ODI should be scrapped

[Samuels]

Can we just move on from allegations and counter allegations and try and have a 'meaningful discussion'?

Just to add my two cents, I believe ODI cricket should stay albeit with little change as the mandatory powerplay being taken at any time the fielding team wants. Furthermore, have a pitch that helps the bowlers initially and then get rid of the maximum x amount of players on the leg side rule. Alternatively, there can be a rule of maximum x fielders outside in the ring however, I do not feel any captain would field in 9 slips in this day of T20s anyway.

The above points will have the following affect to the ODIs which I believe will be for the better:

1) The format would give a little chance to the bowling unit. Those who enjoy watching high quality bowling will welcome the move of having wickets with some assistance to the bowlers.

2) Since there will be help for the bowlers early on and choice of mandatory PP being with the fielding side, they might not chose it in the first 10 and hence, the top order batsmen would be tested unlike these days how during PP and with batter friendly wickets, openers go slam bang.

3) If there is assistance for the bowlers and innovation that the bowlers have come up with thanks to T20s, we can expect few wickets to fall in the first 10 overs which will mean that the batting team will have to play proper cricket to build innings and accelerate in the death overs. Watching a match tilting from one team's favor to another due to high quality cricket being played will be so entertaining.

4) Not having to fielding maximum x number of players on the leg side would give an option to the fielding captain to set a field for brutally strong leg side players like Virat Kohli. No more picking the gap between midwicket and log on. Fielding captain could now put fielders at all, square leg, fine leg, mid wicket, log on AND cow corner.

5) No mandatory PP in first ten overs means that it would not be a case of watching first 10 and the last 10 overs only. It looks like a favorable move for the fielding side but the fielding captain will be tested tactically to how and when to use the PP overs.

For those who think ODIs are too long for giving time to watch, they can always watch the highlights at home.

 

[Yash.]

brutally strong leg side players like Virat Kohli.

What?

For those who think ODIs are too long for giving time to watch, they can always watch the highlights at home.

Thats a great answer

 

[Samuels]

What?

If you watch cricket regularly, you would have noticed that few players get majority of their runs from the gap between the log on and mid wicket. Thats where cow corner is. One of such players is Virat Kohli and others in the past were Javed Miandad and Sanath Jayasuriya. My point is not that fielder on cow corner. My point is giving the liberty to the fielding captain to post more players on the leg side so that Such players who can dictate terms of a match on their own can be build pressure on them with an extra fielder on the leg side as their strong zone would be covered and runs would become just a little tough to come by. They might succumb to the pressure and give their wickets away. Would not that contest be interesting - covering the strong zone of a player and challenge the batsman to try and break the shackles? A batsman might hole out in covers or long off or play with ones and twos and build his innings maturely before late flourish to take his team to a good total.

 

[Ramesh gupta]

No mandatory PP in first ten overs means that it would not be a case of watching first 10 and the last 10 overs only

What is the logic of powerplay for batting side, already gave so much benefits


My Suggestions


1) No Freehits (because a bowler is already penalized for bowling no ball) 2) One ball per innings to get reverse swing at the end of innings (to bring back the lost art)

 

[Samuels]

What is the logic of powerplay for batting side, already gave so much benefits


My Suggestions


1) No Freehits (because a bowler is already penalized for bowling no ball) 2) One ball per innings to get reverse swing at the end of innings (to bring back the lost art)

To still keep it entertaining for those who like to see aggressive cricket from the batsmen.

I think free hits should stay. It has improved the bowlers from being erratic.

 

[Yash.]

If you watch cricket regularly, you would have noticed that few players get majority of their runs from the gap between the log on and mid wicket. Thats where cow corner is. One of such players is Virat Kohli and others in the past were Javed Miandad and Sanath Jayasuriya. My point is not that fielder on cow corner. My point is giving the liberty to the fielding captain to post more players on the leg side so that Such players who can dictate terms of a match on their own can be build pressure on them with an extra fielder on the leg side as their strong zone would be covered and runs would become just a little tough to come by. They might succumb to the pressure and give their wickets away. Would not that contest be interesting - covering the strong zone of a player and challenge the batsman to try and break the shackles? A batsman might hole out in covers or long off or play with ones and twos and build his innings maturely before late flourish to take his team to a good total.

I just thought that Virat Kohli was too harsh an example. He is not a leg side dominant player. He plays in the V mostly

 

[Aislabie]

Personally, I think that one-day cricket could be really pared back. Scrap all the fielding regulations, scrap bowler limits, I'm not fussed whether free-hits continue to be a thing or not. Whichever would be fine with me, as I see no real excuse for no-balls at that level. Also scrap the two-bouncer rule and let the bowlers go for it if they want.

Fifty overs a side, straight-up battle between bat and ball with no holds barred. Batsmen and bowlers both required to be aggressive against one another. Who's with me?

 

[Deleted member 149013]

Surly you can’t do that.

I am happy with the way ODI cricket is and I don’t think I would change anything it’s not broken.

If people want more excitement then they should create it themselves or go on more rollercoasters.

 

[Aislabie]

The trouble is that the sheer amount of tinkering that has happened over the last decade or so with ODI regs has given it an artificial feel to the casual fan. Try explaining the fielding restrictions to a non-cricketer, for example.

Twenty20 cricket manages to use the regulations to create a spectacle which is easy to follow - at the start there's two men out, then once things have got going there are a few more. Unfortunately, it's also perceived by die-hard cricket fans as being the pariah format, and even though I enjoy it, I do see Ravi Ashwin's point about the perfect over being six different bad balls.

