CA and BCCI, explain yourselves

[Cruxdude]

I was firmly against the UDRS until I saw it in action. Am a fan now. Ok, there can be mistakes made under it, but less mistakes than the current system. Does it really matter if the new system isn't perfect if it is demonstrably better than the old one?

I am totally for it and it is absolutely better than what was earlier. If the Indian team has issues with the prediction of Hawk eye then stop at point of impact and use that. Anything is better than nothing.

 

[Black_Warrior]

I understand Sachin Tendulkar's point that split innings will take away the importance of the toss deciding a match.

.

As much as I respect the man..this is one area where not only do I disagree with him, but his support for the split innings format has really disappointed me.

 

[Sanz]

As much as I respect the man..this is one area where not only do I disagree with him, but his support for the split innings format has really disappointed me.

From what I remember SRT was one of the first few people who proposed something like this. I like it, the current ODI format is boring and dieing, so why not try some new ideas.

 

[Sanz]

In such circumstances I don't think teams should suffer the loss of a review. I accept that the review system is there to remove shocking decisions (such at the LBW Trott got in the 2nd Test where he middled the ball onto his pads), but there has to be some leeway when the technology isn't 100% perfect. Reviews should only be lost when the technology absolutely 100% upholds the umpire's original decision. If there's doubt and the decision comes down to what the on-field umpire originally gave, then the decision isn't exactly being reviewed, and teams shouldn't be charged a review for it.

Disagree. If, after the review, there isn't enough evidence to overturn the field umpire's decision then the team should lose that review.

 

[Shri]

Considering the teams having most problems with UDRS are India and Pakistan can you imagine the uproar if either captain was fined for abusing the referalls. This could not happened unless Ponting or Strauss were also fined.

**** the uproars. People will forget it in a couple of days. The issue is bigger than pleasing India or Pakistan. If someone is fined, they should grow a pair and cop it. They can whine all they want after they have had a chance to get almost all decisions verified.

 

[GotSpin]

From what I remember SRT was one of the first few people who proposed something like this. I like it, the current ODI format is boring and dieing, so why not try some new ideas.

The problem is the repetitive, insignificant and large amount of meaningless ODI series that are played every year rather than a specific issue with the format.

 

[nightprowler10]

The problem is the repetitive, insignificant and large amount of meaningless ODI series that are played every year rather than a specific issue with the format.

Completely agree.

 

[Jezroy]

The problem is the repetitive, insignificant and large amount of meaningless ODI series that are played every year rather than a specific issue with the format.

Like the tri series in SL at the moment - it's just a warm up for the world cup.

 

[GotSpin]

Like the tri series in SL at the moment - it's just a warm up for the world cup.

I have no real issue with having a warm up series. But they seem to get played a couple times every year.

The cricketing boards will eventually understand that playing fewer series will actually equate to more money and more fans when every series played has something riding on it. It's no good flooding the international calendar for TV time when no one cares.

 

[Furball]

The problem is the repetitive, insignificant and large amount of meaningless ODI series that are played every year rather than a specific issue with the format.

Bingo.

Cricket Australia probably lost a chunk of money last summer with 10 ODIs in a row against pathetic West Indies and Pakistan sides that no-one could be arsed going along to to watch Australia thrash without even trying.

I bet Cricket Australia's finances were fine in 2009, when they had a home Chappell-Hadlee series, and a home series vs South Africa.

Last summer was only the 2nd time that Cricket Australia have had to schedule 2 seperate bi-lateral series as opposed to the traditional tri-series, and I don't think they've got the scheduling right. Playing two 5 match ODI series back to back is overkill, particularly if the opposition is crap.

It'll be interesting to see how 2010/11 goes, as the schedule for the Australian summer looks a lot better (aside from Australia and England playing a 7 match series.)

 

[Debris]

The problem is the repetitive, insignificant and large amount of meaningless ODI series that are played every year rather than a specific issue with the format.

ODIs have so many artifical rules in them now (50 over limit, fielding restrictions, wides, restricted numbers of overs for bowlers, etc.) that I don't really care what they do with the format. It might actually be an interesting experiment to introduce a rule change each year just to challenge teams to think on their feet tactically. You could even maybe rotate sets of rules within a series. I would be interested in seeing how teams would adjust to that.

And lets face it, no-one really cares about ODIs outside the world cup.

 

[GotSpin]

ODIs have so many artifical rules in them now (50 over limit, fielding restrictions, wides, restricted numbers of overs for bowlers, etc.) that I don't really care what they do with the format. It might actually be an interesting experiment to introduce a rule change each year just to challenge teams to think on their feet tactically. You could even maybe rotate sets of rules within a series. I would be interested in seeing how teams would adjust to that.

And lets face it, no-one really cares about ODIs outside the world cup.

The more gimmicks introduced makes the game even harder to understand and serves to further alienate the casual fan when every year witnesses some bizarre rule being introduced or changed.

No one really cares about ODIs outside the world cup because there are simply too many every year. Why would anyone care about a ODI series loss to England when we'll play them again in six months.

