ODI rules - going back to the basics

[surendar]

Traditional Sharjah cup, Asia Cup, Natwest Series and World Series in Australia were classy. Personally, I have lost interest as well to watch the ODI series just between 2 teams( 5 or 3 or 7 match series ) even if someone is hitting 60 ball centuries.

 

[shravi]

Not really... You don't want ODI's altogether. I want ODI's, but not the bilateral series.

Read it again. I don't want ODIs in their current form.

They don't mean anything. It is unfortunate that mutlilateral series' have been done away with because these are actually interesting, meaningful competitions. For that same reason, I hope the Champions Trophy is kept.

 

[ferg512]

Something like that. More than two teams in the tournament. The ODI tournaments in Sharjah used to be so good. I love the CB series too (in Australia).

I liked the Australian tri series as well just thought it was a bit of overkill that the teams played each other 4 times and then there were 2 possibly 3 extra games as well for the finals. The problem with these tournaments is they won't make enough money from the games between the two away teams unless one of them is India. I'm guessing thats why Australia went back to the tri series for one year and have now scrapped it again.

 

[SaiSrini]

Read it again. I don't want ODIs in their current form.

They don't mean anything. It is unfortunate that mutlilateral series' have been done away with because these are actually interesting, meaningful competitions. For that same reason, I hope the Champions Trophy is kept.

I would still watch a bilateral ODI over any kind of T20. If there is no option whatsoever to bring back multilateral tournaments, I wouldn't mind a bilateral series.

 

[Aalay]

Why get rid of ODI's? If you really want to remove something, it should be T20's. I mean there are so many T20 leagues around the globe, you don't need some extra T20's which is just an overkill. If you want to have International teams playing T20's than remove this stupid leagues and if you want T20 leagues than remove the international T20. Yes the 7 ODI series is stupid but 3 or 5 ODI series is still good enough for me.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I've never really understood why we need a 10 over limit on the bowlers. if someone is bowling well, let them bowl more overs.

It seems to do very little except provide a career for bits and pieces players and it totally favours the batsmen letting them avoid facing the best bowlers.

 

[shravi]

I would still watch a bilateral ODI over any kind of T20..

This is not a realistic option and so I don't think it is even worth discussing it.

 

[zeustrojanstark]

As many people have told above, i too don't like the bi lateral ODI series especially 7 match long ones. Thank god two ODIs were rained off in the ongoing India Vs Aussies series. Now its come to a decider and the better team will take home the trophy. World Cup once in 4 years and Champions Trophy once in 2 years with the old ODI rules will be very good. Also if it is a Short tour 3 tests, 1 ODI and 1 T20 would be nice or maybe even 2 T20s and no ODIs.

 

[surendar]

I would still watch a bilateral ODI over any kind of T20..

+ 1
Though I got bored of bilateral series lately. I never was/am a fan of T20. Agree that T20s have great positives especially the hitting abilities got tweaked but they(leagues) are just too many floating around which I hate it!

 

[War]

I've never really understood why we need a 10 over limit on the bowlers. if someone is bowling well, let them bowl more overs.

It seems to do very little except provide a career for bits and pieces players and it totally favours the batsmen letting them avoid facing the best bowlers.

Yea indeed & its interesting that thanks to T20 those same bits and pieces cricketers who were dying out in ODI's have become stars again.

Along with going back to simple 15 overs restriction rules, i would certainly allow teams to have the ability to bowl two bowlers for 12 overs for eg.

 

[surendar]

10 overs/bowler actually looks fine, as the real contest & challenge is to complete that 5th bowler quota for many teams. This has been making the bat vs ball contest interesting till now.

 

[War]

Why get rid of ODI's? If you really want to remove something, it should be T20's. I mean there are so many T20 leagues around the globe, you don't need some extra T20's which is just an overkill. If you want to have International teams playing T20's than remove this stupid leagues and if you want T20 leagues than remove the international T20. Yes the 7 ODI series is stupid but 3 or 5 ODI series is still good enough for me.

Exactly. And the main reason why every country is trying to have a T20 league is because everyone has to compromise their schedules & players around the IPL yearly along with the dumb champs league.

So every board now is trying to create their own T20 league cash cow.

This is why i've always believed & argued for years, the IPL should have been the singular T20 league & be the cricket equivalent of football leagues such as the BPL, Serie A, La Liga, Bundesliga etc.

