Is This Where One Day Cricket Is Heading?

[sqwerty]

Easy. Run fests on a flat wicket end up being pretty pointless affairs. Some of us like our cricket with a bit of depth and hitting the ball to or over the fence is a small part of the game. Games like this basically reduce the role of the bowler to near pitching machine level and that's boring. Boundaries roped-in and ultra-flat pitches just turn the game into a six-hitting contest. American League authorities did the same thing to baseball by juicing the balls, changing the rules on diet supplements and allowing previously-banned alterations to bats. It greatly affected the game (baseball has never been less popular in the states) and killed-off your Ty Cobb-style 'place the ball and leg it to first-base to set up a strategic position' players, replacing them with giant cavemen who could just hit real hard.

Mind you, this is pretty much why I rarely watch ODI's anymore. You want a contest with depth? The Ashes TEST series 2005 would be a pretty good start as a series which literally had everything. This match will wow people for about a fortnight then be forgotten, unlike the aforementioned Ashes series.

Test cricket is all about the drama. One day cricket is all about batting. Who cares if there's anything in it for the bowlers. It's lightweight stuff anyway and will never have or need to have the depth of interest that a test match has.

I cannot, despite all the arguments on this thread, understand how anybody could say that game was boring. The thought of a miraculous victory was always there as long as Gibbs and Smith were going and the balance swung from one side to the other for every ball of the last 20 or 30 overs of the second innings.

I also don't understand the argument that all the bowlers were just reduced to bowling machines in this match. Why is that? Just because it was a flat wicket doesn't make this inevitable. There was no reason why the bowlers couldn't have bowled tightly on that deck. The batting was just out of this world.

Anybody who thought this wasn't a great game of one day cricket just because the batting dominated is either kidding themselves or just a try-hard purist.

Watch test cricket if you want more out of the sport but watch one day cricket for what it is.

It was unlike any other one day game in the history of cricket

 

[Dasa]

Test cricket is all about the drama. One day cricket is all about batting. Who cares if there's anything in it for the bowlers. It's lightweight stuff anyway and will never have or need to have the depth of interest that a test match has.

The problem is, the same bowlers play Test cricket. Surely a match like this has an effect on the bowlers....why else is good attacking bowling such a rarity in Test cricket these days? Because of the bad habits formed from playing too many ODIs. Sure the match was exciting because it was so close...but that's all. I hate to see bowlers reduced to what they were in that match.

It was unlike any other one day game in the history of cricket

That, I agree with.

 

[SJS]

Call me old fashioned or whatever else you want but for me cricket is NOT about Batsmen versus Batsmen - Its about Batsmen versus bowlers.

The scores in this game could have been Australia 434 for no loss and South Africa 438 for no loss and the excitement would have been similar would it ?

It may well happen that way one day in this game.

 

[Jono]

The bowlers weren't reduced to anything they weren't already though.

There have been tracks that flat before, there have been boundaries that small before... but has there been an abundance of absolutely brilliant batsman yet woeful (or at best inconsistent) bowlers for a long time? Crap bowling + Strong batting line-up = High scores. Really crap bowling + Two strong batting line-ups (One being one of the best ODI batting line-ups I've ever seen) = "Oh my God they just both scored 400".

Is it no coincidence that the last time a record breaking total was chased down (Australia vs. NZ) that Glenn McGrath and Shane Bond weren't playing? Not to mention Warne of course, and Gillespie and Kaspa.

See the similarities with this match? No Glenn McGrath again, and this time no Pollock or Nel. They were replaced by the brilliance of Mick Lewis, Telemachus and Hall (who to be fair can be quite good, but is no opening bowler!).

 

[Top_Cat]

Test cricket is all about the drama. One day cricket is all about batting. Who cares if there's anything in it for the bowlers. It's lightweight stuff anyway and will never have or need to have the depth of interest that a test match has.

Rubbish. It can and has done. Tell me the Semi-final of the 1999 WC didn't have some Test match-style depth in that both bat and ball played their part, same for the previous match where Steve Waugh scored an amazing 120 against a bowling attack which was bowling well (the match thereby NOT being 'just about the batting'). Michael Bevan's *78 again, great bowling followed by even greater batting. There are countless examples of ODI's where batting and bowling have made it entertaining and saying 'it's about the batting' is a value judgement on your part; ODI's don't have to be that way to be entertaining.

I also don't understand the argument that all the bowlers were just reduced to bowling machines in this match. Why is that? Just because it was a flat wicket doesn't make this inevitable. There was no reason why the bowlers couldn't have bowled tightly on that deck. The batting was just out of this world.

This is true but cricket should not be just about the batting. The opportunity existed for bowlers to bowl tightly in this match but a flat deck makes it tough. Notwithstanding that Mick Lewis is not a great bowler, Langeveldt made a great point; it wasn't that that he bowled unbelieveably badly which resulted in his 0/113. It was that the slightest line or length infraction was punished with the maximum and the pitch as well as good batting played its part. Ditto for all the bowlers on both sides. They're all talented cricketers so for EVERY bowler to have been spanked (bar Bracken but even then, some of his wickets were slog wickets) suggests more systematic factors than random chance at work.

Anybody who thought this wasn't a great game of one day cricket just because the batting dominated is either kidding themselves or just a try-hard purist.

