The future for ODI's???

[Kev]

Another day, another one-sided ODI match.

In the recent past we've had various suggestions (and changes) to the format to spice it up a bit (Power Plays, Super Subs, Changing the ball at 35 overs, Power Plays with different fielding restrictions, etc) but has it helped?

We had about 3 really decent matches at the world cup and thats about it. Spectators should be glued to their seats towards the end of a ODI match, not leaving early to avoid the rush at the tube station!

Are they just flogging a dead horse? Are they just playing too much One Day stuff? Should 50 over matches be replaced by Twenty20's? Personally I'm a huge fan of the soon to be defunct Pro40 format used in English domestic competition, could this format be adopted for ODI's because pretty much everything else they've tried doesn't seem to work?

 

[Sureshot]

Reduce the amount being played and even out the contest more, there should be as many pro-bowler legislations as there should be pro-batsman legislations.

Force the over rate to increae (4 minutes to bowl an over should be a doddle) if teams fail to comply with this then they forfeit a game, it's a hard consequence but teams won't faff about. Bring some common sense to the game, ie, we had a 7 over spell after an hour (iirc) of delayed play due to rain and then we had a 30 minute break, despite the whole of the country being under dodgy weather for weeks.

A series should be a maximum of 5 ODIs, these 7 ODI series are such dead rubber.

You can't do too much about the talent of teams, obviously it'd be hard to even out Australia vs Bangladesh/Zimbabwe. Make the number of ODIs played by teams each year equal or at least similar. Some might play 15 ODIs more than others in a year. A space of at least 3 clear days between ODIs. So if you play on Saturday you can't play again till Wednesday.

I hear that some new things are changing in October. Something about a free hit after a No Ball and a 3rd fielder outside the powerplay in one of the two optional ones (correct me if I'm wrong). The problem I think with ODIs that is seen far too often is the dead droll between 20 and 35-40 overs. Maybe make captain have to use one of the powerplays in that period.

 

[sd92]

I much prefer test cricket anyway. Test cricket is more a test of a cricketers ability to perform, due to the 5 days of straight play... you have to be something amazing to play test cricket but an average cricketer can play a One Day match. I also love 20 20 cricket for its exciting play. There must be something ICC can do to stop the ODI's from dieing out

 

[Hooper]

I prefer Test Cricket now, and always will. ODIs just make cricket crap. The rules are pretty stupid and just the results don't really mean anything. Its all about the entertainment factor. Like, you wouldn't really mind if your team lost and ODI series but won a Test series. I just think that we should leave ODIs to a minimum and stick to the better format of the game, Test Cricket.

 

[Will_NA]

ODIs are being Americanised. What is the point of power plays? ODI cicket is losing it's tradition. I hope to God that 20/20 internationals don't overtake the 50-over format.

Thank God for Tests

 

[Hooper]

ODIs are being Americanised. What is the point of power plays? ODI cicket is losing it's tradition. I hope to God that 20/20 internationals don't overtake the 50-over format.

Thank God for Tests

Highly likely, unfortunetly.

 

[sohum]

I'm certain you weren't talking about the India-South Africa series that went down to the wire. I think your disappointment at the England-Windies ODI should more be confined to the fact that West Indies cricket has fallen so steeply.

 

[Hooper]

Well, not really. In general ODI cricket isn't that good to watch. Those overs between 20 and 40 are just hit and run for singles. Which is just boring.

 

[nightprowler10]

Solution:

Get rid of limited overs cricket all together and stick to Test cricket.

 

[KBC]

ODI Cricket?

As ZexyZahid said,"Shahid Afridi retires from 20/20 to focus on 5/5."LOL!

That will be the Situation.

 

[m_vaughan]

Lets face the true cricket lovers and fans are always going to find anything other than test cricket as crap.

However one day cricket permits more number of upsets and shocks than test cricket which requires consistency over five full days.

Unfortunately recent times have shown how one sided even the one dayers can be. The India-SA three match series in Belfast, which was initially looked at nothing more than a warm-up practice for the teams, produced three much needed close encounters.

 

[sohum]

Well, not really. In general ODI cricket isn't that good to watch. Those overs between 20 and 40 are just hit and run for singles. Which is just boring.

I don't see where you're coming from if you're advocating test cricket to be more exciting than ODI cricket because there are too many singles between overs 20 and 40. And it seems the ICC sees the game with the same lens. Pacing is important in all forms of cricket, whether it be Twenty20, ODI or Test. I don't think the slow period from over 20-40 is as much dependent on the format of the game as it is on the conditions of play and the two teams competing.

Lets face the true cricket lovers and fans are always going to find anything other than test cricket as crap.

That is an irresponsible statement and I would be justified in contending, "Who are you to decide what true cricket lovers and fans find interesting?" Most hardcore cricket fans prefer Test cricket, but there are plenty of knowledgeable and intelligent cricket fans who like cricket that is non-test cricket. In fact, I would go as far as to state, "True cricket fans are going to find any form of cricket exciting, whether it is the 5th test of The Ashes tied 2-2 or the backyard slog between you and your cousins and your uncles."

However one day cricket permits more number of upsets and shocks than test cricket which requires consistency over five full days.

Unfortunately recent times have shown how one sided even the one dayers can be. The India-SA three match series in Belfast, which was initially looked at nothing more than a warm-up practice for the teams, produced three much needed close encounters.

It looks like you are contradicting yourself. The imbalances are not due to excessive scheduling but due to lack of equality between the teams. Hence, "flogging a dead horse" is not as applicable, in my opinion. One is not really expecting a close encounter during a South Africa-Ireland game but you may well see games go down to the wire in this summer of English ODI cricket.

 

[sd92]

Solution:

Get rid of limited overs cricket all together and stick to Test cricket.

Exactly

 

[aussie_ben91]

I don't mind ODI cricket, in a sense it's sorta like Test Cricket but more free-flowing but not as much as Twenty20 cricket.

I like watching games which build up over a period of time & comes down to the wire or breaks down into an apparent situation, Twenty20 doesn't really have that. I like seeing players acchieving milestones such as 50s, 100s, 150s, 200s. Batsman CAN acchieve that in ODI cricket but can't in Twenty20. I like seeing bowlers having spells of bowling (4 overs isn't enough) and taking 5fers and all of that and dominating batsman.
I like sitting down on the computer weather it be at night (to watch overseas matches) or in the Summer, after getting home from Cricket and relaxing and watching the Australian Summer of Cricket. I like to overview the cricket over a period time whilst doing something minor in the process.

Twenty20 doesn't have that feel about it because by the time the game ends you feel like you've been watching it for an hour. You simply can't watch your favourites players bat or bowl to their specialist.

ODI cricket adds an extra spice to International Cricket, but it shouldn't be taken over by Twenty20 cricket nor should ODI cricket ever take over Test Cricket. If anything, Twenty20 should be limited to a tour-starter. Nothing more.

 

[sd92]

I agree with limiting it to a tour starter, but i dnt agree with some of the other bits you said.