In Test cricket, there is the contest between bat and ball that I mentioned earlier, but the difference between Test cricket and my proposal for ODIs is the time limit - the five-day scope of Test cricket means that it's very rare anyone will ever go at 100%, because they'd be knackered by Day Two. By shortening that into between 80 and 100 overs of battle, every player can go at 100% for pretty much the whole game, without being encumbered by only being able to put four out, or having to remember to take the Powerplay or something.

 

[Deleted member 149013]

Test Cricket

I think the Duke red ball should be used for all tests and the Kookaburra white ball for all limited overs but I can’t take credit for that Shane Warne said it in an interview.
I would keep test cricket as five days but I would reduce the amount of overs that are bowled per day reducing it from 90 to 80 and have the new ball after 70 overs.
I would also introduce test nations into a league structure where all test nations would play the same amount of tests per year to keep it even and definitely without question keep the Ashes.
I would grant associate nations test status as women can play test cricket so these nations should have ever opportunity to do that for their country.
I would like to see women play in men’s cricket someday.
I would do some changes to safety equipment but I posted that General Cricket discussion I think.
I would make sure all nations use Hawk Eye and DRS.

ODI

I would drop the ICC Champions Trophy and keep the World Cup I think only one major competition is needed. The structure of the ODI is great the way it is and no more tampering should take place.

T20

I don’t see enough to challenge me it makes sixes look average and I believe in quality rather than quantity. I also believe it’s ripping off the States cheerleaders, team names that sound really awful like the Warwickshire Bears and Supergiant’s?

The games have no balance and are predictable which makes it boring. A cricketer hits 70 from 30 well its logic in that format and not really an accomplishment anymore. Too predictable in other words from the first powerplay right to the death bowling.

 

[garryjo82]

I just thought that Virat Kohli was too harsh an example. He is not a leg side dominant player. He plays in the V mostly

Nobody can make more than 7000 runs at avg of 51 just by being leg side dominant player only.

Virat Kohli | India Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo[DOUBLEPOST=1463030230][/DOUBLEPOST]

I would drop the ICC Champions Trophy and keep the World Cup I think only one major competition is needed

Do not find any need of champions trophy when we already have world cup .

 

[Ramesh gupta]

The games have no balance and are predictable which makes it boring. A cricketer hits 70 from 30 well its logic in that format and not really an accomplishment anymore. Too predictable in other words from the first powerplay right to the death bowling.

Test matches gone way more predictable comparing to other formats even though most of matches ended up without any excitement. ODIs and T20 no doubt first choice



"
Since the 2008 series in Australia, the home team has emerged victorious in Test clashes between India and Australia. That series was significant because India snapped Australia’s 16 match winning streak at Perth. Since that away triumph, the two teams have played each other in 17 Tests, 14 of which have been won by the home team and three have ended in a draw, including the recent Test at Melbourne.

This predictability has become disappointing for the two cricketing superpowers.

In the 17 matches since 2008, India have won eight matches and Australia six. Note the closeness of overall scores: India have scored an aggregate of 9,763 runs, while Australia 9,753 runs – only 10 runs apart, yet not enough to counter the home advantage. Even in terms of wickets, they are almost even. Australia have taken 272 wickets and India 269."


Ashes results nothing much different so

Recent Ashes series results

England's home form Australia's home form

2015: England lead 3-1 2013-14: Australia won 5-0
2013: England won 3-0 2010-11: England won 3-1
2009: England won 2-1 2006-07: Australia won 5-0
2005: England won 2-1 2002-03: Australia won 4-1
2001: Australia won 4-1 1998-99: Australia won 3-1

England and australia won their 4 series out of 5 at home pitches

Ashes 2015: Is home advantage becoming too important? - BBC Sport

 

[rijwan khan]

Test matches gone way more predictable comparing to other formats even though most of matches ended up without any excitement. ODIs and T20 no doubt first choice



"
Since the 2008 series in Australia, the home team has emerged victorious in Test clashes between India and Australia. That series was significant because India snapped Australia’s 16 match winning streak at Perth. Since that away triumph, the two teams have played each other in 17 Tests, 14 of which have been won by the home team and three have ended in a draw, including the recent Test at Melbourne.

This predictability has become disappointing for the two cricketing superpowers.

In the 17 matches since 2008, India have won eight matches and Australia six. Note the closeness of overall scores: India have scored an aggregate of 9,763 runs, while Australia 9,753 runs – only 10 runs apart, yet not enough to counter the home advantage. Even in terms of wickets, they are almost even. Australia have taken 272 wickets and India 269."


Ashes results nothing much different so

Recent Ashes series results

England's home form Australia's home form

2015: England lead 3-1 2013-14: Australia won 5-0
2013: England won 3-0 2010-11: England won 3-1
2009: England won 2-1 2006-07: Australia won 5-0
2005: England won 2-1 2002-03: Australia won 4-1
2001: Australia won 4-1 1998-99: Australia won 3-1

England and australia won their 4 series out of 5 at home pitches

Ashes 2015: Is home advantage becoming too important? - BBC Sport

And what about those boring draws? watching test matches most of times a real pain

 

[rijwan khan]

I think the Duke red ball should be used for all tests and the Kookaburra white ball for all limited overs but I can’t take credit for that Shane Warne said it in an interview.
I would keep test cricket as five days but I would reduce the amount of overs that are bowled per day reducing it from 90 to 80 and have the new ball after 70 overs.
I would also introduce test nations into a league structure where all test nations would play the same amount of tests per year to keep it even and definitely without question keep the Ashes.
I would grant associate nations test status as women can play test cricket so these nations should have ever opportunity to do that for their country.
I would like to see women play in men’s cricket someday.
I would do some changes to safety equipment but I posted that General Cricket discussion I think.
I would make sure all nations use Hawk Eye and DRS.

Still test cricket have no future

 

[Yash.]

Still test cricket have no future

You don't have a fortune as a cricket fan. Test cricket is the best.