cup will be jointly hosted by Australia and New Zealand, while the 2019 World Cup will be held in England. The 50 over game is going to be around for a while yet.
ODI's can still be just as entertaining and dynamic as both test cricket and T20's.
The most important thing to improve ODI cricket is improving wickets - giving them pace and bounce.
People have to realise that ODI's, for the immediate future at least, are here to stay.
The 2015 World Cup will be jointly hosted by Australia and New Zealand, while the 2019 World Cup will be held in England. The 50 over game is going to be around for a while yet.
ODI's can still be just as entertaining and dynamic as both test cricket and T20's.
The most important thing to improve ODI cricket is improving wickets - giving them pace and bounce.
mas cambios
Active Member
Re: One Day Cricket
The most important things for me are:
- ensuring an even battle between bat and ball
- stop having series consisting of 7 games
- get through games quicker - do players really need 7 days rest between games?
- align them with tests and t20 to form cohesive tours
The most important things for me are:
- ensuring an even battle between bat and ball
- stop having series consisting of 7 games
- get through games quicker - do players really need 7 days rest between games?
- align them with tests and t20 to form cohesive tours
Re: One Day Cricket
Not sure I agree with this. There are too many games from all forms. As an example the current Australian side has an ODI on average about every third day, quite often only a days break. Add this to them having played almost constantly (to my memory) since September 2008, maybe more. Series after series with all three forms being shoved in everywhere. They will keep playing pretty much straight until next March too, to my knowledge. There are no breaks anymore, and it's ruining players.
mas cambios;387841 said:
Not sure I agree with this. There are too many games from all forms. As an example the current Australian side has an ODI on average about every third day, quite often only a days break. Add this to them having played almost constantly (to my memory) since September 2008, maybe more. Series after series with all three forms being shoved in everywhere. They will keep playing pretty much straight until next March too, to my knowledge. There are no breaks anymore, and it's ruining players.
mas cambios
Active Member
Re: One Day Cricket
See my point above - stop series having 5/7 games. An ideal tour should consist of 3 tests, 3 one day games and a T20. That makes for 19 days of cricket. There is no need for a one day series to drag on for a month or more.
I'll concede that marquee events may need extended series but really, there needs to be some common sense applied. Even then it should be a max of 5 tests and 5 ODI's. Do England really need another one day series against Australia this year in the UK? Not really, they played each last year and will do so again later this year/early next. This is not to mention any meetings that may crop up elsewhere.
The main problem is that the ICC is spineless and in thrall to the BCCI and other boards. Too many haphazard series crop up with little to no relevance. Take the current series involving New Zealand and Bangladesh - it has a single test. I ask you, what is the point!
See my point above - stop series having 5/7 games. An ideal tour should consist of 3 tests, 3 one day games and a T20. That makes for 19 days of cricket. There is no need for a one day series to drag on for a month or more.
I'll concede that marquee events may need extended series but really, there needs to be some common sense applied. Even then it should be a max of 5 tests and 5 ODI's. Do England really need another one day series against Australia this year in the UK? Not really, they played each last year and will do so again later this year/early next. This is not to mention any meetings that may crop up elsewhere.
The main problem is that the ICC is spineless and in thrall to the BCCI and other boards. Too many haphazard series crop up with little to no relevance. Take the current series involving New Zealand and Bangladesh - it has a single test. I ask you, what is the point!
Re: One Day Cricket
I don't mind 5 match series TBH. Seven is over the top, but I won't complain if I get to see more and the last couple have some different players coming through after the series is inevitably won by then.
Depends on the situation and opponent. 5 is too much against smaller nations.
mas cambios;387961 said:
I don't mind 5 match series TBH. Seven is over the top, but I won't complain if I get to see more and the last couple have some different players coming through after the series is inevitably won by then.
Depends on the situation and opponent. 5 is too much against smaller nations.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
Banned
Re: One Day Cricket
Firstly, Im looking forward to that little series, it appears the reason for it is that it will bring in bulk money for the ECB. The grounds will be packed, pre-Ashes hype will be in the air and it makes sense for Australia to have a few games against England since we are in the country anyway.
These fixtures have been set in stone for years, a look at cricinfo will show the future programs list dating back to 2006.
I think generally the ODI format is about right, 7 games in one series is to long, no doubt about that.
mas cambios;387961 said:
Firstly, Im looking forward to that little series, it appears the reason for it is that it will bring in bulk money for the ECB. The grounds will be packed, pre-Ashes hype will be in the air and it makes sense for Australia to have a few games against England since we are in the country anyway.
