• 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....

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Crowe's solution to solve the often stale period in oneday cricket from overs 15-40 was quite interesting.

For those who haven't heard....

His proposal was to increase the current rule of 2 fielders outside the circle in the first 15 overs to 20 overs. But instead of just the first 20 in a row, the fielding captain had the option of using the 20 overs in 4 blocks of 5 any time he liked.

The theory being it would make for a more unpredictable and strategic game.

Any thoughts....

If anyone can find an online article reporting this, plse post the link as I may have missed a detail or two.
 

Fiery

Banned
zinzan12 said:
Crowe's solution to solve the often stale period in oneday cricket from overs 15-40 was quite interesting.

For those who haven't heard....

His proposal was to increase the current rule of 2 fielders outside the circle in the first 15 overs to 20 overs. But instead of just the first 20 in a row, the fielding captain had the option of using the 20 overs in 4 blocks of 5 any time he liked.

The theory being it would make for a more unpredictable and strategic game.

Any thoughts....

If anyone can find an online article reporting this, plse post the link as I may have missed a detail or two.
I think Hogan is still smarting that Max never took off and a bit bitter that simply shortening the game will become more popular so has decided to have a crack at changing the 50 over game. I personally don't think it needs to be changed at all. The pacing of an innings during the 15 to 40 over period is part of the intrigue I reckon.
 

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Fiery said:
I think Hogan is still smarting that Max never took off and a bit bitter that simply shortening the game will become more popular so has decided to have a crack at changing the 50 over game. I personally don't think it needs to be changed at all. The pacing of an innings during the 15 to 40 over period is part of the intrigue I reckon.
Think he's still got the pip aye :D ...he is a sensitive bloke, so wouldn't surprise me.

I agree with you on the middle part of the innings being intriguing to real cricket lovers. I suppose the question is, should we as purist's frown at the possibly of a change for the greater good of the game? In otherwords, if a change like this brought more bodies through the gates and added more life to most games then it may be a good thing. Especially in NZ where our crowd numbers are pathetic, particularly compared with the early 80s when oneday cricket was fresh on the menu, I remember 35-40000 people crammed into Eden park in the early 80s...

Perhaps a small change wouldn't hurt.

I'm far keener on a small change to the 50 over game that will make it more attractive/interesting than moving to 20/20. My main objection with 20/20 is that what will we have then ?? 3 games?? Test, 50 overs and 20/20?

Don't mind it at domestic level if it will bring in the crowds, but 3 forms at international level seems a bit of a joke

Just a thought.
 

Fiery

Banned
zinzan12 said:
Think he's still got the pip aye :D ...he is a sensitive bloke, so wouldn't surprise me.

I agree with you on the middle part of the innings being intriguing to real cricket lovers. I suppose the question is, should we as purist's frown at the possibly of a change for the greater good of the game? In otherwords, if a change like this brought more bodies through the gates and added more life to most games then it may be a good thing. Especially in NZ where our crowd numbers are pathetic, particularly compared with the early 80s when oneday cricket was fresh on the menu, I remember 35-40000 people crammed into Eden park in the early 80s...

Perhaps a small change wouldn't hurt.

I'm far keener on a small change to the 50 over game that will make it more attractive/interesting than moving to 20/20. My main objection with 20/20 is that what will we have then ?? 3 games?? Test, 50 overs and 20/20?

Don't mind it at domestic level if it will bring in the crowds, but 3 forms at international level seems a bit of a joke

Just a thought.
I would like to see each series having just one 20/20 game to kick it off the series for a while to see how it goes. I think that 7 match 50 over series are overkill. Ideally I reckon 1 20/20 game, 5 one-dayers and 3 tests is about right so the format for the series starting tomorrow is good IMO. But then again, even yourself and I, who consider ourselves purists, might fall in love with the 20/20 game. (I know my fiance will prefer it)
 

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Fiery said:
I would like to see each series having just one 20/20 game to kick it off the series for a while to see how it goes. I think that 7 match 50 over series are overkill. Ideally I reckon 1 20/20 game, 5 one-dayers and 3 tests is about right so the format for the series starting tomorrow is good IMO. But then again, even yourself and I, who consider ourselves purists, might fall in love with the 20/20 game. (I know my fiance will prefer it)
Possibly..I suppose I just worried that it wouldn't stop there...and we'd have a game resembling baseball soon...without sounding too cynical

Having said that....I can assure you I'll be watchin from ball 1 tomorrow nite :)
 

cbuts

International Debutant
zinzan12 said:
Crowe's solution to solve the often stale period in oneday cricket from overs 15-40 was quite interesting.

For those who haven't heard....

His proposal was to increase the current rule of 2 fielders outside the circle in the first 15 overs to 20 overs. But instead of just the first 20 in a row, the fielding captain had the option of using the 20 overs in 4 blocks of 5 any time he liked.

The theory being it would make for a more unpredictable and strategic game.

Any thoughts....