 

[GotSpin]

Bingo.

Cricket Australia probably lost a chunk of money last summer with 10 ODIs in a row against pathetic West Indies and Pakistan sides that no-one could be arsed going along to to watch Australia thrash without even trying.

I bet Cricket Australia's finances were fine in 2009, when they had a home Chappell-Hadlee series, and a home series vs South Africa.

Last summer was only the 2nd time that Cricket Australia have had to schedule 2 seperate bi-lateral series as opposed to the traditional tri-series, and I don't think they've got the scheduling right. Playing two 5 match ODI series back to back is overkill, particularly if the opposition is crap.

It'll be interesting to see how 2010/11 goes, as the schedule for the Australian summer looks a lot better (aside from Australia and England playing a 7 match series.)

Indeed. And therefore they assume its an issue with the format, when rather the problem is sourced at the scheduling of the matches.

 

[slugger]

I think the current 50 over game with its batsmen pp and bowlers pp was introduced to throw a spanner into the overall format however this quickly became redundent due to the captains principally followering the same rules of field restrictions of a traditional 50 over game. captains/teams never used these options uniquely.

so im not suprised the format has to be restructed completely. one thing i reall like about it is that you only have to watch the 1st half to know how well a team is going.(comparison) 3-89 (20) vs 2-97(20) .. why wait 5.5 hours of play to know that 5-288 50 overs vs 3-198 40 overs. to know if its a close comp.

 

[Debris]

The more gimmicks introduced makes the game even harder to understand and serves to further alienate the casual fan when every year witnesses some bizarre rule being introduced or changed.

No one really cares about ODIs outside the world cup because there are simply too many every year. Why would anyone care about a ODI series loss to England when we'll play them again in six months.

I think you are underestimating the intelligence of the casual fan here. I think it would create interest rather than alienate people. Look at the immediate popularity of T20 for example. I am not sure what point you are trying to make by using words like "bizarre" and "gimmick" but most rule changes are tested in lower-level competitions before being introduced to international cricket precisely to be sure they work.

 

[GotSpin]

I think you are underestimating the intelligence of the casual fan here. I think it would create interest rather than alienate people. Look at the immediate popularity of T20 for example. I am not sure what point you are trying to make by using words like "bizarre" and "gimmick" but most rule changes are tested in lower-level competitions before being introduced to international cricket precisely to be sure they work.

The popularity for T20 has come from a desire to see big hitting in a short amount of time, a demand I dare predict will rapidly decline in the not too distant future.

Rule changes like super sub and power plays are gimmicks and I'm not really sure what other description you could have for them. I'm not even sure they're properly tested out at low level competitions either. Isn't this new split innings format being trialled at List-A level?

All these gimmicks are designed to reinvigorate interest in a format that is simply suffering from overplay and over saturation in a market that quickly grows tired of matches that mean nothing.

 

[Debris]

The popularity for T20 has come from a desire to see big hitting in a short amount of time, a demand I dare predict will rapidly decline in the not too distant future.

Rule changes like super sub and power plays are gimmicks and I'm not really sure what other description you could have for them. I'm not even sure they're properly tested out at low level competitions either. Isn't this new split innings format being trialled at List-A level?

All these gimmicks are designed to reinvigorate interest in a format that is simply suffering from overplay and over saturation in a market that quickly grows tired of matches that mean nothing.

Would you like to go back to the ODI in it's original format then? Or have some of the rule changes introduced been improvements? I am definitely of the opinion that some of the rule changes have improved the game. Those which contribute nothing are eventually tossed out (no bouncer rule).

 

[GotSpin]

Would you like to go back to the ODI in it's original then? Or have some of the rule changes introduced been improvements? I am definitely of the opinion that some of the rule changes have improved the game. Those which contribute nothing are eventually tossed out (no bouncer rule).

I think you've been missing my overall point.

The problem lies not with the format of ODIs itself or rule structure but with the over scheduling and over crowding of the international calendar. When a match and series actually matters the format itself will be entertaining again.

 

[four_or_six]

Just thinking about the split innings again, and how you would bat in it. There's no powerplay, so I would imagine a careful first half, see off both new balls and try to tick the play over without losing wickets, and then play the second half like a T20.

 

[Matt79]

I think they'll go hard at first, then be very very conservative for the last five or so overs of the first innings to try and keep wickets in hand for the restart. Just a daft concept. Part of its benefit is meant to be in that in the event of a mismatch, you avoid the scenario where the team batting first gets 300 and the team batting second is obviously out of the hunt after 10 overs, and the whole thing becomes going through the motions. I still think we'll get that. Team A goes first, puts on 2/150 after 20. Team B comes out and is 5/90 after its twenty. Team A then bats out its second half knowing that if it milks the bowling for 3.5 an over nudging singles, it will still set the opposition 130 in its second innings, with five of their batsmen already in the shed. It will result in more tactical 'controlled' scoring rather than more flat out attacking IMO.