What Next For ODI Cricket?

[BoyBrumby]

ODI's real problem is that since the birth of its shorter, brasher sibling it's lost its raison d'être. We still have test cricket for those of us who love to see games and series subtly grow, live and breath over the days and weeks and now we have 2020s for the quick, condensed hit of cricket for the more casual fan/people with lives (delete according to viewpoint).

The best that can be said of ODIs is that they more closely resemble the FC game, which on the face of it sounds like an argument for more quote-unquote "proper" cricket. However, there is perhaps something is this that the format can run with. The concept of a contest that is decided in one day (sometimes) is appealing to tv and the less-committed paying public whereas the nuances appeal to the more tragic amongst us.

My proposals would be these:

-fielding restrictions for the whole innings; no more than three fielders outside the circle to put the emphasis on taking wickets as much as containment. If attacking batsman want to back themselves for the whole innings then great, lots of lovely strokeplay; but no-more running the ball down thru where first or second slip would be because the fielding captain is more concerned with stopping boundaries.

-increase of maximum number of overs bowled by a bowler to 13; disenfranchise the dibbly-dobbers and straghtbreak bowlers who've been boring the **** off us in overs 15-40 since, well, 50 overs was standardised, pretty much. Teams would still need to find at least four bowlers, but XIs could be selected more along FC lines with emphasis on specialists.

 

[TT Boy]

Have no time or interest in the muted four innings. Too much like baseball for me and destroys one of the things I enjoy about 50 over cricket, building an innings.

The logical change if there has to be one is to 40 overs with the 20 overs of PowerPlay. But I would like to see two bowlers be allowed to bowl their ten overs.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Allowing 4 bowlers 10 overs each in a 40 over innings isn't going to work. Teams will simply play 3 specialist bowlers and fill out the last 10 overs with part timers. Similar to how we currently have 50 over innings' with 4 specialists and the part time '5th bowler'. Never underestimate the temptation of strengthening the batting at the expense of weakening the last bowlers slot.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

I can't believe people have even suggested a substitution system should be reintroduced. The general consensus after the SuperSub experiment was that cricket should be a game played by eleven players and that everyone having to bat and field was part of the game's character and appeal. In addition I can't really see how it would drastically change the dynamic of the game.

Cutting the overs to forty is a possibility but I feel that it shifts the balance even further towards the batsmen. Having less time to play, they just play their shots earlier. Scores of 250+ have been chased down fairly regularly in domestic cricket over here, to the extent that forty overs feels more like an extended Twenty20 than a fifty-over contest.

I personally like the five bowlers, ten overs formula myself, but I'm open for a bit of experimentation here. Possibly up to 12 overs per bowler.

But I'm most intrigued by the split innings idea TBH. I'm not really sure why the ICC are considering this 4x25 idea, that's just Twenty20 for me, but splitting the innings would create some interesting tactical situations. Psychologically, batsmen may feel inclined to play out the session - or try to take some impetus into their session in the field. There would be a need to react to what the side batting first had posted, or perhaps even more so if you were batting 'third' having seen your own first score surpassed. It would shift the balance back towards the bowling side, because the not out batsmen would have to restart their innings in the second half of the game.

 

[Uppercut]

Allowing 4 bowlers 10 overs each in a 40 over innings isn't going to work. Teams will simply play 3 specialist bowlers and fill out the last 10 overs with part timers. Similar to how we currently have 50 over innings' with 4 specialists and the part time '5th bowler'. Never underestimate the temptation of strengthening the batting at the expense of weakening the last bowlers slot.

Won't happen as you say because number 8 is a redundant position for a batsman in the 40 over game. But even if it does, we then have one less crap bowler in the side and an extra batsman so teams will play more aggressively. Sounds good to me.

 

[Uppercut]

-fielding restrictions for the whole innings; no more than three fielders outside the circle to put the emphasis on taking wickets as much as containment. If attacking batsman want to back themselves for the whole innings then great, lots of lovely strokeplay; but no-more running the ball down thru where first or second slip would be because the fielding captain is more concerned with stopping boundaries.

I'd be in favour of this. But expect all kinds of opposition from people trying to save the non-existent integrity of the 50-over game.

