25/25/25/25

[Swervy]

If you can't win because of poor conditions, then you probably didn't deserve to win at all. Sometimes you get good conditions, sometimes you get bad ones. Suck it up.

I will hold you to that if Australia get nobbed in the semis thanks to a nightmare pitch in the first 20 overs against England (like yesterdays pitch).

By the way, I am only talking about this in the context of a multi-team tournament like the world cup

 

[slugger]

by the way Im a kiwi, this is not sour grapes, nz has had good luck with the coin toss, only losing it to canada and kenya thus far, but i just want to see a fair match, id rather teams win there game due to skill etc, not because the whether was a member of the team as well.

from cricinfo

With survival itself being such a difficult proposition, it's hardly surprising that South Africa played out 92 dot balls out of 121 - effectively more than 15 maiden overs out of the first 20

 

[LA ICE-E]

please can you name these other sports where a coin toss can carry so much wait in the factor of the out come of a game.

can you name one sport where the toss of a coin has such a huge effect on a game like it does in cricket. It doesnt in football (soccer), rugby, American football and so on.

yesterdays SA vs NZ game is the perfect example of the toss of the coin having a major effect on a games outcome

Football(american) if you win the toss and get the ball and score in overtime you win. Also in bad weather with lots of wind the side you choose. But this isn't an excuse and neither should it be in cricket. If you don't want pitches to have an effect on the games then why not just having boring generic turf pitches for all the games, it won't change through out months.

 

[Swervy]

Football(american) if you win the toss and get the ball and score in overtime you win. Also in bad weather with lots of wind the side you choose. But this isn't an excuse and neither should it be in cricket. If you don't want pitches to have an effect on the games then why not just having boring generic turf pitches for all the games, it won't change through out months.

I knew you were going to say American Football...however it only applies in overtime, which you will only find maybe 1 in 50 games going to..and even then there is a very strong section calling for the coin toss to have less of an effect by having it so that (this is for the NFL) both teams have possession at least once in Overtime...again eliminating the luck aspect of the coin toss.

With regards to the bad weather thing, yeah you get to choose to have the wind with you, but you change ends at the end of the first quarter, which would have a similar effect on the game as splitting a ODI innings into two, as suggested earlier.

 

[slugger]

wow im satisfied, tht was awesome you find a game outside cricket where the coin toss plays a factor in the out come, i thought they would play like 40-45 minutes halves, kinda like rugby or soccer, but wow check this out even the americans have realised that a team should be given benefit of doubt when conditions may play a role in the match. from wikipedia

A standard football game consists of four 15-minute (typically 12 minutes in high school football) quarters, with a half-time intermission after the second quarter

 

[Matt79]

meh, Aussies rules and basketball have quarters as well.

 

[LA ICE-E]

I knew you were going to say American Football...however it only applies in overtime, which you will only find maybe 1 in 50 games going to..and even then there is a very strong section calling for the coin toss to have less of an effect by having it so that (this is for the NFL) both teams have possession at least once in Overtime...again eliminating the luck aspect of the coin toss.

With regards to the bad weather thing, yeah you get to choose to have the wind with you, but you change ends at the end of the first quarter, which would have a similar effect on the game as splitting a ODI innings into two, as suggested earlier.

but the wind may change then so when it is windy you get the benefit first. Also, in the first 60 minutes the pitch changes anyway so switching after that isn't going to much difference anyway. Unless you're going to divide the 1st 20 overs between the two teams, it won't matter. The pitch doesn't change all of a sudden after the 1st innings.

wow im satisfied, tht was awesome you find a game outside cricket where the coin toss plays a factor in the out come, i thought they would play like 40-45 minutes halves, kinda like rugby or soccer, but wow check this out even the americans have realised that a team should be given benefit of doubt when conditions may play a role in the match. from wikipedia

no that's not the case why we have 15 minute quarters.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Ugh not this make limited overs matches have 2 innings each crap AGAIN.

 

[Swervy]

Ugh not this make limited overs matches have 2 innings each crap AGAIN.

this coming from the man who was complaining about England having the rough end of the deal vs NZ

I think it is a subject worthy of debate

 

[steds]

Must be one of the direst ideas I've ever heard itbt.

