How to make the middle of ODI innings more interesting

[shankar]

To me the 15-40 over period is at least as interesting as the 0-15 or the 40-50 period if the wicket is good for batting. It brings into play a different type of skills.

 

[anzac]

I have heard Ian Botham regularly suggest that after the 15 overs are up..you should only be allowed to send 1 player back to the boundary every 10 overs or so. By that he means...3 players (max) on the boundary at 15 overs..4 at 25, 5 at 35 etc...or whatever way the rules are set.

I can't see it happening while there are still a number of traditionalists around though.

IMO the current rules suit the batsmen a tad too much - although I also think the quicks have missed a trick by under utilising the bouncer........

I like the above idea, but I'd bring it in after 10 overs (too much damage currently being done in 15), and max the number of players allowed on the boundary, while still needing to retain some inside the circle throughout the match..........

I'd also have stricter guidelines as to pitches to be used to avoid the drop in problems & fresh pitches where there is no current playing history as a guide to how the pitch will play - makes the match a lottery where the toss has more influence on the game than anything else.......

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I personally don't see a problem with ODI cricket as it is, but if they were to change it, I would put in place the 'free hit' rule which is used in Natwest cricket. That's where the ball after a noball is literally a free hit in that the runs scored off it count, but the batsman can't be dismissed. However, if that were brought into ODI's, I don't think that free hit runs should go against the bowlers immediate record.

 

[Sanz]

Great Sri Lankan Batsman Arvinda Desilva said the same thing almost 2 years ago :-

"...it is one day cricket that needs a change, especially from the 15th to the 40th over, when it has become monotonous.

I reckon there should be some change, like say the field restrictions should be for any fifteen overs in the 50 overs rather than for the first fifteen. That will make the game more interesting, and the captains will have to think that much more and shift their batting order. At the beginning of any over the captain should tell the umpire that this is one of the fifteen overs which fall under the fielding restrictions. That change is needed to make the one-day game more exciting. "

http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2002/oct/04inter.htm

 

[Langeveldt]

Madness.. People are always looking for more of a buzz, little wonder there is such a drug culture...

Give it fifty years, there will be no test cricket at all, full stop.. Just Pro20 or Cricket Max as the main recognized form of cricket

 

[Anil]

Give it fifty years, there will be no test cricket at all, full stop.. Just Pro20 or Cricket Max as the main recognized form of cricket

if the general attitude of this generation is to be taken as a pointer, test cricket might fall by the wayside long before that......

i thought one dayers were really "exciting" as it is, i suppose people are bored because batsmen don't slog off every ball between 15 and 40 overs....


ultimately cricket looks headed in a direction where it will be a hit-or-miss affair akin to baseball....yuck...

 

[Langeveldt]

if the general attitude of this generation is to be taken as a pointer, test cricket might fall by the wayside long before that......

i thought one dayers were really "exciting" as it is, i suppose people are bored because batsmen don't slog off every ball between 15 and 40 overs....


ultimately cricket looks headed in a direction where it will be a hit-or-miss affair akin to baseball....yuck...

Damn, I was really hoping someone would disagree with me...

 

[NikhilN]

I think it's fairly unanimous that overs 15-42ish are pretty boring, with both sides content to score/concede 5 an over. What would you favour for how to get around this problem?

I'd advocate having the 15 over restrictions for the whole innings personally.

Watch India bat during a India v Pakistan match...

 

[Leigh_Lancs]

I don't think there's slogging as such in the first 15 overs as some people have described, last 5 maybe. Look at the best openers in the world for ODIs, Hayden, Gilchrist, Trescothick, Sehwag etc etc, is it really reasonable to describe what they do as slogging? Proper aggressive strokeplay is what you get and the bowlers who succeed are the best ones, such as McGrath and Pollock.

Surely the strokeplay of the players I've named is infinitely more attractive to watch than 5 singles an over for 2 hours?

ODI cricket, as I understand it, is designed to be a more, for want of a better word, accessible version of test cricket which despite the fact I believe it to be the finest sport on earth when played well, is evidently not for everybody.

To widen appeal ODI cricket has to be made as entertaining as possible, and overs 15-42 at present don't acheive this I don't believe.

 

[ReallyCrazy]

1) What i think is...cricket is becoming more and more of a batsman's game. We see scores of over 300 very often nowadays. This was rare previously. Yes, it could be because of aggressive batting style a lot of players adopt these days but its also a lot to do with the pitch. To make OD cricket more interesting, we need wickets which offer more assistance to bowlers. This way we can always expect to see a good contest between bat and ball and not just total slogging (sorry but thats not entertainment for me)

2) There should be a standard for the way cricket bats are manufactured. It seems like a lot players just hit the ball with minimum effort and it goes for six (the best example was Ricky Ponting in the WC final where he hit sixes with like one hand). This has to do with the so called "sweet spot" on the bat. Research should be done so that batters don't have this unfair advantage and the "right amount" of "sweet spot" is produced.

3) I don't really like this idea but I wanna see what you guys think of this. A lot of ppl complain that the team batting first or second (especially in day nighters) have an unfair advantage just coz they won the toss. What if we make one team bat for 25 overs and then the other team bats for 25 overs. Then the first team bats out their remaining 25 overs and the second then chases in their last 25?

4) I like what Orangepitch suggested...break the 15 overs with fielding restrictions into blocks of 5 each.

 

[Anil]

Surely the strokeplay of the players I've named is infinitely more attractive to watch than 5 singles an over for 2 hours?

a good battle between bat and ball is the most attractive sight for a true cricket fan...in fact that's what cricket is basically about......a batsman is forced to take singles because of good bowling and/or good field settings....how is that not an interesting scenario for a cricket fan? besides, one day cricket is very, very skewed towards batsmen as it is, are the bowlers there just to get hit?

 

[age_master]

the scores for ODI's are high enough as it is, the middle overs are as interesting as the way the batsmen decide to bat, the way the Aussie team bats through the middle overs is almost exactly the same as the first 15 these days anyway...

 

[Prince EWS]

Overs 15-40 are not boring at all.

All you are suggesting is making the game more batting-orientated, which would be a disaster.

Good, tight, wicket-taking bowling is just as enteretaining as bashing batting. I actually think it is far more entertaining.

 

[marc71178]

So nobody supports my sniper idea then?

I'm shocked, you're all clearly against progress!

 

[Loony BoB]

Doesn't sound too bad, marc. Although I still think it would be more fun without a gun, and to just have the 12th man running around the field tackling the fielders. Guns make things too simple.

 

[Deja moo]

Guns make things too simple.

Not if theyre water pistols and are aimed at specific areas of the opposition players clothing in order to embarass.

 

[Linda]

Doesn't sound too bad, marc. Although I still think it would be more fun without a gun, and to just have the 12th man running around the field tackling the fielders. Guns make things too simple.

HA! BOB! I was thinking along those same lines.
How about the 12th man from the Batting team runs into the feild for a few overs and grabs the ball before the feildsman can get it, and then once he throws in into the crowd, its a 6 and a dead ball. Sounds like good fun.

But seriously, I think like someone else said, that if the wickets were produced to favour the bowlers more, it would be a more interesting game. I mean, I LOVE seeeing Australia belt the ball around, however I dont like seeing the opposing team do it to us that much. If its an edgy beat-the-bat game between batsman and bowler, it makes things MUCH more interesting.

 

[age_master]

So nobody supports my sniper idea then?

I'm shocked, you're all clearly against progress!

it would work well for one innings per game, but fall apart abit after that

 

[Loony BoB]

Cricket would die out - literally.

 

[Tony Blade]

I think 5 stumps would be fun :/