Reduce The Length of ODI games?

[Craig]

Well Ravi Shastri thinks that well be the case. I know people like SS, archie mac, and Mat79 are like 'whatever' and couldn't care less, but personally I like 50 over cricket so it shpould stay that way.

Actually can a mod change the title to 'Reduce the legnth of ODI games?' thanks.

 

[alternative]

Test Matches FTW, so everything else can just go die.

 

[Perm]

Really, what would be acheived by changing it to 40 overs? The game might be reduced by an hour and a half or two hours, but is it really that much of a difference? Leave things the way they are.

 

[sledger]

Keep the 50 overs, but reduce the amount of games played, maximum length of a serie between 2 sides should be limited to 2 or 3 games, not the 7 game series we get now.

I like 50 over cricket, much more interesting than the T20 Slog fest, tbh I really dont see what there is to be gained from changing the format, it isnt broke, so dont fix it.

I'm not much of a T20 fan, its great that it may get more people interested in the sport, but I fear the danger is (certainly in the UK anyway) that it attracts a teenage audience who think this is what real cricket is, then when shown a test match out come the "not as exciting as T20" and "Ian Blackwell is better than Michael Vaughan because he hits loads of sixes in T20 etc.." type remarks.

But back on track, 50 over cricket should be kept as it offers an alternative to tests that actually rewards skill rather than brute strength and luck.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, I really don't see how making ODIs more similar to another format will stop said format from making it outdated. It'd just worsen the problem! If anything, ODIs need to find a way to enhance what they have which the Twenty20 format can't provide.

 

[Craig]

Keep the 50 overs, but reduce the amount of games played, maximum length of a serie between 2 sides should be limited to 2 or 3 games, not the 7 game series we get now.

I like 50 over cricket, much more interesting than the T20 Slog fest, tbh I really dont see what there is to be gained from changing the format, it isnt broke, so dont fix it.

I'm not much of a T20 fan, its great that it may get more people interested in the sport, but I fear the danger is (certainly in the UK anyway) that it attracts a teenage audience who think this is what real cricket is, then when shown a test match out come the "not as exciting as T20" and "Ian Blackwell is better than Michael Vaughan because he hits loads of sixes in T20 etc.." type remarks.

But back on track, 50 over cricket should be kept as it offers an alternative to tests that actually rewards skill rather than brute strength and luck.

I think they should be made to keep on watching T20. Only be allowed in when they showed the required IQ as a cricket fan to enjoy Test cricket as well.

Yeah, I really don't see how making ODIs more similar to another format will stop said format from making it outdated. It'd just worsen the problem! If anything, ODIs need to find a way to enhance what they have which the Twenty20 format can't provide.

Well I like what happens in the Ford Ranger Cup when the batting and bowling team can take their Power Plays, because there is so many pros and cons in. It isn't just as easy for a batting teams to say "we'll leave it to the 36th over", if they have seven or eight wickets left, because they could lost a few and the hitters could of got out by then. Likewise, take it now and it may not pay off either (ie wickets). At least some real thought gets taken place by each captain. TBH it was a bit of a shock to come from watching a FRC match to a ODI and have to think that a captain of the bowling team can pick the Power Plays.

 

[Richard]

40-over cricket is the worst format ever conceived. It's even worse than Twenty20. In order of the limited-overs cricket I've seen I'd go:

60 overs > 50 overs > 20 overs > 40 overs

With limitless-over stuff about >>>>> the 60-over stuff.

What one-day-international cricket needs IMO is to experiment with more overs, not less. 60 overs has always been superior to 50, and now most grounds outside England have floodlights the fact that there's not enough daylight isn't a problem any more (and 6-ball overs are now universal to boot).

Turning 50 overs into 40 overs, well, Tests are the only form of the international game I'll have any interest in any more.

 

[Goughy]

50 over cricket has been a wounded format for a long time, pre-dating 20/20.

However, it can still have an audience and an element of relevance if it just stopped chopping and changing its rules and format every 5 mins. There is little continuity and credibility in the format as it is.

Changing to 40 from 50 overs makes it look even more desperate.

Keep it at 50 overs and see where it goes and the next time someone has a bright idea on how to better the format then lock them in a dark rom for a long time.

 

[cover drive man]

Really, what would be acheived by changing it to 40 overs? The game might be reduced by an hour and a half or two hours, but is it really that much of a difference? Leave things the way they are.

Plus there would be lower scores and more braindead shots.

 

[sledger]

I think they should be made to keep on watching T20. Only be allowed in when they showed the required IQ as a cricket fan to enjoy Test cricket as well.

TBH during the 2005 ashes series I heard so many bandwagon jumpers going round saying this like "brett lee is the best bowler from either side because he can bowl at 150mph, nobody else gets that kind of speed", "why isnt warne bowling it at the stumps?" and the classic "Ian Bell is the most useless player ever, why is he in the side, he's never done anything good", the one about bell in particular really got my rag, esspecially as when I pointed out that he had been one of the best county players in recent years was ignored, really hate people like that, great that people want to get into cricket, crap when they come in and think they know everything.

 

[Craig]

TBH during the 2005 ashes series I heard so many bandwagon jumpers going round saying this like "brett lee is the best bowler from either side because he can bowl at 150mph, nobody else gets that kind of speed", "why isnt warne bowling it at the stumps?" and the classic "Ian Bell is the most useless player ever, why is he in the side, he's never done anything good", the one about bell in particular really got my rag, esspecially as when I pointed out that he had been one of the best county players in recent years was ignored, really hate people like that, great that people want to get into cricket, crap when they come in and think they know everything.

