• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Martin Crowe's oneday solution....

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
garage flower said:
I think they do. In the 15-35ish over period, the batting team are generally consolidating or rebuilding and the fielding side usually aim for containment/cutting off the boundaries.
And the best captains cut off the singles for the right batsmen or in the right situations, and there's all sorts of tactics you need to introduce.
If you allow a team 4.8-an-over in the 15-40 over period you're in deep trouble. You need to, if possible, keep it below 4-an-over, and the only way to do that is to have 5 or even 6 fielders in the circle.
Are you saying that this isn't often the case or that you find this type of cricket exciting? Saying: "the "monotony" claim is always one that seems stupid to me", doesn't add much to the debate.
I've heard that one before. 8-) I explained very clearly why I think "the "monotony" claim is always one that seems stupid to me".
If it happened over and over again, I might find it boring, but even then I don't know for certain. I clearly stated that when I see ODIs it doesn't happen in anywhere near that much of a mould.
 

Black Thunder

School Boy/Girl Captain
I like Crowe's suggestion. Would really test out the captaincy.

The crowd's wouldn't love it so much though - it would give the batting team a severe disadvantage, and we couldn't have that now would we.....

I would like to see it trialled in domestic level and grade level though where crowds aren't really all that important cause there are none anyway.

As i say with 50-over cricket, i'd like to just see rules implemented to see the captain's skills tested.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
As if they aren't already! :blink:
How often do you see terrible captaincy - new batsman in, 4 men in the circle; 65 for 1 off 15, field all goes back; etc.
50-over cricket is a far more sterling test of captaincy than the 5-day game.
 

Jamee999

Hall of Fame Member
Richard said:
I hate bonus-points with a passion, they introduce thresholds - somehow there is an enormous difference between winning in 40.1 overs and winning in 40.2 or whatever...[/B[ NRR is infinately fairer and better and bonus-points should be lanced IMO.

Yes because chasing a total in 50 overs is an unimportant distance away from chasing in 50.1 overs isn't it.

I know let's go back to Timeless Tests :ph34r:
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Jamee999 said:
Yes because chasing a total in 50 overs is an unimportant distance away from chasing in 50.1 overs isn't it.
Err... eh? :mellow:
I know let's go back to Timeless Tests :ph34r:
I never thought they were a terrible idea, myself - and these days you wouldn't have the problems with people needing to catch boats that you had in West Indies (1929\30) and South Africa (1938\39).
 

Black Thunder

School Boy/Girl Captain
Richard said:
50-over cricket is a far more sterling test of captaincy than the 5-day game.
*There is no emoticon to describe my feeling*

I can live with people defending 50-over cricket all they want, and all the more power to them, but that is just redicolous.

50-over cricket batting: go hard till third wicket or 15th over, consolidate till 40th, go beserk.
50-over cricket bowling: try and get a couple of early wickets with fine leg and third man in. bring on medium trundlers to take the pace out of the wicket bowling just full of a good length but not half volleys. Have third man, fine leg, deep cover, deep mid off, deep mid on in place. Bring on opening bowlers for end bowling yorker after yorker with deep wide third man, deep cover, deep mid off, deep square leg and deep wide mid on.


With 5-day cricket a captain uses more thought just for the toss than an entire one-day game.
How will the pitch hold up over 5 days?? when it will be turning most?? when will it have most life in it for quicks?? will it fall apart early or late or at all?? how will the weather play a part in the match?? when would the opposition like to be bowling on the pitch etc,.

Then when the game's on, theres declerations, night watchman, follow on's and jeez i could go on for about 10 years.........
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Black Thunder said:
*There is no emoticon to describe my feeling*

I can live with people defending 50-over cricket all they want, and all the more power to them, but that is just redicolous.

50-over cricket batting: go hard till third wicket or 15th over, consolidate till 40th, go beserk.
50-over cricket bowling: try and get a couple of early wickets with fine leg and third man in. bring on medium trundlers to take the pace out of the wicket bowling just full of a good length but not half volleys. Have third man, fine leg, deep cover, deep mid off, deep mid on in place. Bring on opening bowlers for end bowling yorker after yorker with deep wide third man, deep cover, deep mid off, deep square leg and deep wide mid on.


With 5-day cricket a captain uses more thought just for the toss than an entire one-day game.
How will the pitch hold up over 5 days?? when it will be turning most?? when will it have most life in it for quicks?? will it fall apart early or late or at all?? how will the weather play a part in the match?? when would the opposition like to be bowling on the pitch etc,.

