2 innings ODIs?

[Jamee999]

No. I was commenting on the logical fallacy in your post. The picture was really just for my amusement. I don't see what ostriches have to do with anything.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

No. I was commenting on the logical fallacy in your post. The picture was really just for my amusement. I don't see what ostriches have to do with anything.

Ah "Logical fallacy" , equally useless mumbo jumbo kids are taught today. In this case SS has already introduced this cobblers a few weeks ago and he was wrong as well.

 

[Jamee999]

Tbh, I've been "taught" about logical fallacies by a mixture of Wikipedia and the Big Bang Theory.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Tbh, I've been "taught" about logical fallacies by a mixture of Wikipedia and the Big Bang Theory.

If you're learning from Wikipedia then it's even more of a lost cause.

 

[Richard]

Um did you miss the part I was explaining to sledger? And not just because of the color clothing but that plays a part. I rewrite the color clothing flood lights intensity glory etc would get someone like me to look at it 'cause it looks interesting and then i found out i actually like it. People who wouldn't like it isn't going to like it because of the 1st attraction but the attraction will get people who would like it but hasn't given it the consideration because say there wasn't this attraction.

Those who're going to be attracted to something because it's played at night aren't people who are going to become cricket fans... in more than about 1 in several thousand cases.

Well I think you're ignorant of that somehow.

I don't.

If it were to go conservatively it shouldn't have but it did. People might have still enjoyed the game(which i doubt) it still wouldn't be the same and so there was indeed some radical changes and which imo were big improvements through those radical changes. Radical changes happened before and it may as well happen again. A lot of people were against ODi's in the beginning while majority of cricket fans like it now. A lof of people don't like 20/20's right now but that will eventually change to I'm guessing. Thing is we can't be sure if we'll like it or not if we don't give it a chance.

And by that logic we should try everything that can be thought of to try. I just can't be bothered telling you why most changes aren't a good idea as you cannot see it.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Those who're going to be attracted to something because it's played at night aren't people who are going to become cricket fans... in more than about 1 in several thousand cases.

I don't.

And by that logic we should try everything that can be thought of to try. I just can't be bothered telling you why most changes aren't a good idea as you cannot see it.

You're not getting it. It's not because of one thing. I don't feel like writing it over read this

oh no, you're mixing up 2 suggestions together. the color clothing flood lights intensity glory etc would get someone like me to look at it 'cause it looks interesting and then i found out i actually like it. People who wouldn't like it isn't going to like it because of the 1st attraction but the attraction will get people who would like it but hasn't given it the consideration because say there wasn't this attraction.

they might not get into it like that but say you're learning about cricket without know how ODI's are now, they might like how the whole concept including the split and the play and misses goes. And not that we should turn our backs on people that like it now but how do we know we wouldn't like it then we have tried it yet. It's like the powerplay thing a lot of people were against it but now some actually like it. A lot of people were against ODi's in the beginning while majority of cricket fans like it. A lof of people don't like 20/20's right now but that will eventually change to I'm guessing. Thing is we can't be sure if we'll like it or not if we don't give it a chance.

You dont think so? You're not ignorant of associate cricket? So what do you know about it? How informed are you about it?

I didn't say try every idea but they should be given a thought then if it holds up then it should be given a trial.

 

[Days of Grace]

The 3rd ODI between NZ and England was my best piece of evidence that ODIs should be left as is. Elliott had time to build an innings and soak up the pressure for his team. He could not have done this in 25 over cricket.

25 over cricket would be just like T20. No time to build innings and play real cricket. Just slog from the get go.

Sorry, but leave ODIs as is. They are a perfect middle-man for Tests and T20s.

 

[slugger]

no all that game proved was an obvious way to structure your inn. when you a 5 or 6 down with a little on the board..

how ever if the game was played under a split inn. format

nz would have been

nz 61/5 GD Elliott 8* (33b) GJ Hopkins 5* (11b)

eng 89/6 GP Swann 5* (13b ) PD Collingwood 9* (24)

that above to me is a real game thats neck and neck a commentators delight. eng lead by 28 runs with 1 more wicket down than nz.. a seasoned professional at tthe crease (collingwood).. and on the flip side southee 2 wicket over brought nz back in the game.

 

[LA ICE-E]

The 3rd ODI between NZ and England was my best piece of evidence that ODIs should be left as is. Elliott had time to build an innings and soak up the pressure for his team. He could not have done this in 25 over cricket.

25 over cricket would be just like T20. No time to build innings and play real cricket. Just slog from the get go.

Sorry, but leave ODIs as is. They are a perfect middle-man for Tests and T20s.

it would still be 50 overs and you can still build an innings, you just would get to see how the other team is doing the 1st innings at the same time. Yeah I liked that odi match but how many of them are memorable like that?

