Nate
You'll Never Walk Alone
Last edited:
-
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.
ODIs - Reinvent or Retire?
- Thread starter GIMH
- Start date
Johnners
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Completely agree with this BTW. I still do really enjoy 50-over ODI matches, and would be disappointed to see them disappear from the international game. If the administrative powers in the game weren't so keen on just pumping out as many ODI's as possible, and reduced the number of series, as well as the series length, the format still has a long-term role in the game (all IMO of course).
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Yes, I agree. My intention to get rid of it is basically a personal one, stemming for a general dislike (hatred?) of the Limited Over formats. However, there is no doubt that it has been the financial driver of the modern game, and as a businessman, I'd be mad to easily get rid of a product that has been the backbone of my financial success for twenty years. Especially if that product is still bringing in the cash. If the product is not as profitable as it was, some tinkering would be required, but from a business standpoint, it's far from dead. Especially because it has not been shown that T20I can completely replace & exceed ODIs as revenue stream.
By the way, very good article, Corrin.
superkingdave
Hall of Fame Member
i think there is a fair case to revoke England's ODI status at the moment
There is nothing wrong with ODI's, I don't know where all this "get rid of ODI's" talk has come from.
Though, there should never be 7 match ODI series, talk about overkill. Especially involving probably the most rubbish limited overs side in the world against one of the best. There was only ever going to be one outcome.
Though, there should never be 7 match ODI series, talk about overkill. Especially involving probably the most rubbish limited overs side in the world against one of the best. There was only ever going to be one outcome.
PhoenixFire
International Coach
Haha oh dear. Fail.
Agree with SS FWIW. Just find ODIs so meaningless and boring, would be more than happy with just 1 or 2 international T20s before a Test series and leave it there.
Would like to keep them in domestic cricket, however.
Woodster
International Captain
Good article Martyn, enjoyed.
I believe there is room for all three formats, and that 50 over cricket should continue, but I must agree that the current series between England and Australia is far too long and simply to squeeze as much money as possible from the paying public. Unfortunatey like so much of the scheduling these decisions are made with money in mind, followed by what would be best from a cricketing perspective ? Almost an after thought.
As Martyn said in the article, one of the problems with 50 over cricket currently are the 'safety' passages of play in the middle of the innings. The fielding side are content to protect the boundaries while the batting side are happy to milk the bowlers, generally bowlers the captain is using to get rid of a few overs, keep the wickets in the shed for the onslaught later when they enter the batting powerplay and the dying overs.
Now I think a change in tactics could indeed liven this format up, but it's a case of is any captain brave enough to try it. Why not continue to try and take wickets during this period, we know how valuable this is in containing a side, a flurry of wickets will restrict much better than any defensive field. Keep the catchers in, don't banish them to the boundary edge! Force the batting side to try and hit through, or over the top, take a chance and back your bowlers. I'm not suggesting over attacking and a consequential leak of boundaries being inevitable, just challenge the batsmen.
Yes it would help if the pitch offered the bowlers something, and larger boundaries meant the fielding side could attack a little more.
As for the batting side, and I've seen it plenty of times with England, this safe style through this problem middle period, working the ball around, picking up 3 or 4 an over. Get some power players in, yes the singles and two's are important, but boundaries make a good score into a big one. Don't leave it till the last few overs when the best bowlers are back on. Don't milk the fourth and fifth bowlers, try and dominate them, give the opposition skipper a real headache.
Now I'm not saying all nations have this automatic, robotic, system of playing, but I hope some sides are brave enough to break the mold, entertain, that's what 50 over cricket is about.
As I alluded to earlier, the scheduling does very little to help, but that's another debate for another day.
I believe there is room for all three formats, and that 50 over cricket should continue, but I must agree that the current series between England and Australia is far too long and simply to squeeze as much money as possible from the paying public. Unfortunatey like so much of the scheduling these decisions are made with money in mind, followed by what would be best from a cricketing perspective ? Almost an after thought.
As Martyn said in the article, one of the problems with 50 over cricket currently are the 'safety' passages of play in the middle of the innings. The fielding side are content to protect the boundaries while the batting side are happy to milk the bowlers, generally bowlers the captain is using to get rid of a few overs, keep the wickets in the shed for the onslaught later when they enter the batting powerplay and the dying overs.
Now I think a change in tactics could indeed liven this format up, but it's a case of is any captain brave enough to try it. Why not continue to try and take wickets during this period, we know how valuable this is in containing a side, a flurry of wickets will restrict much better than any defensive field. Keep the catchers in, don't banish them to the boundary edge! Force the batting side to try and hit through, or over the top, take a chance and back your bowlers. I'm not suggesting over attacking and a consequential leak of boundaries being inevitable, just challenge the batsmen.
Yes it would help if the pitch offered the bowlers something, and larger boundaries meant the fielding side could attack a little more.