These fixtures have been set in stone for years, a look at cricinfo will show the future programs list dating back to 2006.
I think generally the ODI format is about right, 7 games in one series is to long, no doubt about that.
hattrick
Member
Re: One Day Cricket
I must admit that the whole issue start with the FTP.. I agree with most of the points that have been raised.
I think marquee series should be 2 T20, 5 Test Matches and 5 ODI. Then the rest I would think should be 1 T20 and 3 Test Matches and 3 ODI. This might be a gross generalization but I think it would make sense.
With regards to turn around time 3 days between ODIs and T20s. I really think there should be 3-5 days.The biggest issue is that consistency is what we are all after.
Haphazard series is an issue that needs to be looked at and changed. Maybe the ICC need to use the ranking system because entertainment is what will sell the game. Why did no one pitch for the Nagpur test match which was a classic.
I must admit that the whole issue start with the FTP.. I agree with most of the points that have been raised.
I think marquee series should be 2 T20, 5 Test Matches and 5 ODI. Then the rest I would think should be 1 T20 and 3 Test Matches and 3 ODI. This might be a gross generalization but I think it would make sense.
With regards to turn around time 3 days between ODIs and T20s. I really think there should be 3-5 days.The biggest issue is that consistency is what we are all after.
Haphazard series is an issue that needs to be looked at and changed. Maybe the ICC need to use the ranking system because entertainment is what will sell the game. Why did no one pitch for the Nagpur test match which was a classic.
Re: One Day Cricket
Strongly disagree with the 40 over thing completely. Domestic cricket it is fine with, but not international. It's like making Tests 3 days, not enough time for the quality cricket IMO. The same 'boring' periods are going to be there, but at for a smaller time. But saying that the 'interesting' parts are going to be shorter so the ratio is the same.
Even at club level playing 50 overs is far superior than 40.
The 50 over game is fine, leave it as it is.
Kram81;388020 said:
Strongly disagree with the 40 over thing completely. Domestic cricket it is fine with, but not international. It's like making Tests 3 days, not enough time for the quality cricket IMO. The same 'boring' periods are going to be there, but at for a smaller time. But saying that the 'interesting' parts are going to be shorter so the ratio is the same.
Even at club level playing 50 overs is far superior than 40.
The 50 over game is fine, leave it as it is.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
Banned
Re: One Day Cricket
Why would we change the domestic competition to 40 overs when international cricket is played at 50 overs and the world cup is also played at 50 overs. We'd just be hampering our chances of success internationally if we were to do that.
That really is illogical IMO.
Why would we change the domestic competition to 40 overs when international cricket is played at 50 overs and the world cup is also played at 50 overs. We'd just be hampering our chances of success internationally if we were to do that.
That really is illogical IMO.
Re: One Day Cricket
It's a good point, but there is also the point that playing 4 day cricket is hampering our successes at 5 day cricket.
I wouldn't like domestic to go to 40 either. It's not a good number, it's too little, whereas 60 is too much, 50 is just right.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT;388053 said:
It's a good point, but there is also the point that playing 4 day cricket is hampering our successes at 5 day cricket.
I wouldn't like domestic to go to 40 either. It's not a good number, it's too little, whereas 60 is too much, 50 is just right.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
Banned
Re: One Day Cricket
Domestic cricket is played at 4 days due to fixturing constraints - that is the harsh reality.
Domestic cricket is played at 4 days due to fixturing constraints - that is the harsh reality.
a for effort
Active Member
Re: One Day Cricket
Why?
Boris;388057 said:
Why?
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
Banned
Re: One Day Cricket
The problem I have is if you shorten the game to 40 overs a side, then in my mind, you are getting rid of ODI 50 over cricket. To me it will become an entirely different game, which justifies my point above, if you are playing 40 over cricket domestically how the hell can you expect to perform well internationally.
I don't know the exact playing conditions with regards to bowlers and the overs they are permitted to bowl as well as powerplays and what not. It is hard to say that 40 over is to short without knowing these. I think everyone wants to see frontline bowlers bowling, so if you played 40 over cricket with 10 overs still the maximum amount a bowler can bowl then I can see some positive with that configuation because you won't be seeing trundlers filling in overs.