 

[aussie]

I can't believe people have even suggested a substitution system should be reintroduced. The general consensus after the SuperSub experiment was that cricket should be a game played by eleven players and that everyone having to bat and field was part of the game's character and appeal. In addition I can't really see how it would drastically change the dynamic of the game.

For test cricket, since that is the ultimate form of the game. But for ODIs & especially T20currently, the supersub rule would definately make it more exciting.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

For test cricket, since that is the ultimate form of the game. But for ODIs & especially T20currently, the supersub rule would definately make it more exciting.

In what way? I don't see how it makes it more exciting... the tactical element was fairly minimal. If you named your SuperSub after the toss, you would just create a 12-a-side game. You'd just pick a frontline bowler for a batsman or vice versa. May as well have an American Football-style system with teams being able to field 11 batsmen and 11 fielders from a roster.

 

[Dissector]

I think the basic ODI format remains viable. The problem is the large number of meaningless ODI's played: random tournaments which no one cares about, best of 7 series etc. Reduce those excess ODI's and the format will recover.

I disagree with the idea of reducing games to 40 overs. Blurring the distinction between ODI's and TT doesn't serve any purpose.

 

[Athlai]

ODI cricket is fine, just less pointlessly long series e.g. Aus-Ind Aus-Eng 7 matches.

Though I wouldn't mind the CH being raised to 5.

 

[SaeedAnwar]

I am comfortable with ODI cricket as it is.

It is the quality of cricket being played that is destroying the spectacle. Reducing the number of over’s, increasing powerplays, allowing more bouncers; these factors do not remove the fact that we are forced to witness average cricketers such as Tim Paine, James Hopes, Luke Wright, Paul Collingwood, Tim Bresnan compete at an international level.

I couldn't think of anything more exciting than attending an ODI game where quality game breaking cricketers competed (Lance Kluesner, Chris Cairns, Alan Donald, Wasim Akram, Adam Gilchrist). Who out of the current England v Australia ODI series can really make you sit up and be enthralled?

Yeah I think you nailed it!

The quality of players in every single team has degraded big time. Most of players playing are young and there are very few legends left in the game right now, I think it will take another 4-5 years to make some new great players in teams

 

[SaeedAnwar]

They're fine if there's good quality cricket being played. The England vs India series in England in 2007 is easily the best ODI series I've watched, because it was a close, enthralling contest right the way through.

but look at now, its 4-0 Australia, now the 3 remaining ODIS will be pointless to play

 

[aussie]

ODI cricket is fine, just less pointlessly long series e.g. Aus-Ind Aus-Eng 7 matches.

Though I wouldn't mind the CH being raised to 5.

Indeed 7-match ODI seris should be banned. Each series should have an even 3 ODIs & 3 T20s.

 

[Jakester1288]

Indeed 7-match ODI seris should be banned. Each series should have an even 3 ODIs & 3 T20s.

3/5 ODI's and 1 Twenty20 is perfect I reckon, along with 3/5 Tests.

Ideally, you would go

5 Tests
1 Twenty20
3 ODI's

I reckon.

 

[andyc]

I am comfortable with ODI cricket as it is.

It is the quality of cricket being played that is destroying the spectacle. Reducing the number of over’s, increasing powerplays, allowing more bouncers; these factors do not remove the fact that we are forced to witness average cricketers such as Tim Paine, James Hopes, Luke Wright, Paul Collingwood, Tim Bresnan compete at an international level.

I couldn't think of anything more exciting than attending an ODI game where quality game breaking cricketers competed (Lance Kluesner, Chris Cairns, Alan Donald, Wasim Akram, Adam Gilchrist). Who out of the current England v Australia ODI series can really make you sit up and be enthralled?

I think you may be looking at the past with slightly rose-tinted glasses. Sure, there's mediocre players in the current series, but you've also got players like Brett Lee, Shane Watson, Ricky Ponting, and were it not for injury, KP and Andrew Flintoff, all of whom are proven ODI players and have the ability to turn a match. If you look at teams from say, the 1999 WC, you may have Gilchrist, Klusener and Donald, but you've also got players like Tom Moody and Nicky Boje lining up.

There's definitely not the same amount of great players at the moment, but this Australian team is currently going through some big changes, and England have just pretty much always been a dire ODI outfit. If you take a look at the Compaq Cup going on at the moment, there's players like Mendis, Sangakkara, Bond, Dhoni, Matthews, Ishant Sharma, Jayasuriya and Tendulkar playing, all of whom I'd consider either exciting up and comers or proven match-winners. I think it's just something that comes with the nature of the game, in that fairly average cricketers can perform a serviceable job.