Without the international player restriction, so that all the T20 teams would be made up of top indians stars, top international stars, good enough local players (young or old).

That way it would have a more serious global following like what football leagues have (although narrow minded Indian fans might argue they don't need this given the local support). In this way other board would not feel the need to create their own T20 leagues & the BCCI would still make millions from the tournament, possibly even more this way.

----------

I liked the Australian tri series as well just thought it was a bit of overkill that the teams played each other 4 times and then there were 2 possibly 3 extra games as well for the finals. The problem with these tournaments is they won't make enough money from the games between the two away teams unless one of them is India. I'm guessing thats why Australia went back to the tri series for one year and have now scrapped it again.

This is the problem, cricket has almost become like the Spanish La Liga in which broadcasters of that league only rake out cash when Real & Barca play. How the ICC has allowed India to gauge such a serious influence over cricket broadcasters (which is very important partner in all global sports) is another serious issue that gets swept under the carpet.

I was in trinidad in July on vacation when they had that tri-series when India/Windies/Sri Lanka played & i heard the WICB president say only time they make money is when England or India tour the windies - India more so. Madness this.

----------

World Cup once in 4 years and Champions Trophy once in 2 years with the old ODI rules will be very good. Also if it is a Short tour 3 tests, 1 ODI and 1 T20 would be nice or maybe even 2 T20s and no ODIs.

Champs trophy is great tournament as we say this year when the top 8 teams come together, but i actually feel it should discontinue because the world cup should adapt the C-Trophy format - just add Bangladesh & the best associate to make it a 10 team tournament using the 1992 world cup format or split into two groups of 5.

The T20 world cup should be the global all inclusive limited overs tournament where we can have 16 teams into four groups, since that's the format in which we can promote the game to a new global audience.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

10 overs/bowler actually looks fine, as the real contest & challenge is to complete that 5th bowler quota for many teams. This has been making the bat vs ball contest interesting till now.

but it's weird. the batsmen don't get told they can only face 60 balls, imagine how much fairer it would be is steyn is bowling brilliantly for his first 4 overs but instead of smith having to call him out the attack because he wants to keep him just in case the opposition get a partnership together in the middle overs or he wants to restrict at the death hen just lets him bowl on. instead of rubbishy players who are sloggers and half decent trundlers you'd get the 6 best batsmen and wicket keeper and the 4 best bowlers.

the tactical element wouldn't be lost, you'd still have to work out if 4 bowlers is enough or play safe and take a 5th but giving teams the decision is another choice they'd make. as it is they're all forced to bowl sub-par bowlers that the batsmen can batter.

ajmal has been unplayable, he could probably bowl 20 overs in a match, why should south africa be given the luxury of avoiding him for 10 when he could be bowling when pakistan would not be given the same luxury if de villiers is hammering them to all corners?

it means more of the best bowlers bowling at the best batsmen, could only be good for the quality of the cricket and would go a little way to make things fairer.

 

[War]

I'd advocate the simple powerplay of the initial 15 overs. Then, let the game continue for the remainder of time on its own. No new balls after the 35th over. This totally reduces the influence of a spinner on the game.

The ICC has been trying various stupid things over the years; they have failed miserably at this. Remember the Super-Substitute rule ?

Yea ha, i know most cricket fans didn't like the super-sub rule, but i actually thought it was one of the better new ODI inventions that ICC had created, which inadvertently helped the bowling side.

Teams who had the "5th bowler" problem like India for eg at times had the ability, when bowling second for eg to bring in a extra bowler for a batsman.

What messed up the rule was the ICC telling teams they had to name the sub before the toss which simply favoured the side batting first. Really teams should have been able to do what the S Africa tried in their domestic OD tournament a few years ago:

South Africa news: Significant changes to MTN40 tournament | South Africa Cricket News | ESPN Cricinfo

Unlike the last time substitutes were used, the starting eleven does not have to be named before the toss. Only the squad of 13 has to be named, allowing certain players to play specialist roles.

 

[SaiSrini]

If we can have certain rules for certain conditions, that would be helpful. For eg. in the subcontinent, the new rules should be scrapped and it should be taken back to where we were before. But the new rules seem to work well outside the subcontinent, so they could possibly be retained there.

But if we need to have a uniform set of rules everywhere, I would advocate going back to where we were. Atleast that way, we wouldn't have these run gluts too often.