Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
The only reason for having a two innings ODI would be to ensure that the batsman bat all the overs. The idea of splitting the innings in the middle is total nonsense and wouldn't even make it a two innings match.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
2 innings ODIs?
- Thread starter LA ICE-E
- Start date
LA ICE-E
State Captain
How is it nonsense? It wouldn't be 2 innings technically but there's no word for it yet because there's no precedent. splitting it up would get rid of the boring part of it, add different game plays etc.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
The only reason the authorities would consider two innings would be so that the crowd would see the top batsman hitting 4's and 6's all over the place. It would be little more than four back to back Twenty/20 innings.
LA ICE-E
State Captain
yeah but that's not what im talking about. Why is splitting the innings nonsense? It would add more strategy etc to the game.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
Strategy isn't necessarily what the crowd want though. The idea that a batsman that has played himself in and is in full flow about to accellerate the scoring only to be stopped after 25 overs and having to play himself in again two hours later just doesn't make any sense.
LA ICE-E
State Captain
isn't it 20/20's job to be a crowd puller now? um rarely are batsmen trying to accelerate around the 25th over...it's supposedly the slow part of the format and most don't start accelerating until the late 30's. Plus It's not like the batsmen wouldn't know that the innings is going to be split so they would react to that and bat differently. And the thing about being it full flow etc, a innings is broken up in odi's laready due to lunch sometimes because of early 1st innings finish plus doesn't that happen in the "greatest of it all" tests?
LA ICE-E
State Captain
yeah i kind of remember that but was it 20 wickets for 20 overs or was it 10 wickets split into 2 halves?
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
The job of all professional sport is to be a crowd puller. They would bat differently as the 25th over approached they'd play fewer shots to make sure they didn't get out and the scoring rate would slow. There's one break in an ODI between innings, only on very very very very (as many very's as you want) rare occasions is there a break mid-innings.
If you want to compare ODI innings to a Test innings you might as well go back to bed.
Somerset
Cricketer Of The Year
Eventually it was chosing I think seven batsmen who could bat in each innings (regardless of whether they were out in the first) - so more like a test style of two innings than the proposal for the ODIs in this topic.
LA ICE-E
State Captain
definitely not for the "real" cricket tests.
No, there may be a lot of different ways teams would react to that. Some could attack more so they are up and have the lead after the 1st half. Um i never compared ODI"s to Tests in that comment you're responding to. I did however compare the batsmen's "full flow" which happens in all 3 formats of the game.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
You save something which is in distress...ODI cricket isn't...There are innumerable people like me all over the world who are fond of it....
slugger
State Vice-Captain
people go on and on about the game is a batsmens game.. the minute someone suggest something that might interupt their flow.. all of a suddent hey are just as quick to rush to the deffence of a batsmen .. all through test cricket from bradman to border batsmen have been interrupted .. drinks breaks, injury, equipment and ball changes, rain deley, rain interruptions, lunch, tea... strangely no batsmen has ever complained and just got on with their job.
this is the best idea for odi cricket.. it'll match the test version not completely but pretty close.
if you need proof that batsmen in an odi match cant handle interruptions you obvoiusly didnt see fleming and astle inn in 2003 wc.
To start the run-chase, out walked Stephen Fleming, whose recent form certainly wasn't awe-inspiring - only 507 runs in his last 23 matches at an average of 24. On this night, though, he was unstoppable.
The first glimpse of his magical touch came in the second ball of the second over, as Fleming quite effortlessly deposited Makhaya Ntini for a one-bounce four behind square leg. As the skies over Johannesburg became increasingly dark and angry, Fleming unleashed some fury of his own, carving Shaun Pollock and Ntini over point for fours. A brief power failure did nothing to disrupt him, as Fleming greeted Jacques Kallis into the attack with four delectable boundaries in an over, including one swivel-flick off the back foot through wide mid-on - an area he peppered with unerring accuracy time and again.
Two more rain interruptions caused the target to be revised, but Fleming was so firmly ensconced in the zone that it mattered not a jot. When he wasn't standing upright and clipping fours through midwicket - there were nine such gems in the innings - he was creaming drives through the off side, each one a masterpiece of timing, and none of them slogged.
By the time the players came back on after the final rain break, South Africa were so battered and punch-drunk that the match was as good as over. The final blow, fittingly, came from Fleming's willow - a rasping drive through backward point off a hapless Allan Donald.
