Does anyone wish, odi cricket was back?

[Yeoman]

That was the one. The England v Australia final in 2005 was also good, as were some other matches in another format between those two that year.

 

[Molehill]

That was the one. The England v Australia final in 2005 was also good, as were some other matches in another format between those two that year.

It's a shame the Super Over didn't exist in 2005, would've been carnage (although I think McGrath would probably have outbowled Goughie).

Great scorecard, arguably Geraint's finest hour....

ENG vs AUS Cricket Scorecard, Final at London, July 02, 2005

Live Cricket Scoreboard: Get England vs Australia Final, cricket scorecard, NatWest Series 2005 dated July 02, 2005.

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[Molehill]

Mind you, also from that year was this game featuring that ridiculous substitute rule. England forced to sub Solanki in for Jones before he had bowled, Katich replacing McGrath after he had!!

ENG vs AUS Cricket Scorecard, 3rd Match at London, July 12, 2005

Get cricket scorecard of 3rd Match, ENG vs AUS, Australia tour of England and Scotland 2005 at Kennington Oval, London dated July 12, 2005.

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[Yeoman]

This illustrates some of the issues which led to the end of the ‘golden era of ODIs’ referenced upthread.

firstly, that a thre match series was squeezed in a few days after the tri series ended - ‘leave them wanting more’ has never been a mantra of cricket administrators.

secondly, the tinkering with the rules. The super sub was happily short lived but soon after got the frequently changing power play rules, a version of which we still have today and which switches the balance of power even further to the batsmen.

 

[Yeoman]

It's a shame the Super Over didn't exist in 2005, would've been carnage (although I think McGrath would probably have outbowled Goughie).

Great scorecard, arguably Geraint's finest hour....

ENG vs AUS Cricket Scorecard, Final at London, July 02, 2005

Live Cricket Scoreboard: Get England vs Australia Final, cricket scorecard, NatWest Series 2005 dated July 02, 2005.

www.espncricinfo.com

‘Jones…Bowden…Kasprovicz the man to go’.

it must be odd, for a sportsman, to have your life defined by so small apart of it. Having said that, most of us are not remembered in the popular imagination at all.

 

[Molehill]

This illustrates some of the issues which led to the end of the ‘golden era of ODIs’ referenced upthread.

firstly, that a thre match series was squeezed in a few days after the tri series ended - ‘leave them wanting more’ has never been a mantra of cricket administrators.

secondly, the tinkering with the rules. The super sub was happily short lived but soon after got the frequently changing power play rules, a version of which we still have today and which switches the balance of power even further to the batsmen.

The tinkering of the rules I got, the powerplay has been a good thing.

But you're bang on the money about the amount of ODI's back then. However, T20 was about to properly kick off which would soon put a stop to that.

 

[howitzer]

It's a shame the Super Over didn't exist in 2005, would've been carnage (although I think McGrath would probably have outbowled Goughie).

Great scorecard, arguably Geraint's finest hour....

ENG vs AUS Cricket Scorecard, Final at London, July 02, 2005

Live Cricket Scoreboard: Get England vs Australia Final, cricket scorecard, NatWest Series 2005 dated July 02, 2005.

www.espncricinfo.com

He's the hero of @GIMH apparently.

 

[SteveNZ]

I think I'd quite enjoy a tri-series even if it was T20 honestly.

It'd be cool if we got team A touring team B for a Test series, then team C arrives and they play a tri-series, then team C and B play a Test series

While I do love ODIs I just can't see that being part of their future. The World Cup is great though.

Yeah, this is a good idea. We had a tri series two years ago (?) with Pakistan and Bangladesh, in October/Nov whenever it was, and those two teams basically froze to death.

A proper T20 tri series, a mini Commonwealth Bank/VB Series with England-Australia-us or India-Australia-us whatever would be cool. Quick fire, a game every couple of days, then a three-match finals series. Then the touring side(s) can play either side of the Tasman in Tests, even - and this is crazy, but hear me out - an ODI series somewhere as well.

 

[Ashes81]

I much prefer 50 over cricket to T20.

I don't mind the international T20 so much but even then its only really the World Cup that grabs my attention.

I don't watch much domestic T20 stuff and I hate the franchiae nature of it, particularly the IPL as it interferes with proper cricket.

Cricket is meant to be played over long periods of time, that's the beauty of the game and what differentiates it from other sports.

The shorter the game, the less I'm interested in it.

 

[Jumno]

In a calendar year the whole of 1990s until around 2007:

-Sharjah cup
-Australia tri series
-a tri series in Sri Lanka such as the singer cup or singer world series or general tri series involving Sri Lanka

-some other cup such as the Compaq cup or Singapore cup
-Another tri series involving India or Pak somewhere

-odi series

The bulk of the odi series was played by Pak, Ind, Sri Lanka

Every few years, two years:

-Asia cup
-Austral -Asia cup
-Wills world series, hero cup, wills cup
-Centanary cup

Very suspenseful and captivating.

I'm sure I read somewhere that Pak either played 50 odis in a calender year once, I could be wrong.

 

[Immenso]

Its weird. But the opening post listing the plethora of meaningless tri and quad series is exactly why ODIs turned to JAM.

