I hate ODIs, theres never good games as theres nothing in it for the bowler. Batsmen get themselves out more than the bowlers get them in ODIs.
Wow, aren't we making generalizations. There are never good games? West Indies vs England, Game 1 wasn't the be all and end all of ODI cricket. In fact, the South Africa-India series provided 3 ODI games where the bowlers had plenty of help and the matches went down to the wire.
ODIs bore the crap out of me, they just arent good on the eye. In tests a team knows what they're chasing when batting last in a session but have the option to stay in and block out and draw the game, however in ODIs i find it painful watching teams try to push it on when they clearly cant. Moments like this make me shout at the tv and kinda get angry with the players, however in test cricket i feel much more relaxed and like there is more skill. People like Pietersen have shown that Tests dont need to be batted slowly either so they can be fast moving and exciting at times
.
You're being hypocritical, I feel. It seems that you don't mind players batting slowly in test cricket because there is enough time to get their eye in and then score plenty of runs, but you ignore the fact that an ODI game is long enough for players to take their time to settle in.
If it wasn't for the world cup to me they would be meaningless. Wouldn't it be soo much better to have a test match world cup!
The average Bangladeshi fan probably prefers ODI cricket to test cricket.
I know the average Indian fan does.
ODI's are pointless in terms of outcome but they are always good to watch. If anything you need more skill in ODI's than Tests because everything happens so quickly. You have to attack from the off rather than bed yourself in as you would in a Test.
How are they immensely more pointless than test matches? What is really the point of cricket? What is the point of sports? What is the point of thinking?
Isn't one of the Aussie domestic knockout cups played in 4-day format? Surely we could just use that principal?
Even the Ranji Trophy (4-day first class tournament) in India follows a tournament principle. There are 2 divisions (Super League and Plate League) and each division has two groups. The top two from each group qualify to semifinals (that last 5 days) and then the winners play the final (that lasts 5 days). The theory isn't very difficult but it will be very difficult to implement given that you would have to figure out home/away and the fact that cricketing seasons are always going to be clashing.
The main thing is to keep it interesting for the whole 50 overs that's what the general public want, which is way 20/20 works. I don't want to lose 50 over games if possible but at the minute I wouldn't overly miss them.
This is what I disagree with. Although ODI cricket is not the traditional form of cricket, it has developed enough to begin to grow its own traditions. ODI cricket may not be big in England and Australia but it is absolutely huge in the subcontinent. People don't seem to mind 50 over cricket because even if there are periods that the cricket is not interesting, there are far fewer of those periods than in test cricket.
One thing I would like to see is the 2nd powerplay option being given to the batting team so that they can choose when they want to smash it rather than leave it to the bowling side. Maybe that will spice things up a bit or maybe they will keep using it at the death. Still worth a shot as the current system is basically just the old one for 20 overs.
All these rules are just fueled from the fans, in my opinion. No one would have gone about messing with the system if Twenty20's were not introduced, in my opinion (not that I hold anything against them). Another reason ODI's started filling crowds in
some countries was because of the rebirth of test cricket (which has definitely been immense).
I think fans are being unreasonable because they want to see more exciting cricket, but exciting cricket more often than not means big shots. People find the middle overs boring because bat does not dominate ball--and then people ask for help for the bowlers? Sounds very illogical to me.
I actually liked aussie1st's idea of giving the batsman a choice of powerplay. Haven't heard that one before. Thumps up.
Grounds deffo need to be bigger, IMO.
Haven't heard that? It was recently announced by the ICC!
I personally can sit through a whole day of cricket if it's 50 overs or Test Cricket, and I actually don't find Twenty20 cricket as exciting or entertaining because there's less atmosphere.
Agree with this completely. Cricket is not one of the games where the intensity is always going to be on--unlike American sports. It's just one of the nuances of the game and if we can accept it in test cricket, we should be able to accept it in ODI cricket.
I'm a pro ODI guy. Being an Indian at least we have so many ODI "Power-Houses" that its hard not to love it. When theres a good India vs Pakistan game on (please let there be one today! :upray) I'm glued to my seat because there is always something going on. Even in the middle overs when singles are being doddled- BOOM! A collapse, everything gets tensed up again. 5 overs later ur back on top smashing the bowlers to all parts.
Its always interesting...At least for an Indian. We always have to make a game interesting
:
Exactly. ODI cricket is still very much loved in many places in the world and I think it is just the combined deterioration of a few international sides that has people's panties in a twist.
