Killing Oneday cricket?

[SaeedAnwar]

why do i get the feeling many people in the adminstration of cricket are trying to kill Oneday cricket format?

for me the most pleasurable days of cricket were 1990's one day matches. What happenend to those days of one day cricket? why is that there are so few one day matches these days? and most them boring friendly matches. why have they scraped almost all the major one day tournaments?

 

[Pratters]

The problem with one day cricket is that it has become very monotonous watching one formulaic match after the other. I was watching England v Australia (first ODI) and I tried my best to watch but the middle overs were so painful, I switched off the TV. I had no other activity to do as I was on a business trip and it was evening, my day more or less over. I had planned to watch the whole game late into the night but I slept.

The middle overs, the part timers bowling, the batsmen not tested and taking singles and doubles off nudges all become difficult to watch. It lasts 7 hours. I can watch test cricket which is substantial in content even during the low scoring periods as more often than not, test cricket is a tight contest with a lot of mind games going on. One day cricket becomes a difficult watch at times, which pains me as a cricket lover as I can't understand how I want to switch off the TV when the cricket is going on. This, particularly as I can watch any cricket game as long as it is cricket.

 

[Burgey]

If they're going to kill it, do it quickly and as painlessly as possible, rather than us have to put up with series like the current toilet one between England and Australia.

FMD, Cameron White is batting three (3!!!!!) for Australia. I can't believe this. I should have worked a bit harder. All this has done is show me any ****ing muppet with blonde dye in his hair can make it these days.

Shower of ****e it is.

 

[Julian87]

Has less to do with the format than people think IMO. It is simply a lack in calibre of player compared to 10-15 years ago. From an Australian point of view we watch Haurtiz and Clarke in the middle overs, not Warne and/or Hogg or even a specialist like Ian Harvey. While we're batting we are watching White, an out of form Clarke, Ferguson and Hussey, compared to the likes of Ponting, Martyn, Lehmann, Symonds, Bevan etc etc.

You can do the same with most countries too.... Klusener, Pollock and Donald compared to the Morkels and Steyn. Fleming, Astle, Cairns and Harris compared to Broom, Guptill, Oram and Mills etc. Not all the exact same players, but you get my gist.

The other thing that bemuses me is the lack of changes in the batting order. I think the power plays lend to this idea. Pinch hitters tried and failed (mainly) against the new ball in the 80s and 90s (McDermott/Warne etc). But with this power play, I don't understand why no team has implemented it at the fall of the 2nd/3rd wicket with the team coasting, using a lower order hitter who is just a throwaway wicket anyway. A Johnson for Australia, a Wright or Swann for England etc etc.

 

[Jakester1288]

I love One Day cricket, but Clarke for example, is just too slow. At night, I just can't watch the slow batsmen bat in One Day cricket, because it's too boring. In Tests, I can easily sit up all night, when apparently it's "boring", but Twenty20 and One Dayers can put me to sleep.

 

[Joao]

Surely, as with test cricket, the roads they play on have contributed to the decline of the game? 280+ should be a very good score, not par.

Also totally agree that the quality of players, especially bowlers is not what it was in the 90's.

 

[Matt79]

The current England - Australia series has been hideous thus far.

I think the format does need some serious shaking up. I came up with some changes while sitting on the throne today that I think would make for a more entertaining spectacle - the emphasis will be on encouraging the best players and aggressive play, rather than 'safe' play.

Change 1: Fielding restrictions stay in effect for the full fifty overs. Only three men outside the circle at any time, two catching positions at all times.

Change 2: Bowlers are allowed a maximum of 12 overs each. You'll still need five bowlers, but you can potentially get away with just two overs of your fifth bowler, or 7 overs each from your fourth and fifth bowlers.

Change 3: The wide rule is relaxed to allow a bit more leeway on the leg/

Change 4: Up to 3 bouncers per over.

That's it.

Having to keep the field up will prevent fielding captains setting too defensive a field - the options to prevent quicker scoring are to take wickets or to bowl well to your field. Equally, batsmen wanting to score at a decent clip will need to chance their arm to hit over the field - no more noodling around singles to fielders on the fence. This change favours the batting team.

Allowing more overs per bowler will mean we have a higher proportion of the overs of the match bowled by top-drawer bowlers. Less inoffensive medium pace or "spin" that is easily milked. Teams will still need to have five options, and I think the best teams will still want six options to give themselves options, but I think teams can also choose four specialist bowlers. And those bowlers will have greater scope to try things to avoid getting smashed thanks to changes 3 and 4.

Basically, we get rid of the crappy bits-n-pieces players, and make it a less viable option for players to play it safe in the middle overs. Thoughts?

 

[Prince EWS]

Change 1: Fielding restrictions stay in effect for the full fifty overs. Only three men outside the circle at any time, two catching positions at all times.

I've always thought this would be a good idea but for the impact it'd have on spinners. Unlike with the quicks, boundary-riders can actually be stationed in as catching men for the spinners and I think they'd struggle a lot more with just three outside the circle. I'm not really sure how you could get around this and I don't think it'd be worth it if you couldn't.

Basically, we get rid of the crappy bits-n-pieces players..

This is something I've long thought could be addressed. Specialist batsmen playing against specialist bowlers makes for a good spectacle. Sure it's good to see multi-skilled cricketers in action as well but there's too much need for this in ODIs so you get cricketers like Anthony McGrath who can nudge and nurdle their way through the middle overs with the bat and then bowl semi-accurate yet toothless pies in the same period of their bowling innings featuring and they're simply just not good to watch. McGrath's probably not a good example actually as he was a genuine flop, but you get the picture.