The problem I have is if you shorten the game to 40 overs a side, then in my mind, you are getting rid of ODI 50 over cricket. To me it will become an entirely different game, which justifies my point above, if you are playing 40 over cricket domestically how the hell can you expect to perform well internationally.
I don't know the exact playing conditions with regards to bowlers and the overs they are permitted to bowl as well as powerplays and what not. It is hard to say that 40 over is to short without knowing these. I think everyone wants to see frontline bowlers bowling, so if you played 40 over cricket with 10 overs still the maximum amount a bowler can bowl then I can see some positive with that configuation because you won't be seeing trundlers filling in overs.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
Banned
Re: One Day Cricket
Another point is if you shorten the game to 40 overs, then where it will it stop. Many would see that as a precursor to getting rid of ODI cricket entirely and simply resorting to test cricket and T20.
Peter Roebuck made a good point in a previous article, 50 over cricket has been responsible for some of the great performances and all time great matchs, why would you want to get rid of it.
Another point is if you shorten the game to 40 overs, then where it will it stop. Many would see that as a precursor to getting rid of ODI cricket entirely and simply resorting to test cricket and T20.
Peter Roebuck made a good point in a previous article, 50 over cricket has been responsible for some of the great performances and all time great matchs, why would you want to get rid of it.
Re: One Day Cricket
In one way it's kind of tradition. It's like going up and saying Test matches are now two days long.
Sure if Tests originally started as two day games then we would be used to it and that would be 'the game' as we know it. But it has been 5 days long for quite some time now (with unlimited days being just unwieldy, hence the change) and if you changed the length then so many tactics go out the window.
Players would have to readjust to 40 overs and after nearly 50 years of 50 over ODI cricket the tactics and 'being used' to that length has really brought about some brilliant games with 300 scores being quite common. Like T20 at the moment, in twenty years time a score of 250 would probably be quite common, players get used to the length and tactics.
I think if we changed to 40 then even that slight difference just ruins what is tradition. As LtD said, where will it stop? Why make it shorter? What is the point? 50 over cricket is great and I know plenty of people who aren't avid cricket followers that think it is the best form of the game.
a for effort;388077 said:
In one way it's kind of tradition. It's like going up and saying Test matches are now two days long.
Sure if Tests originally started as two day games then we would be used to it and that would be 'the game' as we know it. But it has been 5 days long for quite some time now (with unlimited days being just unwieldy, hence the change) and if you changed the length then so many tactics go out the window.
Players would have to readjust to 40 overs and after nearly 50 years of 50 over ODI cricket the tactics and 'being used' to that length has really brought about some brilliant games with 300 scores being quite common. Like T20 at the moment, in twenty years time a score of 250 would probably be quite common, players get used to the length and tactics.
I think if we changed to 40 then even that slight difference just ruins what is tradition. As LtD said, where will it stop? Why make it shorter? What is the point? 50 over cricket is great and I know plenty of people who aren't avid cricket followers that think it is the best form of the game.
Kram81
Well-Known Member
Re: One Day Cricket
You make a very good point and that would be a worry. I'm a traditionalist and generally don't like unnecessary change but just feel that the game would be better at that length and would greatly reduce the middle overs where the batting side consolidates pushing singles, and this was the one criticism of the ODI game I had well before the advent of 20/20.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT;388080 said:
You make a very good point and that would be a worry. I'm a traditionalist and generally don't like unnecessary change but just feel that the game would be better at that length and would greatly reduce the middle overs where the batting side consolidates pushing singles, and this was the one criticism of the ODI game I had well before the advent of 20/20.
Re: One Day Cricket
It will be the same.
For example let's say the first 20 are normal, next 20 are the 'consolidation' or 'boring' overs and the last 10 are the exciting ones. That is a ratio of 20:20:10, or 2:2:1.
Take a 40 over game. Using the same example the first 16 are normal, the next 16 are consolidation and the last 8 are exciting. That is 16:16:8 which is 2:2:1. Same ratio, same amount of 'boringness' in relation to the excitement overs.
Kram81;388152 said:
It will be the same.
For example let's say the first 20 are normal, next 20 are the 'consolidation' or 'boring' overs and the last 10 are the exciting ones. That is a ratio of 20:20:10, or 2:2:1.
Take a 40 over game. Using the same example the first 16 are normal, the next 16 are consolidation and the last 8 are exciting. That is 16:16:8 which is 2:2:1. Same ratio, same amount of 'boringness' in relation to the excitement overs.