Will ODI's die a slow death?

[GIMH]

STT.

I always find it odd that there are 45 over games in England but they play 50 everywhere else, why?

What is STT?

We don't actually have 45 over games anymore, they replaced them with 40 overs. Most of the domestic OD cricket played is 50 over now actually, but really, all of it should be. Don't quite see the point in the 40 over league, it has absolutely no relevance to any cricket played anywhere else

 

[Scaly piscine]

All the bulldust excuses to slate Twenty20 that have been disproved trotted out as always. To get an entertaining ODI so many variables have to be right. ODIs were created for money and the odd fluke happens and you actually get one that's entertaining. Twenty20 was created for money, does a better job of it than ODIs and they actually *are* entertaining. There are also cricketing reasons to prefer them over ODIs, such as good and bad performances having a suitably big impact and a real influence on the game.

At the end of the day sport that is entertaining will survive on its own merit. ODIs are rarely entertaining and they're rather convoluted, their survival is based on financial reasons. The financial reasons for ODIs are diminishing so ODIs are in trouble. Things like the World Cup will probably keep ODIs going for the forseeable future.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think ODIs will gradually be replaced by 20/20 as the main abbreviated form of the game. My belief is mainly based on 20/20's broad appeal (we, as cricket fans who care enough about the sport to post on a forum dedicated to it, may wring our hands, but the fact is that the dollar of the casual fan is worth the same as ours) & that most quote-unquote "real" cricket fans prefer tests to ODIs. This leaves ODIs without a natural audience.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I think 20/20 supporters vastly underestimate the number of fans who find 20/20 mindless slogfests but also find test cricket too long and boring. In all honesty, the only people I've met outside of this forum who like 20/20 compared to the other forms of the game are people who don't like cricket in the first place, or at the very least don't watch it. I know plenty of people who prefer ODIs to test cricket though, even though I don't personally.

Then you've got the genuine cricket fans who prefer tests but still like ODI cricket. I'll rarely miss an ODI in which Australia are involved, and watched the ODI World Cup religiously. I've barely seen a minute of the IPL.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think 20/20 supporters vastly underestimate the number of fans who find 20/20 mindless slogfests but also find test cricket too long and boring. In all honesty, the only people I've met outside of this forum who like 20/20 compared to the other forms of the game are people who don't like cricket in the first place, or at the very least don't watch it. I know plenty of people who prefer ODIs to test cricket though, even though I don't personally.

Then you've got the genuine cricket fans who prefer tests but still like ODI cricket. I'll rarely miss an ODI in which Australia are involved, and watched the ODI World Cup religiously. I've barely seen a minute of the IPL.

It might be different in Oz, of course, but I've honestly never met anyone who'd call themselves a cricket fan (as opposed to a casual watcher) who prefers ODIs to tests. Admittedly us Brits have always been a bit sniffy about the shorter form, but I'm still surprised there would be so many who would down under.

 

[_Ed_]

Have to admit I do...but that's probably got as much to do with my team's considerably better performances in that form of the game as anything else.

 

[Nutter]

ODIs are great. T20's are a bit too hit and giggle.

 

[Craig]

What is STT?

We don't actually have 45 over games anymore, they replaced them with 40 overs. Most of the domestic OD cricket played is 50 over now actually, but really, all of it should be. Don't quite see the point in the 40 over league, it has absolutely no relevance to any cricket played anywhere else

Speaks The Truth.

 

[chaminda_00]

For those who are fans of ODIs, but don't like Twenty20. Do you guys honestly think it would be bad thing to limit the number of ODIs a tour to 3 or even 5 max. I don't really see the point in playing 100 odd ODIs between each World Cup to prepare for it. Or even like 50 ODIs that Bangladesh played the year before the last World Cup. What is so wrong with playing just 10-15 ODIs per year and maybe 20 in a World Cup year. It is basically what international football teams.

If this free up more time to play Test Cricket and maybe even County and IPL so players can actually earn similar amount of money from the sport as other sportsmen do. I reckon cricket would be a lot better off. Also it might help the burn out issue and players retiring early or having career ending injuries.

The amount of ODIs that are played these days are just stupid and most are just pointless matches or series.

 

[Somerset]

Personally I don't think that ODIs will die, not for the forthcoming future anyway. Test cricket is based on patience, T20 on more frantic cricket (and supposedly more entertainment) and a balance needs to stay in place (ODIs). I can't see that balance being removed from cricket any time soon. If it does, cricket will be the poorer because of it, and I have an image that players will either be T20 specialists or traditional test cricket specialists without anything in between (with a lack of adaptability).

