ODI rule changes

[shortpitched713]

So apparently ODI cricket is dieing a slow and painful death. People are bored, or something like that. So how do you guys think the game should be changed to add a little spice?

Personally I feel that the over limitations on bowlers should be relaxed. Either two of the bowlers should be allowed to bowl 12 overs each, or one should be allowed to bowl 13. Its really harsh on bowling attacks to expect them to have at least 5 bowlers in the team firing at a time. It will also put more pressure on the batting team to score off of certain bowlers because they are unlikely to be changed as quickly.

[Craig]

I'm not sure about this law where a batsmen is allowed to go so far ahead up the wicket at the non-striking end.

[Richard]

Play 60 overs - uniform.

'Tis worth a go IMO. One-day cricket needs to be distanced from Twenty20 as much as possible.

[LA ICE-E]

odi is perfect now as it is. 20/20 needs to change it self and differentiate from odi. odi doesn't need to change

[Matt79]

So apparently ODI cricket is dieing a slow and painful death. People are bored, or something like that. So how do you guys think the game should be changed to add a little spice?

Personally I feel that the over limitations on bowlers should be relaxed. Either two of the bowlers should be allowed to bowl 12 overs each, or one should be allowed to bowl 13. Its really harsh on bowling attacks to expect them to have at least 5 bowlers in the team firing at a time. It will also put more pressure on the batting team to score off of certain bowlers because they are unlikely to be changed as quickly.

Yeah, I think something needs to be done to give the balance back towards bowlers a bit. Pitches that aren't roads would help - how good were some of the games this CB series when the pitch was doing things (ie the "green stripe" pitch).

I think the rule on bouncers should be loosened to allow an additional bouncer per over. A well timed and well directed bouncer is a great weapon in the hands of a bowler trying to combat being hit off his line. The leg-side wide rule could also be loosened slightly. Currently bowlers are being forced to bowl into too much of a narrow slot, where the only possible good ball becomes the perfect yorker because their line is so predictable.

Not sure about allowing some bowlers to bowl more overs as that will mean teams without a decent allrounder won't be exposed the way they currently are - the allrounder/part-timer bowling and trying to get away with it is one of the charming characteristics of the ODI format and produces a lot of the strategic dilemmas...

[Lillian Thomson]

Play 60 overs - uniform.

'Tis worth a go IMO. One-day cricket needs to be distanced from Twenty20 as much as possible.

From a cricketing point of view it might be worthwhile but TV companies won't allow that, they don't want it stretching on for another 90 minutes. It would also be impossible to play that number of overs in a day without floodlights except in England.

[Richard]

That was the reason 60-overs games stopped - lack of daylight outside England. But with so many grounds equipped with floodlights, it's not at all impossible now.

As for the broadcasters - they may be powerful, but they have no right of veto. Indeed, some would welcome the extra cricket-time, especially in the subcontinent.

[Richard]

Yeah, I think something needs to be done to give the balance back towards bowlers a bit. Pitches that aren't roads would help - how good were some of the games this CB series when the pitch was doing things (ie the "green stripe" pitch).

I think the rule on bouncers should be loosened to allow an additional bouncer per over. A well timed and well directed bouncer is a great weapon in the hands of a bowler trying to combat being hit off his line. The leg-side wide rule could also be loosened slightly. Currently bowlers are being forced to bowl into too much of a narrow slot, where the only possible good ball becomes the perfect yorker because their line is so predictable.

I'm no fan of Bouncers in one-dayers, personally. Bowling top-of-off\Yorker takes skill - any fool can bowl a few Bouncers.

The anything-that-misses-leg-stump-on-leg-side rule has been in place for ages now, and it still didn't (and doesn't) preclude good bowlers from bowling well. I don't personally see anything wrong with it.

And unfortunately, while some slower decks would be nice, there's no way of bringing in legislation to enforce such a thing.

[shortpitched713]

The leg-side wide rule could also be loosened slightly. Currently bowlers are being forced to bowl into too much of a narrow slot, where the only possible good ball becomes the perfect yorker because their line is so predictable.

Totally agree with you there, batsmen need to be made to work and find ways to hit different deleiveries from what is excpected. Might help leg spinners as well, allowing them to maybe aim for the rough, instead of that off stump restricting line.

[shortpitched713]

And unfortunately, while some slower decks would be nice, there's no way of bringing in legislation to enforce such a thing.

