Should the first fifteen overs rule in ODIs be changed?

[anzac]

hey guys i think the 3 hour time frame / so called American viewing audience syndrome thingy is a red herring - so far as I can tell 2 of the 3 biggest sports in USA (baseball & NFL) both last for more than 3 hours!!!!! (I have no idea as to the time frame for basketball)!!!!

I think it all comes down to the marketing, on field action & spectator education of the game. To use the American sports as an example there is always some action going on the field, whereas the traditional 'english' games of cricket and association football do not have this.

while some of us are able to enjoy the miniature battles within the game, most of todays viewing public have been brought up on a diet of instant gratification - don't ask them to think about anything too much. Not just sport but just about anything & everything.!!!!!

Me I blame the overdose of Americanisation we have suffered since they 'saved' the world in WWII!!!!! Sorry everyone but it is a sign of the times we find ourselves in - all the more reason to treasure the 'purer' moments as & when we can!!!!

Back to the point I think the current ODI structure allows for this 'stagnation' as there are no changes to the dynamics of the game once the fielding restrictions come off at the 15 over mark. Perhaps the restrictions could start after 10 overs with 1 extra fielder outside the circle, then another after another 5 over or so, and then repeat the process and increase the number of fielders allowed outside until it was completed after around 25 - 30 overs. This could help to build up the tension in the match with the batsmen needing to constantly adjust, yet by starting early it also allows the bowler to attack and have some protection. It would also give more 'exposure' to those bowlers who are often 'saved' by having extra men outside the circle, rather than by their own bowling efforts.

My guess is that this would result in higher scores, but would also give a run chase a better chance with a larger window of opportunity!!!!

As it stands it all happens at once, and this causes the batsmen to have to drastically change their shot selection, particularly of they are new to the crease and the fielding restrictions are off they need to take time to play themselves in.


:ticking:

 

[royGilchrist]

NFL and MLB games can over 3 hours, around 3.5hours sometimes, but if you are insisting that we compare cricket to american sports, then all these games have things like tv timeouts etc. to cater to tv, cricket doesnt have all that.

 

[luckyeddie]

Originally posted by royGilchrist
NFL and MLB games can over 3 hours, around 3.5hours sometimes, but if you are insisting that we compare cricket to american sports, then all these games have things like tv timeouts etc. to cater to tv, cricket doesnt have all that.

The minute or so between each over gives ample advertising time at present

 

[anzac]

yeah I wasn't intending to compare cricket to American sports, just the viewing audience & time frames........I was concerned that there seemed to be an idea of shortening the game to cater to viewing audience time frames or attention spans.....

all I was trying to point out is that the 'biggest' viewing audience in the world will watch a 'competition' both at the venue and on TV for more than 3 hours - so time is not a factor if the product is there & marketed correctly....



when they do all these viewer & attendance stats do they ever take into consideration these figures as a % of the population base or something similar????? It would be an interesting marketing exercise to compare these head to head with other local sports to gauge how they are tracking......

:karate:

 

[royGilchrist]

so time is not a factor if the product is there & marketed correctly....

Then why was ODI cricket introudced in the first place?

This debate is going no where, but I can tell you that eventually cricket will be changed and made even shorter, cricket like always will be late to come in line with other sports and times.

 

[Neil Pickup]

ODI cricket was introduced because a Test match got totally washed out...

Eddie was alive then, he'll tell you more about it

There is space for a different market here - but it's still a six hour plus game (unless Bangladesh are playing) and still retains the 'real nature' of cricket in the middle overs.

And the fact that you can visit from somewhere and see a game through to a result without needing accommodation.

 

[luckyeddie]

That's absolutely true.

First ODI was in 1971 after the third test between Australia and England was washed out. Incidentally, the match was also replaced with an additional test match later in the series (making it the only series with 7 scheduled tests).

The game was played on the scheduled 5th day of the Melbourne test as a means of compensating ticket holders.

John Edrich was the first Man of the Match.

I have a sneaking suspicion that there were some 'unofficial' ODI's before that date. I can certainly recall going to a game at Trent Bridge where Basil D'Oliveira scored a century (yet he has no credited ODI centuries in the records). It may have been in 1970 when there was a hastily-arranged series against the Rest of the World in place of the cancelled South Africa tour, but I thought that the games were just 5-day test matches.

I honestly thought that it was in 1968 against Australia. It's possible, of course, that it was a 'Presidents XI' game or something of that ilk, because the tour itinerary on Cricinfo just lists the first-class fixtures.

 

[royGilchrist]

Maybe I should have been more explicit in my statement.

Why was the ODI international game persisted with, and eventually became the most popular type of cricket game? Because it attracted new fans, was more tv friendly and was in line with the changing times.

Rained out ODI games also produce some 25 overs odd games these days, but they dont end up becoming the norm. So, I was not referring to the accidental introduction of the ODI game but its adaptation as a standard fomr of cricket.

There had been a lot of criticism then as well.

 

[Neil Pickup]

There is space for a different market here - but it's still a six hour plus game (unless Bangladesh are playing) and still retains the 'real nature' of cricket in the middle overs, allied to the fact that you can visit from somewhere and see a game through to a result without needing accommodation mean ODIs have been persisted with.

No reason to further compress them. Or leave 11-a-side!

 

[luckyeddie]

It's a good job Australia managed to score 300+, otherwise we could have had a 6-hour test match.

 

[royGilchrist]

Yeah the Pakistanis have come up with the perfect solution...6 hour test matches!! Thats perfect, makes everyone happy, the puritans, tv, me, and Ted Dexter