Hey it may have been exciting but it was hardly the greatest ODI in history like some would have you believe. It's not about being a purist, it's about appreciating that ODI cricket does not have to be a run-fest to be exciting. As outlined above, there's plenty of room for ODI's to have the works. The fact this match was so heavily weighted in favour of the bat means it's good to watch if you like batting but people such as myself are looking for more than just good batting in any cricket match which, contrary to what you apparently believe, ODI can and does provide.

 

[Goughy]

Its hard to tell if this is an abberation or the start of a long term trend.

There is little doubt that that bat is currently dominating the ball (flat decks, boundaries being brought in, the size of the sweet spot on the new bats) but that doesn't mean bowlers are now bowling machines.

Often in many aspects of life one area moves ahead of another only for the other to respond and catch up.

Bowling at the moment is at a pretty low point. Average medium quicks with nothing special to seperate them from the pack. However, I beleive that strategies will evolve to combat the type of batting seen at Jo'burg.

More inspirational captaincy is also needed. I know its a long time ago but the '92 World Cup showed what imagination and inspiration can do. Imran and his 'cornered tigers' speech telling Wasim not to worry about wides and just go for it, Patel opening the bowling for NZ helping them to within sniffing distance of the trophy. Add in Jonty showing what was humanly possible and begining the trend of driving old legs out of the game. The '92 WC showed that the bowling team can 'think outside the box' (jeez I hate that term!) and cause their own minor revolutions.

The feilding team can respond but it needs an open-minded captain or special player to show them the way.

 

[SJS]

I did not see Australia batting (LIVE) but I saw the entire SAfrica innings. For me there was no great batting I am afraid. Yes it was amazing to try to get into the heads of the batsmen at the crease and realise what Smith and Gibbs were trying to do. It was impressive to see Boucher handle probably the greatest pressure anyone of the 22 players on the field that day felt.

BUT I am afraid I did not see great cricket. Yes I prefer good test cricket to good ODI's but there have been some amazing ODI matches one has seen but this was amazing only in one respect and that did notr come about from the greatest batting seen in ODI's.

Batting has never ever in my forty five years of watching international cricket, looked so easy (in two evenly balanced international sides) and bowling has never looked so beyond hope. This is not a great spectacle exccept for the feeling that we were seeing history being made in a statistical sense.

I can understand that from the point of view of a South African fan, thinking his team were doomed to one of the biggest drubbings of all time, what panned out must have given unimaginable joy and I would have been biting my nails if India were one of the teams but thats again from the unexpected nature of the result or the statitical monstrosity that it turned out to be.. As a spectacle it did not stir a chord in me.

The only "good" thing that can come out of this type of cricket , speaking tongue firmly esconsed in cheek, is that Twenty-20 cricket may not be required if such ODI's are played.

As Barry Richards said, what are we going to get in the future - 1000 runs in a game?

 

[Armadillo]

I think this game proves, that on a good wicket, if you go out and play like its a twenty20 all the way through, you can succeed. This has been shown in the two matches in which 400 has been scored.

 

[Richard]

Where are you quoting form Richard?

The Wonderful World Of Hypotheticalness.

 

[Richard]

I think this game proves, that on a good wicket, if you go out and play like its a twenty20 all the way through, you can succeed. This has been shown in the two matches in which 400 has been scored.

Given that the 1st of these happened a year before Twenty20 was even played we can safely say it had no influence...

 

[Dixie Flatline]

There is an interesting statistical analysis of the match in today's copy of the Melbourne Age: http://www.theage.com.au/news/crick...bradmansaverage/2006/03/14/1142098462738.html.

The article makes a good argument that the match was a statistical anomaly and that we shouldn't expect to see something like that again for a while, somewhat like Bradman's career.

 

[Richard]

Well of course it was an anomaly - doesn't really take a genius to work that out.
I wouldn't be surprised if we never get another game of that sort - and certainly I'd be amazed if we had another in the next 10 years at least.

 

[howardj]

Very Good Article From Simon Barnes

 

[Richard]

Indeed.
Really - as he says - an insurmountable problem.
Don't try to gather additional audiences - you lose money.
Try to - you lose them again soon enough, and you lose your former audience too.

 

[Armadillo]

Given that the 1st of these happened a year before Twenty20 was even played we can safely say it had no influence...

By 'playing as if its a twenty20', I mean that they play quickly looking for a four on most balls.

 

[steds]

No. It's heading over there.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Well somebody had better do something hadn't they?? Otherwise it could be lost forever ffs.

 

[DanielFullard]

As a fan who attends regular Cricket matches, here is my viewing of it.....

20/20 is undoubtedly a popular innovation in the game. Maybe it was inevitable that such a shortened version of a game long perceived to be dull, overlong and boring would come into existence. Its Cricket for people who don’t usually like Cricket and people who do not want to invest full days into watching the sport.

When I have been to the game it is a very different atmosphere to the normal matches and it is quite ‘Carnival’ esque. On the one hand, it is thrilling to see the grounds packed full, or at least considerably fuller than usual, and a wealth of young kids in the ground. This sets up nicely for the future. If it takes 20/20 to introduce children to the game then I’m all for it.

I wont deny that I thoroughly enjoy 20/20 and it is a really satisfying experience. As I said it feels like, and is, a totally different event to when I’m sitting in a ground with barely any other people watching the first afternoon of a County Championship game.

I have talked to many fans and long term Cricket supporters at Durham CCC and its all positive towards 20/20 .

If it brings money in then its all good