Then when the game's on, theres declerations, night watchman, follow on's and jeez i could go on for about 10 years.........
I can live with people who go on repeatedly about this outdated "Test-cricket is the only true test" - I've got no choice - but really!
That dismissal of the ODI game is up with the worst I've ever seen. Captains don't have any real control on the batting, it's entirely up to the players out there. But bowling... Jesus, there are a million things to think about:
Which end do you think - initially - might be best for opening-bowler-1 - he's only got 10 overs so we can't afford to get it wrong first-up - how long do we bowl the opening bowlers for - do we bowl one of them straight through - things aren't going according to plan, do we give Bowler X another over - if we don't, what do we do about later in the innings? - God, not I need to find 3 overs, he's never going to get through 10 - we've just about got a hold on things here, at 140 for 2 in the 38th over - but we've got to be two steps ahead of the game or we'll lose control in a couple of deliveries - not only have I got to get the bowler right, I've got to make sure he knows what he needs to be bowling, I've got to set the field accordingly, I've got to make allowances for the inevitable event that he'll get it wrong - I've got to work-out when to bring back so-and-so, and make sure it's not too early or too late - and so it goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and...
Limited-overs cricket is the ultimate test of captaincy - because you've got to think on your feet, you can't afford to go wrong, because it only takes 3 or 4 deliveries for the momentum to shift, and once it does, it's incredibly hard to get it back. And you've not got too long to think, either - because once you start thinking too long, you get penalised overs.
 
Last edited:

cbuts

International Debutant
i agree that odi cricket is a huge test for a captin, but i do belive test cricket is still the hardest for captins
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I believe the need - the enormous need - to think on your feet outweighs any other considerations.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
No, no - different.
In ODIs one team puts a score up, the other team has to match that score, in the same number of overs. That is the central outcome of the game.
There are, however, background issues (akin to goal-difference in football leagues or tables), ie the margin of victory\defeat. As it is with the bonus-point system, it's like saying a 10-0 victory is somehow miles better than a 9-0 victory (not really a fair comparison, I know, because 9-0s are such a rare occurrance that only very special teams can score them :) As Ipswich Town fans will know), when in fact the difference is only very marginal. Goal-difference reflects that fact very well - a similar bonus-point system in football would see an extra point added for a 5-0 that would not be added for a 4-0. Great, you might think, an incentive for teams to keep-up the attacking football throughout the 90 minutes. But in reality it just introduces unfair thresholds.
And similarly in cricket - there is absolutely no significant difference between a 70-run victory and a 72-run victory. Yet the bonus-point system uses an idea that assumes there is.
In reality, all margins of victory should be kept in the background, only used once the fixed points awarded for victory (and tie) are level. With NRR, this is exactly what happens. With bonus-points, not only is the straightforward, fair system interfered with, you also get, as I say, the assumption that a tiny difference in margin-of-victory is actually a massive one. In NRR, you have a plainar increase that takes account of every margin of victory possible, and uses it equally. Hence NRR is much the fairer decider and ICC were total fools to introduce this bonus-point system.
 

Swervy

International Captain
Richard said:
In reality, all margins of victory should be kept in the background, only used once the fixed points awarded for victory (and tie) are level. With NRR, this is exactly what happens. With bonus-points, not only is the straightforward, fair system interfered with, you also get, as I say, the assumption that a tiny difference in margin-of-victory is actually a massive one. In NRR, you have a plainar increase that takes account of every margin of victory possible, and uses it equally. Hence NRR is much the fairer decider and ICC were total fools to introduce this bonus-point system.
100% agree on this one
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Oh well... good to see you've got your favourite :D out again, 't'least.
And no, I'm not getting paranoid - people have accused me of that in the past. I was asking a genuine question of whether you were amongst them.
 
Can't agree - the bonus points system is the best thing introduced to cricket in a long time. If people do something extra well then why shouldn't they be rewarded. Don't need to have to read someone's life story to comprehend that surely.
 
I agree, the bonus point system was a brilliant inovation and one that i myself had a behind the scenes hand in introducing. Makes round-robin competitions involving more than two sides just that bit more exciting.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
And introduces stupid thresholds.
There's far more important things than "keeping it exciting" (which it really hasn't changed).
 

Top