The evolution of LOIs in your lifetime

[trundler]

I can remember when ODIs first became a regular part of the Australian summer and 200 was considered a very good score, with 170 odd still often being competitive.

The first post-WSC summer, England refused to play with fielding restrictions, leading to Brearley placing every fielder including the keeper on the boundary to win a game. Of course, the Poms call that clever captaincy and merely playing by the rules to secure a win, yet a year later Chappell followed the rules in an ODI final and was roundly condemned for it.

That summer, the uniforms were white with a coloured stripe down the sleeves though England continued to play in all white, but by the next year with the Poms out of the way, the transition to coloured clothing was made in full.

At the start, the emphasis was still very much on building an innings, though tbf Tony Greig was banging on about accelerating from the get-go while the field was up from the beginning. First time I really saw it happen was Srikkanth in about 81 iirc. Then Jones came into the Australian side and his SR was comparatively high too.

Of course, Viv was around and he just ****ing bombed everything. Which everyone does now, but he stood out like dog’s balls at the time.

By the mid-80s, Waugh and O’Donnell has started bowling slower balls regularly which has become a standard tactic pretty much ever since.

England had Botham open out here in the 87 Perth Challenge, then SL changed pretty much for everyone with their approach in the mid 90s.

I admit I didn’t like too much tinkering with the restrictions and the flip-flopping between using one or two balls, but I guess it had to be done to give the fielding side a chance.

I’d say of the players I’ve seen play ODIs live, my XI would be

Sanath (5)
Tendulkar
Viv (7)
Kohli
ABdV
Dhoni
Symonds (6)
Wasim (3)
Warne (4)
Garner (2)
McGrath (1)

Gilchrist, Bevan and Ponting unlucky to miss.

And Ian Harvey of course

Been some wonderful players. I’ve been lucky to see them go around.

Excellent post mate. Was very interested in how ODIs were viewed in the 80s.

 

[Maximas]

Wow. How long is it going to be before this douchebag gets banned for his casual racist remarks? FMD.

Dross

I think the state England vs Sri Lanka thread during the innings break about 30 minutes ago really puts the current 50 over game into perspective, YorksLanka and I both expressed a lack of confidence that a bowling side could defend 366, which would have been absolutely formidable in about 2004-2008 when I was really into the ODI game.

I remember a sort of turning point one tour Australia made to NZ in about 2009, when they did that tit for tat 3 ODI Chapple-Hadlee series. At least twice Australia set about 330-350 and twice NZ chased it down, it was a total shock at the time for me

 

[cnerd123]

I admit I didn’t like too much tinkering with the restrictions and the flip-flopping between using one or two balls, but I guess it had to be done to give the fielding side a chance.

Actually we have two balls because batsmen complained they couldn't spot the ball towards the end of the innings. The white Kookburra gets discoloured quicker than other brands, so instead of changing the ball used in ODIs, the ICC decided Kookaburra deserves twice as much income for their 'quality' product. In the process reverse swing has been basically killed off, and the effectiveness of taking the pace off with a softer ball at the end of the innings has diminished too. It's part of why we see higher scores in ODIs now.

Field restrictions have not helped the bowling side either. They used to be able to have 5 fielders in the deep in the middle overs, now it's just 4. Higher run rates in the middle overs of the innings as a result.

 

[trundler]

How do CWers think batting strategies have changed? Cant be all conditions and fielding restrictions.

 

[trundler]

Yeah that 2 new ball thing is bizarre and needs to be changed. What a farce. Change the product not the rules.

 

[trundler]

Boundaries are much easier to come by too. This is largely due to bigger bats and fielding restrictions I reckon.

 

[Prince EWS]

The biggest farce was the mandatory "new old ball" they were bringing on after 35 overs every game. Using a reconditioned ball from another game every match was completely contrary to the idea of a team taking care of a ball throughout an innings to get it in the condition they wanted (legally), and the idea that the ball could end up influenced by whatever happened to it in the other random game it was used it was a joke. I prefer two new balls to that, even if it means higher scores and no reverse swing, but I think I'd prefer telling batsmen that they didn't have a divine right to a bright, easy-to-sell ball to both those options.

