One day international cricket 50 over format

[TheJediBrah]

The format itself is fine. What worries me is that there's too many irrelevant series that are hard to care about. I'd want to see some triangular series (where I feel there's more meaning than your average bilateral series), probably less ODI's in general, and also if possible ODI's to come before the Tests (I feel this way it's a good way to whet your appetite for international cricket, whereas Tests before the ODI's kinda makes you feel a bit jaded towards cricket.

This is so true as well. ODIs before Tests is definitely the way to go, no one is going to care about a 5 match ODI series after the Ashes.

 

[NZTailender]

This is so true as well. ODIs before Tests is definitely the way to go, no one is going to care about a 5 match ODI series after the Ashes.

Yeah the 2005 tri-series was a great appetizer for that Ashes.

 

[Furball]

This is so true as well. ODIs before Tests is definitely the way to go, no one is going to care about a 5 match ODI series after the Ashes.

Logistically how are you working that? Brisbane-Melbourne-Sydney-Adelaide-Perth?

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Who would the ANZ minnow be?

Losing CWC semifinalist South Africa. The rivalry works for rugby, it will work for cricket.

 

[juro]

How about this change?

In the case of A v B

1. A batting 1~25 overs
2. B batting 1~50 overs
3. A batting 26~50 overs

I remember reading something similar to this years ago. I think Ian Chappell was suggesting having it in 10 over spurts though.
ie Team A | Team B
1-5 | 1-10
6-15 | 11-20
16-25 | 21-30
26-35 | 31-40
36-45 | 41-50
46-50

I thought it was an interesting proposal, and wondered how it would work in practice. One positive is that Duckworth Lewis could be discarded...

 

[usa cricket fan]

Being relatively new to the sport and coming from a somewhat outsiders perspective, this thread is very interesting to me. The reason is that ODI was my first type of cricket to watch and even after watching t20 and test matches I think ODI is the perfect balance between the two. Test matches for a new fan of cricket are interesting to watch but my life is just too busy to watch the entire first innings much less the 2nd! T20 is cool at first but it is too similar to other american sports(besides baseball) in that it is flashy but lacks substance..much like basketball. The batter is almost "desperate" to create runs and tends to slog.

ODI has the perfect length of play IMO. Chasing a score can start off slowly and as the day progresses the sense of urgency to create runs mounts..slowly but surely. Plus ODI is the major world cup format. Is the t20 world cup as important as ODI world cup?

 

[indiaholic]

Being relatively new to the sport and coming from a somewhat outsiders perspective, this thread is very interesting to me. The reason is that ODI was my first type of cricket to watch and even after watching t20 and test matches I think ODI is the perfect balance between the two. Test matches for a new fan of cricket are interesting to watch but my life is just too busy to watch the entire first innings much less the 2nd! T20 is cool at first but it is too similar to other american sports(besides baseball) in that it is flashy but lacks substance..much like basketball. The batter is almost "desperate" to create runs and tends to slog.

ODI has the perfect length of play IMO. Chasing a score can start off slowly and as the day progresses the sense of urgency to create runs mounts..slowly but surely. Plus ODI is the major world cup format. Is the t20 world cup as important as ODI world cup?

If you are not watching a test match live and you have it recorded somewhere, then you can fast forward through lunch, tea, drinks and bowlers walking back to their marks. A day of test cricket can easily be compressed into about two hours.

 

[vcs]

Test matches are also good to follow at work through text updates.

 

[cnerd123]

Yea atleast 75% of my Test Cricket watching is done via Cricinfo/Cricbuzz/following the threads here, followed by catching highlights when I have free time.

Cricket is pretty high on my list of priorities tho, so I usually watch whatever is on when Im home.

 

[StephenZA]

If you are not watching a test match live and you have it recorded somewhere, then you can fast forward through lunch, tea, drinks and bowlers walking back to their marks. A day of test cricket can easily be compressed into about two hours.