Not surprisingly, Fleming rated it his best knock, while Nathan Astle, who helped him add 140 for the second wicket, was equally effusive: "It's the best I've seen him play by a long, long way and it was one of the best hundreds I've ever seen. He hit it so sweetly, there were no risks. Everything was coming out of the middle." In terms of the sheer class and quality of strokeplay, this was arguably the finest innings of the 2003 World Cup
this is the best idea for odi cricket.. it'll match the test version not completely but pretty close.
if you need proof that batsmen in an odi match cant handle interruptions you obvoiusly didnt see fleming and astle inn in 2003 wc.
To start the run-chase, out walked Stephen Fleming, whose recent form certainly wasn't awe-inspiring - only 507 runs in his last 23 matches at an average of 24. On this night, though, he was unstoppable.
The first glimpse of his magical touch came in the second ball of the second over, as Fleming quite effortlessly deposited Makhaya Ntini for a one-bounce four behind square leg. As the skies over Johannesburg became increasingly dark and angry, Fleming unleashed some fury of his own, carving Shaun Pollock and Ntini over point for fours. A brief power failure did nothing to disrupt him, as Fleming greeted Jacques Kallis into the attack with four delectable boundaries in an over, including one swivel-flick off the back foot through wide mid-on - an area he peppered with unerring accuracy time and again.
Two more rain interruptions caused the target to be revised, but Fleming was so firmly ensconced in the zone that it mattered not a jot. When he wasn't standing upright and clipping fours through midwicket - there were nine such gems in the innings - he was creaming drives through the off side, each one a masterpiece of timing, and none of them slogged.
By the time the players came back on after the final rain break, South Africa were so battered and punch-drunk that the match was as good as over. The final blow, fittingly, came from Fleming's willow - a rasping drive through backward point off a hapless Allan Donald.
Not surprisingly, Fleming rated it his best knock, while Nathan Astle, who helped him add 140 for the second wicket, was equally effusive: "It's the best I've seen him play by a long, long way and it was one of the best hundreds I've ever seen. He hit it so sweetly, there were no risks. Everything was coming out of the middle." In terms of the sheer class and quality of strokeplay, this was arguably the finest innings of the 2003 World Cup
Matt79
Hall of Fame Member
I quite like the "quiet" period between 20-40. There's usually an artfulness about how good ODI batsmen keep the scoreboard ticking over that I admire. This idea is dire IMO, and would be worse than 20/20 cricket.
Why not just designate your two best power hitters in each team and just make the rule that they can't go out, and just have to try and score as many runs as possible from 300 deliveries? That way there'd be non-stop 'excitement'. This kind of thing is what happens when marketing gurus and television execs rather than people who understand cricket design formats.
Why not just designate your two best power hitters in each team and just make the rule that they can't go out, and just have to try and score as many runs as possible from 300 deliveries? That way there'd be non-stop 'excitement'. This kind of thing is what happens when marketing gurus and television execs rather than people who understand cricket design formats.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Aye, I said it many years before Twenty20 - the 21-40 (it was 16-40 in those days) period is the only thing that keeps ODIs as cricket. Without it it just descends into a mindless score-at-stupidly-high-rates fest.
That said, I do wish captains would be more creative with their Powerplay use, as it'd be far more interesting if we had any time from overs 11-40 being possibly one thing or t'other.
LA ICE-E
State Captain
I'm not suggesting it is now but in the future things might change.
LA ICE-E
State Captain
You may like the "dullness" but couldn't you watch test for that? Plus who said there wouldn't be something like that if you split it up? teams could get more creative and have many different kinds of game plans.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Haha, "dullness". That can roughly be translated as "dull for people who don't like cricket but instead like to see the ball being swung for fours and sixes regardless of calibre of batsman or stroke".
ODI cricket is juuuuuuuuuust fine as it is, there's no need for utter crap that tries to make it a bash-for-all.
ODI cricket is juuuuuuuuuust fine as it is, there's no need for utter crap that tries to make it a bash-for-all.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
And, more likely, they might not.
Frankly, your attitude of supporting any change no matter how utterly woeful it is just because it's change is a shocker.
LA ICE-E
State Captain
haha "dullness" whcih can be translated to batsmen just defending not really scoring and bowlers just blowing without any intent of getting wickets. Um you might like it but you can't say it's exciting. And no that doesn't mean people don't like cricket, cricket is about between bat and ball not about just bowling to keep the run rate down and sticking around for the last 10 overs...And if you were implying that i don't like cricket and just like 4's and 6's well guess what you're wrong. I like to see even battle between bat and ball.
um spliting it up wouldn't make it a bash for all, there's is a need for that though which is why there's 20/20. Me supporting any change? No I support the ones that I think can be given some consideration without being bluntly afraid of it. If it's 20 wickets for 50 overs than that would be shocking and that unlike you suggested I wouldn't support.