why do people watch ODIs?

[open365]

there are many problems with ODI cricket for me.

1.The games are too similar and to an extent predictable
2.There are far too many of them
3.You can tell the result long before the game has finished
4.Slogging in ODIs is genarly poorly done and less exciting than in tests

 

[greg]

It is really sad to see guys like Tait and Bandara (the Sri Lankan leggie) come in and straightaway start with a deep cover and a long off etc... They may not be great bowlers, but at least try and give them ONE spell with attacking fields. The pitch may be a batting beauty, the bowler may not be all that good and the batsmen may be in great form, but for all that, only if you have fielders attacking will you ever get a batsman out from good balls. I honestly fear for the direction this great game is going to take... I don't want the old day's field placings, when they had 3 slips and a gully even when Bradman was batting on 270, but being so defensive is just making the game plain boring to watch. Even Shane Warne has a deep cover these days and only two guys attacking sometimes. Ponting should be in love with that position and it is unfortunately rubbing on to the other captains.

They're not taking out a catcher to put in a sweeper. The sweeper is usually there instead of a single saver, and often to try and encourage the batsman to hit in certain areas. Sometimes it works (for England in the Ashes), sometimes it doesn't (for Australia in the Ashes, for England in Pakistan).

Anyway, ironically, you should blame the batsmen. In an era where batsmen are playing more and more shots, and showing less regard for their wicket, the balance for the fielding side tilts dramatically toward run saving and positions which were once considered purely defensive become "attacking positions" (in the sense that the fielders placed there will take catches). One day style batting leads to one day style fields. In some ways you need tests on the subcontinent to help restore sanity

 

[Tom Halsey]

Test matches and 20Twenties I will watch whoever is playing. ODIs I only watch if England are involved because I find them boring, pointless and wouldn't have a problem if they were scapped to be honest.

 

[PY]

Test matches and 20Twenties I will watch whoever is playing. ODIs I only watch if England are involved because I find them boring, pointless and wouldn't have a problem if they were scapped to be honest.

I'd assume that's because of the novelty factor rather than they have long-term appeal?

 

[Tom Halsey]

No, because contrary to alot of people's opinions, it's actually good cricket. The batsman has to manfuacture a boundary and the bowler has to really use his brain to stop him. In ODIs everyone settles for a few singles per over in the middle overs. Then there's the fact that 20/20 gets the crowds in, which is much needed for the game at the moment.

 

[open365]

No, because contrary to alot of people's opinions, it's actually good cricket. The batsman has to manfuacture a boundary and the bowler has to really use his brain to stop him. In ODIs everyone settles for a few singles per over in the middle overs. Then there's the fact that 20/20 gets the crowds in, which is much needed for the game at the moment.

i kind of enjoy 2020 more because the result is never certain.

 

[swede]

Would you care to elaborate, my feeble mind is confused.

I can try with some statistics from eng v aus.

tests: 52% of all runs came from fours and sixes, run rate 3.8,
0.52 x 3.8 = 2 boundary-runs per over

ODI: 43% of all runs from fours and sixes, run rate 4.7
0.43 x 4.7 = also 2 boundary-runs per over.

This means that if you watch an hours cricket of both kinds you would see exactly the same number of runs scored from boundaries.

I dont think that is the general perception, but is that not the way it is?

If the very predictable ODI acceleration is then factored in, its quite clear that for the majority of an ODI-game there is actually less boundaries hit than there is during a test

In an ODI-game bowlers only care about halting runs so bowl defensively to defensive field..
Batsmen need to attack as overs are limited, but as fielders patrol the boundaries its difficult and dangerous to attack so better preserve the wicket untill the acceleration. So batters join the bowlers and preserve their wicket by pushing singles off defensive bowling for most of the game.
wickets are generally not taken but sacrificed by batsmen according to timetable calculations.

In tests bowlers have to attack, at least to a certain extent. The may defend at times but when overs arent limited they have to attack.
Batters have to score as many runs as possible with generally no concerns for overs and on a proper pitch and against good attacks, such as those england and australia had, the best way to score runs would be to attack as all batters faced up to the reality that they would probably get out in the not too distant future and knew they had the capability to score runs so in order to maximise the total, attack.