Or by just watching the highlights package

Being relatively new to the sport and coming from a somewhat outsiders perspective, this thread is very interesting to me. The reason is that ODI was my first type of cricket to watch and even after watching t20 and test matches I think ODI is the perfect balance between the two. Test matches for a new fan of cricket are interesting to watch but my life is just too busy to watch the entire first innings much less the 2nd! T20 is cool at first but it is too similar to other american sports(besides baseball) in that it is flashy but lacks substance..much like basketball. The batter is almost "desperate" to create runs and tends to slog.

ODI has the perfect length of play IMO. Chasing a score can start off slowly and as the day progresses the sense of urgency to create runs mounts..slowly but surely. Plus ODI is the major world cup format. Is the t20 world cup as important as ODI world cup?

This is all very true particularly from a new supporter watching cricket... Test though are really for the connoisseur, if you really start getting into cricket you will find the little nuances within test cricket that, for me at least, makes me keep looking at the score (on TV or otherwise) every 2 mins to see the change in the game (much to my partners chagrin and her frustration when talking to (at) me )... I am just not as bothered when it comes to T20 or ODI, I am quite happy just to see the end of innings score and watch highlights later.

Just to make clear, my comment is not saying somebody who prefers ODI or T20 are any less of a supporter or lover of cricket, it is just almost a different game in many aspects and all version appeal to different people.

 

[usa cricket fan]

Or by just watching the highlights package

This is all very true particularly from a new supporter watching cricket... Test though are really for the connoisseur, if you really start getting into cricket you will find the little nuances within test cricket that, for me at least, makes me keep looking at the score (on TV or otherwise) every 2 mins to see the change in the game (much to my partners chagrin and her frustration when talking to (at) me )... I am just not as bothered when it comes to T20 or ODI, I am quite happy just to see the end of innings score and watch highlights later.

Just to make clear, my comment is not saying somebody who prefers ODI or T20 are any less of a supporter or lover of cricket, it is just almost a different game in many aspects and all version appeal to different people.

When watching test cricket it seems like the same shots that are made with ease during a t20 or ODI match are overly appreciated by the players and commentators. A nice but simple shot seems much greater than it is when they have only swung at one of the last ten balls. Seems overly "safe" for lack of a better word. I understand wickets is the name of the game in test format but it seems like things come down to a grinding halt. There isn't much balance between action and the slow periods unlike the 50 over format where you get the best of both worlds. All just opinion of course and after watching cricket for many years I might start to like test the most who knows.

 

[StephenZA]

When watching test cricket it seems like the same shots that are made with ease during a t20 or ODI match are overly appreciated by the players and commentators. A nice but simple shot seems much greater than it is when they have only swung at one of the last ten balls. Seems overly "safe" for lack of a better word. I understand wickets is the name of the game in test format but it seems like things come down to a grinding halt. There isn't much balance between action and the slow periods unlike the 50 over format where you get the best of both worlds. All just opinion of course and after watching cricket for many years I might start to like test the most who knows.

Keep in mind that the fielding regulations, pitch and ball are very different in Test matches versus ODI/T20. Test match pitches (should) allow for deviation of the ball off the pitch in some manner (spin, seam movement etc) and potential swing... and various phases of the game this will be more or less prominent. Thus when playing expansive shots you are taking far greater risk and in many ways need far better skills to survive when compared to ODI/T20...

 

[usa cricket fan]

Keep in mind that the fielding regulations, pitch and ball are very different in Test matches versus ODI/T20. Test match pitches (should) allow for deviation of the ball off the pitch in some manner (spin, seam movement etc) and potential swing... and various phases of the game this will be more or less prominent. Thus when playing expansive shots you are talking far greater risk and in many ways need far better skills to survive when compared to ODI/T20...

I need to do more research on the difference between the balls. I wasn't aware there was any difference besides the color. Thought the red ball was ceremonial somewhat like the all white uniforms. On the cricket video game I got there is also a ball called a duke that I haven't seen(to my knowledge) in a real match. As for fielding restrictions that is another area I need to research as that confuses me a bit.

 

[cnerd123]

The white ball is basically the same as the red one except for the colour and one extra layer of varnish on top of it to help prevent discoloration. That extra layer causes it to swing a bit more and to retain its hardness a bit better. They also now use 1 ball from each end in ODIs, which means each ball is only 25 overs old by the end.