 

[slugger]

3/5 ODI's and 1 Twenty20 is perfect I reckon, along with 3/5 Tests.

Ideally, you would go

5 Tests
1 Twenty20
3 ODI's

I reckon.

If Australia were to drop down the test ranking to 5-6 position, you might have some real sympathy and understanding when teams want to only play and even on some occassion's it feels against their will , to only want play 2 test.

some of you folk seem to forget other nations play this game, and it all doesn't revolve around the big 4.

 

[brackenNY]

Don't think anything drastic needs to happen to be honest. For me personally it is not a broken format. The only thing that needs to be reviewed are the amount of games played. 7 match series are far too long, and in many cases (as in all probability with the Eng vs Aus series going on at the moment) leaves the very realistic possibility of having 3 pointless games left at the end. Need to get rid of the pointless Champions Trophy as well, with the T20 international competitions around there really is no need for this anymore.

Agreed.

7 match ODI series are horrible.

 

[Uppercut]

I think you may be looking at the past with slightly rose-tinted glasses. Sure, there's mediocre players in the current series, but you've also got players like Brett Lee, Shane Watson, Ricky Ponting, and were it not for injury, KP and Andrew Flintoff, all of whom are proven ODI players and have the ability to turn a match. If you look at teams from say, the 1999 WC, you may have Gilchrist, Klusener and Donald, but you've also got players like Tom Moody and Nicky Boje lining up.

There's definitely not the same amount of great players at the moment, but this Australian team is currently going through some big changes, and England have just pretty much always been a dire ODI outfit. If you take a look at the Compaq Cup going on at the moment, there's players like Mendis, Sangakkara, Bond, Dhoni, Matthews, Ishant Sharma, Jayasuriya and Tendulkar playing, all of whom I'd consider either exciting up and comers or proven match-winners. I think it's just something that comes with the nature of the game, in that fairly average cricketers can perform a serviceable job.

Indeed.

England and Australia might be at a low in terms of their ODI side, but the Indians in particular are at an all-time peak.

 

[aussie]

3/5 ODI's and 1 Twenty20 is perfect I reckon, along with 3/5 Tests.

Ideally, you would go

5 Tests
1 Twenty20
3 ODI's

I reckon.

Thats not a fair balance. T20s cant be treated as exhibition fixutres any longer, teams need to play more of it. 3 ODIs & 3 T20s really seems like the best balance, since you got to think about player burnout as well.

 

[Johnners]

ODI's real problem is that since the birth of its shorter, brasher sibling it's lost its raison d'être. We still have test cricket for those of us who love to see games and series subtly grow, live and breath over the days and weeks and now we have 2020s for the quick, condensed hit of cricket for the more casual fan/people with lives (delete according to viewpoint).

The best that can be said of ODIs is that they more closely resemble the FC game, which on the face of it sounds like an argument for more quote-unquote "proper" cricket. However, there is perhaps something is this that the format can run with. The concept of a contest that is decided in one day (sometimes) is appealing to tv and the less-committed paying public whereas the nuances appeal to the more tragic amongst us.

My proposals would be these:

-fielding restrictions for the whole innings; no more than three fielders outside the circle to put the emphasis on taking wickets as much as containment. If attacking batsman want to back themselves for the whole innings then great, lots of lovely strokeplay; but no-more running the ball down thru where first or second slip would be because the fielding captain is more concerned with stopping boundaries.

-increase of maximum number of overs bowled by a bowler to 13; disenfranchise the dibbly-dobbers and straghtbreak bowlers who've been boring the **** off us in overs 15-40 since, well, 50 overs was standardised, pretty much. Teams would still need to find at least four bowlers, but XIs could be selected more along FC lines with emphasis on specialists.

Quite like both of these suggestions, particularly the 2nd one if it did indeed encourage teams/captain to lean towards more specialists, or genuine all-rounders instead of James Hopes type players.

Can't say I'd be overly keen to reduce it to a 40 over match, or 4x25 over innings as has been suggested. The 2 innings thing would just turn it into an extended T20, and would ruin one of the best facets of the current format, having batsmen actually have to build an innings.