IQ tests, the answer to our problem.

 

[andruid]

Keep the 50 overs, but reduce the amount of games played, maximum length of a serie between 2 sides should be limited to 2 or 3 games, not the 7 game series we get now.

I like 50 over cricket, much more interesting than the T20 Slog fest, tbh I really dont see what there is to be gained from changing the format, it isnt broke, so dont fix it.

I'm not much of a T20 fan, its great that it may get more people interested in the sport, but I fear the danger is (certainly in the UK anyway) that it attracts a teenage audience who think this is what real cricket is, then when shown a test match out come the "not as exciting as T20" and "Ian Blackwell is better than Michael Vaughan because he hits loads of sixes in T20 etc.." type remarks.

But back on track, 50 over cricket should be kept as it offers an alternative to tests that actually rewards skill rather than brute strength and luck.

I agree 7 match series a simply an absurdity that should be done away with post-haste. also the ICC needs to place some kind of cap on the number of times the same two temas can play each other in a calendar year or in a season.

 

[Richard]

3-game ODI series are every bit as stupid as 7-game ones IMO, if not more so. No point in playing 3 ODIs, England did it for way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way too long.

 

[Mister Wright]

Love 50 over games. I think the only thing that could really improve 50 games as a spectacle could be to have teams bat in 25 over slots, especially in day/night matches, as both teams could use day night conditions in each innnings. I know it's not going to happen, but could make things interesting.

 

[Perm]

3-game ODI series are every bit as stupid as 7-game ones IMO, if not more so. No point in playing 3 ODIs, England did it for way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way too long.

How? In the perfect world I'd have 5 Tests and 3 ODIs during a series, not to mention numerous tour games against First Class and combination sides. 5 ODIs during a series is may be slightly better, but would make the tour too long in this day and age of jam-packed scheduling.

 

[slugger]

well i kinda like this idea...it'll bring everything in line.. we have to accept that 20/20 a big ticket winner, so why not bring the older version 50 over cricket to match the 20/20 yet expanded or just doubled 40/40. the point is we all on here like our tradition and our 8-9 test nattions.. but if the game wants to move beyond that everything has to look and feel the same so the transition makes sense.. because its 20/20 thats gonna pull all these new nations to the game..

pros.
1. game can start later in the day.. reduce early morning ball movenment thus the coin toss is not going to have major factor to out come of game.
2. d/n games will finish early thus reducing the effect of dew
3. because innings finish inside 40 over the ball is not likely to discolour this usually occures around the 40th onwards.
4. accumlation overs have been reduced down to 20, 10 per innings.. as in a 50 over game this alone is 40 overs 20 per inn. I like the accumlation overs but it should be a phase not a session of play.

anyway im the odd one out here.. nbut ive done my best...

 

[kwigibo]

I think the echo-chamber has gotten way out of hand and the criticisms of 50 over cricket are overblown. The same proportion of tests are unmemorable as ODI's. People complain about boredom in the middle overs, which I think can be the best part, because it's a genuine battle for both sides and separates the proverbial men from boys the way 20-20 doesn't. 7 game series seem like overkill from a certain perspective, but if you live in a large country with numerous venues, is it too much to want to attend one or two international games a year (like it or not, internationals are the ones to attend), fans of popular sports with high profile club systems get whole seasons of games, pity the poor cricket fan. Certain pundits sound like they want every game to be a work of art, nothing close to that will ever happen whether you play 1 game a year, or 300, or anywhere in between.

More cricket is tougher on the players, sure, only because everyone is locked into certain ideas about the make up of a team. 11 players and a handful of reserves because they wouldn't dare give up their spot. What is wrong with 20+ player squads, lowers attrition and raises interest with more variety in the play (I'm constantly rooting for Hussey and Jaques to make runs over Hayden and Ponting, I've seen the latter hit hundreds 30 times each). From what we keep hearing, players want it both ways, wouldn't dare give up their spot to another player, but don't want to play so many games. Let the next guy in line play those games then, if you're good enough with more players in rotation, you'll still play plenty of cricket.

 

[bond21]

TBH during the 2005 ashes series I heard so many bandwagon jumpers going round saying this like "brett lee is the best bowler from either side because he can bowl at 150mph, nobody else gets that kind of speed", "why isnt warne bowling it at the stumps?" and the classic "Ian Bell is the most useless player ever, why is he in the side, he's never done anything good", the one about bell in particular really got my rag, esspecially as when I pointed out that he had been one of the best county players in recent years was ignored, really hate people like that, great that people want to get into cricket, crap when they come in and think they know everything.

reminds me of a time I went to the Gabba.

Hussey is batting with Hayden, a family is sitting 1 or 2 rows back in a quieter area and one of em says "which one is hayden?"

I felt like turning around and saying, "um hes the guy standing about 2 feet above everyone else"

Hayden is one of the most recognisable batsman ive seen live.

He was on 99 and everyone in the front row around the whole stadium were banging the sponsor signs and were all disappointed when he blocked it for about 5 balls.

Then he hit the runs and the whole stadium absolutely erupted. One of the best experiences Ive had watching a match.

 

[bond21]

on topic -

50 over cricket is too predictable.

20 overs field restrictions, work runs to the 40th, then the happy hour.

It gets boring when they play 1000 every season.

 

[GIMH]

I usually hate 7-match series but our V India last summer was a thriller.

I don't think tinkering wwill make any differencee - if people prefer T20 to 50 overs, they will prefer it to 40.

Out of interest Richard, why do you hate 40-over games so much?