There definitely is an element of bias in commentary between the formats; as you said, attacking strokes are much less common in Tests than ODIs and thus stick out more even if they aren't objectivey harder. But cricket is a very mental game. Tests tend to be valued a lot higher than non-World Cup ODIs, so the stakes are higher, and due to the nature of the format the value of a wicket is generally much higher in Tests than in ODIs. Fielding sides bowl in a more aggressive manner with more attacking fields. Batsmen are generally a lot more reluctant to get out. Executing aggressive strokes in such scenarios requires a certain level of confidence and bravery.

Things like this are usually factored in when we talk about great performances, and is why Stokes' rapid 200 vs SA recently will be remebered more fondly than Sehwag's 200 against West Indies in a meaningless ODI. And this is before we even consider the nature of the pitch, quality of bowling faced, match context...

 

[usa cricket fan]

The white ball is basically the same as the red one except for the colour and one extra layer of varnish on top of it to help prevent discoloration. That extra layer causes it to swing a bit more and to retain its hardness a bit better. They also now use 1 ball from each end in ODIs, which means each ball is only 25 overs old by the end.

There definitely is an element of bias in commentary between the formats; as you said, attacking strokes are much less common in Tests than ODIs and thus stick out more even if they aren't objectivey harder. But cricket is a very mental game. Tests tend to be valued a lot higher than non-World Cup ODIs, so the stakes are higher, and due to the nature of the format the value of a wicket is generally much higher in Tests than in ODIs. Fielding sides bowl in a more aggressive manner with more attacking fields. Batsmen are generally a lot more reluctant to get out. Executing aggressive strokes in such scenarios requires a certain level of confidence and bravery.

Things like this are usually factored in when we talk about great performances, and is why Stokes' rapid 200 vs SA recently will be remebered more fondly than Sehwag's 200 against West Indies in a meaningless ODI. And this is before we even consider the nature of the pitch, quality of bowling faced, match context...

Ok so basically test matches are the best players in the world who are giving it there all. ODI and t20 are more like the baseball equivalent of minor leagues or maybe preseason play which lets new players earn their stripes and earn a place with the big boys of the game. I will watch more test now since they are the best players and the matches have more meaning(outside of a world cup). Love learning new stuff which is why I joined this site. Don't have one friend or family in real life that even know one thing about cricket to bounce ideas or questions off of.

 

[indiaholic]

That is not necessarily true though.. The quality of teams is pretty high in most international games.. The quality does decline a bit in the domestic T20 leagues because all of them favour a larger proportion of domestic players.

Test matches attain a certain aura because of the scale for drama that a battle over a period of five days creates... The pitch, the condition of the ball, the weather helps different players at different periods. You can have a period where the ball swings around massively and the batsman barely hangs on somehow.. Doesn't play any shots and just plays attritional, tight defensive cricket. He does this in the hopes that once the skies clear, he will get a chance to make the bowlers really really pay for all the suffering he has been put through.. It is kind of magical.

 

[indiaholic]

Consider the case of a fast bowler bowling on subcontinental pitches.. He checks to see whether any swing or seam is available, realizes that there is none and then decides to go for defensive line and length bowling. Dry up the runs and force the batsmen to go after the spinner who may have the better of the conditions... All this while the fast bowler cuts back on his pace, bowls a tight spell and keeps on working on the ball. Eventually the ball starts to reverse and then the bowler smells blood... The pace is up, the bowler smells blood, the batsman can feel the change in the mood.. All very exhilarating and something that doesn't work without the build up.

 

[cnerd123]

So poetic Indiaholic.

Talk about the thrill of quick bowling vs a batsman, and the battle of wits when a spinner comes on.

Also talk about how Tests are like life, in that single moments can change the entire course of a game, and how it offers all players an opportunity to dictate the game and, if they fail, a chance at redemption.

 

[Daemon]

Money is the problem isn't it. The fact that each board is trying to maximise it's own revenue will mean they need certain teams to tour and they want to play home games as much as possible. We can talk all we want about tri series and regional tournaments but they have to make economic sense.