 

[Days of Grace]

I misunderstood. I thought you were suggesting two 25 over innings, where both sides start with 10 wickets in hand afresh in the second knock.

What you are actually suggesting now sounds a little more interesting.

However, you want to cut out what you call the boring 20-40 over phrase (and what I would call the ability to milk singles and build momentum phrase, it's not all just crash and bash, you know.).

With two 25- over innings, it would be the same thing i.m.o. Teams will not go hell for leather by the 20 over mark of the first innings because they risk losing wickets and thus having to conserve more in the second innings.

No, sir, it won't do. Just leave it as it is. Teams get thrashed from time to time. It's part of sport. It's a disgrace for me that we as a society now need everything to be manufactured to get a close result.

 

[Richard]

You're not getting it. It's not because of one thing. I don't feel like writing it over read this

None of that stuff matters, as I just said. The game has gained no significant fan-base because of any of it.

You dont think so? You're not ignorant of associate cricket? So what do you know about it? How informed are you about it?

Enough to know that there are many reasons why associate countries have not become top-class-strength ones. Of which the attitudes of those involved are small.

I didn't say try every idea but they should be given a thought then if it holds up then it should be given a trial.

You could make a case for every idea being given a trial by that hypothesis.

 

[LA ICE-E]

I misunderstood. I thought you were suggesting two 25 over innings, where both sides start with 10 wickets in hand afresh in the second knock.

What you are actually suggesting now sounds a little more interesting.

However, you want to cut out what you call the boring 20-40 over phrase (and what I would call the ability to milk singles and build momentum phrase, it's not all just crash and bash, you know.).

With two 25- over innings, it would be the same thing i.m.o. Teams will not go hell for leather by the 20 over mark of the first innings because they risk losing wickets and thus having to conserve more in the second innings.

No, sir, it won't do. Just leave it as it is. Teams get thrashed from time to time. It's part of sport. It's a disgrace for me that we as a society now need everything to be manufactured to get a close result.

yeah but different teas can have different strategies and this would involve more strategies than now. The 2nd teams would also have to react to the 1s teams 1st split then the 1st team would have to react to how the 2nd team reacted then would start the target/chase by the 2nd team.

 

[LA ICE-E]

None of that stuff matters, as I just said. The game has gained no significant fan-base because of any of it.

Enough to know that there are many reasons why associate countries have not become top-class-strength ones. Of which the attitudes of those involved are small.

You could make a case for every idea being given a trial by that hypothesis.

And you know that how? what research have you conducted?

No, all you are informed of it elitist cricket. Really what's one of the reason? And guess what doesn't matter if you count it or not but they are still counted as international cricket.

So you could make a case for the balls to be replaced by bats and you just throw bats against bats? No? Hey it's an idea.

 

[slugger]

I .No, sir, it won't do. Just leave it as it is. Teams get thrashed from time to time. It's part of sport. It's a disgrace for me that we as a society now need everything to be manufactured to get a close result.

thats would not be the case.. there was a time when teams were happy to get 80 off the first 15 overs. not lose wickes and build.. now teams do the complete opposite 120 + is expected off those 15 overs.. conserve for 20-25 ovrs then breaak lose again.. there is only two formats.. what ever team does in the frist will dictate how the team batting second will play..

because a 25 over split gives teams an even chance to set the tempo of the game.

 

[Richard]

And you know that how? what research have you conducted?

I don't need to conduct any research. It's simple knowledge of humanity traits.

No, all you are informed of it elitist cricket.

Elitist cricket. I really am not bothering with this crap any more.

So you could make a case for the balls to be replaced by bats and you just throw bats against bats?

Probably.

 

[Richard]

thats would not be the case.. there was a time when teams were happy to get 80 off the first 15 overs. not lose wickes and build.. now teams do the complete opposite 120 + is expected off those 15 overs..

Erm - no, it's not. 120+ is and always has been a collossal 15-over score. Still, if you get 90 off the first 15 you've done very well. Exactly the same as at any point since the 1996 World Cup.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

So you could make a case for the balls to be replaced by bats and you just throw bats against bats? No? Hey it's an idea.

It's quite scarey when you consider that that is not even close to being the worst idea in this thread.

 

[LA ICE-E]

It's quite scarey when you consider that that is not even close to being the worst idea in this thread.

yeah but only because you posted in here.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

yeah but only because you posted in here.

I agree my idea of replying to your nonsense was stupid, but if it wasn't for people calling you a nob you would be very lonely.

 

[LA ICE-E]

I don't need to conduct any research. It's simple knowledge of humanity traits.

Elitist cricket. I really am not bothering with this crap any more.

Probably.

no you went from backing things up with actual points at 1st to just saying well i don't think so without anything backing it. pointless.

Yeah elitist cricket- the top 10 or 8 (how ever you look at it) teams, you knowledge on associate cricket is very limited.