CA hopes to get better than 50-50 split

[Biggy]

Not a fan, just seems like a stupid idea to me.

 

[Themer]

CA are going to look like complete idiots or create an innovative format. I can see it being the first, seems a bizzare suggestion in my opinion. The reason that T20 has become popular is because its so simply to play and understand whereas this seems quite convoluted in comparison.

 

[Bounce]

I am in favor of the split up.
It would have been a good idea.

Just hoping that it is implemented in some bilateral tournaments.
Probably, the unconfirmed India - Australia tournament.

 

[pcfan123]

Hopefully they are televised

 

[sifter132]

I think it would actually make the game closer for shorter. In that example there with the current 50/50 format, you've probably seen about 55 overs worth of cricket where the game could still go either way. Just say they go with the 25/25/25/25 format, and India makes 2/150 in their first 25, and New Zealand is at 3/20 in the first 5 overs of their first 25. In this case, you see around 30 overs worth of cricket where the game could still go either way, in comparison to the 55 overs in the current 50/50 format. Although, there may be other permutations that means the game stays closer for longer in the 25/25/25/25 format.

Well your example is still a heck of a lot closer than if India were on 150 rather than had already made 350. I'd say NZ would still be in that game. Stopping the Indian innings halfway gives the NZ bowlers time to regroup, make the batsmen start again and even if they battle to 5/80 they would still be thinking they could turn the match with a good last half.

 

[aussie1st]

The Zimbabwean pitches weren't particularly bad wickets, not green seamers or anything like that; just tacky. Bad balls can still go for four in these conditions, but it is much harder to drive on the up while it is tacky. In those cases, the entire first innings took place before midday, so it wasn't a case of getting through an hour and making up for it. Batsmen were able to get used to it, but any time a wicket fell, it put a lot of extra pressure on the new batsman. Collapses grew for a range of reasons, but the main thing is that the team batting second was not tested in remotely the same way, when the ball was coming on much better in the afternoons.

It might be a small disadvantage but by then the match could have been decided. The team batting first might have been bowled out in their 25 overs or they only have their tailenders at the crease.

There are advantages to spiting the innings but they don't outweigh the negatives for me. The big one is momentum killer and having 3 innings breaks. If you remember the IPL where they had a 10 minute break at the 10 over mark, that totally killed the momentum of the innings and also left me bored waiting for it to restart again. The same would happen with the extra 2 breaks which would have to be at least 10 minutes long if not longer. Not to mention one of the breaks would have to include lunch/dinner so that could be two 10 minute breaks plus a 30 minute one. ODI cricket is not meant to be a stop start affair, that is Test cricket.

 

[IanG]

Hate the idea to be honest

 

[aussie1st]

Channel 9 wants the wickets reinstalled for the 2nd innings. Nine wants a say in new one-day format

That idea basically means each team gets 20 wickets so a One Day Test match cricket. Given we already have T20, I don't see the need for two 20/25 over innings. Of course this version would mean teams don't go slow in their innings so in a way its probably better than the original idea but it basically takes out everything that is related to ODI.

 

[pcfan123]

Ok, at what point is it no longer cricket?

 

[sohum]

They're only going to succeed in alienating the on-the-fence fans who are undecided between Twenty20 and ODI cricket. As someone said earlier, some of T20's beauty is in it's simplicity. It's pretty straightforward (apart from the free hit rule). You bat for 120 balls and whoever has the highest score wins. ODI cricket started out like that but we've seen so much failed experimentation (remember the super subs and all that nonsense?) and T20 has capitalized on the viewer market.

Making the format more like Test cricket isn't going to bring back the viewers that are absconding to T20. I'd say the percentage of fans who like Twenty20 cricket and do not like ODI cricket is far smaller than the percentage of fans who are seriously wondering why the ODI format exists. In short, by making ODI cricket more like Test cricket, they'd be converting fans that aren't really against the format to begin with.

 

[sifter132]

Ok, at what point is it no longer cricket?

They've asked that many times over the years: when they covered pitches, when they invented one day cricket, when Kerry Packer played under lights in coloured clothing with a white ball and more recently when T20 came in with IPL and the cheerleaders

It's called innovation. I don't think we should stick our heads in the sand, we should be trying to improve the product. Especially ODI cricket which is basically an invention anyway. I'm of the opinion that they should leave Test cricket as is - if you are going to stop change, do it for Tests as they are the backbone of our great history. But tinker with one day cricket as much as you like IMO - it was made for fans and should entertain fans. And in my ideal world you'd have some kind of ODI/T20 combo to lose one format, clear up the international schedule a bit and still keep crickets new fans. This 40 over split innings stuff is a step in the right direction for me.

They're only going to succeed in alienating the on-the-fence fans who are undecided between Twenty20 and ODI cricket. As someone said earlier, some of T20's beauty is in it's simplicity. It's pretty straightforward (apart from the free hit rule). You bat for 120 balls and whoever has the highest score wins. ODI cricket started out like that but we've seen so much failed experimentation (remember the super subs and all that nonsense?) and T20 has capitalized on the viewer market.

To me T20s been successful because it's short - not because it's simple. It's easily accessible. You can watch a whole game at the ground/on TV without wasting a day, you can bring kids along as they only have to concentrate 3 hours instead of 7 or 8.

 

[sohum]

And in my ideal world you'd have some kind of ODI/T20 combo to lose one format, clear up the international schedule a bit and still keep crickets new fans. This 40 over split innings stuff is a step in the right direction for me.

It isn't really, though. Splitting up ODIs is a step in the direction of Test matches, and the fans that ODI cricket are losing are not Test match aficionados--they're T20 ones.

To me T20s been successful because it's short - not because it's simple. It's easily accessible. You can watch a whole game at the ground/on TV without wasting a day, you can bring kids along as they only have to concentrate 3 hours instead of 7 or 8.

It's marketable because it's simple. There's no excessive rulemaking involved that makes the game confusing to a new or passive fan. For example, my mom followed the last IPL closely whereas I doubt she could explain to me what the follow-on rule in Test cricket or the PowerPlay rule in ODIs means. Splitting ODI cricket into two innings is not going to make it simpler, because there is going to be a whole host of new rules that come into effect to plausibly effectuate that split--for example: How will bowling spells be handled? How will the new ball be handled? Will there be a follow-on rule like there exists in Test cricket? How will rain-interrupted matches be decided? What of power plays? What about injured players--can they come back and play after the break? How about player averages? Etc.

Simply speaking, the fans that ODI cricket is losing are not fans that enjoy Test cricket--they're fans who are moving towards a shorter, simpler, straightforward game. ODI cricket would only solidify itself amongst Test supporters (most of whom already favour it when compared to Twenty20), which is not the group that is quickly losing interest.

 

[pcfan123]

I agee with Sohum here, Twenty20 is so simple to explain because I just present it as

120 balls or 10 outs per innings to score as many runs as you can and 1 innings each only, (no strike outs, which always amazes Americans)
anyone who knows a thing about baseball can instantly grasp the concept as many of my friends have.

 

[Chewie]

I agee with Sohum here, Twenty20 is so simple to explain because I just present it as

120 balls or 10 outs per innings to score as many runs as you can and 1 innings each only,

anyone who knows a thing about baseball can instantly grasp the concept as many of my friends have.

I have some friends here in NZ who still don't understand cricket no matter how hard I try to explain it to them

 

[pcfan123]

A lot of people here do not know the rules to baseball either. Bat and ball sports have always been a niche , for the statistically inclined and those with a fetish for rules and regulation.