 

[stephen]

Excellent post mate. Was very interested in how ODIs were viewed in the 80s.

I don't remember much about the 80s (except waiting forever in line at Expo 88 and Bob Hawke being Prime Minister).

I think the 90s was really when ODI cricket came of age. The reintroduction of South Africa, who were a very good LoI side from the beginning, the emergence of Sri Lanka as a force in world cricket, the strong West Indies and Australia. Pakistan winning a world cup and India emerging as a future powerhouse. New Zealand constantly threatening but never really dominating. It was really only England who sucked at ODI cricket during that era and even then it wasn't *that* badly.

It was also when 250+ scores started to be able to be chased down. 7+ in the final ten overs was not seen as insurmountable. The pacing of the game at the time made for (IMO) better drama. The pitches did something for the quicks and spinners, but the batsmen were capable if they applied themselves. Boundaries were not often roped in, making scoring harder but more rewarding.

The 1999 world cup was probably the single most competitive world cup in cricketing history. There were so many great games, so many legends formed and so many great bowlers on view:

Warne
Murali
Saqlain
Klusener
Donald
Pollock
McGrath
Ambrose
Walsh
Akhtar
Wasim
Waqar

and some lesser known bowlers who had a great series like Allott, Johnson and Blain.

The batsmen there were not quite up to the same standards as the bowling, but there were some great batsmen on show too:

Dravid
Waugh
Waugh
Ganguly
Anwar
Ponting
Gibbs
Kallis
Klusener
Gilchrist
Bevan
Lara
Chanderpaul
and of course Tendulkar

It was also the end of the era of poor quality bats. The 00s heralded the arrival of the new generation of bats that were thicker, lighter and more powerful. Chasing 300+ became possible. Australia started to open up a gulf between them and all other nations until the retirement of McGrath, Hogg, Gilchrist, Hayden, Bracken and Symonds between 07 and 11.

 

[trundler]

Super subs was probably the worst rule.

Just keep it simple. One ball per innings.

 

[trundler]

So in the 70s, ODIs were simply shortened test matches. Now we're moving towards them becoming extended T20s. In the 80s they were still not yet a thing in their own right, which happened in the 90s.

 

[turnstyle]

I'd call you out for not including any English players, were it not for the fact you're right

TBH I can't even think of one world class English ODI player.

 

[trundler]

Root of course.

 

[turnstyle]

First memory of ODI cricket was this match. Should've been run out on not many, but lady luck remembered the other team was England.

Worst ODI kit of all time goes to this special effort from New Zealand in 1989. So bad, the next match needed to be played with a red ball.

 

[Prince EWS]

TBH I can't even think of one world class English ODI player.

Flintoff was awesome in ODIs.

 

[Maximas]

How do CWers think batting strategies have changed? Cant be all conditions and fielding restrictions.

Boundaries are much easier to come by too. This is largely due to bigger bats and fielding restrictions I reckon.

I think you pretty much answered this yourself, batsmen back themselves to hit the boundaries, and are confident in taking on the field, even guys on the fence. The other huge factor is that batsmen are able to do this from the get-go, no longer do they feel the need to build an innings in the classical sense to get their eye in enough to attempt risky shots.

Teams seem to bat deeper too, no longer do you always have teams where 4 genuine front-line bowlers round out the bottom 4 batting spots (although this remains common in test cricket), seems like a lot of batsmen are becoming part time bowlers which gives selectors more flexibility to squash batting talent into the positions 7, 8 and 9, though this isn't always the case.

 

[_00_deathscar]

I don't remember much about the 80s (except waiting forever in line at Expo 88 and Bob Hawke being Prime Minister).

I think the 90s was really when ODI cricket came of age. The reintroduction of South Africa, who were a very good LoI side from the beginning, the emergence of Sri Lanka as a force in world cricket, the strong West Indies and Australia. Pakistan winning a world cup and India emerging as a future powerhouse. New Zealand constantly threatening but never really dominating. It was really only England who sucked at ODI cricket during that era and even then it wasn't *that* badly.

