Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Innocent Bystander
07 Dec 09 16:32
Date Joined: 10 Jan 03
| Topic/replies: 3,297 | Blogger: Innocent Bystander's blog
Well what do we think

Two balls per innings (one from each end), so no real hope for spinners or reverse swing

Two bowlers bowling max 12 overs, 2 bowling max 10 and 1 bowling 6, allowing another batsman to play and less need for bits and pieces

What the authorities dont seem to realise is the best ODIs are when there is a balance between bat and ball, and not a shirt front where bowlers may as well be replaced by bowling machines. No amount of tinkering will change the dying format (anyone remember the short lived 12th man expirement :D )
Pause Switch to Standard View New Proposals for 50 over ODIS
Show More
Report Titan's Chlamydia Green Light December 7, 2009 4:38 PM GMT
supersub actually wasnt bad, matter of time before 40 overs comes in
Report Jan1ne December 7, 2009 4:53 PM GMT
change for the sake of change
Report Richard LL December 7, 2009 5:09 PM GMT
they're guessing, I think they should start again and play a couple of regualtion free series, other than perhaps 15 overs of batting PP to see what, if anything is wrong with 50 over cricket.
Report good value losers December 7, 2009 5:13 PM GMT
back to 1 red ball and white clothing for daytime odi's imo. no need for all the fcking around with 2 balls then.
Report michael knight December 7, 2009 5:34 PM GMT
2 new balls is silly.

Increasing the number of overs that bowlers can bowl would be good though.
Report Mushtaq December 7, 2009 5:51 PM GMT
The format isn't dying, and the administrators should stop listening to the idiots in the commentary box.
Report epochery December 7, 2009 11:01 PM GMT
They used to use 2 new balls in australia until about 1992 and it didnt hurt the game much. The super sub wasnt a bad idea but teams should have bee able to name their 12 after the toss not before. I rarely watch either t20 or odi's i find them boring, with these flat wickets everywhere
Report tai671 December 7, 2009 11:11 PM GMT
I would just scrap 50 over ODI's altogether. They've just become an uninteresting half way house between what people actually want to see. Twenty20 obviously has its fans and Test cricket will always be number one in the eyes of a lot of people, but how many people actually think 50 over is the best format of the three? Not many. Getting rid of it would also**a lot of the problems with playing too much cricket. The 20 over World Cups have been a lot less tedious than the recent 50 over versions too.
Report VardonVoo. December 7, 2009 11:39 PM GMT
40 overs is more than enough for a day-long game.

A split innings format could be interesting - one team has the
first and last ten overs and the other team plays the 20 in
the middle, for example. That way a gradual change in conditions
affects both teams roughly equally.
Report good value losers December 7, 2009 11:47 PM GMT
vardonvoo your posts and proposals for new formats never cease to amaze me! lol
Report THE GOOSE December 7, 2009 11:55 PM GMT
i think splitting the innings would be great. play 20 overs, then swap over. have a lunch break, then play another 20 overs each.
Report VardonVoo. December 7, 2009 11:55 PM GMT
Surely not as far-fetched as Cricket Max with the special
trapezoidal 'runs-count double' zone - that idea was more
like pinball .
Report Lies, DamnLies, and Statistics December 8, 2009 4:19 AM GMT
Mushtaq 08 Dec 05:51
The format isn't dying, and the administrators should stop listening to the idiots in the commentary box.



they are playing a few too many though....
Report Green Beard December 8, 2009 4:29 AM GMT
lol why not just play 2 20/20 matches?
Report Mushtaq December 8, 2009 6:01 AM GMT
I get fed up with the latest fashion for criticising 50 over cricket because "there aren't enough close finishes". If all that mattered in an ODI match was the "close finish" then nobody would turn up until an hour before the end. Just like any match the key period of the game could be after 10 overs, 30 overs, 60 overs, or right at the end.

50 over cricket gives an opportunity for people to see a whole day's cricket, with plenty of time for the ebbs and flows that make the game attractive, with a result at the end. That isn't the case in 2020 (not a whole day), and if you buy a ticket hoping to see a result in a test match then you are taking a big risk of only getting a few overs cricket (with no money back) or hitting upon a last day bore draw that has little attraction to anyone.

And just like test cricket, it doesn't have to be enthralling for every ball to be attractive.

I just wish the administrators would get it into their head that it isn't batting paradises and lots of boundaries that make a game attractive to spectators.
Report Lix December 8, 2009 6:10 AM GMT
There is a school of thought that says we get better (more entertaining) games on belters.

not sure i agree although the best game i can remember from the last 5 years would be Eng v India at Oval 2007 on an excellent surface.
Report spassky December 8, 2009 9:58 AM GMT
I stopped watching that one, Lix. Honestly. I have no interest in watching runs scored for the sake of scoring runs. If both sides had used bowling machines would that game have been any less interesting ?
I didn't watch the SA/Australia one, either.

I do remember the 1992 world cup (in Australia, I think) where there were fascinating low scoring matches. In the final England had Pakistan four of five down for next to nothing. Pak recovered to about 250. England well on their way and then hostile fast bowlers blew them away. Great cricket match because bowlers wee allowed to take wickets.

All forms of cricket are suffering currently because the wickets are too flat. I am fed up with it.
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.


Instance ID: 13539