In saying this, the ODI World Cup should be between the top eight (or ten if the other two are competitive enough) countries. Each plays each other, semis, final. The Twenty20 World Cup should include the full complement as although a team could get smashed still, at least the beating is all over within 3 hours. Personally I think the ODI World Cup format mentioned there would help give it more credibility and reduce the amount of one sided encounters. People would be more inclined to go to the games and they know they'll see a contest over up to 100 overs. People will also go to Twenty20 games regardless of who would be playing, for entertainment purposes as much as wanting to watch a close contest.

 

[andruid]

If it does, when will New Zealand play any cricket?



P.S. I am not a crackpot.

Or Kenya tbh

 

[slugger]

tthe reason richardson retired early was because NZ got few test matches and he was rarely selected for odis.. he just didnt earn enough..

I think some of the big teams like ind, aust, eng and to a degree rsa dont appreciate what the lesser teams face with players who cant all be selected for both formats.. in NZ case we have had a massive pool of players turn their back on test cricket.. Bond, Styris, Cairns, McMillan and this has happen all though out NZ cricket history..

I think the ICC needs to really address this problem and all teams should be playing the same allotment of test games.. and allotments of ODI's so if you are only selected for test matches at least you are playing the same amount of test as players around the world..

 

[SJS]

I think 20/20 supporters vastly underestimate the number of fans who find 20/20 mindless slogfests but also find test cricket too long and boring. In all honesty, the only people I've met outside of this forum who like 20/20 compared to the other forms of the game are people who don't like cricket in the first place, or at the very least don't watch it. I know plenty of people who prefer ODIs to test cricket though, even though I don't personally.

Then you've got the genuine cricket fans who prefer tests but still like ODI cricket. I'll rarely miss an ODI in which Australia are involved, and watched the ODI World Cup religiously. I've barely seen a minute of the IPL.

Agree with every word

 

[Athlai]

A T20 bonus point system that worked well could probably keep matches from getting boring, the benefit of the franchise idea is that the league format will work well and positions on the table become more important (unlike the world one where you only care if you are # 1). I would personally prefer ODI's to T20 anyday of the week and would actually love to see a IPL style ODI tournament though with less emphasis on any particular country. 2-3 months a year devoted to OD league where the major centre's of cricket in every country field a team similar to the IPL's cities and they go at it.

Something that bothers me about the IPL is how while it shows international class it also has smatterings of poor players who seem to be chosen to adhere to this 'teaching young players' policy. The IPL can't be two things, it can't be top class cricket while at the same time giving experience to many inexperienced players. Play the best or don't play at all IMO.

 

[DaRick]

I hope not...as I've stated earlier, I'm not the biggest fan of the 20/20 format. My attempt to watch an IPL game (again) last night ended after one Sreesanth over. I've stated my reasons for preferring ODI's over 20/20's elsewhere; I feel no need to repeat myself.

 

[abhijeet]

I like T20 matches because (for now) most of the matches are closely fought and even if they're not closely fought, they're done in 3 hours

ODIs are rarely closely fought since the beginning of this decade, though I base this on just watching India's matches. The bulk of the matches seem to be in two variations - side batting first posts huge total and side batting second never gets close OR side batting first posts below par total which side batting second chases down comfortably. It takes a lot of convoluted factors to work out to get a close match. Still, I like watching an ODI series as most of the series still turn out to be closely fought, even if 80% of the individual matches are boring for aforementioned reasons.

I don't know if T20 cricket will work in the series format, there hasn't been any yet. However, T20 does work in a tournament (the World T20) and league format (IPL, so far so good), and it works better than ODI cricket has been working for many years. Also, domestic players get a chance to shine in the IPL like never before. You can get TV time for a 3 hour match featuring mostly domestic players, but not for 4 day cricket, not even for domestic ODIs.

I don't think ODIs will die out. What's likely to happen is that we get fewer ODIs due to more T20 games and ODIs get better due to T20s like Test Cricket in the 90s got better due to the influence of ODIs.

 

[SJS]

I was just thinking this morning that it might be a good idea to increase the maximum number of overs a bowler can bowl in odi's from 10 to 13.

This will mean a team can play four specialist bowlers. The poorer bowling from the fifth (sixth) bowling option will go down which can only make for a better contest between bat and ball PLUS a team will be able to play an extra batsman which will provide the counter for batsmen and a higher chance of a better batsman at the wicket in the crucial death overs and improve the quality of batting in the latter stages somewhat.

 

[SJS]

This idea came from my conviction that T 20 must allow at least five overs per bowler and take back the boundaries to the normal size for better cricket.

 

[slugger]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ isnt that my idea in reverse...

20/20 cricket could have been moulded to fit and look like a compacted 50 ovr game.. if they had made it bowlers vs batsmen as a batting team you only have 7 wickets..rather than the 10 .. as per usual..

..

 

[morgieb]

Hopefully not. However, I think it will, IIRC.