2 innings ODIs?

[honestbharani]

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.

Most of the time, the batsmen are not looking to score too many runs and the bowlers are never trying to get wickets in the middle overs. That is not my definition of good cricket.

 

[sledger]

Most of the time, the batsmen are not looking to score too many runs and the bowlers are never trying to get wickets in the middle overs. That is not my definition of good cricket.

Why not?

 

[Richard]

Most of the time, the batsmen are not looking to score too many runs and the bowlers are never trying to get wickets in the middle overs. That is not my definition of good cricket.

If bowlers are looking to keep batsmen to 3-3.5-an-over, and batsmen are trying to score at 4-4.5-an-over, that's excellent cricket for my money.

Of course, sometimes the players aren't good enough to do this. But I'm not talking about ODIs contested by poor-quality players, rather those by good-quality ones.

 

[Matt79]

If bowlers are looking to keep batsmen to 3-3.5-an-over, and batsmen are trying to score at 4-4.5-an-over, that's excellent cricket for my money.

Of course, sometimes the players aren't good enough to do this. But I'm not talking about ODIs contested by poor-quality players, rather those by good-quality ones.

Agreed. The "21-40 overs is boring" brigade seem to assume that there's no skill or effort involved in scoring at 4-5 an over without risking wickets.

Also, I have to agree with Rich re: LA ICE - I admire your passion in a sense, but from the majority of your posts you don't seem to actually like cricket as it currently exists, and spend most of your posts arguing for it to be changed into something completely different from what currently exists. That being the case, I have to wonder why you don't follow a sport closer to what you think should exist.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Yeah...generally that is how a lot of runs are scored....why a batsman should be penalised this I don't know.

to play the "conservative way" the traditional way without being just like baseball.

Umm... yeah, there would be.

It's not punishing them - it's encouraging them to stop bowling no-balls, which is a huge benefit to bowlers. No-balls and swing-and-misses are not remotely comparable.

There's no such thing as "paid enough", there's always the potential for wages to rise. No-one needs floodlights, coloured clothing or white balls, they're purely cosmetic things. The game would be little different had they never come along, it'd just look slightly different.

If that were the way, that'd be the way. And I'm sure we'd still have a game many enjoyed.

ODIs are always treated as the second most important thing by the vast majority of those who like Test cricket.

the other would to encourage batsmen to not just slog like it's baseball. If I wanted that I would watch baseball.

To you it might have looked slightly different to others it would be whole lot different, and the cosmetic things give it an exciting look, it would look may I dare say boring.

I really doubt that.

That's because there's been nothing beside test and odi's until few years ago.

Agreed. The "21-40 overs is boring" brigade seem to assume that there's no skill or effort involved in scoring at 4-5 an over without risking wickets.

Also, I have to agree with Rich re: LA ICE - I admire your passion in a sense, but from the majority of your posts you don't seem to actually like cricket as it currently exists, and spend most of your posts arguing for it to be changed into something completely different from what currently exists. That being the case, I have to wonder why you don't follow a sport closer to what you think should exist.

but doing that is so repetitive and the same a lot of the times, it's predictable like how the is played.

I like it but I always look at things and if there's a way to improve it. I do really closely follow football and basketball while I like baseball too. But it seems cricket has a blockade of elitism and does want others to come into the game but instead would rather turn of their interest from it. No wonder so much of the world doesn't know about it,

 

[Richard]

To you it might have looked slightly different to others it would be whole lot different, and the cosmetic things give it an exciting look, it would look may I dare say boring.

Not really. No-one of any significance is going to take-up cricket because of the colour of clothing worn when playing it or the colour of the ball.

Cricket would be little to no different if whites had been abolished 35 years ago or if coloured clothing had never been introduced.