This is where tests have changed. Batters used to be focused on staying-in, but because they are now better at scoring runs while still quite capable of getting out, the logic of the game has changed.

I think its an extremly good thing, and I doubt ODI-cricket would have been invented had cricket been played like this in the 60s.





.

 

[open365]

^very very good post.

 

[steds]

In all forms of cricket, be it First Class, Limited overs or Cricket Lite®, you get exciting games and you get crap games. For someone to just go out and say one form is totally poo would be stupid of them.

 

[open365]

In all forms of cricket, be it First Class, Limited overs or Cricket Lite®, you get exciting games and you get crap games. For someone to just go out and say one form is totally poo would be stupid of them.

obviously someone doesn't remember 'zone6' cricket....

 

[Anna]

i like all 3 forms of cricket, all for different reasons but they are all good.

I totally agree with you on that

 

[Anna]

there are many problems with ODI cricket for me.

1.The games are too similar and to an extent predictable
3.You can tell the result long before the game has finished
4.Slogging in ODIs is genarly poorly done and less exciting than in tests

I disagree.
1. Every OD match I've seen has been different
3. With many matches, you don't know the result until the end....take Somerset beating Leics in the 20/20 semi for example- Som were bowled out for 152, a gettable target; Leics were going on nicely when Johnson came on & bowled a blinder- they then won. Also, Pak v Eng this morning.....
4. Ever seen Pietersen bat in a ODI? Ian Blackwell? Graeme Smith?

 

[thierry henry]

Wasn't your point that it was the defensive nature of the game (and I realise you were emphasising the fielding side) that was the biggest inhibiter to excitement? That's generally at it's worst (on both sides) in the overs between the first fifteen and the last 10.

Yeah, perhaps. Generally I don't mind the middle overs as it seems more like real cricket. When I start to see slogging come off too regularly (as it seems to more and more these days) it really makes me question the value of actually batting properly. Maybe it's because of better pitches, better bats etc, or maybe technique is actually just a myth.

 

[Blaze]

Yeah, perhaps. Generally I don't mind the middle overs as it seems more like real cricket. When I start to see slogging come off too regularly (as it seems to more and more these days) it really makes me question the value of actually batting properly. Maybe it's because of better pitches, better bats etc, or maybe technique is actually just a myth.

The last 6-8 overs in a one dayer in NZ are becoming a joke. They doesn't appeal to me at all because hitting a 6 is just too easy. Bowlers bowl defensively, fields are set to contain the batsmen and the batters just swing wildly and often get rewarded with the maximum when they miss hit the ball or even get an edge. I enjoy the first 15 overs more where there are generally more chances due to the new ball and attacking fields. (ie 2 catches)

 

[James90]

3.You can tell the result long before the game has finished

Unlike when the Windies were bowled out for a little over 100 before tea on day one against Australia recently. I think that notion complies with tests more often or more drastically that ODI's.

 

[swede]

No, because contrary to alot of people's opinions, it's actually good cricket. The batsman has to manfuacture a boundary and the bowler has to really use his brain to stop him. In ODIs everyone settles for a few singles per over in the middle overs. Then there's the fact that 20/20 gets the crowds in, which is much needed for the game at the moment.

I think this is spot on though I dont know too much of 2020 as I massively prefer tests.

But its logic. If you have lost a few wickets after 15 overs in an ODI you have hundreds of balls left and just a few valuable wickets. you have to take all the easy singles being offered for a long time in the middle phase.

In 2020 I wouldnt think there is too much of a middle phase.
there are so few overs available that phases must become insignificant for the batsmen compared to the quality of the delivery.

In that sense 2020 and tests are linked by the need to play the ball on its merit while the 50- over game is more about timetables.

I would hope the future could generally be about first class games on weekends and 2020 on weeknights.

 

[steds]

obviously someone doesn't remember 'zone6' cricket....

That was ace!

 

[ohtani's jacket]

I dont get it!

For a country like New Zealand, who struggle at Test cricket, ODIs allow us to make some headway in international cricket & salvage something from a tour.

The most exciting aspect of one day cricket is when a team needs X amount of runs from so many balls remaining -- when you think about it, that's a pretty unique scenario in sports.