why do people watch ODIs?

[swede]

I dont get it!

Once perhaps when tests were controlled by batsmen who turned them into boring wars of attritions by batting forever to secure a draw with a possibility of winning. but now??

I usually get the answer that its to see big hits, more fours and sixes. This is a frustrating answer as its wrong.

tests have never been greater, ODIs are an exhibition in defence. can we ever get rid of this nonsense.

 

[Armadillo]

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

 

[Pothas]

I must say i really do prefer to watch a test match but a really good one day international that doesnt happen all that often is a great spectacle

 

[thierry henry]

This poster is absolutely correct. These days one-dayers are much more defensive than tests. Defensive bowling, defensive field settings, everyone except the batsman inhibited and afraid to play their natural game.

In tests everyone (including batsmen) are comparatively uninhibited so it's a much truer test of cricketing skill.

btw, I think a bit more bravery by fielding captains could make ODIs more interesting. Attacking fields + attacking batting will lead to some massive scores conceded, but fundamental cricketing logic tells me that in a majority of cases it will lead to the batting side being dismissed more cheaply.

 

[howardj]

The thing I can't believe in ODI's is why captains don't have a short cover, and short mid-wicket, more often - from overs 15-50. Such an attacking move would not only result in the odd catch, but you'd really limit the number of quick singles - taken on either side of the wicket - that batsmen seem so fond of. Instead, captains are stuck in this defensive mind-set that all of the guys inside the circle have to be right back on its very edge. Even bat-pads, or silly mid-off's, are way under-used in ODI's. I remember a few years ago when Shane Warne took the reigns of the Australian team for a games. Anyway, he employed such field placings, and it really added an extra dimension to the innings.

 

[age_master]

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

 

[PY]

There aren't three forms of cricket. There's two.

Test cricket, OD cricket is the runty little brother and Twenty20 is a cheap imitation.

 

[Top_Cat]

Aside from watching specific players (like Lance Klusener, Gillie or Jayasuriya, for example), ODI's don't hold a great deal of interest for me. The only interesting bits seem to be the first 15 overs when batsmen are looking to play over the top and bowlers are actually looking to get batsmen out and then the last 10 when the slog is on. Other than that, batsmen just play the gaps to the sweepers and bowlers bowl nothing balls outside off-stump.

Incidentally, the use of sweepers in Tests as we've seen Michael Vaughan and Rick Ponting use is a defensive field-placing I could definitely do without seeing.

 

[SJS]

Search me

 

[thierry henry]

Aside from watching specific players (like Lance Klusener, Gillie or Jayasuriya, for example), ODI's don't hold a great deal of interest for me. The only interesting bits seem to be the first 15 overs when batsmen are looking to play over the top and bowlers are actually looking to get batsmen out and then the last 10 when the slog is on. Other than that, batsmen just play the gaps to the sweepers and bowlers bowl nothing balls outside off-stump.

Can't really agree with that tbh. Surely the slogging at the beginning and end is what makes ODI cricket truly ridiculous and redundant.

 

[What-A-Player]

why do people watch ODIs?

So Players like Afridi get to keep their job

 

[James90]

Because it's on TV.

 

[James90]

And more people go to the grounds so they can watch a whole match with a result and see all their favourite players bat and/or bowl.

I went to about 5 First-Class matches which Steve Waugh played in but never saw him bat. I would have if I went to a one-day match though.

 

[Pratters]

Actually they watch LOIs thinking its ODIs

 

[Josh]

I enjoy going to watch a test match than a One-Dayer personally. At home, might be a little different... actually no, test matches for me. You see more cricket, you see more accurate representation of skills and abilities, the tension builds up after a batsman has blocked away the last 4 maidens... Test cricket = much better.

 

[Slow Love™]

Can't really agree with that tbh. Surely the slogging at the beginning and end is what makes ODI cricket truly ridiculous and redundant.

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.

Unfortunately there's a general perception (is it true? I don't know...) that the big hitting is the exciting aspect of the game. Conditions (and a few rules) could be adjusted to skew the balance a little back towards the bowlers, but organizers are stuck between a rock and a hard place, in the sense that a game that doesn't go the full 50 overs (both sides) isn't a decent game (in "good value" terms).

Some of (in fact, many of) the best ODIs I have seen have been lower scoring matches where a team is trying to defend 200 or below. But this is getting rarer and rarer when the pitches are such belters and the bowlers are so harshly punished.

 

[honestbharani]

Aside from watching specific players (like Lance Klusener, Gillie or Jayasuriya, for example), ODI's don't hold a great deal of interest for me. The only interesting bits seem to be the first 15 overs when batsmen are looking to play over the top and bowlers are actually looking to get batsmen out and then the last 10 when the slog is on. Other than that, batsmen just play the gaps to the sweepers and bowlers bowl nothing balls outside off-stump.

Incidentally, the use of sweepers in Tests as we've seen Michael Vaughan and Rick Ponting use is a defensive field-placing I could definitely do without seeing.

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.

 

[SJS]

because they have nothing better to do ?

 

[Jono]

I still enjoy ODI cricket, but I'd just like to see more pitches favouring bowling teams. Like the NWS final between England and Australia this year was a brilliant match. At the same time, the last two NZ vs Aus matches have been great to watch also, despite much more runs being scored. We need a greater variety, rather than continous batting paradise pitches.

I'd take test cricket over one day cricket anyday. But I still enjoy my ODI cricket. I can't believe that anyone who watched the match did not enjoy the NZ vs. Aus match tonight, whether one was an Aussie, NZer or a neutral. It was brilliant.

 

[ClownSymonds]

I hate flat pitches. ODIs and flat pitches might make the casual fan happy, but it gets boring.