I like it but I always look at things and if there's a way to improve it. I do really closely follow football and basketball while I like baseball too. But it seems cricket has a blockade of elitism and does want others to come into the game but instead would rather turn of their interest from it. No wonder so much of the world doesn't know about it

There is no way many if any more international teams would be playing cricket unless it was something totally unrecogniseable from what it is.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Not really. No-one of any significance is going to take-up cricket because of the colour of clothing worn when playing it or the colour of the ball.

Cricket would be little to no different if whites had been abolished 35 years ago or if coloured clothing had never been introduced.

There is no way many if any more international teams would be playing cricket unless it was something totally unrecogniseable from what it is.

I never suggested that, but it would look rather boring at 1st look. There's a thing call presentation and how it looks to the eyes. It's part of the presentation. Something good presented badly wouldn't receive as much interest as something presented well. It would change how cricket presents itself to people not yet into the game,

There's way more teams now than there were when cricket started. And cricket is in some sense unrecognizable from the 18th century etc.

 

[sledger]

I like it but I always look at things and if there's a way to improve it

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[sledger]

I never suggested that, but it would look rather boring at 1st look. There's a thing call presentation and how it looks to the eyes. It's part of the presentation. Something good presented badly wouldn't receive as much interest as something presented well. It would change how cricket presents itself to people not yet into the game,

There's way more teams now than there were when cricket started. And cricket is in some sense unrecognizable from the 18th century etc.

Presentation?! its a sport, not a bloody franchise ffs, people do not watch Cricket or any other sport for that matter because it looks nice.

I'd like to see some examples of these "teams" you mention that don't involve any of the IPL sides, similarly i'd like to hear some examples of how the game is unrecognisable from the 18th century.

And lastly cricket is not at all intended to be elitist, its always great to get new people on board and teach them about the game, the kind of people that nobody wants to attract to the sport is the kind of person who will watch one match, think they know everything, and then rant about how the game can be improved.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Presentation?! its a sport, not a bloody franchise ffs, people do not watch Cricket or any other sport for that matter because it looks nice.

I'd like to see some examples of these "teams" you mention that don't involve any of the IPL sides, similarly i'd like to hear some examples of how the game is unrecognisable from the 18th century.

And lastly cricket is not at all intended to be elitist, its always great to get new people on board and teach them about the game, the kind of people that nobody wants to attract to the sport is the kind of person who will watch one match, think they know everything, and then rant about how the game can be improved.

No you're wrong. Two innings ODI's is what the people of Nauru have been crying out for for decades.

 

[sledger]

No you're wrong. Two innings ODI's is what the people of Nauru have been crying out for for decades.

Yeah, heard they were desperate for it after their Boeing 747 was reposessed.

 

[LA ICE-E]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

the basics of cricket isn't broken but some suggests ODI's are and that's not even my point. I'm not talking about fixing it, i was talking about improving it. 2 different concepts, might be to hard to understand may be?

 

[sledger]

the basics of cricket isn't broken but some suggests ODI's are and that's not even my point. I'm not talking about fixing it, i was talking about improving it. 2 different concepts, might be to hard to understand may be?

I see, and your changes regarding the no ball rule and swing and miss....would improve the game how exactly? In fact no don't answer that, I can't be bothered to pursue this line of argument as it's going round in circles.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Presentation?! its a sport, not a bloody franchise ffs, people do not watch Cricket or any other sport for that matter because it looks nice.

I'd like to see some examples of these "teams" you mention that don't involve any of the IPL sides, similarly i'd like to hear some examples of how the game is unrecognisable from the 18th century.

And lastly cricket is not at all intended to be elitist, its always great to get new people on board and teach them about the game, the kind of people that nobody wants to attract to the sport is the kind of person who will watch one match, think they know everything, and then rant about how the game can be improved.

not getting the point people come in because it looks interesting and then stay for the main attraction but if at 1st it's not catching there interest they aren't gonna give it a chance and learn about it.

about all the associates and affiliates in the world cricket leage - Nepal, Afghanistan to name a couple. Again if cricket still had underarm bowling it certainly wouldn't be the same game we see now. hockey style bats etc.

