Has the standard of ODI cricket gone down?

[karan316]

If you compare the centuries or match winning innings of recent times, some of them were not even half as good as compared to the ones in the older rules. Since there are 2 new balls, you don't see much reverse swing at the death, and the ball not getting too old means there isn't the same amount of turn for the spinners. In conditions which help pace bowlers, it creates a total imbalance, it is difficult for the top order to deal with 2 new balls, but on the other hand, the lower order finds it much easier. With 5 fielders inside the circle, the bowlers are literally handicapped and are always in defensive-mode.

With the new rules being implemented and the game being made more and more batsmen friendly, has the standard of ODI cricket dipped? Rather than watching such sub-standard cricket, it would be better if the 50 over formats is scrapped.

 

[Arjun]

A similar question can be raised, whether the ODI specialist is now less relevant than before. The typical ODI specialist was a limited batsman who would push several singles or blast quickfire innings, or a limited bowler who would keep a tight line and concede few runs, or a bits-and-pieces player. Now, though, these ODI specialists are the weaker elements of the side. Maybe these rules will call for getting Test and ODI selections closer?

The rule change about two new balls as well as the powerplay calls need to be reverted. A few rules that encourage attacking cricket should be brought in, so that passengers who cash in on defensive tactics don't last.

 

[John73]

I'd much prefer them (ICC or the BCCI who rule world cricket it would seem) to have kept the game as is - 50 overs, 15 overs of limited field placements - stop messing with it. The starting with two new balls thing was more to do with the ball getting dark after so many overs - so what - both teams play under the same conditions with it, deal with it. If the white ball isn't up to the job, why not go to a red/orange ball game? the lights on the field are as bright as sunlight - why not use the red ball?

 

[benchmark00]

Because the night sky isn't as bright as sunlight funnily enough.

 

[John73]

Because the night sky isn't as bright as sunlight funnily enough.

Have you stood out in the field under the full lights of a test cricket ground? Are you honestly saying that umpires would let a game go on (white ball or not) if the light wasn't as bring as natural sunlight? you're kidding right?

 

[benchmark00]

Have you stood out in the field under the full lights of a test cricket ground? Are you honestly saying that umpires would let a game go on (white ball or not) if the light wasn't as bring as natural sunlight? you're kidding right?

1. Yes I have.
2. I'm not sure of your point here. Are you trying to say that having a black sky against a red ball is easy to see?

 

[Prince EWS]

It undoubtedly has IMO, but it has very little to do with the rule changes. The international schedule is so packed these days that selectors can't afford to take bilateral ODI series completely seriously all the time; we see a lot more rotation and resting (experimentation in preparation for World Cups and Test player trials too, but we've always had that) and when you're basically dealing with the best 16 or 17 players rather than the best 11, the standard is invariably going to drop.

 

[John73]

1. Yes I have.
2. I'm not sure of your point here. Are you trying to say that having a black sky against a red ball is easy to see?

Half the game is played in direct sunlight - so you're saying that a white ball played during the day light hours is of no consequence to the bowling team bowling in daylight hours? Yes a white ball is easier to see at night in the dark/black sky - but during the day time it is also easier????? You've lost me.

 

[benchmark00]

Half the game is played in direct sunlight - so you're saying that a white ball played during the day light hours is of no consequence to the bowling team bowling in daylight hours? Yes a white ball is easier to see at night in the dark/black sky - but during the day time it is also easier????? You've lost me.

Ok look I'm going to leave this conversation with two questions for you:

1. Why do you think they used a white ball to start off with? And:
2. Why do you think they use a black sight screen in one day cricket and a white one in test match cricket?

 

[Riggins]

Dont know why they don't just use those balls that have one half white and one half red. Best of both worlds and you wouldn't even need a sight screen. Problem solved, you're all welcome.

 

[dermo]

should use a tennis ball with electrical tape seam imo

 

[Dan]

Aaron Finch umpires the first ODI as a record crowd looks on.

 

[benchmark00]

That kids about to ramp.

 

[fredfertang]

That kids about to ramp.

Has the way the filter works changed?

 

[the big bambino]

The question of this thread complies perfectly with poster bias theory. Standards rise to an unassailable peak of the 80s and 90s (which happen to be most posters fave era) and then decline from there. Confirmation bias confirmed.

 

[watson]

It undoubtedly has IMO, but it has very little to do with the rule changes. The international schedule is so packed these days that selectors can't afford to take bilateral ODI series completely seriously all the time; we see a lot more rotation and resting (experimentation in preparation for World Cups and Test player trials too, but we've always had that) and when you're basically dealing with the best 16 or 17 players rather than the best 11, the standard is invariably going to drop.

Very good points.

Also, the huge quantity of ODIs in all it's varieties means that ODIs become relatively meaningless. And without relevance the games feel flat anyway, independant of the actual quality of cricket. Personally, I only become enthusiastic about ODIs these days when the World Cup is on.

 

[karan316]

The question of this thread complies perfectly with poster bias theory. Standards rise to an unassailable peak of the 80s and 90s (which happen to be most posters fave era) and then decline from there. Confirmation bias confirmed.

My base of comparison here is the rule changes, if you compare some of the match winning knocks you might have seen before the rules were changed, they were a lot better in quality, and the matches played were a lot more even and entertaining. The batsmen had to deal with attacking spin bowling, reverse swing and also the crappy rules of 20 overs of powerplay didn't exist. With the current rules, the seriousness involved in the 50 over format is slowly diminishing. The spinners can't attack a lot because there are 2 new balls used and they don't have much options with 5 fielders inside the circle. Pace bowlers do not get much reverse swing at the death. It actually turns 50 over matches into a slogfest.

 

[Daemon]

I think my base of comparison here is the rule changes, if you compare some of the match winning knocks you might have seen before the rules were changed, they were a lot better in quality, and the matches played were a lot more even and entertaining. The batsmen had to deal with attacking spin bowling, reverse swing and also the crappy rule of 20 overs of powerplay didn't exist. The seriousness involved in the 50 over format is slowly diminishing.

How long ago are we talking about karan?

 

[karan316]

How long ago are we talking about karan?

I think we can just divide the 50 over format into the three parts according to the rules,

First one and the best was the one with all the basic rules and 15 overs power play.
Then, the 2nd one with 20 over powerplay thing which was still fine although a rule change was never really required.
And the third which is the worst in terms of quality, 20 overs of powerplay, 2 new balls and 5 fielders inside the circle.

 

[YorksLanka]

I think we can just divide the 50 over format into the three parts according to the rules,

First one and the best was the one with all the basic rules and 15 overs power play.
Then, the 2nd one with 20 over powerplay thing which was still fine although a rule change was never really required.
And the third which is the worst in terms of quality, 20 overs of powerplay, 2 new balls and 5 fielders inside the circle.

agree..the two new balls thing sucks and only favours teams who cant reverse swing the ball / have decent spinners...5 fielders outside is also poor..