How to enjoy watching cricket

[Jumno]

I am a 90s kid so you guys know 250 was a competitive total and you you've got to look back at the 2007 world cup, 2011 world cup, 2019 world cup final.

Nowadays 350 is being scored and nearly chased down which is unbelievable in an odi game.

It could be due to the two new ball rule, flat pitches etc.

20 20 has been taken over and I think 50 over cricket is dying which had a romance to it if we think of the many Sharjah, icc trophy, Asia cup, Benson and hedges world series, tournaments back in the day.

I dont know how to enjoy watching cricket, I used to love watching and Intrigued about 50 over cricket.

 

[Spark]

If you want to see 90s style ODIs (in terms of the sorts of scores that are typically in play) then you should watch more women's cricket. 270 is still a decent, though not outlandish, score in most games.

There are still some compelling 220-270 (the absolute sweet spot IMO) ODIs going around, but yeah the format's glory days are well and truly long gone.

 

[Jumno]

Can't believe it 1970s-2015

I doubt 20 20 can replace it, I think we do need something else

It's ridiculous, it was compelling to watch

 

[Yeoman]

The essence of cricket is that it involves both attack and defence by both the batting and fielding side. I would argue that it is best expressed in the first class form however it is true that it could also be seen in the longer one day forms before fielding restrictions, big bats, shorter boundaries, flat pitches and two new balls gave the batsmen an advantage (along with the more attacking mindset and innovative strokes engenders by T20.
Many domestic teams around the world now stream their first class and list A matches on YouTube so I would suggest giving that a try. I got into following the New Zealand 50 over trophy during lockdown, for example. Cricket without context can be most refreshing.

 

[cnerd123]

Cricket is still cricket. You've just got to adjust your expectations. Where before a dot ball might be a good result, now a single is. Where a bowler might set a batter up to be caught in the slips, now they set them up to be caught at long on. It's still the same game. You just got to learn to appreciate the changes in it as it evolves.

 

[CartyDurham]

Last night in England there was was a T20 played where 252 was the first innings and a side with 14 defeats in a row knocked it off with three balls to spare

300 is the next target in T20

as for odis I still feel anything between 280 and 340 is very competitive and a toss of a coin who wins

England as World Champions in both forms have found a method to succeed in both

the cricketers of the 70s and 80s would be unable to score close to the rate of the modern player, due to diets, fitness and the improvement in equipment

 

[Spark]

Cricket is still cricket. You've just got to adjust your expectations. Where before a dot ball might be a good result, now a single is. Where a bowler might set a batter up to be caught in the slips, now they set them up to be caught at long on. It's still the same game. You just got to learn to appreciate the changes in it as it evolves.

It's different, though. You can argue that 350 v 350 is better to watch than 250 v 250 (I would strongly disagree) but you can't argue it's just a 1-to-1 replacement and you don't lose or gain anything in the process.

 

[trundler]

Watching women's ODIs to revive interest in cricket seems.. counterintuitive.

 

[Spark]

Watching women's ODIs to revive interest in cricket seems.. counterintuitive.

Why so?

 

[CartyDurham]

The women’s game is clearly not at the level of the men’s but that does not dilute the skills that are on show, nor the achievement both as individuals and teams

Australia have a fantastic cricket team in all forms of the game

I hope England can get to their level done day in the future

 

[cnerd123]

It's different, though. You can argue that 350 v 350 is better to watch than 250 v 250 (I would strongly disagree) but you can't argue it's just a 1-to-1 replacement and you don't lose or gain anything in the process.

I don't see it that way. All sport changes with the times. You're not going to go back to the days where players were unathletic, equipment was crap and pitches were dodgy. If the natural evolution of the game means that scorelines change then so be it. The basic bat vs ball, 11 a side dynamics of cricket are still the same.

The only major change in white ball cricket is two new balls, which has killed reverse swing. I would like that back.

 

[Spark]

I don't see it that way. All sport changes with the times. You're not going to go back to the days where players were unathletic, equipment was crap and pitches were dodgy. If the natural evolution of the game means that scorelines change then so be it. The basic bat vs ball, 11 a side dynamics of cricket are still the same.

The only major change in white ball cricket is two new balls, which has killed reverse swing. I would like that back.

Yeah but the balance between bat and ball has definitely changed. Obviously you have to accept it, what am I going to do here as some yobbo ranting on the internet do about it, but it does mean that my interest in ODI cricket has fallen off a cliff compared to when I was a kid, when I have fond memories of being glued to tri-series matches not even involving Australia.

2015 WC really was the death-knell. Aus won, but at what cost etc etc

 

[cnerd123]

Yeah but the balance between bat and ball has definitely changed.

The premise here being that you measure the balance between bat and ball in terms of runs / scoring rates.

The way I see it - the best teams in the world are those with strongest bowling attacks, and teams that win tournaments are usually those that have the best bowling lineups. Bowlers still make a difference, and therefore there is still a balance between bat and ball. Cricket has not reached a point where you could select 11 batters and win a game (inb4 England jokes).

If cricket does get to a point where your bowling lineup legitimately doesn't matter in most cases, I'd probably lose interest too. But right now, it's just a matter of different expectations.

 

[Spark]

The premise here being that you measure the balance between bat and ball in terms of runs / scoring rates.

The way I see it - the best teams in the world are those with strongest bowling attacks, and teams that win tournaments are usually those that have the best bowling lineups. Bowlers still make a difference, and therefore there is still a balance between bat and ball. Cricket has not reached a point where you could select 11 batters and win a game (inb4 England jokes).

If cricket does get to a point where your bowling lineup legitimately doesn't matter in most cases, I'd probably lose interest too. But right now, it's just a matter of different expectations.

Well yeah that's kind of implicit. If you don't take it to mean that, then just substitute in "equilibrium scoring rate that balances scoring opportunity with risk" or whatever more specific phrase takes your fancy. Bowlers will always make the difference, my concern is more about the rhythm of ODI games these days and the style of cricket on show. It's just less interesting to me.

 

[Jumno]

Maybe I should follow English domestic cricket where I live. I used to love watching those day nighters before 2010.

 

[Yeoman]

Of the issues I mentioned above, the most important would be to limit the depth of bats. This would do the most to prioritise skill over power, prevent Mis-hits going for 6 and make the 6 itself a special event rather than routine.

 

[Prince EWS]

If you want to see 90s style ODIs (in terms of the sorts of scores that are typically in play) then you should watch more women's cricket.

(Mens) associate cricket is much more like 90s style ODIs as well.

 

[thierry henry]

2015 WC really was the death-knell. Aus won, but at what cost etc etc

Why do you say this, btw? I would've said that ODI cricket went full nonsense by way of the England side of 2015-2019, who were themselves modelled on the NZ side of 2015 (so basically.....BazBall). That England side really ramped up the emphasis on white ball specialists absolutely slogging it on flat decks with very little "good old-fashioned cricket" to be seen. The 2015 Australia WC side I just recall as being a typically good Australia team.

 

[CartyDurham]

If that is all you saw with England under Morgan was ”slogging on flat decks” they would never have become world champs in both forms of the white ball game

I know, I’m an idiot and totally wrong, yet again

 

[thierry henry]

Ah that's right, what I actually saw was an audacious new form of white ball cricket that thrilled the world and inspired me to be a better man