Pitch inspections for 380+ scores?

[Richard]

"Bad" and "good" in pitch terms has for decades possibly centuries referred only to batting.

No way do I expect it to change now.

The day I hear a pitch that produces 1000 runs for 9 wickets denounced as "terrible" the way I would (and the way those such as Trent Bridge 2003 and Old Trafford 2006 were, in part deservedly so) is the day I eat my computer.

[16 tins of Spam]

The day I hear a pitch that produces 1000 runs for 9 wickets denounced as "terrible" the way I would (and the way those such as Trent Bridge 2003 and Old Trafford 2006 were, in part deservedly so) is the day I eat my computer.

That has happened in tests, ie. the NZ vs South Africa test at Eden Park with the glued pitch. I think Darryl Cullinan got 275?

Anyway, rule changes. I don't think there's a lot wrong with ODIs, and the advent of 20/20 (which is dire IMO) has reinforced that. However a few changes won't go amiss, such as Matt79's idea of relaxing the legside wide rule. Also, push the boundaries back out to the fence, tighter restrictions on bats (sorry Richard, I disagree with you on that one), and perhaps more tinkering with the Powerplays. Perhaps keep overs 1-10 restricted, but then make it compulsory to begin PP1 within the 20-29 over band, and PP2 to within 30-39?

Also, find another term to replace "Powerplay". Absolutely horrible, contrived and American sounding.

[Neil Pickup]

The most important thing is to make the games actually matter. Seven ODIs tacked at the end of a summer don't!

As for leg-side wides, well I apply that U13 cricket so I would think that Internationals can manage it.

[Richard]

The most important thing is to make the games actually matter. Seven ODIs tacked at the end of a summer don't!

There's only one way to do that.

Play the World Cup more often.

Every 2 years instead of every 4 would mean planning needs to be less long-term.

[Bob Bamber]

So apparently ODI cricket is dieing a slow and painful death. People are bored, or something like that. So how do you guys think the game should be changed to add a little spice?

Personally I feel that the over limitations on bowlers should be relaxed. Either two of the bowlers should be allowed to bowl 12 overs each, or one should be allowed to bowl 13. Its really harsh on bowling attacks to expect them to have at least 5 bowlers in the team firing at a time. It will also put more pressure on the batting team to score off of certain bowlers because they are unlikely to be changed as quickly.

I'm not sure how you can say that it is dying a slow and painful death. I'm not sure what your expecting really. Teams batting in 20/20 mode and being rolled over inside 30 overs making 280. And the whole point of the 10 over maximum is that it forces sides to be clever with selection , pick a side with 10 spare overs in them.

I'm not sure about this law where a batsmen is allowed to go so far ahead up the wicket at the non-striking end.

Just allowing them to take quick singles.

That was the reason 60-overs games stopped - lack of daylight outside England. But with so many grounds equipped with floodlights, it's not at all impossible now.

As for the broadcasters - they may be powerful, but they have no right of veto. Indeed, some would welcome the extra cricket-time, especially in the subcontinent.

It'd be day , day/night cricket then. The game today would have started at 1:30 am (GMT) and finished at 12:30pm (GMT). Thats way too much cricket in one day.

The leg-side wide rule could also be loosened slightly. Currently bowlers are being forced to bowl into too much of a narrow slot, where the only possible good ball becomes the perfect yorker because their line is so predictable.

Not sure about allowing some bowlers to bowl more overs as that will mean teams without a decent allrounder won't be exposed the way they currently are - the allrounder/part-timer bowling and trying to get away with it is one of the charming characteristics of the ODI format and produces a lot of the strategic dilemmas...

Its only asking professionals to bowl straight. I can do it (well most of the time) why can't these lot.

The most important thing is to make the games actually matter. Seven ODIs tacked at the end of a summer don't!

In saying that though , what other way do you suggest. A tournement similar to the CB series is a good Idea , but not always plausible (Although I thought the series was too long anyway). There isn't another great way to do it . But I do concede that the 5 matches on the back of last summer in England was a total waste of time , and probably could have been made into the so call tri series with Sri Lanka. The Tri series works well in England , because of the continuity in each summer. But its not so easy everywhere else.


There isn't anything wrong with the current one day situation , its just that 20Twenty cricket has changed people's expectations of the way the traditional one day game is played. My current opinion is that the game is fine.