So now what do you prefer? ODI's vs 2020s

[honestbharani]

hitting the ball to deep mid off all the time is a bit tedious though as someone has mentioned im sure

and it gets annoying to see batsmen walking across to flick balls for a single and to see good outswing balls being driven easily down the ground for singles... no slips, so no risk of getting out unless it is a fine edge and no mid off, so always a single.... I have seen really good line and length bowling being milked easily simply because the fielding captain wants everyone on the line to the max... It is not the bestcricket, any which way you look at it...

 

[Richard]

As a die hard cricket fan, I find any cricket match interesting. I tend to see each and every ball bowled as a seperate event in itself and yet within the context of the match situation, the definition of what is a good ball and what is a good shot varies. But these subtleties apart, at the end of the day, if each and every match is providing very similar scorelines and are becoming predictable to a reasonable extent (which is true in general for the middle overs of ODIs, esp. batting first), it is going to kill off interest in that format, even for the die hard supporters.

Indeed it is. But I don't think that is happening, at all - though many people say it is, the reality is somewhat different.

As long as it remains so, crowds will continue to flock to ODIs.

 

[Richard]

not really... You can see that by the success some guys like Badrinath have in ODs here in India.. He simply tosses the ball up and with batsmen less inclined to take chances and the flighted slow ball being difficult to maneouvre if it lands at the right area, he often goes for 4-5 an over and ends up with decentish figures a number of times.

Badrinath has never played a ODI, has he?

 

[Anil]

I have always and always will find Twenty20 completely devoid of interest, regardless of anything that happens with it.

for once i completely agree with you!

 

[Anil]

The middle overs of an ODI are too often tedious.

The batting team are trying to ration wickets and the bowling team are trying to prevent runs.

Both teams are defending something the opposition are not even attacking. Its not like the batting team is preserving wickets whilst the bowling team is being aggressive.

Both teams have different aims that actually dovetail to allow both to be successful (batting keeps wickets, bowling keeps runs down) and leads to some very dull cricket and God damn terrible bowling allowed to go unpunished.

Too often the game meanders and nothing of consequence happens.

this is not necessarily the norm, and even that wait and watch is better than the rabid frenzy that is 20/20, and similar situations do occur in tests too...i am not equating tests to one dayers but 20/20 is cricket devoid of any subtlety, finesse and there is very little by way of strategy other than smashing hapless bowlers around on batting paradises...

 

[headhunter]

I'd have T20 just over ODI.

 

[Sanz]

Watching the Twenty20 IPL, What a farce this is, If this is the future of Twenty20 then No Way in the hell I want to be associated with it in any way.

ODIs anyday.

 

[honestbharani]

Badrinath has never played a ODI, has he?

I only said ODs... I meant the domestic and A team ODs...

 

[_Ed_]

T20 by a mile. ODI is a snooze fest. Tests are by far the only form of real cricket. But if I have to watch limited overs crap, I'm going to go watch a format where part time crap bowlers can't get away with bowling their crap like they can in ODI middle overs. T20 favors good bowling sides. When Delhi lift up that trophy while bowling sides like the Chargers falter, people will realize this.

From my limited experience of T20, I've found that the opposite was the case. When I went to the England-NZ T20 (I must admit I was rather inebriated at the time, so perhaps my insightful views of the game weren't as insightful as I thought), I thought Jesse Ryder was an awful lot more effective with the ball than he should have been.

Likewise, I've seen many not particularly threatening medium-pacers perform very well by tying down the batsmen and attracting ridiculous shots, more so than I've ever seen in ODIs (except perhaps those involving Chris Harris).

 

[Richard]

I only said ODs... I meant the domestic and A team ODs...

Aha, I've discerned a rogue I in your post for some reason...

Anyway, as I say, from my experience Badrinath-esque bowlers (never seen him bowl nor taken any note of his bowling BTW so am merely presuming) don't tend to be remotely successful in ODI cricket.

 

[Goughy]

Likewise, I've seen many not particularly threatening medium-pacers perform very well by tying down the batsmen and attracting ridiculous shots, more so than I've ever seen in ODIs (except perhaps those involving Chris Harris).

A certain irony of that statement coming from a kiwi.

You dont remember the 92 WC where NZ had a chance to go all the way on the back of the 'scary' quartet of Latham, Larson, Harris and Watson nicely supported by the straight-breaks of Patel?

Ordinary bowlers have fulfilled a role in ODIs since they began

 

[_Ed_]

I don't remember 1992 unfortunately.

Yeah they have fulfilled a role, but to me they seem more of a wicket-taking option in T20.

 

[Richard]

A certain irony of that statement coming from a kiwi.

You dont remember the 92 WC where NZ had a chance to go all the way on the back of the 'scary' quartet of Latham, Larson, Harris and Watson nicely supported by the straight-breaks of Patel?

Ordinary bowlers have fulfilled a role in ODIs since they began

Larsen was far from ordinary, though obviously his lack of height precluded him from being a wicket-taking option in the longer game.

 

[Goughy]

Larsen was far from ordinary, though obviously his lack of height precluded him from being a wicket-taking option in the longer game.

And the fact he bowled at 110 kph

 

[Richard]

Really? When was he timed?

 

[Goughy]

Really? When was he timed?

I wasnt being specific, rather pulling a figure out of the air to illustrate that he was slower than cancer.

He was very accurate and would have done a good job in T20 but he shows how in ODIs in his time that batsmen could often let a little medium pacer dictate to them.

 

[Richard]

Medium-pacers have always been able to dictate to batsmen - even the short ones - in OD cricket, provided they have the requistite accuracy. They still can - on the rare occasion selectors pick them instead of ignoring them for vastly inferior Liam Plunkett-type bowlers. That's the whole point of the OD game, in fact - that bowlers like that become much more useful than they would be in the long-form game.

No bowler ever has much of a chance of bowling particularly economically in Twenty20, though.

 

[honestbharani]

Aha, I've discerned a rogue I in your post for some reason...

Anyway, as I say, from my experience Badrinath-esque bowlers (never seen him bowl nor taken any note of his bowling BTW so am merely presuming) don't tend to be remotely successful in ODI cricket.

depends on how you define success...


And for me, a part timer bowling an ok spell is still a success..

 

[Richard]

What's an OK spell though? 6 overs for 32? That's far from disastrous, but it's still a poor spell and one a front-line bowler wouldn't last long if he consistently churned-out.

An acceptible spell from a part-time and front-line bowler differ greatly.

 

[honestbharani]

exactly... I saw a match in which he took 4 for 42 in 10 overs (this was an India A game, btw, against Pak A or some other equally strong side, cant recall exactly)...


And all he was doing was throwing it up above the eyeline of the batsman and landing it on a length. I am not saying it was poor bowling or that it didn't require skill, but the ineptness of the batsmen against it was shocking. With 5 men on the boundary and a reasonably "in range" target to chase, they were just not prepared to try anything like stepping out or a big shot etc.... They were too happy looking to push singles with the covers guy and the mid wicket guy in close cutting off the angles straight down the ground, and with almost no real pace to work with and with very little options to "push" the ball with little risk, these guys were getting too tied down and then simply imploded. He bowled well, but had it been a test or a T20, it would have been all too different for him. As I said, ODIs settle down into too much of a pattern, much more than Tests or T20s do, in the middle overs and that is what is killing it at the moment.


And the only real solution is to have more bowler friendly wickets as that will give a chance for bowling teams' captains to attack even in the middle overs, as the best way to keep runs down has always been to take wickets.