Would You Miss 50-Over Cricket?

I quite like ODs...normally the low scoring runs are more fun, but you still do got the twists and turns. You get the time to soak in the atmosphere, settle into your seat, have a few beers, and hopefully see a bit of bat v ball, perhaps a bowling working over a batsmen, perhaps a batsmen creating an innings. There is still some subtly in ODs. There is none left in 2020s.

Have said that, I’ll go to the WA 2020s, (if I’ve got nothing else to do) and enjoy them…but it’s not serious cricket. I can’t imagine caring about the outcome.

JKLever wrote:To clarify - T20 is great for domestic cricket - T20,IPL whatever

Brings a whole new audience to the game. I just find myself getting really bored. No, not bored - you can't get bored with all the action can you? Um, maybe i just feel its all a bit 'meh'

You know whats going to happen - more often than not the batsman will take a swing and there'll be heaps of 4's and 6's.

The greatness of tests is that you don't know what to expect and that the bowlers are as much a part of the game as the batsmen. A hook off a pace bowler for 6 in a test is an event because it isn't the norm.

in T20's it would be 'wooo, meh' and the bowlers are just literally fodder.

At least in 50 over cricket you get to see the skills ands nuiances of cricket (e.g a bowler bowling and setting a batsman up over 4-5 overs, or a batsman having the skill to survive against some great bowling and then counter attack)

Am I talking bollocks here or what? Wouldn't be the first time....

Yep, agree 100%.

I don't usually watch ODI cricket these days except for the quarter-final stage and beyond of the World Cup. I do occasionally look at domestic limited-over cricket, mostly because it's the only regular chance I get to watch Stste level cricketers (and future international level) in action.

The world golf and tennis circuits revolve around the 'majors', and the Cockfosters Hardcourt Championships or the Moose Droppings Open know their place in that structure and don't over-publicise themselves and expect little or no media outside the Cockfosters city limits unless Federer or Nadal turn up, and not much even then unless they somehow manage to lose.

3 or 5-game ODI series, like somebody upthread said, work as 'pot-boilers' for a coming Test series, such as in 1989 or 2005.They also can be indicators to the next World Cup or whatever 'Commonwealth Games' or Euro-soccer equivalent they put in the middle of the four-year cycle. But competitions like the lately lamentable Oz domestic tri-series could seem less ludicrous and over-promoted only if the spruikers actually toned down the hype and realised any significance the series had was only in terms of the next major tournament such as a WC or a Players Championship.

Chances of individual country cricket boards and their respective media partners getting together on that: Same as Dwayne Leverock beating Usain Bolt in a hundred-metre sprint.

I think 50-over cricket as we know it is on its last legs.

That's not to say the ODI is dead, but it's about to undergo major change or serious tweaking.

If we don't want to let Twenty20 replace ODIs at the international level, what changes do we need to make?

Do we really need 50 overs for each side? Would we lose anything by reducing it to 40 overs and jettisoning some of excess fat of boring middle overs?

Do we want to continue with haphazard matches and series, or do we want to create a structured league?

Do we even want to consider the concept of two-innings Twenty20 - giving us a full day of cricket?

I don't know what we want, but I know the current situation is what we don't want. Something needs to give.

Great Test Match >>> Great ODI >>> Great 2020

Boring 2020 >>>>> Boring ODI >>>>> Boring Test Match

I personally prefer (like most here) a great test match anyday. I also like 'good' ODIs better than 20/20. Very often 20/20 matches offer close contest between teams, but not between bat and ball.

Why cant all the three formats co-exist? Each format has its own audience. How about series comprising 3 20/20s followed by 3 ODIs followed by 3 tests. I think that would work very well, instead of 3 test matches and 5/7 ODIs.

Couple of things that 'might' make T-20 better.
Get rid of fielding restrictions in first 6 overs.
Miminum one catcher throught the innings.
5 over limit per bowler. gives bowlers decent 2 spells to work with.
Get rid of stupid free-hit no-ball rule.

Essentially giving a bit more to the bowlers.

Hass wrote:I think 50-over cricket as we know it is on its last legs.

That's not to say the ODI is dead, but it's about to undergo major change or serious tweaking.

If we don't want to let Twenty20 replace ODIs at the international level, what changes do we need to make?

Do we really need 50 overs for each side? Would we lose anything by reducing it to 40 overs and jettisoning some of excess fat of boring middle overs?

Do we want to continue with haphazard matches and series, or do we want to create a structured league?

Do we even want to consider the concept of two-innings Twenty20 - giving us a full day of cricket?

I don't know what we want, but I know the current situation is what we don't want. Something needs to give.

50 over cricket has been tinkered with for years, and still most people aren't happy. Surely there's only so much tinkering that can be done before it's decided that 50 over cricket should be thrown on the scrap heap?

Henry wrote:
50 over cricket has been tinkered with for years, and still most people aren't happy. Surely there's only so much tinkering that can be done before it's decided that 50 over cricket should be thrown on the scrap heap?

There hasn't been a major change to one-day cricket since Kerry Packer introduced coloured clothing and fielding restrictions 30 years ago.

The closest thing we've had was reducing the number overs in World Cup matches from 60 to 50.

Super-subs, powerplays, the Champions Trophy have all been minor tinkers - not major changes to the structure of the game itself.

But I agree that 50-over cricket should be thrown on the scrap heap. I'm prepared to give 40 over matches a trial to see if it will inject some life into the corpse, but I believe more radical change is probably needed at some point.

It's the middle over period that spoils ODIs. If there were a 2 innings system with fresh powerplays and new balls, it would be a whole lot more intriguing.

New ball from each end. Would make it a more even battle between bat and ball.

I'd miss the World Cup. Sometimes, at my advanced age, seeing the Saffies find new and inventive ways of choking is all that keeps me going.

Invader Zim wrote:New ball from each end. Would make it a more even battle between bat and ball.

Tell that to the spinners.

Brass Monkey wrote:It's the middle over period that spoils ODIs. If there were a 2 innings system with fresh powerplays and new balls, it would be a whole lot more intriguing.

Aye. Am intrigued by a 40:40 comprising of 4 innings! Although, I like the timescale of a 50:50, its just about right, so maybe go with a 50:50 with 2 innings. Also gives batters a bit more time, and bowlers more of a chance perhaps. Also the innings is ending when the normal, dull middle overs are just starting!

Henry wrote:

Invader Zim wrote:New ball from each end. Would make it a more even battle between bat and ball.

Tell that to the spinners.

Spinners? Apart from Warne and Murali, they've all been middle-over dart-throwers in ODIs. Exactly what we're trying to get rid of.