 

[Matt79]

I've always thought this would be a good idea but for the impact it'd have on spinners. Unlike with the quicks, boundary-riders can actually be stationed in as catching men for the spinners and I think they'd struggle a lot more with just three outside the circle. I'm not really sure how you could get around this and I don't think it'd be worth it if you couldn't.

But it's still a risk to hit it in the air against spinners - albeit a controlled risk. And you'll still have to have the two catching men in as well. Spinners might go for a bit more, but they might also take a few more wickets. Again, it should encourage attacking spin bowling rather than quick darts.

 

[brackenNY]

I love One Day cricket, but Clarke for example, is just too slow. At night, I just can't watch the slow batsmen bat in One Day cricket, because it's too boring. In Tests, I can easily sit up all night, when apparently it's "boring", but Twenty20 and One Dayers can put me to sleep.

Hyperbole? I'm not sure what difference the format makes when it comes to slow and boring cricket.

 

[Furball]

But it's still a risk to hit it in the air against spinners - albeit a controlled risk. And you'll still have to have the two catching men in as well. Spinners might go for a bit more, but they might also take a few more wickets. Again, it should encourage attacking spin bowling rather than quick darts.

If anything, having fielding restrictions in place for the full match will encourage more defensive spin bowling. With such fielding restrictions in place, anything that's got a bit of flight is an invitation for the batsman to come down the track and try and smack it.

 

[Matt79]

At the risk of getting out. Either way, we get faster scoring or wickets falling. 3 men out is still a decent number.

 

[pup11]

I don't think ODI's should just be flushed down the toilet as it has its own place in the game, I don't have anything against T20, and I think its great fun, but you can't keep chucking away established formats of the game in favour of something new that the game might have to offer, because such a vicious cycle would eventually destroy the game of cricket.

The middle over problem within the ODI structure has been issue for a while, and it has become a bit more obvious ever since T20 has become so popular, and I don't think making some innovative facial changes wouldn't make much differnce in eliminating that monotonous feeling that one gets watching throught that period.

I think something radical needs to be done, whether that means spillting the 50 over game into two innings, or something on similar lines, becuase unless the quality of pitches and cricketers improve radically over the next 2 years, then its hard to see the ODI format surving in its current form.

 

[GGG]

Please do kill them, I just can't seem to get into them anymore. More tests and use 20/20's to keep the money rolling in is how I would like to see the game going.

 

[pup11]

Please do kill them, I just can't seem to get into them anymore. More tests and use 20/20's to keep the money rolling in is how I would like to see the game going.

So what happens if people start finding all this crash and bash of T20 cricket a bit monotonous in a few years time, and the cash stops rolling, do we replace it with T10 or 6-6.?!?!

I don't think people should feel that test cricket is safe either, if ODI cricket is struggling like this for its existence, then test cricket is also in grave danger of vanishing from the scene as well, on the face of it all the players and administrators keep saying that how saving test cricket is their top priority, but if the sponsors discard the format, then it would be pretty hard for the administrators to drag the format in the present times.

 

[slugger]

no ones killing it.... it just dieing......

the game needs one modification and it'll be prefect.
2 inn. of 25
not out batsmen from the 1st inn return to commence the 2nd inn.

eg.
Aust. 1st 25. 103/3
CL White......................27*
CJ Fergerson................6*

Eng. 1st 25. 127/4
PD Collingwood............20*
EJG Morgan.................14*

Halfway mark.... England lead by 24 runs

 

[Zinzan]

no ones killing it.... it just dieing......

the game needs one modification and it'll be prefect.
2 inn. of 25
not out batsmen from the 1st inn return to commence the 2nd inn.

eg.
Aust. 1st 25. 103/3
CL White......................27*
CJ Fergerson................6*

Eng. 1st 25. 127/4
PD Collingwood............20*
EJG Morgan.................14*

Halfway mark.... England lead by 24 runs

Martin Crowe would love you, he's been proposing that for years, hence his max cricket concept involved a total of 4 innings

 

[Athlai]

Still love ODI cricket, probably because its the one form my team is quite good at.

 

[slugger]

Martin Crowe would love you, he's been proposing that for years, hence his max cricket concept involved a total of 4 innings

maybe but i think crowe butchered the game. it had like 12 point zones behind the bowler etc.. and the innings of only 10 overs each.. I'm not sure but I think teams had two sets of 10 wickets .. plus a whole lot of crazy rules.. and zones..

i'm not suggesting any changes outside the rules other than splitting the innings hardly max cricket or is it cricket max...

 

[Zinzan]

maybe but i think crowe butchered the game. it had like 12 point zones behind the bowler etc.. and the innings of only 10 overs each.. I'm not sure but I think teams had two sets of 10 wickets .. plus a whole lot of crazy rules.. and zones..

Haha, true true, but forgetting about those other shenanigan in max cricket, Crowe's been on record recently suggesting the ICC look a 2 innings version with T20's (effectively meaning 40 overs each). In fact, I'm pretty sure Crowe's recently visited the ICC to pitch a number of ideas to spice up the game including a Test points system leading to semi's & finals as well as the 2 innings format for limited overs cricket. His basic argument for this to keep cricket as pure as possible.