As for the batting side, and I've seen it plenty of times with England, this safe style through this problem middle period, working the ball around, picking up 3 or 4 an over. Get some power players in, yes the singles and two's are important, but boundaries make a good score into a big one. Don't leave it till the last few overs when the best bowlers are back on. Don't milk the fourth and fifth bowlers, try and dominate them, give the opposition skipper a real headache.
Now I'm not saying all nations have this automatic, robotic, system of playing, but I hope some sides are brave enough to break the mold, entertain, that's what 50 over cricket is about.
As I alluded to earlier, the scheduling does very little to help, but that's another debate for another day.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
I don't know what's worse - that someone thinks I'd be a rabid T20 fan or that I'd be a rabid Yuvraj Singh fan? I think it's an epic tie.
andyc
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Dude, we get it. You don't like T20s. But surely there's no need to bring this kind of (racist) crap into every thread, even though you're clearly itching to bring it out whenever you can. Seriously, this was such a misguided post that it boggles the mind.
SeamUp
International Coach
I'm definitely for 50-over cicket to T20.
The more cricket the better for me. In T20 its not the best cricketers that come out on top every single time. Also some wickets that bowlers get aren't deserved and the same that some bowlers don't deserve to go to the boundary for some deliveries.
I am sure the 50-over game can be tinkered with but I guess I appreciate cricketers skill levels. Like for instance in the middle overs I appreciate the batsmen who keep the board ticking with clever singles and so on.
The more cricket the better for me. In T20 its not the best cricketers that come out on top every single time. Also some wickets that bowlers get aren't deserved and the same that some bowlers don't deserve to go to the boundary for some deliveries.
I am sure the 50-over game can be tinkered with but I guess I appreciate cricketers skill levels. Like for instance in the middle overs I appreciate the batsmen who keep the board ticking with clever singles and so on.
chaminda_00
Hall of Fame Member
Get rid of it, it is a waste of time.
Shri
Mr. Glass
And you sound like a fat **** from fatsville. Hating T20s doesn't increase your maturity. You are still 14. Cricsim sends its regards.
Arjun
Cricketer Of The Year
The real problem out there with ODIs is the presence of all these billboard tournaments. Some of them run seven matches long. Some don't come attached with a Test series. Some others still are sponsored by has-been, unknown or new corporate brands. They don't do the game any good, and only help these sponsors.
For instance, after the inaugural IPL, there was this nonsense called the Kitply Cup. Kitply is a fading Indian brand of plywood which is struggling to retain brand recall. The matches were played in Bangladesh, and it was a single-round triangular featuring the hosts, India and Pakistan. Then, the next year, we had a six-match ODI series between India and SL, which was run by the BCCI, and when the series started, we found that the series was a launch initiative for some insurance scheme. Neither series was a part of a proper tour. Then we have tournaments in Kuala Lumpur, Toronto, Holland and a whole lot of neutral venues so as to 'promote' the game. The quality of cricket, in all these events, is no good whatsoever, and makes the IPL look serious. The teams that figure most often are from the subcontinent, who suffer burnout a lot more than the rest of the world.
In such a case, the respective boards need to send in weakened teams so that youngsters get some exposure, and senior players are conserved for proper tours, the Champions' Trophy and the World Cup. Cricket gains nothing out of these useless tournaments, and the message needs to be sent out.
For instance, after the inaugural IPL, there was this nonsense called the Kitply Cup. Kitply is a fading Indian brand of plywood which is struggling to retain brand recall. The matches were played in Bangladesh, and it was a single-round triangular featuring the hosts, India and Pakistan. Then, the next year, we had a six-match ODI series between India and SL, which was run by the BCCI, and when the series started, we found that the series was a launch initiative for some insurance scheme. Neither series was a part of a proper tour. Then we have tournaments in Kuala Lumpur, Toronto, Holland and a whole lot of neutral venues so as to 'promote' the game. The quality of cricket, in all these events, is no good whatsoever, and makes the IPL look serious. The teams that figure most often are from the subcontinent, who suffer burnout a lot more than the rest of the world.
In such a case, the respective boards need to send in weakened teams so that youngsters get some exposure, and senior players are conserved for proper tours, the Champions' Trophy and the World Cup. Cricket gains nothing out of these useless tournaments, and the message needs to be sent out.
Jungle Jumbo
International Vice-Captain
Not sure the commerical sponsors are really the problem. Most of the games are played because of the TV revenue they generated, not the revenue from sponsorship.
nibbs
International Captain
T20. I've never been able to get into it. Its kinda gay. By winning new fans, they're prepared to really annoy their old fans?
Whatever the result I'm never really that bothered. A T20 matches that they play prior to a series commencing are like warm up games. Batsmen and bowlers probably couldn't give a hoot about their averages. Averages being a key component of cricket.
Whatever the result I'm never really that bothered. A T20 matches that they play prior to a series commencing are like warm up games. Batsmen and bowlers probably couldn't give a hoot about their averages. Averages being a key component of cricket.