 

[Swervy]

Must be one of the direst ideas I've ever heard itbt.

nothing like that type of contribution to help things move along!!!!

Any reason why?

 

[PhoenixFire]

How about we alternate bewteen overs, so it goes one over then another, then another.........

 

[Barney Rubble]

Voted for 50 over cricket, but given the advent of Twenty20 and the death of ODI cricket it's irrelevant anyway. Why change the format around when in 10 years' time we won't even be playing it?

 

[slugger]

but the wind may change then so when it is windy you get the benefit first. Also, in the first 60 minutes the pitch changes anyway so switching after that isn't going to much difference anyway. Unless you're going to divide the 1st 20 overs between the two teams, it won't matter. The pitch doesn't change all of a sudden after the 1st innings.

no that's not the case why we have 15 minute quarters.

wasnt that the case you where making something about the windy weather may benefit the team and thats the way it is. but after I checked the rules they only spend 15 minutes dealing with this weather condition, the game devided into 4 quaters levels out radical conditions.

any way the concept of 4 25 overs is not directly assocaited just because of weather conditions, its to give teams a chance to re asses their situation in both disiplines, you actually might dind it a blessing when you 67-7 after 25 overs, and if you are the team that has them at 67-7 thanks to your bowlers/fielding how go you think your batting team will approuch rheir first 25, for the first time in history commentators could realistacally say after 50 overs which team is in the driving seat. please its not all about the weather Glen Turner mentioned it in terms that reflected some aspects of test cricket 2 innings, 2 chances to asses the situation.

 

[quytst0rm]

How about we alternate bewteen overs, so it goes one over then another, then another.........

Great idea, maybe ICC could do this to attract America.......

 

[slugger]

Voted for 50 over cricket, but given the advent of Twenty20 and the death of ODI cricket it's irrelevant anyway. Why change the format around when in 10 years' time we won't even be playing it?

the death of one day cricket will be because they cant sell the idea of team taking 3 hours to complete its innings. the best way to construct the innings is break it into smaller segements, thus spectators have a true comparison to follow, cricket needs to take this on board, the success of its cousin (for spectators) is this comparison formular. BASEBALL!!!
from wikipedia

An inning in baseball consists of two halves. In each half, one team bats until three outs are made, with the other team playing defense. Each half-inning formally starts when the umpire calls "Batter up!" A full inning consists of six outs, three for each team; and a regulation game consists of nine innings

 

[SJS]

P.S: SJS, seriously mate you can't be serious about all those sort of ideas.

I hate having to do this yet again but just this once.

Of course I wasnt being serious. I have trouble getting my tongue dislodged from my cheek most of the time. Rest of the time I am mostly being sarcastic.

PS : Sometimes I am serious too but thats rare

 

[Barney Rubble]

the death of one day cricket will be because they cant sell the idea of team taking 3 hours to complete its innings. the best way to construct the innings is break it into smaller segements, thus spectators have a true comparison to follow, cricket needs to take this on board, the success of its cousin (for spectators) is this comparison formular. BASEBALL!!!
from wikipedia

I know how baseball works, and that's another argument against it. God forbid cricket should attempt to Americanise itself.

 

[slugger]

americanise you make it sound like a bad thing. think of it as a hybird of test cricket and 50 overs. the best of both formats combined into one. in actual fact Im kind of suprized when the first implented one day cricket back in 1962 they didnt give the teams 2 innings, considering up to that point all they had ever played was 2 innings per side. confusing.

 

[LA ICE-E]

the death of one day cricket will be because they cant sell the idea of team taking 3 hours to complete its innings. the best way to construct the innings is break it into smaller segements, thus spectators have a true comparison to follow, cricket needs to take this on board, the success of its cousin (for spectators) is this comparison formular. BASEBALL!!!
from wikipedia

yeah, no. Why are we going to try and make cricket like baseball? What's the point? If you want it like baseball why not just watch baseball. also odi cricket is about the same as baseball in term of spectators