Yes, I pine for a return to meaningful ODIs. But not the 1990s, which killed it.

But I only pine for a version of ODIs that doesn't exist anymore. One that involves non-uniform pitches, small bats, bigger boundaries, terrible running between wickets, and trying to score 33% of your runs using the pace of the ball through backward-point (because your bat is so crap and pitiful) , which is exactly where the best fielder lurks like a crouching tiger ....

 

[TheJediBrah]

Mind you, also from that year was this game featuring that ridiculous substitute rule. England forced to sub Solanki in for Jones before he had bowled, Katich replacing McGrath after he had!!

Come on bro this is a stretch. England weren't "forced" to do anything. They chose pre-game to have Solanki as their sub. Then chose to sub out Jones for him because the top order **** the bed. He also second top-scored for them when subbed in! They benefited massively from the sub rule in that game, without it they would have lost even more convincingly. edit: and Katich didn't even bat lol

More generally, I don't think there was any issue with the sub rule at all. Most teams chose an all-rounder for the sub. But a lot of teams chose to take a punt by having a specialist as the sub which meant if you lost the toss you basically forfeited a player. Win the toss though and you get an extra batsman. But that was part of the gamble.

 

[Kirkut]

The amount of cricket played is insane, as a result most cricketers have become robotic and professional due to such demanding workload.

That was not the case before, there wasn't much money in cricket and amount of cricket played was not so high, so making debut for your country meant something, getting a fiver meant something!

 

[Zinzan]

I appreciate all 3 forms, but realistically I think a logical approach would be to limit ODIs to only be played within 12 months of a World Cup happening and scrap CTs and other tournaments.

Like it or not T20s have too much commercial value, both at franchise & international level.

 

[Molehill]

Come on bro this is a stretch. England weren't "forced" to do anything. They chose pre-game to have Solanki as their sub. Then chose to sub out Jones for him because the top order **** the bed. He also second top-scored for them when subbed in! They benefited massively from the sub rule in that game, without it they would have lost even more convincingly. edit: and Katich didn't even bat lol

More generally, I don't think there was any issue with the sub rule at all. Most teams chose an all-rounder for the sub. But a lot of teams chose to take a punt by having a specialist as the sub which meant if you lost the toss you basically forfeited a player. Win the toss though and you get an extra batsman. But that was part of the gamble.

I wasn't complaining about the result - I leave that kind of thing to Aussies. England, by being rubbish, were forced to bring in Solanki, but it meant that they were a bowler short as a result. And as you pointed out, if you won the toss it effectively meant you had 12 players at your disposal which was why the daft idea was very quickly killed off.

 

[TheJediBrah]

if you won the toss it effectively meant you had 12 players at your disposal which was why the daft idea was very quickly killed off.

Only if you chose to do that. No one forced teams to pick specialist bats as their subs. That's not a problem with the innovation, it was just tactics. You could pick a specialist and be entirely reliant on the toss as to whether you benefit, or pick an all-rounder and have a bob each way.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad it didn't become a permanent fixture because that would be a bit much and classical ODI structure is still the best. But it was a very interesting dynamic, and entertaining for those of us who understood it.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It's funny you brought up the Solanki game because that's actually the one that I usually bring up when extolling the virtues of the super sub experiment. It's a perfect example of the unconventional tactics and innovation that it brought into the game, especially given how well it worked for England (in the 1st innings at least).

 

[Molehill]

It's funny you brought up the Solanki game because that's actually the one that I usually bring up when extolling the virtues of the super sub experiment. It's a perfect example of the unconventional tactics and innovation that it brought into the game, especially given how well it worked for England (in the 1st innings at least).

I just happened to spot it whilst looking for the Nat West Series Final scorecard. It's no doubt that the sub rule made England more competitive in that game, but in general, it favoured the team who won the toss too much. The only way they could've made it even is if you had 2 subs, one bowler and one bat who you could bring in, thus nullifying the toss advantage. But that's what they've done in the IPL and it's just caused bigger scores due to more batting available.

Just makes it a 12 player game instead of 11, what's the point?

 

[TheJediBrah]

I just happened to spot it whilst looking for the Nat West Series Final scorecard. It's no doubt that the sub rule made England more competitive in that game, but in general, it favoured the team who won the toss too much.

Bro you're not listening. It only did that if the team knowingly made that choice. The rule did not favour either team, or have anything to do with the toss. The choices and tactics made by some teams taking the 50/50 risk did that.

The only way they could've made it even is if you had 2 subs, one bowler and one bat who you could bring in, thus nullifying the toss advantage.

No that's dumb. Just gives you an extra player and doesn't add anything in the way of tactics or intrigue

 

[Molehill]

Bro you're not listening. It only did that if the team knowingly made that choice. The rule did not favour either team, or have anything to do with the toss. The choices and tactics made by some teams taking the 50/50 risk did that.

No that's dumb. Just gives you an extra player and doesn't add anything in the way of tactics or intrigue

Funny how in this example both teams had batsmen as their sub. Clearly the plan was to win toss, bowl first and then sub in your batsman for the Number 11. Whoever won that toss was going to have an advantage…