CA's split-innings ODIs - killing ODIs or breathing new life?

[darthlewis1]

I find t20 more boring than odi's because there isn't any building up an innings in t20 and it just seems pointless and boring to me.

 

[sohum]

I'd rather have our board being proactive and doing something to give the players something to play for and the fans something to looks forward too rather than sitting back and giving us the same product every game.

Umm.... how often does a sports product actually change? If you look at any of the major sports leagues in the world, the only part of the product that changes is the marketing surrounding it and the composition of the league, never the actual format of the game. Basketball, football, American football, hockey, etc.--the structure of the game has been the same for ages and there's been no need to "be proactive and change the product".

 

[drainpipe32]

Umm.... how often does a sports product actually change? If you look at any of the major sports leagues in the world, the only part of the product that changes is the marketing surrounding it and the composition of the league, never the actual format of the game. Basketball, football, American football, hockey, etc.--the structure of the game has been the same for ages and there's been no need to "be proactive and change the product".

Maybe that's how you do it in the States but here for pretty much every sport the board trials different formats during the pre-seasons, where it matters less.

 

[sohum]

Maybe that's how you do it in the States but here for pretty much every sport the board trials different formats during the pre-seasons, where it matters less.

I'm sure that's the only country that does it, then.

 

[drainpipe32]

I'm sure that's the only country that does it, then.

Perhaps. But I don't see exactly what you're point has been in this thread.

 

[Cricketman]

Idk what they do in Australia but I will, and I presume the general public will also, start to get uninterested in the game if they start changing it every 2 years.

 

[drainpipe32]

Idk what they do in Australia but I will, and I presume the general public will also, start to get uninterested in the game if they start changing it every 2 years.

They're not changing it Rohit! For a few games this summer in our domestic game which few people watch anyway they're going to trial a different format. The only changes that I can see this making are higher media coverage, larger attendances, a breath of fresh air and some idea of how this format will work.

All of which are good things. Let me remind you that the SuperSub ruling and Batting PowerPlay were also trialled on the Australian Domestic Circuit, and have been taken to the international scene. The BPP has been fairly successful as well.

 

[sohum]

Perhaps. But I don't see exactly what you're point has been in this thread.

That Australia changing the format of the game does not mean that ODI cricket is dying. I thought that was obvious from my first post.

sohum added 3 Minutes and 35 Seconds later...

All of which are good things. Let me remind you that the SuperSub ruling and Batting PowerPlay were also trialled on the Australian Domestic Circuit, and have been taken to the international scene. The BPP has been fairly successful as well.

The SuperSub and Batting PowerPlay hardly changed the structure of the game, though.

This is like the FA deciding that they will change football games from 45 minute halves to 25 minute quarters. Or the NBA deciding to switch from 12 minute quarters to FIBA-style 20 minute halves.

Breath of air it may be but whether it's fresh or polluted is a matter of opinion.

 

[AngryPixel]

There is absolutely no planning in T20, it is just mindless slogging. I prefer ODI's to T20 any day and Test matches are on another level themselves. Test matches between Aus-Ind-SAF-Eng are always treat to watch. Rarely there is a one sided match other than that they are awesome

 

[drainpipe32]

That Australia changing the format of the game does not mean that ODI cricket is dying. I thought that was obvious from my first post.

Well not if you're going to add about ten serves of humour/sarcasm with it.

The SuperSub and Batting PowerPlay hardly changed the structure of the game, though.

This is like the FA deciding that they will change football games from 45 minute halves to 25 minute quarters. Or the NBA deciding to switch from 12 minute quarters to FIBA-style 20 minute halves.

Breath of air it may be but whether it's fresh or polluted is a matter of opinion.

Well you have to start sometime. And anyway, this will have no impact on international cricket, and if it does that will be a good one. If it turns out to be a bad format that'll be some progress on eliminating that option.

 

[sohum]

Well not if you're going to add about ten serves of humour/sarcasm with it.

To be fair, the only reason I continued to post in this thread is because you implied that all other cricket boards were not being "proactive" by changing a product that doesn't really need changing.

Well you have to start sometime.

I don't understand what you mean by this. You don't have to change the format of the game. We will not be seeing the FA or NBA changing the format of their games any time soon.

Like I said, CA changing the format of the game for their domestic league doesn't mean ODI cricket is dead or dying. They can experiment with it however the hell they want, just keep it away from international cricket.

 

[sifter132]

Cricket Australia considering radical one-day changes

http://www.cricinfo.com/australia/content/story/467396

The major adjustments involve a proposed reduction to 40 overs a side, which is split into two 20-over innings, and 10 wickets for each team. In the hope of maintaining interest in the contest for longer the other innovative additions include:
*One batsman dismissed in the first innings may be used again in the second innings, similar to a designated hitter in baseball
*A minimum of four bowlers to be used without any other restrictions
*Two bouncers between shoulder and head height allowed an over, an increase of one
*More generosity on legside wides
*Two fielders outside the inner fielding circle in the first five overs of each innings, and a maximum of four during overs six to 20

The first 2 ideas are ones I've suggested before, particularly the first one. It means batsmen could go for it in the first 20 over half without fear and that the sides best batsman could be used twice meaning poor teams would get to make the games closer by relying on their stars and that crowds would definitely get to see their talisman bat even if they only saw half the match. And the idea of no maximum over limit for a bowler will make captaincy and bowling changes more innovative. May not be so good for all-rounders, but hey I don't like dobblers cobbling together 10 cheap but ugly and unskillful overs in the middle of ODIs anyway.

Not sure I like widening the strike zone type changes - more bouncers, more leniency on wides. I could be convinced though, especially with the bouncers. Field restrictions are a bit 'meh', I like the suggestion of NO field restrictions that Warney and Chaps often talk about.

 

[Terminator]

STUPID IDEA.

will destroy cricket to infinte extent.

Pro35 was much better.

 

[Iridium]

STUPID IDEA.

will destroy cricket to infine extent.

Pro35 was much better.

Man, stop harping on about Pro35! It just isn't going to work. Drop it already!

Now about something that is actually going to get a go ahead. I'm genuinely interest to see how these changes will affect the game. I'm really liking the idea of having one batsmen who's already batted being allowed to bat again. Also the suggestion of allowing more bouncers gets a yes from me. Not so with the idea of being more generous on legside wides. Can't wait till the FR Cup begins and we finally get to see all these changes (hopefully) in action.

 

[drainpipe32]

I'd rather have this as a different form of cricket. Play one or two games per summer.

Sounds good though, can't wait to hear more.