Did I ever ever suggest I know everything? hell i didn't even know fully how lbws work and am still kind of confused on that. And I don't have to right to express my opinions without basically being implied by others to "get the **** out of our sport"?

 

[LA ICE-E]

I see, and your changes regarding the no ball rule and swing and miss....would improve the game how exactly? In fact no don't answer that, I can't be bothered to pursue this line of argument as it's going round in circles.

like i said it would make it bit more fair in balancing the battle between bat and ball. It would give the bowling team something for once. 'cause most of the new rules just help the batsmen.

 

[sledger]

not getting the point people come in because it looks interesting and then stay for the main attraction but if at 1st it's not catching there interest they aren't gonna give it a chance and learn about it.

about all the associates and affiliates in the world cricket leage - Nepal, Afghanistan to name a couple. Again if cricket still had underarm bowling it certainly wouldn't be the same game we see now. hockey style bats etc.

Did I ever ever suggest I know everything? hell i didn't even know fully how lbws work and am still kind of confused on that. And I don't have to right to express my opinions without basically being implied by others to "get the **** out of our sport"?

Hey, hey, calm down, I'm not telling you to get out, not at all.

With regards to the presentation again, as mentioned by others before me, the coloured kits and all the other aesthetics involved are not responsbile for the masses of fans around the world, i.e. you could present a plate of dog food nicely, but it could look like the most beautiful thing in the world, but nobody would want to eat it, similarly if the coloured kits looked nice to someone, they wouldnt hang around to watch the players running around n them if the game wasnt worth watching in the first place.

 

[sledger]

like i said it would make it bit more fair in balancing the battle between bat and ball. It would give the bowling team something for once. 'cause most of the new rules just help the batsmen.

How does it make it more even? As I have pointed out on numerous occasions previously, the batsman failing to hit the ball does not make any contest uneven. For the last time, a bowler is penalised when he bowls a no ball, because that is an action through which he can gain an unfair advantage, the batsman can gain no advantage from playing and missing, so why on would it make it at all even to penalise him for trying to score runs?!

 

[LA ICE-E]

and FYI i didn't even come up with the idea, for all the attacks im getting for supporting an idea I think is a good one in my opinion. Plus it's been going around for a while now in different artilces and editorials with different editors suggesting that change / coming up with the idea. Which is why it was brought up here.

However, where there was a general consensus was over the need for some major restructuring to the one-day formats. "My feeling, and I've said it for a while, is that it's the one-day game that needs changing," said Newton. "I feel 50-over cricket has had its day, I'm a huge fan of the idea of two-innings one-day cricket and I think 40 overs should be the standard international format.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/countycricket2008/content/current/story/355525.html

 

[sledger]

and FYI i didn't even come up with the idea, for all the attacks im getting for supporting an idea I think is a good one in my opinion. Plus it's been going around for a while now in different artilces and editorials with different editors suggesting that change / coming up with the idea. Which is why it was brought up here.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/countycricket2008/content/current/story/355525.html

Indeed so, I've not disputed that at any point, I'm attacking the idea, not you.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Hey, hey, calm down, I'm not telling you to get out, not at all.

With regards to the presentation again, as mentioned by others before me, the coloured kits and all the other aesthetics involved are not responsbile for the masses of fans around the world, i.e. you could present a plate of dog food nicely, but it could look like the most beautiful thing in the world, but nobody would want to eat it, similarly if the coloured kits looked nice to someone, they wouldnt hang around to watch the players running around n them if the game wasnt worth watching in the first place.

exactly my point. it gets the attention 1st then they dicide whether to stay for it or not and obviously it's worth while but at 1st look they don't know that or if it didn't look appealing it may not even get that 1st look. This may be a bad analogy but lets see, it's like the phrase *** sells- you see ***y singers etc it gets your attention to even give their music a chance then you decide whether or not you like it or not.