If anyone can find an online article reporting this, plse post the link as I may have missed a detail or two.

i disagree with the fielding captin having the choice of whent o use them, as it would possibly make the game more boring than some already feel it is. for example if you get a few quick wickeets, as a fielding captin you would implement some of the overs and try to use them up as the batting team is rebuilding. ifthe batting captin is the one to choose when to use them, we would see far higher scores, which is wat most people want
 

cbuts

International Debutant
zinzan12 said:
I agree with you on the middle part of the innings being intriguing to real cricket lovers. I suppose the question is, should we as purist's frown at the possibly of a change for the greater good of the game?
test matches are for the purists. odis are to make the money to pay for test matches. if we can increase the popularity of the odi game, i can only see it increasing the skill in the 5 dy game
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
zinzan12 said:
Crowe's solution to solve the often stale period in oneday cricket from overs 15-40 was quite interesting.

For those who haven't heard....

His proposal was to increase the current rule of 2 fielders outside the circle in the first 15 overs to 20 overs. But instead of just the first 20 in a row, the fielding captain had the option of using the 20 overs in 4 blocks of 5 any time he liked.

The theory being it would make for a more unpredictable and strategic game.

Any thoughts....
Once again - it's far, far too innovative.
The current things in List-A-one-day cricket (field-restrictions) are all basic, and take very little understanding.
I'd also add that if you change the 15-40 period it's hard to credit the game as cricket IMO.
 

garage flower

State Vice-Captain
I think it's an interesting idea. I don't see that it's "too innovative" given that it's essentially an extension of the current restrictions with added flexibility.

Could certainly add some variety to one day innings, most of which tend to follow the same basic pattern under the current playing conditions.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Yet do they?
Not when I tend to watch.
All right, I've probably only watched half the ODIs played in the last 3 years, but the "monotony" claim is always one that seems stupid to me.
Field-restrictions are just right as they are - no need to tamper with them further.
 

garage flower

State Vice-Captain
Richard said:
Yet do they?
Not when I tend to watch.
All right, I've probably only watched half the ODIs played in the last 3 years, but the "monotony" claim is always one that seems stupid to me.
Field-restrictions are just right as they are - no need to tamper with them further.
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.

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.
 

superkingdave

Hall of Fame Member
cbuts said:
test matches are for the purists. odis are to make the money to pay for test matches. if we can increase the popularity of the odi game, i can only see it increasing the skill in the 5 dy game
Test Matches are there to make money aswell, well they are in the UK anyway.
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
I now in Australia they tried to improve the game in the 15-40 over period by placing fielding restrictions during the 15 to 30 over period. During this time the fielding side can only have 3 fielders outside the circle. It hasn't made much difference to the way teams bat in the middle overs as they still try and build the innings during that period and don't really try much harder to look for boundaries. I think Crowe's suggestions have some merits, but it gives the bowling team too much of an advantage to the bowling team by being able to pick which overs to use restrictions
 

bryce

International Regular
i heard crowe bring this up a while ago and think it is stupid idea - i don't know why people have such an urge to change the game, as richard said a game like that(and also 20/20) doesn't even deserve to be called cricket - IMO anyway
 

dudeurfriend

School Boy/Girl Captain
This is a stupid idea as we have seen that present day cricket is batsman friendly...
If such a role comes into existence then it will be more batsman friendly.....
So this idea is a stupid one....
 

BlackStar

Cricket Spectator
I don't think that ODI's need changing.

But domestic one dayers could do with a change. I have an idea that is not entirely new but I have added to it.

I would like to see a 50 over game split into 2 'innings'. There would be fielding restrictions for the first 10 overs of each 'innings' . Duckworth and Lewis to go - the side ahead at half way wins where the weather intervenes. Bowling teams to have option to take a new ball at beginning of second 'inning'.

Bonus points awarded for getting close, say 2 for leading at 1/2 way and 1 if you get within 10 runs. Further 4 points for winning game and 1 if you get within 15 runs or have them 8 down depending on who loses.

This format will allow more tactics as some captains seem very formulaic. Do you take new ball or do you use the old ball and go for reverse swing? Do you go for bonus point/lead at half time or play for the overall win. Not out batsmen will have to 'start again' at the 2nd innings resumption allowing the bowling team a chance to remove that opener who is still there. When are the part time / weaker bowlers going to bowl.

I am sure that this will not appeal to all but would be interested in what you think!!
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
zinzan12 said:
His proposal was to increase the current rule of 2 fielders outside the circle in the first 15 overs to 20 overs. But instead of just the first 20 in a row, the fielding captain had the option of using the 20 overs in 4 blocks of 5 any time he liked.
So what if they choose some late overs then bowl them out before that time?

Batting side loses out big time.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
BlackStar said:
Duckworth and Lewis to go - the side ahead at half way wins where the weather intervenes.
No, that's totally unfair to use a single point and say all you have to do is be ahead there.
Bonus points awarded for getting close, say 2 for leading at 1/2 way and 1 if you get within 10 runs. Further 4 points for winning game and 1 if you get within 15 runs or have them 8 down depending on who loses.
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... NRR is infinately fairer and better and bonus-points should be lanced IMO.
 

Top