It was also when 250+ scores started to be able to be chased down. 7+ in the final ten overs was not seen as insurmountable. The pacing of the game at the time made for (IMO) better drama. The pitches did something for the quicks and spinners, but the batsmen were capable if they applied themselves. Boundaries were not often roped in, making scoring harder but more rewarding.

The 1999 world cup was probably the single most competitive world cup in cricketing history. There were so many great games, so many legends formed and so many great bowlers on view:

Warne
Murali
Saqlain
Klusener
Donald
Pollock
McGrath
Ambrose
Walsh
Akhtar
Wasim
Waqar

and some lesser known bowlers who had a great series like Allott, Johnson and Blain.

The batsmen there were not quite up to the same standards as the bowling, but there were some great batsmen on show too:

Dravid
Waugh
Waugh
Ganguly
Anwar
Ponting
Gibbs
Kallis
Klusener
Gilchrist
Bevan
Lara
Chanderpaul
and of course Tendulkar

It was also the end of the era of poor quality bats. The 00s heralded the arrival of the new generation of bats that were thicker, lighter and more powerful. Chasing 300+ became possible. Australia started to open up a gulf between them and all other nations until the retirement of McGrath, Hogg, Gilchrist, Hayden, Bracken and Symonds between 07 and 11.

Tendulkar wasn't that great in 99 World Cup was he?

Also surprised to see that Dravid top scored that World Cup! 461 runs, a clear gulf over Steve Waugh's 398. Bizarre.

 

[trundler]

A bit like Steve Smith. Very good without being excellent. A little underwhelming compared to their test successes.

 

[_00_deathscar]

To put it very simply, a great example of how much LOIs have changed is that Martin Guptils 237*, the highest ever World Cup score (2015), used to be a pretty damn good total for a whole team.

 

[cnerd123]

How do CWers think batting strategies have changed? Cant be all conditions and fielding restrictions.

Well the point I was making is still relevant. Modern day batsmen just have a different definition of what is possible. 7 RPO isn't an impossible feat anymore. It's kinda like the 4 minute mile - once it was broken, people realised it could be done, and suddenly everyone was doing it. Modern day batsmen are no longer intimidated by high run rates. 6 RPO, 7 RPO, we're now in a world where 320 is chased down as effortlessly as 220 would have been 10 years ago. No doubt they're helped by pitches, bats, rules, etc. But the mentality is certainly a big change.

I think on big change is also in the way teams/batsmen pace their innings. In the 90s and 00s sides batting first used to bat out the middle overs quietly, and kept wickets in hand for the big explosion in the final 10 overs. In modern day cricket, we see batsmen exploding basically as soon as they're set and have wickets in hand. It's a waste of resources otherwise - why arbitrarily wait for the 40th over and play out dots and singles when you can hit relatively risk-free boundaries instead? And what if you build and build for a big finish, but then get out, and the new batsmen in can't get going straight away? Modern batsmen now play a simpler gameplan - get your eye in, and then go hard. The only time you temper your aggression is when you don't have much batting to come, or if you're managing a run chase.

Add to that more creative strokeplay, less textbook techniques (which is also why there are more collapses in bowler friendly conditions), and generally bigger stronger men with bigger stronger bats...and it's easy to see the changes in ODI cricket.

Bowling is what's more interesting to me - I've talked about this before, but more and more bowlers want to get batsmen to get caught in the deep in modern cricket. Back in the 90s this was only an acceptable plan for part-timers and death bowlers, but nowadays front-line bowlers are adopting this plan more frequently, quite often as Plan A. There is a certain level of humility in that. It also shows that not only must frontline bowlers be capable of using helpful conditions to exploit poor techniques and bowl out sides, but they must also be able to fall back and use variations and accuracy to deceive batsmen who are coming after them. The polarisation between the demands of ODI/T20 and Test cricket have increased a lot more in the last few years I feel, to the point where we see very few bowlers be consistently successful across all formats. A guy like Dale Steyn is clearly a better Test than ODI bowler, for instance, but if were playing in the 90s he would have been a bonafide ATG in both formats.

 

[trundler]

Sad that the apex predators of cricket must resort to the sheepish tactics of finger not spin.