CA and BCCI, explain yourselves

[slugger]

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.

the best way to solve this problem would be to introduce a 30 run policy . team batting second is 30 or more runs short are forced to bat on. something like that.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Solution is to allot 1200 bonus points for an innings victory.

Or allow the other team to decide when the opposition take their innings break, instead of fixing it at 20 or 25 overs. Of course, the captains could just act as unimaginatively as they do while taking the powerplays

 

[slugger]

\the captains could just act as unimaginatively as they do while taking the powerplays

yeah agree they caused the whole problem .. splitting the innings will give them nowhere to hide.

 

[Debris]

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.

I do agree that over-scheduling is very much an issue. OP was asking why CA was introducing a rule change (something they trial pretty much every year) so I was kind of responding to that.

 

[honestbharani]

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

I would agree if you gave the teams 3 each. Juz giving them 2 and taking away one for extremely marginal calls seems real tough to me, esp. given that there is no guarantee that you will be getting done in by howlers EACH innings, batting and bowling.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

yep.. if u really wanna fill the calendar, play more tests.. 5 times better than ODIs, right?


Seriously, I would also vote for more A team series. Given the plethora of channels and comeptitions like the domestic T20s, IPL and CL throwing up some of these FC players as popular ones, they can be sold for decent amounts as well and is the best way to fill up sports channels hours... And I am sure the cricket fanatics will tune in, at least for 1 hour highlights every night.. Can't be certain but it is worth a shot, esp. from the Indian networks' PoV...

 

[honestbharani]

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 best rule was something proposed over here by a poster (not sure who it was, guess it might have been archie_mac or amz, but not sure could have someone else)...


You award a bowler 1 over extra per wicket above his specified quota of 10 overs.. Simple way to make the cricket a lot more interesting esp. the middle overs if the teams have one good spinner each..

 

[Streetwise]

I would agree if you gave the teams 3 each. Juz giving them 2 and taking away one for extremely marginal calls seems real tough to me, esp. given that there is no guarantee that you will be getting done in by howlers EACH innings, batting and bowling.

But isnt that the point of the exercise, it is supposed to be there when the umpire makes a howler not an extremely marginal call. Right from the beginning teams were told that urds is for obvious wrong calls and not for the extremely close ones. There must be some responsibility taken when calling the umpire into question and allowing for teams to call out the umpire for tactical reasons will undermine the game.

 

[Jono]

If my team is 9 down and we need 3 runs to win, and I've been clean bowled, I'm calling for a review to see if the bowler bowled a no ball (if there is a review left).

 

[honestbharani]

If my team is 9 down and we need 3 runs to win, and I've been clean bowled, I'm calling for a review to see if the bowler bowled a no ball (if there is a review left).

And if the bowler is Amit Mishra or Shoaib Malik or Fernando, there is a strong chance they did overstep..


While we are on this, Ian Chappell has been harping on going back to the backfoot no ball rule forever.. It gives the umpie an extra split second to look up as well. Why not try that?

 

[Dissector]

I wonder what umpires think of the backfoot rule, though. Looking at the old clips it seems to involve a lot of crouching which could get rather tiring over the course of a day, particularly for the older umpires.

 

[Shri]

Old guys shouldn't be umpires anyway. Just don't trust their eye sight and hearing abilities. Get young guys in.

 

[four_or_six]

Australia news: Players not convinced by split innings | Australia Cricket News | Cricinfo.com

Comment from McGain who spoke to people playing county second XI which has split innings, and also from the domestic warm-up match in Australia.

 

[Johnners]

Ugh, shocking move from CA. Watch us slowly fall back down the ODI rankings as none of our upcoming batsmen will have any idea how to build a 50 over innings.

Re: UDRS, sure it has its faults, but it's just so backwards to not accept it afaic.

Stupid move from both boards who really seem quite out of touch with what it is the fans actually want.

 

[marc71178]

While we are on this, Ian Chappell has been harping on going back to the backfoot no ball rule forever.. It gives the umpie an extra split second to look up as well. Why not try that?

Even simpler. where there's a 3rd umpire give him no balls.

Man in middle is thin looking straight down the wicket all the time.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Even simpler. where there's a 3rd umpire give him no balls.

Bit harsh on the poor guy, don't you think so, Marc?

 

[Jarquis]

No idea why the Umpire is crouching like that? It's not hard to give back foot no balls stood up with the wonderful thing that is peripheral vision.

 

[honestbharani]

Even simpler. where there's a 3rd umpire give him no balls.

Man in middle is thin looking straight down the wicket all the time.

lol @ GI Joe..


But yeah, we can even try bring in that foot fault thingy from tennis, where it beeps when you commit a foot fault. The same way we can have some system which will beep when you overstep, no?

 

[G.I.Joe]

lol @ GI Joe..


But yeah, we can even try bring in that foot fault thingy from tennis, where it beeps when you commit a foot fault. The same way we can have some system which will beep when you overstep, no?

AWTA. Just place a sensor at the front foot crease and be done with it.

 

[marc71178]

Bit more difficult with the batsman and everything else around the crease I'd say.

I've long advocated the 3rd umpire route (along with umpires being wired up to the stump mic) - personally I think it would aid decision making a huge amount.